None of what he said is evidence to demonstrate the existence of God, it still remains ana ssumption. It is not upto us to disapprove God's existence but upto you to prove his existence, it would be like me saying i created the universe.
Science has no explanation on whether the universe had a cause or beginning. All we know is that matter and energy is constant. Either there has always been a material universe, or there were few particles with enormous power. Trying to convince me that what exists must have not existed once doesn't really impress me.
3. > God must not have existed for a negatively infinite time.
If we use the philosophy of William Lane Craig:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. God began to exist.
3 > God has a cause.
So what is the cause for God? Did something else create God? And then we can go on for an infinite number times asking the same question. Who is the creator of the creator?
@jinjo22 Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause for its existence. God according to Criag did not begin to exist, he always existed. Nice try nooby.
@Bla3kBrigade hey why r u calling ppl names. All I did was point out holes in the logic of Craig's argument. I did not come up with this myself. It is Craig himself who said that infinity is imaginary, therefore the universe must have begun. Hence using this very logic that Craig uses to argue, it is only logical to come to the conclusion that God began to exist because God must not have existed for infinity as infinity is imaginary. Makes sense?
@Bla3kBrigade Nope he did not say that. In fact if he said that he would have lost the argument already. By saying what you think he said, there is already the assumption that the supernatural exists, something which Craig is suppose to logically prove in this debate.
@jinjo22 There is no assumption that supernatural exist, that's not the point. The statement is simple, infinity can only be demonstrated in the supernatural terms.
Second, the purpose of the debate is not to prove anything but to establish a rational basis for the belief in God.
@Bla3kBrigade "but only in the realm of the supernatural". For you to say something like "only in the realm of the supernatural", you are already saying the supernatural exists hence infinity can happen there. And yes like you said, Craig is supposed to provide a rational basis for his belief in God. In which way then did he actually provide a rational basis in the belief that infinity can only exist in the supernatural but not the natural?
@Bla3kBrigade By saying things such as "infinity cannot exist in the natural world but only in the supernatural", what is the rational basis behind this double standards in the application of the argument about infinity?
@jinjo22 Infinity is only is applicable to things which are nonmaterial, timeless, space-less, and changeless. Infinity is only contradictory in the atheistic position.
@Bla3kBrigade First of all I am NOT an atheist. I just happen to be someone who spots holes in logic and points them out. Secondly, infinity is not contradictory. The argument that Craig uses ABOUT infinity causes this contradiction in his argument which he did not address. And secondly, you are just basically re-phrasing what you said before, that infinity is applicable only in the supernatural. All that you have done now is to break down the concept of "supernatural" granularly.
@jinjo22 But what if time doesn't really exist but is a delusion. Space, (the infinite blank) and operation which also might only be. Somehing also causes thoughts. Did god not think before he made the universe or does not causes of thought need the element of time which I'm convined is a delusion? Delusion from perception of rearrangements of matter/operation of the universe associated with the callendar of a beat. A beat is arbitrary and devisions of the everything are concepts.
@SaerdnaOoOoo Actually, that is something that I often find myself thinking about too. Everything that we perceive to be, is it really what it seem to be? However I believe that these metaphysical subjects are something that is really difficult to solve for humanity. I like to use the analogy of a person trapped in a closed box. He will not be able to know what is exactly outside. He can only make deductions about what is outside from what he is able to know from the inside.
@jinjo22 As such, I believe that all kinds of debate should essentially be about whether a certain deduction about "the outside" is a rationally obtained one based on what we are able to perceive on "the inside". For me, it is not rational hitherto to come to such an exclusive and explicit conclusion of a Christian God or a deity figure for that matter.
How can something come from nothing the religious will ask. How can god come from nothing the atheist will ask.
The atheist has just as valid a question as the theist has but somehow the religious person thinks they have some special privilege to say god is eternal. Actually they have no such privilege and just make themselves look arrogant and pig headed.
This is a poor question to debate because we haven't a good definition or evidence for 'god' (so the affirmative fails by default), and to disprove something that is undefined or that transcends our reality is impossible (so the opposition fails by default). Arguments to support either position must be fallacious. I'm glad Flew basically understood and declared as much, however I wish he had more thoroughly refuted Craig's kalamist, moral, and fine tune premises (idk why he gets away with them).
You know what's funny, WLC asks if it makes sense that the universe popped into existence out of nothing (fyi, its not nothing nothing, just nothing we can explain), but yet its perfectly believable that a supernatural entity has always existed. And that god created the entire universe, billions of galaxies each with billions of stars, all just for us to worship him. If there was a designer, I highly doubt its the xtian god. You people are coo-coo for coco puffs.
@reym613 where did you come from? and where did all human come from? you might want to say monkeys, sure i will go with that. And who made the monkeys??.... well, obviously - God! God didn't pop out from anywhere, He is always there.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Children as supported in the bible do.not know right from wrong and so the sin in the wolrd does not infect people at birth all the while the concept of suffering is a learned thing. So the subject before adam and eve's time is a matter of innocence before eatint that tree of knowledge.
Moral evil exists therefore a moral good exists, the bible says the concept of evil and suffering were known once adam ate the tree of knowledge knowing good and bad. This is where the concept of suffering came from as well.
For 100,000 years mankind is born, often dying in childbirth or killing the mother in the process, life expectancy around 20 - 30 years, famine, disease, turf wars over women, land, food......And then 98,000 years later God thinks; "Ok, thats enough of that, Im going to intervine. I'll send my son down to be killed and executed in bronze-age palestine for the sins of humanity, that way humans will have a shot of redemption, things may improve.
@leon327 Lol, I smell a Hitchen fan? Eh? You know what? The world's population before Christ and backwards correpsonds to around 2% of everyone that has ever lived on this planet. If something, it was right on time. And also, you are assuming that the goal of life is happiness. Which on the Christian worldview, it aint. It is about the knowledge of God and glorify Him. So, to say the 2% of people had horrible physical pain and so on doesn't have anything to do with Christianity really.
@TheisticThinker Yes a hitchens fan, guilty as charged. I should have wrote 'Christopher Hitchens:.....', But come on theisticthinker, are you saying all the pain and suffering that humankind has endured over the hundred of thousands of years has happend so you could be a christian? So you could have this debate on youtube? How arrogant.
God doesn't like liars. You'll go to Hell for this, sir. And burn for aaaaall eternity--unless you don't believe in the crap you preach. If there isn't a god, then you'll be just fine, right? You better start hoping there isn't one.
It's very sad and strange how people debate the existence of God. How can people think there is no God?
Of course there is a God that created everything INCLUDING evil.
I don't believe that religions are real. They're just laws which people created and connected them with God so that people could be controlled from not doing bad things.
Today people consider money as God which I think and believe is very sad.
@ReaderDan Antony Flew's book There is a God on pg. 157 "As I have said more than once, no other religion enjoys anything like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. If you're wanting omnipotence to set up a religion, it seems to me that this is the one to beat!" He also said on pg. 185 "I think Christian religion is the one religion that most clearly deserves to be honored.." so Yes he is a fan of Christianity not follower "yet" but fan
if u dont believe in science saying dat d universe existed from nothing when bigbang occured, and say god created this world, then tell me how did god come to exist? bcoz he is also something and cant come from nothiing, right? who created god? was god cleaning his ass before he creating this world? why did he create bad?? he wanted to hav fun watching good and bad fight?? why did he let natural disasters happen and let his creation suffer??does not it seem so insane??
(as for) those who disbelieve in our communications, we shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, we will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely allah is mighty, wise.
Craig really does need to familiarize himself with quantum mechanics. The Big Bang is a result of quantum mechanics and the waves of quarks that swim in an eternal sea of electro magnetism. The other area that Craig needs to examine are the universal creation myths where "religious" truth for man can be found. Above all, he needs to familiarize himself with the great philosophical anthropologist, Rene Girard.
And when it is said to them, follow what Allah has revealed, they say: nay! We follow what we found our fathers upon. What! And though their fathers had no sense at all, nor did they follow the right way. 171- And the parable of those who disbelieve is as the parable of one who calls out to that which hears no more than a call and a cry; deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they do not understand.
Are you familiar with quantum mechanics? Can you show that the big bang is the result of qm and "the waves of quarks that swim in an eternal sea of electromagnetism"? I had to put that last part in quotes because it's such an absurd statement lol.
Could a creationist be as kind as to fill this out for me.(i use the word designer just because there's many names for god and the question is for anyone who believes in a higher power)
1) a 'Designer' created life on earth, this is demonstrated by?
2) Using the example youve used for Q1, How is this the most probable explanation?
