If you know anyone who's been falsely DMCA'd by William Lane Craig collaborator John Leonard, otherwise known as drcraigvideos, please contact @thunderf00t.
God Exists! I received my PhD from Harvard... Harvard Alabama Community Bible College. My pastor and I prayed together and God spoke to us. My wife has her PhD from M.I.T., Mormon Institute of Theology. She studied the Bible and assures me God is real. Scientists don't know what came before the Big Bang. I do. The Bible says "In the beginning God said..." see, I know and Atheists don't. If the Earth is round, how come Chinese people don't fall off into Hell? Yeah, Pwnage!!
People who use philosophy to prove something exists just run around in circles. People who claim they are intellectually superior and believe in God is an oxymoron. I can't count how many times Christians have impressed on me their I.Q. Or how smart they think they are. My dad gave me great advice when I was a kid. "Shut up and listen, you might learn something"!
I no Islam in its ash'ari/maturidi forms sez God is timeless, spaceless, exists without a place. the kalaam argument is widely emplyd by islamic philosophers.
in the Koran, it's not the universe but the seed is likend. (surah 56). it sez who sprouts the seed:
@SuperWorldwide23 "Attention Atheist. Please understand that Philosophy is well a grounded discipline. Grounded in Logic and Reason. And your constant display of ignorance of the topic doesn't help your cause..."
Philosophy may grant you license to posit the supernatural, but to define it, characterize it and make positive claims (Christianity) defending these notions....Now who's being ignorant!
And Playing the intellectual intimidation card is getting old, get over yourself lol
But how did he make the jump from a necessary being to the Christian god? How did he go from claiming our universe is the product of a supernatural force to defining it, giving it character and personality and calling it the "Christian" god?? So does this mean that if I earn myself a PhD I will have access and insight into the supernatural as well LOL
you're wrong about the time thing at the beginning. an a-temporal being can be the first cause of a temporal being from the point of view of said temporal being, so in that case it's simply a matter of perspective.
But were you not convinced by the wonderful miracles of Our Lord, like when they came to arrest him in the garden, and Peter cut the ear from the soldier, and Jesus called out, 'Do you need a bandage over there?', and the soldier called back, 'No thanks, I've got one 'ear'.
again why does it have to be one god?if one would concede to Craig and say "ok there was a creator" why did it have to be one?why not a race of creators?why not a race of creators that have died?how is it logical to make the leap that it is one god and it is the christain god of the bible?This is a classic i.e of (god of the gaps)
@SuperWorldwide23 - It's ironic indeed to attack something as uninformed & disjointed ramblings (something of which this video is neither) with uninformed & disjointed ramblings . What makes one look silly is a defense of Craig's pseudo-philosophy, whose position can be summed up with "I don't understand & I can't reason otherwise hence, a magic sky-daddy did it " . Thanks for clarifying the depth of your ignorance with the dim witted Hawking comment .
ALSO I HATE HIM for his argument that argument that a timeless being can't come into being. This flatly contradicts his own definition of coming into being, which is that the thing exists at a point in time t where there is no time prior to t at which the thing exists. This is how he argues that the universe comes into being even though time also comes into being along with the universe. But that argument would mean god comes into being. He's a hack. He doesn't care about his own arguments.
Craig has answers to most of your points, but they suck. Unfortunately this makes it really hard to make a good pwnage video, because you have to take his argument, point out what's dumb about them, then go to the arguments where he re-phrases everything slightly differently to avoid your criticism, and then you have to put it all together to show where he's failed.
You know, it's a wonder how people like Craig have such cushy lifestyles when people on youtube can give him a smack down like this and never get noticed.
I would like to ask Dr Craig what the nature of this uncaused causer is: is it dynamic or static? If his god is a static entity then it could not have created anything otherwise this would be contradictory. If his god is dynamic, then by definition it must have had a first cause. thus, we encounter in Craig's argument, contradiction after contradiction after contradiction...
@SuperWorldwide23 I call troll. No one makes such a weak statement without being a troll or half-retard...I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here buddy.
@SuperWorldwide23 I read your comment and I noticed the funniest thing! There wasn't a SINGLE argument, simply a general attack on my "ignorance" of logic and reason. It's curious how many people will attack me on general grounds but not pick any specific points to try and refute. Do you think that simply telling me I'm ignorant constitutes an "argument"?
Also, I doubt you meant "uniformed". You probably meant "unformed". I guess it's ironic to tell me I'm disjointed when you can't write.
Arguing with reliots is like attacking windmills. The problem with delusions like RCD (Religious Conviction Disorder) is that whenever an argument used to sustain or support the delusion is taken away, the first urge of the sufferer is to create an other hard-to-defuse argument in its place; the strength of the delusion makes this much more preferable than facing the fact of being delusional.
@Th1sWasATriumph - Don't waste time trembling in fear of the warriorchristians rebuttal, just run for the hills . These morons have all but run my country into the ground . I hope yours fairs better .
If you actually stop to listen to what William Lane Craig has to say, you will find it very *funny* even thought the humour was unintended on his part. He is like those other great unintentional comedians like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham and Ray Comfort.
@sjuas690 He reminds me a bit of the Die Hard 3 stuttering villan. I think he has a very similar face, though is voice is completely different. In any case, that always brings a little smile to my face, when I immediately associate him with a greedy, bloodthirsty terrorist in a Bruce Willis movie. :D
If all plausible situations of Cosmogony seem equally ridiculous to everyone, I don't see how adding an equally ridiculous idea(God) helps in the slightest.
Are people psychologically incapable of saying the words "I don't know", that's what us Atheists say. Is is so fucking hard?
For all we know right now there could very well be something eternal and metaphysical that caused our universe to exist, it's an interesting idea.
However, people who make the Uncaused Causer argument make me want to turn myself inside out to distract from the pain.
To assume that a being or intelligence like this would do anything for us, or even care about us, is horrifically arrogant. To claim to know what it wants, I don't think there's even a word for how reprehensible I find this.
"To assume that a being or intelligence like this would do anything for us, or even care about us, is horrifically arrogant"
on the flip side, if it was said that this being or intelligence created the universe within which there are humans for the sake of worshipping it and for these humans to explore this universe to be at awe over the maker of it(who/which is the being or intelligence).
you would accuse the being/intelligence of arrogance.
Interesting point, and one I have thought about, but I prefer not to even acknowledge the specific theistic beliefs of anyone. To do so gives them an opening to talk about their own personal idea of what their particular god/s is/are, which is utterly irrelevant. They realize this as soon as you ask them why they chose a particular god/s. I always get a sadistic kick out of asking that question.
For me, deism is interesting but wrong, theism is morally reprehensible and wrong.
@Th1sWasATriumph Exactly. If you look into the matter of abortion, the countries that allow it have very different limit settings. Whatever limit one fixes, it is always arbitrary (which makes this issue such a difficult one, imo).
My personal opinion is that human life starts with birth. After all, that is when you get a name, i.e you are recognizable. But this is just an opinion and I'll admit, somewhat arbitrary aswell.
Bottom line is, there's no exact, objective moment when life starts.
I've wondered in the past if there is a confusion in WLC's argument between the particular physical universe in which we inhabit and the metaphysical, total universe. We do not know - indeed, cannot know - that anything we know from this physical universe applies anywhere else in the metaphysical universe. Craig has to allow that there is something outside of this particular universe (which necessarily is part of the metaphysical universe) as there must be at least the domain of the deity he
@DLandonCole posits. Given that, it is possible that we are dealing with a completely natural set of processes but, for want of a better expression, are not of this nature. That is, of course, all conjecture but it strikes me as being at least as valid as WLC's conjecture and I see no reason to call it God.
@jujumen The metaphysical universe would be the totality of existence; everything that is. This physical universe is a subset of the metaphysical universe. I have no evidence for it - it's a concept that I'm using, or trying to use, to show the futility of WLC's effort: even if he's right, he's wrong.
@DLandonCole " I have no evidence for it - it's a concept that I'm using, or trying to use, to show the futility of WLC's effort: even if he's right, he's wrong."
sorry I don't get what you were trying to mean with that.