N.B please note holy books & personal experiences are NOT evidence
this is an area that fascinates me, so feel free to ask something. Im gonna collate the responses
So you're claiming that a bunch of random atoms got together and said "hey, lets become DNA, because that would be the most beneficial thing for us to do, even though we're doing just fine hanging out here being regular old random atoms, and have everything we need to survive in this here ocean"
So wait. Scientists want me to believe that energy cannot be created or destroyed...
And at the same time believe that an entire universe popped into existence, randomly, out of nothing and nowhere? All that energy just poofed into being on a whim?
And seriously? Random evolution?
Inorganic, random chemicals banging against each other for thousands of years?
Yeah. Okay.
And those inorganic chemicals SOMEHOW just poofed themselves into becoming
@svartalf93 Clearly when it is said that matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed, we are talking about the here and now, not any circumstances that someone chooses to imagine.
And remarking that our knowledge of the transition from inorganic to organic matter is like a building that can't stand up, is as to say that we shouldn't build, because we will always start with buildings which crumble under their own weight, without being held together by scaffolding.
WLC is a great debater, but uses very poor reasoning skills. In every debate he has to resort to a play on words and a manipulation of semantics. I would love to engage him in a private debate and demonstrate how each of his arguments is heavily flawed, (eg just because something has no beginning or end, doesn't mean it is infinite - think of a friggin' circle. Space-time is not linear, and this has been shown again and again).
Einstein was also proven wrong about light being the fastest! All should see the work of Dr. Nicolas Gisin in Geneva...with evidence of the entanglement theory as photons are connected & "signalled to think" on their own- by an outside force & faster than light! Could all these string & unseen intelligent force theories be the "God force or variable"?
Google this article about Dr. Gisins' work....WOW:
@ThePowerpuffGirIs "I hope it is not more of that creationist tripe" Wow ... is that a scientific unbiased attitude? You have already blocked any input.
Again, Google this article about Dr. Nicolas Gisins' work: cebaf.gov/news/internet/1997/spooky
Also youtube: "Scientific evidence God is Real"by gatemessenger, Fred Hoyle Quantum Mechanics & the impossible carbon atom, The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, & even better = research Jesus! Google Dr. Lane, kingdavid8, jesusevidence, Lee Strobel
@ThePowerpuffGirIs Do you call this ready for un-biased scientific input? = "I hope it is not more of that creationist tripe". Wow!
Again, see work of Dr. Nicolas Gisin in Geneva...with evidence of the entanglement & string theory as photons are connected & "signalled to think" on their own- by an outside force! They even knew when were being watched! Google this of Dr. Gisins' work: cebaf.gov/news/internet/1997/spooky
Also youtube: "Scientific evidence God is Real" by gatemessenger
Also, before proceeding, what do you mean by god? What god do you speak of? What is your definition of god? Until you give me a concise concept of this god you speak of, then I am afraid we won't be able to have much of a healthy discussion. No, I'm not closing myself off to new evidence, but let's be honest, one attribute of a god is being a supernatural force, and science has nothing to do with the supernatural.
@Calbenmike You're not answering my question. Please provide a substantive argument that the complexity of DNA proves "God did it." It's not my job to look for arguments supporting god's existence. That's your job, he who asserts god exists. The burden of proof is on you. If you can't provide compelling evidence then admit it and don't waste our time.
@ThePowerpuffGirIs Actually you have it backwards. The burden of proof is on you not me. I don't need to prove anything to you for God's handiwork is all around us. The stars, the planets, and all living things is more than enough proof that the God of the Bible created all things. The fact that I have faith and you don't places the burden of proof on the unbeliever. If you can't look at something as complex as a single cell out of millions that make up a living thing and not conclude God's
@Calbenmike handiwork, than you are nothing but a fool. It takes far more faith to believe as you do than it does for me. Think of it this way: If you're right and I'm wrong, than I have nothing to worry about. If I'm right and you're wrong, than you're talking about an eternity to pay for your ignorance and blindness to the truth that was right in front of you the entire time.
@Calbenmike The star and the planets are the byproduct of the big bang, not some god wishing for it and then "poof," it came to be. It was and always is evolution by natural selection that gives off the illusion of design. As for your Pascal's Wager (An utterly flawed argument), how do you know your god is the true god? What if you're wrong and you're worshiping the wrong god and you end up in a bad afterlife? I think the real god (if it exists) would prefer me over you. Me logic, you faith.
@Calbenmike That's your best cop-out? Take a course on Logic 101 and then talk to me about burden of proof. So if I told you that invisible chocolate-frosted cupcakes created the universe and you asked for proof, then I would say that it takes faith (Belief in the absence of evidence) to believe and it is you who must disprove my cupcakes. Would that make sense? You're doing the same to me. Why should I bother believing in god?
@GoodyBob This is quantum theory and you are totally wrong about it. It has nothing to do with an "outside force", and wow certainly not with an "intelligent force", quantum theory is all about randomness. And the particles are not faster than light, they are simply linked, at "more than one place at the same time". They do not travel in a speed faster than light.. And for the record if there really was scientific evidence for God it would've been published and someone would be VERY famous
@2CSST2 Then take your wrong opinion to all the scientists who said it's an "outside force", like my QUOTE from Dr. Gisin. See also the entanglement theory, string theory, & split light slit experiment. Also, see invention of The Big Bang Theory by the Catholic scientist, Monsignor Georges Lemaître. The famous scientist Sir Fred Hoyle, who coined the name "Big Bang" from Lemaître, claimed that the complexity of the carbon atom was impossible to have occured naturally & do its impossible dance.
Faster than light is a meaningless statement. The speed of light is the standard of velocity so it means much the same as rounder than the circle would
@AlfredMaddenstein Sure, but not the generic term when using for actual velocity. In this example they say it was faster than ...299,792,458 metres per second. Whatever the speed, the whole point is The Entanglement/String Theories seem to point to intelligent design. Especially what Dr. Gisin discovered & also Sir Fred Hoyle on the amazing carbon atom. Thanks.
The problem of sub-atomic particles seemingly "communicating" at speeds exceeding the speed of light is, in the words of the famous theorist John Bell, eradicated if you accept that the universe is completely deterministic. There is no faster-than-light communicated because the universe already knows what the measurement will be.
@GoodyBob Another argument from ignorance. Just because we don't yet know (or may NEVER know) what actually causes something is not a reason to jump to the conclusion that it is God.
The Russel and Coplestone debate is great and I suggest everyone listen to it. However, I felt that Coplestone brought much to the argument and Russel's argument was simply "Well I'm clever and I don't believe in God, therefore people who believe in God are not clever". It's otherwise excellent however.
Right on Dr. Lane! With regards to the Big Bang, NASA's astronomer Robert Jastrow said, "Theologians are delighted with the proof the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence".
See "The Second Law of Thermodynamics", then Sir Fred Hoyle: Quantum Mechanics = of the amazing carbon atom needing intelligent design to perform that complex/coordinated dance.
Absolutely, Scientist's can be as dogmatic as anyone else and it doesn't matter how smart they are, we are all in danger of it. Look at Einstein who fabricated his cosmological constant to fit his theory to what he thought the universe should be, eternal. It was Lematre that actually took what the field equations suggested seriously and said that the universe had a beginning. He was also a catholic priest. Turns out it was Einstein and many others dogma that hindered them.
Imagine a man who never forgets, and has never forgotten anything. Now imagine if that man were to try and trace his memories all the way back, through birth, through his time in the womb, and further and further back. At some point, even with the extraordinary memory this man has, he would have no memories. He might conclude that, at that point, he 'began.' But, even then, he wouldn't really know.
This is what looking back in time is like, and what the 'Big Bang' actually is.
@pjnlsn Now try to explain that using Science. Because the 'Big Bang' isn't a philosophical theory, it is a scientific one. The Scientific theory presupposes a beginning of the Universe, else it would deem the Universe constant regardless of time (they wouldn't be looking at how the Universe was at an earlier point in time if the Universe was Infinite, and Timeless. Time and Infinity do not, logically go together. It doesn't make sense.).
@6thwing As I said, all methods of looking into the past, be they historical, or scientific, or otherwise, start with the present and work backward. You cannot start looking from a beginning which you are unaware of to begin with. This is illogical.
But, of course, you know that. In fact, you're saying that we do that, and that this is illogical.
@6thwing So: The big bang is what we call the endpoint of a line we've traced. We see what we interpret as remnants of the 'birth' of the universe. We see all matter becoming clustered closer together. We see space closing in, and matter compacting. The Big Bang is to say that all of the matter and space around us which we give the collective moniker, the 'Universe', went on getting smaller and denser, until it was infinitely small and infinitely dense.