@DLandonCole " indeed, cannot know - that anything we know from this physical universe applies anywhere else in the metaphysical universe."
well for one you seem to be able to have the concept of this metaphysical universe and hypothesize your own ignorance regarding it.
your consciousness, intelligence and cognition are all phenomena within this universe. if you did not have these, that thing would not even be thought about.
its place now is a thought in the fabric of your mind, even though its presence may not be intertwined or even in any way connected to this universe.
it otherwise would not have been possible atleast from this universe's perspective should there not be a living entity capable of processing information regarding it and rationalizing the knowledge that could be obtained about it.
I simply do not understand why theists cannot accept an eternal universe on the grounds that "everything has a cause", yet is perfectly content with the uncaused gap filler of their choice. Bullocks!
To be fair to Craig, he said that is what "the atheists used to say" which is true. People like Carl Sagan did say it was always eternal, but most atheists now think it had some sort of beginning, which, as you hint at, is loosely defined as a "beginning" because our concepts of time break down at that level. It's too complicated for non-physicists to really apprehend, I think.
Lawrence Krauss will be debating Craig sometime this spring, I believe in April FWIW.
the question "where does the universe come from is a stupid question" it's asking, "where do circles get their diameters?" First have to establish that there exist some other place to come from. If it there was only one country on earth it would be quite stupid to ask a stranger what country do you come from. We know there are other countries so that is a perfectly logical question.
craig seems to claim some scientific evidence points to this "begin to exist" postulate but i am well aware that no such notion exist in any scientific discipline. NO one has ever provided and shred evidence that there is or ever was such a thing as nothing!
@Roper122 hmmm..... you cant really ask that because something has to be there to ask it. As for WLC inner workings...... it is safe to say he has nothing wrt to argument.
The special pleading makes their god untouchable.. When we know all we can about this universe.. They'll just move this nebulous god idea into an unknown dimension.. He's come a long way from destroying the tower of babel.. He's not the same bearded cloud sitter
I can only utter my innermost disrespect to those who claim to know the deepest mysteries and simultaneous look down upon those who admit their ignorance but seek with all their strength to illuminate them (scientists, especially physicists).
The whole "everything has a cause, so .." argument is complete bullshit because there ARE in fact things that do NOT have any cause, such as radioactive decay, which originates in the very stochastic nature of quantum mechanics.
Now think of the beginning of our universe, when it was, say, smaller than a nucleus. It's not hard to see that these effects become inconceivable large then.
The real proof that there isn't a god is that christians need to delicately construct these elaborate philosophical constructs that tiptoe around science wherever it can, as opposed to simply asking god for knowledge about physics with which to impress the scientists and nonbelievers. Why is it this great all knowing being never tells his followers a damn thing they don't already know? Anybody should be able to ask the air how many days old the universe is and everyone would get the same answer.
I was just looking up today a philosopher on wikipedia and I found a template at the bottom of the page with a bunch of great thinkers on religion with Russell, Voltaire, and a bunch of other familiar names and WILLIAM LANE CRAIG? WHY? WHY?WHY?
(continued from previous post) Secondly, if you can just arbitrarily assign God attributes, that exclude him from causality and time, that govern all other existent things, couldn't atheists do that with the universe as well? Couldn't atheists say that, "until" the Big Bang, the universe existed as a timeless, causeless, non-spatial, and immaterial "thing", and then, at the "moment" of the Big Bang it manifested itself as time/material? A nonmaterial universe is just as easy to rationalize.
@alphacause Yes, but if you say that then you'll cause the theists to cry because they'll have to face up to their own mortality for the first time, as well as the realisation that all their fairy stories about living forever in eternal happiness amount to nothing more than wishful thinking and... and.... that's just plain mean!
@JesusCockInAllahAss I suppose it would be mean. Though I would say that they (the Christians) have been mean for centuries, by saying that decent people who had the intellectual honesty and temerity to doubt are deserving of eternal torment, while genocidal maniacs, who accepted Jesus on their death bed are deserving of everlasting paradise for sheepishly accepting something implausible. These people don't deserve to have their precious feelings taken into consideration.