As an atheist, I have no idea what led to the apparent beginning, or if it has any similitude to anything inside the boundary we might imagine around everything we see. I don't know. I don't even know the nature of the boundary, if it exists, much less what is 'outside' it.
We only say there is a 'beginning' through inference, for we must start from the present and look backwards when considering the timeline. No one honestly says there was a beginning without knowing it to be an inference. The big bang is, itself, an inference, an extrapolation from the data. We do not say that the universe got bigger over time, because that is the statement of someone on the outside looking in. We say that all matter used to be clustered closer together, in more elementary forms.
As an atheist, I don't make comments about the universe's beggining. We cannot actually see a beginning.
What we see is like entering a wide tunnel, and following it farther and farther back, until we must crouch down, until we must crawl, and until we can only stick our heads towards the rest of the tunnel to see it with our light. We then see the diameter of the tunnel getting smaller and smaller until it appears to end.
If an actual infinite cannot exist, does it follow that God cannot exist? If nothing can only come from nothing, does it follow that there is no such a thing as a God that can create out of nothing? Is the First Cause argument for the existence of God begging the question?
It's very simple: There is no evidence for god. There isn't even a definition to find evidence for.
No scientist could honestly assert that which has never been indicated, and nor could I. To explain our world, the hypothesis of God is not necessary.
@pjnlsn Illogical. God is wholly necessary to explain our world. Why? Because the Universe's explanation for existence is causation. And for something to be caused, it ultimately has to have something "uncausable" that caused it. That which is personal, and transcends the Universe is what is called God.
Are you convinced of anything New? The Creator is Returning, according to Revelation. So that means he is absent or away, Doesn't it? So in his absents, Who is running earth? Look at all the misery, it doesn't mean the Creator of man, doesn't exist, Just means he is absent, and evil forces Now rule Earth. Is this what the Mayans mean by the Return of the Ancestors in 2012?
@StigmataBOB1 You don't know what you are saying. Isn't God a God who is near, and not Far off? (According to His own words if you hold-fast to the Truths in 'Abrahamic' religions.) God is not Absent, He cannot be. He is wholly present, ever present all time. To think that there is 'no God here' is ludicrous. If there is no God there can be no godliness. For Christ did not leave us without a helper, and God will not leave those whom he loves.
In fact, to suggest that creation ex nihilo can be demonstrated by Big Bang theory is to postulate a god-of-the-gaps kind of explanation (Aha! God must have done it!). You might be able to reach this conclusion if it were a fact that there really was absolute nothing before the Big Bang; but of course we cannot say this. Hawking argues that there was a 'quantum vacuum' and the laws of physics before the Big Bang- in which case, there was something there already.
William Lane Craig is on dangerous ground here. We do not really know that there was absolute nothing "before" the Big Bang. In fact, Stephen Hawking argues that there was a quantum vacuum before the Big Bang. Therefore, to assume that Big Bang theory somehow proves creatio ex nihilo is misguided. Creation means "the radical causing of existence of whatever exists" and as a consequence creatio ex nihilo does not depend on a beginning in time. Big Bang theory is neurtal vis theology.
This video is about an atheist that now believes in God. YOu have your talking points and I have mine. There are more of us than you. There is no evidence that there is not a God or devil. Look around at the grass and plants and stars and look in the mirror. You are a very compicated creature that did not happen by chance or evolution. I can see God all around me. We can go back and forth till kingdom comes. WHat is the point of it? YOu believe what you want. I'll do the same. Enough.
@songwriter4artists Haha! You seemed to have mistook me. Just because I dispute that William Lane Craig's arguments are valid you assume that I must be an atheist or an agnostic! You are entirely wrong! I am a believer; a christian, in fact. I think there are reasons to believe that there is a God (a Creator) for rational reasons; but William Lane Craig does not provide these reasons as far as I can tell. He misunderstands creatio ex nihilo, which is not dependent on a beginning in time.
Flew became a Deist - he accepted that there might be some sort of intelligence at work behind the universe. He did not become a theist, he still rejected the idea of life after death & a personal god...
Alas Flew, who died April 2010 aged 87, lost some of his powers of reasoning in the last few years of his life, as octogenarians often do. Sadly he can be seen in his last interviews to be rather muddled.
It is good to be able to see him in full intellectual flight in these videos.
surely (as for) those who disbelieve, even if they had what is in the earth, all of it, and the like of it with it, that they might ransom themselves with it from the punishment of the day of resurrection, it shall not be accepted from them, and they shall have a painful punishment.
37-they would desire to go forth from the fire, and they shall not go forth from it, and they shall have lasting punishment.
@bfinkish Fallacy alert ! fallacy alert ! serious dude, Flew now claims to be a christian so therefore god exists ! and 44 people agree with you ! my sister beleives in dragons,so does that mean dragon's exist ?
@leonski35 "Flew now claims to be a christian so therefore god exists"
You posted this two weeks ago. I think you should know that u cant speak of him in present tense because he has been dead for over a year. I'm not sure who told you he became a Christian but that is false. He became a theist but not a Christian & said so before he died. The word dinosaur didn't exist until the the 19 century, before that time, dinosaur/fossils were called Dragons. Do you not believe Dinosaurs existed?
@bfinkish "well with anthony flew admitting that there now is a God I suppose we all can say William Lane craig won"
As much as I respect your statement and agree that Craig won the debate. I think in the long run, it was Anthony Flew who won, and for the same reason, which was his ultimate renouncing of atheism. RIP. Poor Richard Dawkins couldn't handle it and took it personel, even implying that Flew was a senile old man, for which there really is no evidence for.
To debate God's existence is pointless, Instead of asking someone else if God exists, why not ask God himself, if God say yes well there you have it, EASY
Right, and my point is that's not even an argument. If I suddenly start to believe in alien abduction, does that lend any support at all to the notion that aliens adbuct people? Of course not.
That's very condescending to state that Flew (a poor "81 year old") was convinced by a "bad arguement". BTW, What arguement was he convinced by? Do you know? I suspect not. Flew was one of the most millitant atheists of all time and did more for the atheist's camp, and philosophy, than people like Dawkins or Dennette has or ever will. Flew only went as far as to concede that God probably exits, and did not subscribe to any religion.
1. "Are there good reasons to think that He does not? In his opening statement, WLC shifts the burden. He has to support the assertion, failure to disprove the assertion is not support.
2. The origin of the universe question is an unknown. To say anything else at this point is speculation, to say "we don't know" to assume God is a fallacy. What you are saying is that "since I don't know....I do know" Do you see the self-contradiction here?
Your first example makes no sense. Read what you wrote again.
We don't know, can't know [so far], if the claim [of God's existence]
is valid or not.
However, there is no evidence that shows any statstical probability that any entity is messing with the laws of the universe. Based on this, it seems more probable that god[s] do not exist.
@kshackleton Lol, your first point is very Circular; the Atheists do the very same thing! So both camps have failed, but you blame only one side? Interesting...
Your second point claims a contradiction where there is none. It's simple logic. There is A and there is not-A. Instead of calling it not-A, let's call it B. So B is whatever A is not. By understanding what A is, we can then know what B is. So while we may not get to know B directly, we can know it by what we do know about A.
No, my first point is that WLC needs to support his assertion that god[s] exist. What he attempts to do is make a claim, assume it's true, and wait for disproof. That's dishonest.
My second point is that you cannot claim ignorance as support for making up what you would wish to be true. Your not-A = B is also a complete fallacy. It provides no insight into the nature of B beyond knowing what it is not....it's made-up crap.
@kshackleton You don't know much about Logic. You have NO evidence, either logical or scientific that God does NOT exist. But here is one that he does.
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2) the Universe began to exist --- If you agree with those two then the conclusion is true NO MATTER WHAT YOU FEEL. That The UNIVERSE WAS CAUSED. 3) Things cannot cause themselves into being -- This means that the Universe is caused by 'something transcendent of the universe'. (That's what God is.)
Premise 1 is flawed, at the very least, it needs to be explained. What precisely is meant by "begins to exist"? If we are talking about things within the universe, we are atlking about the rearrangement of matter and energy, and not its creation.
Premise 2 is a statement about the creation of the universe, of space, of time, of energy, of matter. Premise 1 has no linkage at all to premise 2.
The Kalam argument is an exercise in equivocation. It is a fallacious argument.
Your point #3 is probably wrong, it's unsupported at best. Have you ever heard of virtual particles? They seem to create themselves and disappear all the time.
God may very well exist, but the Kalam argument is so fatally flawed that it proves nothing; let alone God.
@6thwing Nobody has evidence that god does not exist. There will be no such evidence, ever. There is no evidence that anything doesn't exist, somewhere out there.
@6thwing If you're not going to respond to what I said, put it this way: WLC even says that astronomical evidence indicates the universe. It is not a presupposition.