If theists say something coming out of NOTHING is absurd, one must ask why it is absurd? They will answer because it defies everything we know about causality. Well, then by the same notion of what we know about causality, God is also absurd, because we know of no phenomenon in the universe that creates something out of nothing, or is eternally the same. If you preclude one explanation because of a lack of observational evidence, you must deny the other for the exact same reasoning (continued).
The one about you saying that Thunderf00t's girlfriend snorted off drugs from a key then telling me to look it up when you made the claim instead of just telling me what you saw or what you read to reach that conclusion.
@KarinMikazuki I think he was talking about factsvsreligion. In one video from her road trip (can't remember which one) she snorted coke from a stranger.
I make a video where I talk about a specific solo that Brian May plays, captured on video. You ask me to prove it. I don't actually need to, because it has happened. I don't need to prove to you that FvR did coke off a key with a stranger, and I don't need to try and find the original video. It happened. Whether you believe actuality or not is entirely my unconcern.
You kinda have to justify your claims, otherwise you're reasoning just like a creationist. Which you are by saying she did it but not really giving away where or when it happend. Then you have the gall to tell me to look it up because you're too lazy.
If god is eternal, what was he doing for the infinite eternity before he caused the universe? And why did he cause it when he did, and not an infinite eternity later, or earlier?
Dude you lost me a couple of times there, my brain couldn't keep up. That'll teach me to watch a video dealing with metaphysics and theology just before going to bed :) But yeah the whole "they say the universe didn't have a cause and that's silly so it must have been an uncaused God behind it all" argument is just insane and only works if you already believe that conclusion. Love the picture by the way, very rock and roll, specially the sheep in the background.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I really see no argument that can adequately refute the concept of a First Uncaused Cause. To suggests that there is something otherwise is to suggests that something brought itself into existence, which is simply absurd.
Something has existed for eternity, else the whole concept of existence becomes an absurdity.
@DawahFilms Can you explain to me the actual effective difference between something bringing itself into existence and something existing eternally? There really seems no difference in consequence aside from semantically, in order to legitimise an explanation for a God which does not violate the premise for all subsequent cause and effect.
Is there a reason why this first uncaused cause can't simply be the universe itself, once you accept the necessity that the first cause is even plausible?
Sure. I really don't see the difficulty. The former supposes the idea that existence is an attribute of something and that at some point nothing before existence. This is simply wrong to believe since existence is definition of being. To suppose that from nothing comes something is to suppose there was something from which that thing could come from, but NOTHINGness is not something. Semantics if you wish, but you need words to understand.
@DawahFilms You are yet to explain the concept of eternity, and how an eternal entity could exist eternally not within something but simply of itself. Using "eternal" to explain things really doesn't help, it simply restates the problem another way by making up qualities that can only be attributed to CERTAIN types of entity (like Gods but not universes). As I said, special pleading. Something creating itself is ridiculous but something existing forever without cause is plausible? . . .
@DawahFilms . . . at least the former has some plausibility, if my understanding of physics is correct. The concept of an uncaused cause is NOT somehow reasonable purely because you arrive at it by removing all the possibilities that you would prefer not to be true. An eternal being raises as many problems as it solves, because you don't understand eternity and are simply using the term to avoid responsibility.
Also: "existence is definition of being" You wouldn't be able to prove that?
@DawahFilms we do need the words to understand but at some point in time, delusional brainwashed believers such as muslims, christians, mormons, scientologists etc. etc. etc., need to provide the EVIDENCE to back up those words. EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRES EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE and there's no talking your way out of it semantics or not.
@Th1sWasATriumph You're the first person I've seen use the words 'effective difference' other than, well, me. Must be an indicator of some sort, as I tend to run into a hangup when it gets to the effective difference between treating a hypothesis as unknown and treating it as false...
"Can you explain to me the actual effective difference between something bringing itself into existence and something existing eternally?"
"Is there a reason why this first uncaused cause can't simply be the universe itself, once you accept the necessity that the first cause is even plausible?"
these questions were posed as a response to some Muslim's comment. I do not like Islam nor Muslims.
However I would like to know the intention of these questions. And whether you yourself know these answers to these questions.
It appears to me that the Atheist only seeks to object to almost every single proposition posed by Theists for the sake of being what they think is Atheist.
No, it isn't. This is a silly misinterpretation of what physicists say when they mention "nothingness". They are not using the term "nothingness" in the sense of something NOT existing. They are mentioning this in terms of primary attributes not having any measurable qualities.
"They are mentioning this in terms of primary attributes not having any measurable qualities. "
No, they mean this in the sense that as far as they can detect, there is nothing there.
in some cases we can literally measure that there is no energy there....and then under slightly different surrounding changes we GAIN energy...yes, from the vacuum 'ground' state. Hence the 'zero point' energy thing. of course if you know how it works (roughly) you know that isn't going to happen.
Having read up quite a bit on Quantum mechanics I can easily say that the idea that something just spontaneously "comes into existence" from absolute nothingness is simply rubbish. I think you're confusing the language.
As for your second question, I never suggested anywhere that this is evidence for Allah (swt) directly. I was never arguing that point to begin with so I don't understand why you'd ask that.
@DawahFilms Of course you see no argument. Just like I cannot prove to you there is no God, I cannot prove to you there is no First Uncaused Cause. God and First Uncaused Cause are the same thing. I CAN show you that if there is a God, this God is in hiding, mute and somewhat of an asshole.
@DawahFilms - You are confusing what is with what ought to be or what might be. Have you ever experienced nothing? Can you point me to "nothing" without invoking philisophical human concepts of nothing? Seperately, causality, which your argument relies on is a part of universe, you have absolutely no evidence at all that those same laws apply outside of our universe, indeed even within our universe we have observed particles coming into and out of existence seemingly without cause.
@DawahFilms - You are confusing what is with what ought to be or what might be. Have you ever experienced nothing? Can you point me to "nothing" without invoking philisophical human concepts of nothing? Seperately, causality, which your argument relies on is a part of universe, you have absolutely no evidence at all that those same laws apply outside of our universe, indeed even within our universe we have observed particles coming into and out of existence seemingly without cause.
@DawahFilms - So to be blunt, your argument about nothingness and something bringing itself into existence as absurd, therefore not true is simply a misnomer, as you haven't demonstrated that "nothing" can exist. Of course this brings it's own problems with eternity, however, nothing demands that we now insert "gawwwwdd did it" at this stage. We are honest, decent human beings that simply say we do not know. You however insert a fuzzy idea of a god in that bit and then tack your flavour on top.
@DawahFilms first of all, why is the idea of a universe that brought itself into existence absurd, but not a God who has done so? And if you say God's eternal and never began existence, then why can't the universe have been that way as well?
Regardless, time began at the same point as the big bang. there was no "before" it, any more than there is anything north of the north pole.
@DawahFilms The problem with the ''First Uncaused Cause'' argument is as follows. 1.)The laws of causality apply within the boundaries (if there are any) of this Universe. For you to say that they also operate externally to the Universe is special pleading as it is impossible to prove. ...but by all means ...please try so I can laugh at you! So to state that the Universe was ''Caused'' into existence, is to state that the laws of causality operate outside of the Universe. 2.) Also, and ...cont
this is possibly more important; lets state for the sake of argument that the laws of causality do apply ''outside'' of the Universe. For their to be a causal relationship their must be at the the very least two entities participating. One entity to excert the 'cause' and another to feel the 'effect' of that cause. So ...if the ''First Uncaused Cause'' really did ''exist'' and it was the only uncaused entity in ''existence'' ...what exactly was there for it to ''effect''??? If you wish ...cont
to state that a causal relationship can occur which involves only one entity operating ...I await your case with anticipation. It will be interesting to hear your illogical back flips and all that jazz... :) Face it ...to say that the Universe had a ''cause'', is an exercise in futility and a prime example of extreme cognitive dissonance once one understands the limitations of the laws of causality. You also ...cont
mentioned in the thread that scientists do not claim that the Universe could have come from ''nothing''. I strongly disagree. I suggest you watch the following. Its a lecture by a world renowned physicist who is specifically advocating such a theory:
@ndjm00 "two entities participating" That's easy, that would have to be Mrs God, otherwise known as Asherah. But of course, if we are going to get into the historical origins of Craig's religion, we should mention Sophia, the Syrian goddess who was god's mum... she would have to be the first uncaused cause... ah but wait... damn!