@6thwing Is the cause of the universe somehow a god, or transcendant? The word transcendant doesn't just mean something more, it's a word with religious and emotional connotations. All the Kalam argument starts with is the universe had a cause, and all it can end with, logically is that god is this cause.
Except that's not god, that's just a cause. What is it? It's anything that can be a cause....
@6thwing And your premise 1 is not necessarily true. Nothing we see has ever begun in front of our eyes. Nothing is created or destroyed, and something 'beginning' or being created would be an event fundamentally different than any event in the universe. We have never seen something truly beginning.
@6thwing Your second premise is indicated by the evidence, however.
The third is obvious, at least, in the sense that it is basically saying that the cause cannot be the same event as the effect. The cause of a bullet flying through the air cannot be the bullet flying through the air, and the cause of a tree falling down cannot be the tree falling, and so on and so forth.
Theists and Atheists can only argue over the original or pivotal status of the Substance of all that exists, as an Intelligence, or as a Randomness. With God the world came out of a void that is another mystery of what exists before the world did.
God has only what is inside of God as the first Mystery of anything Existing. So , the Nature of God and the Nature of the Universe is an exchange of a Void that is God and Nature that is God. Outside and Inside does not apply to God,
What would be "nothing" prior to the beginning of the material world, is God in a former status, which is something, but simply nothing recognizable from this creation of matter and it's interactive state of energy. God did not stand off and say let the Creation appear, God changed within whatever is God Himself, in His own mystery, moving from a Void, by our own interpretations , into the sensible material world we can measure. God and His Works, has no outside source, it is all One
the Bible supports that God's Invisible Nature presupposes the Creation, but God is moving into visibility as a fully participating presence in everything that was made material. The Trinity is revealed in just 3 verses of the opening of the Bible, Genesis One , verses 1-3. Invisible God to Visible Spirit over the Waters, to adaptations only recognized as a first man of Heaven. The Creation is then an expression not just out of God's Will, but of His own Substance, God is changing Himself
God was Invisible as the world began as formless and in darkness. As God created the waters of Creation, God transfigured God's Nature from Invisible to be seen as the Spirit of God hovering over the waters. Then God presented His form, not just to be inhabiting the world as a Spirit, but in terms assigned to a man, having a mouth to speak and eyes to see his own word. This is the first three verses of the Bible Torah Genesis, chapter one, verses one to three. God inhabits all Creation.
None of what he said is evidence to demonstrate the existence of God, it still remains ana ssumption. It is not upto us to disapprove God's existence but upto you to prove his existence, it would be like me saying i created the universe.
NickLiang 3 weeks ago
Science has no explanation on whether the universe had a cause or beginning. All we know is that matter and energy is constant. Either there has always been a material universe, or there were few particles with enormous power. Trying to convince me that what exists must have not existed once doesn't really impress me.
Eirikofs 3 weeks ago in playlist DOES GOD EXIST? William Lane Craig vs Antony Flew
This has been flagged as spam show
Question. Does god exist?
Answer. No, he doesn’t.
There. Easy wasn't it?
bommmmmmmm 1 month ago 6
First of all William Lane Craig mentions
1. Infinity is imaginary.
2. God is real.
3. > God must not have existed for a negatively infinite time.
If we use the philosophy of William Lane Craig:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. God began to exist.
3 > God has a cause.
So what is the cause for God? Did something else create God? And then we can go on for an infinite number times asking the same question. Who is the creator of the creator?
Some of my observations....
jinjo22 3 months ago
@jinjo22 Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause for its existence. God according to Criag did not begin to exist, he always existed. Nice try nooby.
Bla3kBrigade 2 months ago
@Bla3kBrigade hey why r u calling ppl names. All I did was point out holes in the logic of Craig's argument. I did not come up with this myself. It is Craig himself who said that infinity is imaginary, therefore the universe must have begun. Hence using this very logic that Craig uses to argue, it is only logical to come to the conclusion that God began to exist because God must not have existed for infinity as infinity is imaginary. Makes sense?
jinjo22 2 months ago
@jinjo22 Criag says Infirmity can not be demonstrated within the NATURAL world, but only in the realm of the supernatural.
Bla3kBrigade 2 months ago
@Bla3kBrigade Nope he did not say that. In fact if he said that he would have lost the argument already. By saying what you think he said, there is already the assumption that the supernatural exists, something which Craig is suppose to logically prove in this debate.
jinjo22 2 months ago
@jinjo22 There is no assumption that supernatural exist, that's not the point. The statement is simple, infinity can only be demonstrated in the supernatural terms.
Second, the purpose of the debate is not to prove anything but to establish a rational basis for the belief in God.
Bla3kBrigade 2 months ago
@Bla3kBrigade "but only in the realm of the supernatural". For you to say something like "only in the realm of the supernatural", you are already saying the supernatural exists hence infinity can happen there. And yes like you said, Craig is supposed to provide a rational basis for his belief in God. In which way then did he actually provide a rational basis in the belief that infinity can only exist in the supernatural but not the natural?
jinjo22 2 months ago
@Bla3kBrigade By saying things such as "infinity cannot exist in the natural world but only in the supernatural", what is the rational basis behind this double standards in the application of the argument about infinity?
jinjo22 2 months ago
@jinjo22 Infinity is only is applicable to things which are nonmaterial, timeless, space-less, and changeless. Infinity is only contradictory in the atheistic position.
Bla3kBrigade 2 months ago
@Bla3kBrigade First of all I am NOT an atheist. I just happen to be someone who spots holes in logic and points them out. Secondly, infinity is not contradictory. The argument that Craig uses ABOUT infinity causes this contradiction in his argument which he did not address. And secondly, you are just basically re-phrasing what you said before, that infinity is applicable only in the supernatural. All that you have done now is to break down the concept of "supernatural" granularly.
jinjo22 2 months ago
@jinjo22 For the sake of clarity can you please state Craigs EXACT argument on the comments so I can see exactly what you're trying to address here.
Bla3kBrigade 2 months ago
@jinjo22 I'm waiting.
Bla3kBrigade 2 months ago
@jinjo22 But what if time doesn't really exist but is a delusion. Space, (the infinite blank) and operation which also might only be. Somehing also causes thoughts. Did god not think before he made the universe or does not causes of thought need the element of time which I'm convined is a delusion? Delusion from perception of rearrangements of matter/operation of the universe associated with the callendar of a beat. A beat is arbitrary and devisions of the everything are concepts.
SaerdnaOoOoo 1 month ago
@SaerdnaOoOoo Actually, that is something that I often find myself thinking about too. Everything that we perceive to be, is it really what it seem to be? However I believe that these metaphysical subjects are something that is really difficult to solve for humanity. I like to use the analogy of a person trapped in a closed box. He will not be able to know what is exactly outside. He can only make deductions about what is outside from what he is able to know from the inside.
jinjo22 1 month ago
@jinjo22 As such, I believe that all kinds of debate should essentially be about whether a certain deduction about "the outside" is a rationally obtained one based on what we are able to perceive on "the inside". For me, it is not rational hitherto to come to such an exclusive and explicit conclusion of a Christian God or a deity figure for that matter.
jinjo22 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How can something come from nothing the religious will ask. How can god come from nothing the atheist will ask.
The atheist has just as valid a question as the theist has but somehow the religious person thinks they have some special privilege to say god is eternal. Actually they have no such privilege and just make themselves look arrogant and pig headed.
endthedisease 3 months ago 5
Comment removed
endthedisease 3 months ago
This is a poor question to debate because we haven't a good definition or evidence for 'god' (so the affirmative fails by default), and to disprove something that is undefined or that transcends our reality is impossible (so the opposition fails by default). Arguments to support either position must be fallacious. I'm glad Flew basically understood and declared as much, however I wish he had more thoroughly refuted Craig's kalamist, moral, and fine tune premises (idk why he gets away with them).
urcorrect 3 months ago
You know what's funny, WLC asks if it makes sense that the universe popped into existence out of nothing (fyi, its not nothing nothing, just nothing we can explain), but yet its perfectly believable that a supernatural entity has always existed. And that god created the entire universe, billions of galaxies each with billions of stars, all just for us to worship him. If there was a designer, I highly doubt its the xtian god. You people are coo-coo for coco puffs.
atheistcommonsense 3 months ago
If you want evidence that God exists, or are interested in 9/11 search Jonathan Cahn 1 - Harbinger the Warning, on youtube here.
IwillhonorGod 4 months ago
God was always there...He has existed since before the beginning of time.
endlich93 4 months ago
OMFG THATS THERE ARGUMENT? SO EXPLAIN ME THIS ... WHERE DF DOES GOD COME FROM ? DID HE JUST POP UP TOO ??
reym613 4 months ago
@reym613 where did anything come from?
yayyschool1 4 months ago
@reym613 where did you come from? and where did all human come from? you might want to say monkeys, sure i will go with that. And who made the monkeys??.... well, obviously - God! God didn't pop out from anywhere, He is always there.
everydayimtumblinggg 4 months ago
@everydayimtumblinggg ok then if god exist im pretty sure hes not a human , hes some next level shit
reym613 4 months ago
what year was this debate in?
Kep0v 4 months ago
It was THIS debate that turned Antony Flew towards Theism.
marcdaddy33 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
Athiests reason like homosexuals.
GrungeFlannel1990 5 months ago
Children as supported in the bible do.not know right from wrong and so the sin in the wolrd does not infect people at birth all the while the concept of suffering is a learned thing. So the subject before adam and eve's time is a matter of innocence before eatint that tree of knowledge.
GrungeFlannel1990 5 months ago
Moral evil exists therefore a moral good exists, the bible says the concept of evil and suffering were known once adam ate the tree of knowledge knowing good and bad. This is where the concept of suffering came from as well.
GrungeFlannel1990 5 months ago
no evidence or good argemnts for god and theists have been droaning on and on for decades
quantum8kid 6 months ago
@quantum8kid
SCIENCE is the evidence for God's existence... THAT is why Anthony Flew became a Theist himself.
marcdaddy33 5 months ago
@marcdaddy33 SCIENCE is a methodolgy made by us, and what evidence???
quantum8kid 5 months ago
For 100,000 years mankind is born, often dying in childbirth or killing the mother in the process, life expectancy around 20 - 30 years, famine, disease, turf wars over women, land, food......And then 98,000 years later God thinks; "Ok, thats enough of that, Im going to intervine. I'll send my son down to be killed and executed in bronze-age palestine for the sins of humanity, that way humans will have a shot of redemption, things may improve.
leon327 6 months ago
@leon327 Lol, I smell a Hitchen fan? Eh? You know what? The world's population before Christ and backwards correpsonds to around 2% of everyone that has ever lived on this planet. If something, it was right on time. And also, you are assuming that the goal of life is happiness. Which on the Christian worldview, it aint. It is about the knowledge of God and glorify Him. So, to say the 2% of people had horrible physical pain and so on doesn't have anything to do with Christianity really.
TheisticThinker 6 months ago
@TheisticThinker Yes a hitchens fan, guilty as charged. I should have wrote 'Christopher Hitchens:.....', But come on theisticthinker, are you saying all the pain and suffering that humankind has endured over the hundred of thousands of years has happend so you could be a christian? So you could have this debate on youtube? How arrogant.
leon327 6 months ago
there is absolutely no empirical evidence that god or a higher power exists or ever existed. period
striperlouie 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God doesn't like liars. You'll go to Hell for this, sir. And burn for aaaaall eternity--unless you don't believe in the crap you preach. If there isn't a god, then you'll be just fine, right? You better start hoping there isn't one.
eltemetlek 8 months ago
It's very sad and strange how people debate the existence of God. How can people think there is no God?
Of course there is a God that created everything INCLUDING evil.
I don't believe that religions are real. They're just laws which people created and connected them with God so that people could be controlled from not doing bad things.
Today people consider money as God which I think and believe is very sad.
KoSoVaAnGeL 8 months ago
muslims support Dr. William Craig against atheists.
bozzeed 9 months ago
@ReaderDan Antony Flew's book There is a God on pg. 157 "As I have said more than once, no other religion enjoys anything like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. If you're wanting omnipotence to set up a religion, it seems to me that this is the one to beat!" He also said on pg. 185 "I think Christian religion is the one religion that most clearly deserves to be honored.." so Yes he is a fan of Christianity not follower "yet" but fan
blarbymcblarbston 9 months ago 4
@blarbymcblarbston - ah yes! St. Paul - the L.Ron.Hubbard of his time
shumble32 1 month ago
Didn't Antony Flew became a Christian? O_o
KevinVang1000 9 months ago
@KevinVang1000
Deist.
ReaderDan 9 months ago
You sure? But he came out of the closet and admitted that there was a God???
KevinVang1000 9 months ago
@KevinVang1000
Yep, he isn't a fan of Christianity at all. But he does admit to God.
ReaderDan 9 months ago
What?!?!?!?!? It doesn't make any sense? If there's a God, the best God ever would be Christianity. I just don't get it!
It's like saying: How can I comprehend a small big dwarf?
KevinVang1000 9 months ago
if u dont believe in science saying dat d universe existed from nothing when bigbang occured, and say god created this world, then tell me how did god come to exist? bcoz he is also something and cant come from nothiing, right? who created god? was god cleaning his ass before he creating this world? why did he create bad?? he wanted to hav fun watching good and bad fight?? why did he let natural disasters happen and let his creation suffer??does not it seem so insane??
kesav1985 9 months ago
I would consider this to be a more appropriate debate Question:
If you're wrong about the existence of god, would it really make any difference at all.
TheNamelessCharacter 10 months ago
5:01 Isn't that admitting that god, an infinite being, cannot exist in reality?
cerickNY 10 months ago
@cerickNY Quran:
(Surah-4-the women-vs-56)
(as for) those who disbelieve in our communications, we shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, we will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely allah is mighty, wise.
quranresponse 10 months ago
@cerickNY
No he's talking about infinities in the physical world. We have infinities all the time in our abstractions, in mathematics, etc.
Jim1905 10 months ago
Craig really does need to familiarize himself with quantum mechanics. The Big Bang is a result of quantum mechanics and the waves of quarks that swim in an eternal sea of electro magnetism. The other area that Craig needs to examine are the universal creation myths where "religious" truth for man can be found. Above all, he needs to familiarize himself with the great philosophical anthropologist, Rene Girard.
BrotherWoody1 10 months ago
@BrotherWoody1 Quran:
(Surah-2-the cow-vs-170)
And when it is said to them, follow what Allah has revealed, they say: nay! We follow what we found our fathers upon. What! And though their fathers had no sense at all, nor did they follow the right way. 171- And the parable of those who disbelieve is as the parable of one who calls out to that which hears no more than a call and a cry; deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they do not understand.
quranresponse 10 months ago
@BrotherWoody1
Are you familiar with quantum mechanics? Can you show that the big bang is the result of qm and "the waves of quarks that swim in an eternal sea of electromagnetism"? I had to put that last part in quotes because it's such an absurd statement lol.
Jim1905 10 months ago
What god wins?
GlentoranMark 10 months ago
@GlentoranMark well there is just one...
oleh2007 10 months ago
@oleh2007 says you ;)
idreamtofflight 10 months ago
Dr. Craig's arguments are dependent on the hopes that the majority of the audience is ignorant to science.
2nDoppelganger 11 months ago
Could a creationist be as kind as to fill this out for me.(i use the word designer just because there's many names for god and the question is for anyone who believes in a higher power)
1) a 'Designer' created life on earth, this is demonstrated by?
2) Using the example youve used for Q1, How is this the most probable explanation?
N.B please note holy books & personal experiences are NOT evidence
this is an area that fascinates me, so feel free to ask something. Im gonna collate the responses
BrightonStudent 11 months ago
@ThePowerpuffGirls
organic, living creatures?
So you're claiming that a bunch of random atoms got together and said "hey, lets become DNA, because that would be the most beneficial thing for us to do, even though we're doing just fine hanging out here being regular old random atoms, and have everything we need to survive in this here ocean"
Yeah. That definitely makes more sense.
svartalf93 1 year ago
@ThePowerpuffGirls
The Big Bang Theory?
So wait. Scientists want me to believe that energy cannot be created or destroyed...
And at the same time believe that an entire universe popped into existence, randomly, out of nothing and nowhere? All that energy just poofed into being on a whim?
And seriously? Random evolution?
Inorganic, random chemicals banging against each other for thousands of years?
Yeah. Okay.
And those inorganic chemicals SOMEHOW just poofed themselves into becoming
svartalf93 1 year ago
@svartalf93 Clearly when it is said that matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed, we are talking about the here and now, not any circumstances that someone chooses to imagine.
And remarking that our knowledge of the transition from inorganic to organic matter is like a building that can't stand up, is as to say that we shouldn't build, because we will always start with buildings which crumble under their own weight, without being held together by scaffolding.
pjnlsn 1 year ago
WLC is a great debater, but uses very poor reasoning skills. In every debate he has to resort to a play on words and a manipulation of semantics. I would love to engage him in a private debate and demonstrate how each of his arguments is heavily flawed, (eg just because something has no beginning or end, doesn't mean it is infinite - think of a friggin' circle. Space-time is not linear, and this has been shown again and again).
aliasbrush 1 year ago
William Lane Craig Ftw
eagleeye2102 1 year ago
Einstein was also proven wrong about light being the fastest! All should see the work of Dr. Nicolas Gisin in Geneva...with evidence of the entanglement theory as photons are connected & "signalled to think" on their own- by an outside force & faster than light! Could all these string & unseen intelligent force theories be the "God force or variable"?