@DawahFilms not at all. The only REAL answer, given the weight of evidence is "we don't know." We don't have enough data yet to understand the big bang event itself, let alone have strong data about what, if anything, preceded it. Hence the supercolliders and try to get closer and closer to a real answer. To say "the uncaused cause is the answer" is to insert something that you cannot possibly know. Craig simply employs a rhetorical trick to take advantage of a dearth of evidence.
@DawahFilms arent you that guy who made death threats on youtube where the whole world can see? i've met plenty of gay ppl but you must really fricken love the cock to be begging the authorities to throw you in pound-me-in-the-ass-prison for a few years.
Time like space is property of the universe. The concept of before the universe is effectively meaningless. The universe is eternal in the sense of having existed for 'all time', it's just that 'all time' is finite.
Or maybe not, maybe the above is all bunkum, maybe something else, you see when it comes to universes we have a lot still to work out and are hampered by a sample size of 1. The uncaused cause however is just a god of the gaps.
@DawahFilms "Something has existed for eternity, else the whole concept of existence becomes an absurdity."
Even if that were true, your assertion is totally baseless (unless you can have some evidence) then it would certainly not be an infinitely powerful being. EVERYTHING must have a cause. The only logical explanation is that simple begats less simple and so on until you get to complex. This is what we observe since the BB. What evidence do you have against?
WLC always builds his arguments on a baseless intitial foundation. How does he know that space/time did not exist before the BB? If this so called entity exists outside time then it could NEVER operate. To operate you need events. The seperator between events is TIME (even if it is not time as we know it ... Jim).
And moving to his personal god, then why would a being outside space/time have all the atrributes of a spiteful human dictator and relish the smell of burnt offerings?
@DawahFilms why don't u provide us with the evidence of ur "first uncaused cause" so it can be adequately refuted or not. How would YOU even know of a such a 'thing'? Does ur beard give u special powers of this "knowledge" or does it only get in the way when u eat Lucky Charms in the morning? This thing that "is/isn't", what do u call it? 'Allah'? Does 'it' still tell ppl of islamic faith to throw rocks at womens' heads bashing their brains or to cut the throats n decapitate heads of infidels?
@DawahFilms "[Something] has existed for eternity, else the whole concept of existence becomes an absurdity."
What's absurd is that theists (like you) PRETEND to know what that eternal "SOMETHING" is. The rest of us are quite comfortable in saying, "I don't know."
The "I don't know" position is better, because it's honest, it's humbling, it's open to revision, and it doesn't require imaginary, magical, superheroes. You should try it sometime when you're not busy declaring Jihad on yourself.
@CuriousMoth Actually, forget the above. I just realised by 'cause' he doesn't mean 'part of cause and effect and the transformation of matter and energy in the universe', he means 'creator'.
The more concrete the attributes given to god are, the easier it is to debunk and falsify them. Apologists know this, which is why their "god" bears little resemblance to the actual account of him given in holy books. Someone should point out to Lane that his definition of god (something without time, space, a beginning, and end, etc) is an equally suitable definition for the word "nothing." He has tried his best to remove from this thing, God, any attributes that would make it a "thing" at all.
@jetboyJ22 That is a great point. Every attribute that Craig assigns God (timeless, immaterial, and non-spatial) makes his God indistinguishable from nothing. Maybe Craig's whole Kalam Cosmological argument is a big rhetorical Freudian slip, revealing Craig's hidden atheism.