Google this article about Dr. Gisins' work....WOW:
cebaf.gov/news/internet/1997/spooky
Also youtube: "Scientific evidence God is Real"
GoodyBob 1 year ago 8
@GoodyBob What scientific evidence of god's existence? I hope it is not more of that creationist tripe.
ThePowerpuffGirIs 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThePowerpuffGirIs "I hope it is not more of that creationist tripe" Wow ... is that a scientific unbiased attitude? You have already blocked any input.
Again, Google this article about Dr. Nicolas Gisins' work: cebaf.gov/news/internet/1997/spooky
Also youtube: "Scientific evidence God is Real"by gatemessenger, Fred Hoyle Quantum Mechanics & the impossible carbon atom, The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, & even better = research Jesus! Google Dr. Lane, kingdavid8, jesusevidence, Lee Strobel
GoodyBob 1 year ago
@ThePowerpuffGirIs Do you call this ready for un-biased scientific input? = "I hope it is not more of that creationist tripe". Wow!
Again, see work of Dr. Nicolas Gisin in Geneva...with evidence of the entanglement & string theory as photons are connected & "signalled to think" on their own- by an outside force! They even knew when were being watched! Google this of Dr. Gisins' work: cebaf.gov/news/internet/1997/spooky
Also youtube: "Scientific evidence God is Real" by gatemessenger
GoodyBob 1 year ago
@GoodyBob The link you gave me is not working.
Also, before proceeding, what do you mean by god? What god do you speak of? What is your definition of god? Until you give me a concise concept of this god you speak of, then I am afraid we won't be able to have much of a healthy discussion. No, I'm not closing myself off to new evidence, but let's be honest, one attribute of a god is being a supernatural force, and science has nothing to do with the supernatural.
ThePowerpuffGirIs 1 year ago
@ThePowerpuffGirIs Evidence? DNA.
Calbenmike 1 year ago
@Calbenmike What does DNA have to do with this so-called god?
ThePowerpuffGirIs 1 year ago
@ThePowerpuffGirIs Look at and study the complexity of DNA.
Calbenmike 1 year ago
@Calbenmike You're not answering my question. Please provide a substantive argument that the complexity of DNA proves "God did it." It's not my job to look for arguments supporting god's existence. That's your job, he who asserts god exists. The burden of proof is on you. If you can't provide compelling evidence then admit it and don't waste our time.
ThePowerpuffGirIs 1 year ago
@ThePowerpuffGirIs Actually you have it backwards. The burden of proof is on you not me. I don't need to prove anything to you for God's handiwork is all around us. The stars, the planets, and all living things is more than enough proof that the God of the Bible created all things. The fact that I have faith and you don't places the burden of proof on the unbeliever. If you can't look at something as complex as a single cell out of millions that make up a living thing and not conclude God's
Calbenmike 1 year ago
@Calbenmike handiwork, than you are nothing but a fool. It takes far more faith to believe as you do than it does for me. Think of it this way: If you're right and I'm wrong, than I have nothing to worry about. If I'm right and you're wrong, than you're talking about an eternity to pay for your ignorance and blindness to the truth that was right in front of you the entire time.
Calbenmike 1 year ago
@Calbenmike The star and the planets are the byproduct of the big bang, not some god wishing for it and then "poof," it came to be. It was and always is evolution by natural selection that gives off the illusion of design. As for your Pascal's Wager (An utterly flawed argument), how do you know your god is the true god? What if you're wrong and you're worshiping the wrong god and you end up in a bad afterlife? I think the real god (if it exists) would prefer me over you. Me logic, you faith.
ThePowerpuffGirIs 1 year ago
@Calbenmike That's your best cop-out? Take a course on Logic 101 and then talk to me about burden of proof. So if I told you that invisible chocolate-frosted cupcakes created the universe and you asked for proof, then I would say that it takes faith (Belief in the absence of evidence) to believe and it is you who must disprove my cupcakes. Would that make sense? You're doing the same to me. Why should I bother believing in god?
ThePowerpuffGirIs 1 year ago
@GoodyBob Most scientists living 50 years ago were wrong about many things.
pjnlsn 1 year ago
@GoodyBob This is quantum theory and you are totally wrong about it. It has nothing to do with an "outside force", and wow certainly not with an "intelligent force", quantum theory is all about randomness. And the particles are not faster than light, they are simply linked, at "more than one place at the same time". They do not travel in a speed faster than light.. And for the record if there really was scientific evidence for God it would've been published and someone would be VERY famous
2CSST2 9 months ago
@2CSST2 Then take your wrong opinion to all the scientists who said it's an "outside force", like my QUOTE from Dr. Gisin. See also the entanglement theory, string theory, & split light slit experiment. Also, see invention of The Big Bang Theory by the Catholic scientist, Monsignor Georges Lemaître. The famous scientist Sir Fred Hoyle, who coined the name "Big Bang" from Lemaître, claimed that the complexity of the carbon atom was impossible to have occured naturally & do its impossible dance.
GoodyBob 9 months ago
@GoodyBob
Faster than light is a meaningless statement. The speed of light is the standard of velocity so it means much the same as rounder than the circle would
AlfredMaddenstein 9 months ago
@AlfredMaddenstein Sure, but not the generic term when using for actual velocity. In this example they say it was faster than ...299,792,458 metres per second. Whatever the speed, the whole point is The Entanglement/String Theories seem to point to intelligent design. Especially what Dr. Gisin discovered & also Sir Fred Hoyle on the amazing carbon atom. Thanks.
GoodyBob 9 months ago
@GoodyBob
The problem of sub-atomic particles seemingly "communicating" at speeds exceeding the speed of light is, in the words of the famous theorist John Bell, eradicated if you accept that the universe is completely deterministic. There is no faster-than-light communicated because the universe already knows what the measurement will be.
projectbeard 8 months ago
@projectbeard Thx. That's a good point in general terms, without a measurement of speed ...it's more like "instantaneous" or "knowing".
GoodyBob 8 months ago
@GoodyBob Another argument from ignorance. Just because we don't yet know (or may NEVER know) what actually causes something is not a reason to jump to the conclusion that it is God.
StormZephyr 6 months ago
@StormZephyr Right, BUT by the same principal all these new age close-minded atheists, can not say God doesn't exist either!
GoodyBob 6 months ago
@GoodyBob I think that those atheists are in the minority.
StormZephyr 6 months ago
The Russel and Coplestone debate is great and I suggest everyone listen to it. However, I felt that Coplestone brought much to the argument and Russel's argument was simply "Well I'm clever and I don't believe in God, therefore people who believe in God are not clever". It's otherwise excellent however.
Jim1905 1 year ago
Right on Dr. Lane! With regards to the Big Bang, NASA's astronomer Robert Jastrow said, "Theologians are delighted with the proof the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence".
See "The Second Law of Thermodynamics", then Sir Fred Hoyle: Quantum Mechanics = of the amazing carbon atom needing intelligent design to perform that complex/coordinated dance.
GoodyBob 1 year ago
@GoodyBob
Absolutely, Scientist's can be as dogmatic as anyone else and it doesn't matter how smart they are, we are all in danger of it. Look at Einstein who fabricated his cosmological constant to fit his theory to what he thought the universe should be, eternal. It was Lematre that actually took what the field equations suggested seriously and said that the universe had a beginning. He was also a catholic priest. Turns out it was Einstein and many others dogma that hindered them.
Jim1905 1 year ago
@Jim1905 Thanks bro'. I hadn't heard of Lemaître before...very interesting!
Einstein now knows that he needed to plug in God's equation:
1 cross + 3 nails = 4 giveness.
GoodyBob 1 year ago
@GoodyBob Einstein is dead.......dummy.
ElvisKnucklehead 1 year ago
@GoodyBob Duh!....that why I wrote it like that.
GoodyBob 1 year ago
in his opening he proves "infinity" cannot exist in 'reality.' then if god is infinite (i.e. omni___) is he not real too?
MrFelix987 1 year ago
Imagine a man who never forgets, and has never forgotten anything. Now imagine if that man were to try and trace his memories all the way back, through birth, through his time in the womb, and further and further back. At some point, even with the extraordinary memory this man has, he would have no memories. He might conclude that, at that point, he 'began.' But, even then, he wouldn't really know.
This is what looking back in time is like, and what the 'Big Bang' actually is.
pjnlsn 1 year ago
@pjnlsn Now try to explain that using Science. Because the 'Big Bang' isn't a philosophical theory, it is a scientific one. The Scientific theory presupposes a beginning of the Universe, else it would deem the Universe constant regardless of time (they wouldn't be looking at how the Universe was at an earlier point in time if the Universe was Infinite, and Timeless. Time and Infinity do not, logically go together. It doesn't make sense.).
6thwing 1 year ago
@6thwing Supposes. It 'supposes' a beginning.
Strangely enough, what you've just said is true, if you change that one word.
pjnlsn 1 year ago
@6thwing As I said, all methods of looking into the past, be they historical, or scientific, or otherwise, start with the present and work backward. You cannot start looking from a beginning which you are unaware of to begin with. This is illogical.
But, of course, you know that. In fact, you're saying that we do that, and that this is illogical.
It's all true!
...except, we don't.
pjnlsn 1 year ago
@6thwing I think the tunnel or fetus metaphors explain it adequately, I really do.
pjnlsn 1 year ago
@6thwing So: The big bang is what we call the endpoint of a line we've traced. We see what we interpret as remnants of the 'birth' of the universe. We see all matter becoming clustered closer together. We see space closing in, and matter compacting. The Big Bang is to say that all of the matter and space around us which we give the collective moniker, the 'Universe', went on getting smaller and denser, until it was infinitely small and infinitely dense.
An extrapolation. Nothing more.
pjnlsn 1 year ago
@6thwing Not that which underlies all our knowledge.
pjnlsn 1 year ago
As an atheist, I have no idea what led to the apparent beginning, or if it has any similitude to anything inside the boundary we might imagine around everything we see. I don't know. I don't even know the nature of the boundary, if it exists, much less what is 'outside' it.
pjnlsn 1 year ago
We only say there is a 'beginning' through inference, for we must start from the present and look backwards when considering the timeline. No one honestly says there was a beginning without knowing it to be an inference. The big bang is, itself, an inference, an extrapolation from the data. We do not say that the universe got bigger over time, because that is the statement of someone on the outside looking in. We say that all matter used to be clustered closer together, in more elementary forms.
pjnlsn 1 year ago
As an atheist, I don't make comments about the universe's beggining. We cannot actually see a beginning.
What we see is like entering a wide tunnel, and following it farther and farther back, until we must crouch down, until we must crawl, and until we can only stick our heads towards the rest of the tunnel to see it with our light. We then see the diameter of the tunnel getting smaller and smaller until it appears to end.
pjnlsn 1 year ago
If an actual infinite cannot exist, does it follow that God cannot exist? If nothing can only come from nothing, does it follow that there is no such a thing as a God that can create out of nothing? Is the First Cause argument for the existence of God begging the question?
wbarquez 1 year ago
I love William Lane Craig. In this debate he seems like a ray of sunshine sent from Heaven. Antony Flew just seems bitter and annoying in comparison.
KittenButter 1 year ago
It's very simple: There is no evidence for god. There isn't even a definition to find evidence for.
No scientist could honestly assert that which has never been indicated, and nor could I. To explain our world, the hypothesis of God is not necessary.
pjnlsn 1 year ago
@pjnlsn Illogical. God is wholly necessary to explain our world. Why? Because the Universe's explanation for existence is causation. And for something to be caused, it ultimately has to have something "uncausable" that caused it. That which is personal, and transcends the Universe is what is called God.
6thwing 1 year ago
@6thwing Yeah, that's basically a definition for god. Personal, and transcendent.
However, it has never been indicated. What in this world is necessary to explain by saying 'god did this.' ?
Nothing.
Ignoring that God isn't an explanation at all, that it doesn't give us greater understanding of our world, in the first place, of course.
pjnlsn 1 year ago
Are you convinced of anything New? The Creator is Returning, according to Revelation. So that means he is absent or away, Doesn't it? So in his absents, Who is running earth? Look at all the misery, it doesn't mean the Creator of man, doesn't exist, Just means he is absent, and evil forces Now rule Earth. Is this what the Mayans mean by the Return of the Ancestors in 2012?
StigmataBOB1 1 year ago
@StigmataBOB1 You don't know what you are saying. Isn't God a God who is near, and not Far off? (According to His own words if you hold-fast to the Truths in 'Abrahamic' religions.) God is not Absent, He cannot be. He is wholly present, ever present all time. To think that there is 'no God here' is ludicrous. If there is no God there can be no godliness. For Christ did not leave us without a helper, and God will not leave those whom he loves.
6thwing 1 year ago
In fact, to suggest that creation ex nihilo can be demonstrated by Big Bang theory is to postulate a god-of-the-gaps kind of explanation (Aha! God must have done it!). You might be able to reach this conclusion if it were a fact that there really was absolute nothing before the Big Bang; but of course we cannot say this. Hawking argues that there was a 'quantum vacuum' and the laws of physics before the Big Bang- in which case, there was something there already.
bayreuth79 1 year ago
@bayreuth79 Lol, the vacuum.
6thwing 1 year ago
William Lane Craig is on dangerous ground here. We do not really know that there was absolute nothing "before" the Big Bang. In fact, Stephen Hawking argues that there was a quantum vacuum before the Big Bang. Therefore, to assume that Big Bang theory somehow proves creatio ex nihilo is misguided. Creation means "the radical causing of existence of whatever exists" and as a consequence creatio ex nihilo does not depend on a beginning in time. Big Bang theory is neurtal vis theology.
bayreuth79 1 year ago
This video is about an atheist that now believes in God. YOu have your talking points and I have mine. There are more of us than you. There is no evidence that there is not a God or devil. Look around at the grass and plants and stars and look in the mirror. You are a very compicated creature that did not happen by chance or evolution. I can see God all around me. We can go back and forth till kingdom comes. WHat is the point of it? YOu believe what you want. I'll do the same. Enough.
songwriter4artists 1 year ago
@songwriter4artists Haha! You seemed to have mistook me. Just because I dispute that William Lane Craig's arguments are valid you assume that I must be an atheist or an agnostic! You are entirely wrong! I am a believer; a christian, in fact. I think there are reasons to believe that there is a God (a Creator) for rational reasons; but William Lane Craig does not provide these reasons as far as I can tell. He misunderstands creatio ex nihilo, which is not dependent on a beginning in time.
bayreuth79 1 year ago
well with anthony flew admitting that there now is a God I suppose we all can say William Lane craig won.
bfinkish 1 year ago 47
@bfinkish
Flew became a Deist - he accepted that there might be some sort of intelligence at work behind the universe. He did not become a theist, he still rejected the idea of life after death & a personal god...
Alas Flew, who died April 2010 aged 87, lost some of his powers of reasoning in the last few years of his life, as octogenarians often do. Sadly he can be seen in his last interviews to be rather muddled.
It is good to be able to see him in full intellectual flight in these videos.
SAHBfan 1 year ago
@bfinkish Hopefully it wasn't Craig's usual bad arguments
bernlin2000 11 months ago
@bfinkish
Yeah, since becoming a deist means jesus is true! Oh wait, Craigs arguments still suck.
Remembermylai 11 months ago
@bfinkish
Of couuuuuuurse.
(If you are nazis)
MegaCaracolillo 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bfinkish
*
William Lane Craig won
*
bravasobob 11 months ago
@bfinkish But not WLC's god. Flew described his beliefs as more Pantheistic.
TheNamelessCharacter 11 months ago
@TheNamelessCharacter 1400 years ago
Quran:
(Surah-5-the maidah-vs-36)
surely (as for) those who disbelieve, even if they had what is in the earth, all of it, and the like of it with it, that they might ransom themselves with it from the punishment of the day of resurrection, it shall not be accepted from them, and they shall have a painful punishment.
37-they would desire to go forth from the fire, and they shall not go forth from it, and they shall have lasting punishment.
quranresponse 10 months ago
@quranresponse Yes because threats are the best way to persuade someone of their religion.