@alphacause "That is a great point. Every attribute that Craig assigns God (timeless, immaterial, and non-spatial) makes his God indistinguishable from nothing." - Whilst making himself (WLC) indistinguishable from his own parody. ;-)
@helldogas2 It sound compelling because he uses big words, and if you use enough big words people will fill in the bits they don't understand by assuming he meant what they wanted him to mean. I guess it's a form of confirmation bias.
@helldogas2 what I find amusing is that people tear up his arguments all the time, yet he never changes them and still people take him seriously. I wonder if there is some unseen power in ignoring reality..../shrug
3. At the other extreme, if the set of all items that begin to exist is equal to the set of all items that exist then the set would be the universe and the argument would be circular.
4. Therefore, the set of all items that begin to exist must be smaller than the set of all items that exist- but that implies the existence of at least one item in the universe which did not begin to exist. Such a case would contradict the second line of the argument. That contradiction destroys the argument.
1. Consider the set of all items that begin to exist. This set must be contained within the set of all items that exist- which is the definition of the universe.
2. If the set of all items that begin to exist has only one member then that member must be the universe as a whole, per the second line of the argument. In that event the first line of the argument would have to be rewritten, “The universe beginning to exist has a cause” but that would make the entire argument circular.
@EdwardHowton The said thing is that since there isn't really a "good" apologist for religion, the best ones are the ones who are actually the best, smuggest liars.
@Th1sWasATriumph By definition, an apologist is someone who argues for religious faith. This, by definition, means taking a position on the basis of faith, an a priori assumption, and then looking for reasons to believe it. It's therefore inherently intellectually dishonest and opens the door to all manner of logical fallacies. Therefore, there is no "good" apologist by any standard of "good" we would employ.
@DeistPaladin Well, yeah. I'm fully aware of this. That's why I said that good apologists are the ones best at being smug liars, because the whole concept is ridiculous. Because, you know, using irreverence is kind of my deal.
Second disclaimer: every bit of evidence we have supporst the big bang.
But...
How can a quantum fluctuation create a universe of space and time? With no time, how could it fluctuate? With no space, where could it fluctuate.
Just because I'm unhappy with some of the explanations doesn't mean I'm right. And even if I am right it doesn't mean that God is the only other possibility.
@123Atheist actually, a being with those characteristics is impossible for our universe. that is like saying i can drive a space-less power-less car, nothing in our universe can have a 0 space without seriously affect gravity.
.. that is.. What is "metaphysically necessary" supposed to mean? I can make up useless terms as well, to make it appear that I'm talking about something important.
This whole endeavour is coscrumptiously platonic..as we understand it ephemerally.
@weskos I wish somebody would actually do that to Craig. I guarantee you everybody would laugh, because it would reveal how utterly idiotic Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument is. The fact that Craig can willy nilly just make up things to make his God exist in a manner that defies what the word existence means is laughable. Can't atheists do the same thing, as you humorously pointed out. Can't we say that a "timeless immaterial universe" becoming material and time is metaphysically necessary?
Craig throws the term "exist" around without taking into consideration that the term is functionally contingent upon time-space, then postulates a being that "exists" without time-space, as if that is somehow useful. That's as nonsensical as postulating a circle that is not round.
And btw, what then is this "metaphysical understanding" that he yammers about? Another made-up term with no basis in reality.
This has been flagged as spam show
If you know anyone who's been falsely DMCA'd by William Lane Craig collaborator John Leonard, otherwise known as drcraigvideos, please contact @thunderf00t.
YOURINQUIRER 2 weeks ago in playlist William Lane Craig
God Exists! I received my PhD from Harvard... Harvard Alabama Community Bible College. My pastor and I prayed together and God spoke to us. My wife has her PhD from M.I.T., Mormon Institute of Theology. She studied the Bible and assures me God is real. Scientists don't know what came before the Big Bang. I do. The Bible says "In the beginning God said..." see, I know and Atheists don't. If the Earth is round, how come Chinese people don't fall off into Hell? Yeah, Pwnage!!
paramattic70 3 weeks ago
People who use philosophy to prove something exists just run around in circles. People who claim they are intellectually superior and believe in God is an oxymoron. I can't count how many times Christians have impressed on