TheNamelessCharacter 10 months ago
@bfinkish Fallacy alert ! fallacy alert ! serious dude, Flew now claims to be a christian so therefore god exists ! and 44 people agree with you ! my sister beleives in dragons,so does that mean dragon's exist ?
leonski35 8 months ago
@leonski35 You did not get the point.
raponte1955 7 months ago
@leonski35 "Flew now claims to be a christian so therefore god exists"
You posted this two weeks ago. I think you should know that u cant speak of him in present tense because he has been dead for over a year. I'm not sure who told you he became a Christian but that is false. He became a theist but not a Christian & said so before he died. The word dinosaur didn't exist until the the 19 century, before that time, dinosaur/fossils were called Dragons. Do you not believe Dinosaurs existed?
benthemiester 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bfinkish "well with anthony flew admitting that there now is a God I suppose we all can say William Lane craig won"
As much as I respect your statement and agree that Craig won the debate. I think in the long run, it was Anthony Flew who won, and for the same reason, which was his ultimate renouncing of atheism. RIP. Poor Richard Dawkins couldn't handle it and took it personel, even implying that Flew was a senile old man, for which there really is no evidence for.
benthemiester 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To debate God's existence is pointless, Instead of asking someone else if God exists, why not ask God himself, if God say yes well there you have it, EASY
matforsbon 1 year ago
William Lane Craig: "I won't attack any straw men". ...5 seconds later.... "Atheists say that the universe came from nothing!"
lepban 1 year ago
I counted at least a dozen logical fallacies in Craig's statements. he makes no sound arguments at all.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton Anthony Flew converted himself to Christianism.
leolinharess 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leolinharess
OK...so what? That's not evidence of anything.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@leolinharess ...Flew was a deist...at 81 years old...it was quite sad.
But he was never a christian
Roper122 1 year ago
@kshackleton Craig makes the same arguments all the time
PS Flew was never a christian
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122
Right, and my point is that's not even an argument. If I suddenly start to believe in alien abduction, does that lend any support at all to the notion that aliens adbuct people? Of course not.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton ....that's true, an 81 year old man being convinced by a bad argument...doesn't make it not a bad argument.
But don't let anyone tell you Flew was a Christian.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122
That's very condescending to state that Flew (a poor "81 year old") was convinced by a "bad arguement". BTW, What arguement was he convinced by? Do you know? I suspect not. Flew was one of the most millitant atheists of all time and did more for the atheist's camp, and philosophy, than people like Dawkins or Dennette has or ever will. Flew only went as far as to concede that God probably exits, and did not subscribe to any religion.
strigoi4321 1 year ago
@strigoi4321 ...Yes I do know what convinced him...he said so...that's kinda the point. Because of that I can say that it was a bad argument.
I never used the term "poor" I simply pointed out his age, and the fact that he was convinced by a bad argument.
The argument didn't change, so obviously something did.
And yes he was a deist not a theist.
Roper122 1 year ago
@kshackleton
Wow a dozen logical fallacies. Please explain, because apparently Flew, a very well respected philospher, missed them during this debate.
strigoi4321 1 year ago
@strigoi4321
1. "Are there good reasons to think that He does not? In his opening statement, WLC shifts the burden. He has to support the assertion, failure to disprove the assertion is not support.
2. The origin of the universe question is an unknown. To say anything else at this point is speculation, to say "we don't know" to assume God is a fallacy. What you are saying is that "since I don't know....I do know" Do you see the self-contradiction here?
WLC strings one after another.
kshackleton 1 year ago
Comment removed
Rookerman32 1 year ago
@kshackleton
Logically, you have to disprove the claim of God's existence or the claim is invalid.
Logically, you have to prove the claim of God's existing or the claim is invalid.
Since both claims haven't being logically disproven or proven, those claims are voided until either one is logically accepted over the other.
Rookerman32 1 year ago
@Rookerman32
Your first example makes no sense. Read what you wrote again.
We don't know, can't know [so far], if the claim [of God's existence]
is valid or not.
However, there is no evidence that shows any statstical probability that any entity is messing with the laws of the universe. Based on this, it seems more probable that god[s] do not exist.
WLC is simply full of crap.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton
It makes no sense to a senseless person like you.
Rookerman32 1 year ago
@Rookerman32
Really, so I have to disprove a claim *or* the claim is invalid?
Nonsensical statement.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton Lol, your first point is very Circular; the Atheists do the very same thing! So both camps have failed, but you blame only one side? Interesting...
Your second point claims a contradiction where there is none. It's simple logic. There is A and there is not-A. Instead of calling it not-A, let's call it B. So B is whatever A is not. By understanding what A is, we can then know what B is. So while we may not get to know B directly, we can know it by what we do know about A.
6thwing 1 year ago
@6thwing
No, my first point is that WLC needs to support his assertion that god[s] exist. What he attempts to do is make a claim, assume it's true, and wait for disproof. That's dishonest.
My second point is that you cannot claim ignorance as support for making up what you would wish to be true. Your not-A = B is also a complete fallacy. It provides no insight into the nature of B beyond knowing what it is not....it's made-up crap.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton You don't know much about Logic. You have NO evidence, either logical or scientific that God does NOT exist. But here is one that he does.
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2) the Universe began to exist --- If you agree with those two then the conclusion is true NO MATTER WHAT YOU FEEL. That The UNIVERSE WAS CAUSED. 3) Things cannot cause themselves into being -- This means that the Universe is caused by 'something transcendent of the universe'. (That's what God is.)
6thwing 1 year ago
@6thwing
Premise 1 is flawed, at the very least, it needs to be explained. What precisely is meant by "begins to exist"? If we are talking about things within the universe, we are atlking about the rearrangement of matter and energy, and not its creation.
Premise 2 is a statement about the creation of the universe, of space, of time, of energy, of matter. Premise 1 has no linkage at all to premise 2.
The Kalam argument is an exercise in equivocation. It is a fallacious argument.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@6thwing
Your point #3 is probably wrong, it's unsupported at best. Have you ever heard of virtual particles? They seem to create themselves and disappear all the time.
God may very well exist, but the Kalam argument is so fatally flawed that it proves nothing; let alone God.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@6thwing Nobody has evidence that god does not exist. There will be no such evidence, ever. There is no evidence that anything doesn't exist, somewhere out there.
pjnlsn 1 year ago
@6thwing If you're not going to respond to what I said, put it this way: WLC even says that astronomical evidence indicates the universe. It is not a presupposition.
pjnlsn 1 year ago
@6thwing *indicated the universe had a beginning.
pjnlsn 1 year ago
@6thwing Is the cause of the universe somehow a god, or transcendant? The word transcendant doesn't just mean something more, it's a word with religious and emotional connotations. All the Kalam argument starts with is the universe had a cause, and all it can end with, logically is that god is this cause.
Except that's not god, that's just a cause. What is it? It's anything that can be a cause....
pjnlsn 1 year ago
@6thwing And your premise 1 is not necessarily true. Nothing we see has ever begun in front of our eyes. Nothing is created or destroyed, and something 'beginning' or being created would be an event fundamentally different than any event in the universe. We have never seen something truly beginning.
pjnlsn 1 year ago
@6thwing Your second premise is indicated by the evidence, however.
The third is obvious, at least, in the sense that it is basically saying that the cause cannot be the same event as the effect. The cause of a bullet flying through the air cannot be the bullet flying through the air, and the cause of a tree falling down cannot be the tree falling, and so on and so forth.
pjnlsn 1 year ago
Doesn't God sort of disprove himself in the very same way a square circle disproves itself, since God is a self-contradictory entity?
dopejoel 1 year ago
SHOCKING ANSWER TO Dr. CRAIG BY TARK EL NIMIR A MUSLIM BIBLE SCHOLAR MUST GOOGLE IT
churchoflordchrist 1 year ago
Theists and Atheists can only argue over the original or pivotal status of the Substance of all that exists, as an Intelligence, or as a Randomness. With God the world came out of a void that is another mystery of what exists before the world did.
God has only what is inside of God as the first Mystery of anything Existing. So , the Nature of God and the Nature of the Universe is an exchange of a Void that is God and Nature that is God. Outside and Inside does not apply to God,
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
What would be "nothing" prior to the beginning of the material world, is God in a former status, which is something, but simply nothing recognizable from this creation of matter and it's interactive state of energy. God did not stand off and say let the Creation appear, God changed within whatever is God Himself, in His own mystery, moving from a Void, by our own interpretations , into the sensible material world we can measure. God and His Works, has no outside source, it is all One
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
the Bible supports that God's Invisible Nature presupposes the Creation, but God is moving into visibility as a fully participating presence in everything that was made material. The Trinity is revealed in just 3 verses of the opening of the Bible, Genesis One , verses 1-3. Invisible God to Visible Spirit over the Waters, to adaptations only recognized as a first man of Heaven. The Creation is then an expression not just out of God's Will, but of His own Substance, God is changing Himself
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
God was Invisible as the world began as formless and in darkness. As God created the waters of Creation, God transfigured God's Nature from Invisible to be seen as the Spirit of God hovering over the waters. Then God presented His form, not just to be inhabiting the world as a Spirit, but in terms assigned to a man, having a mouth to speak and eyes to see his own word. This is the first three verses of the Bible Torah Genesis, chapter one, verses one to three. God inhabits all Creation.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago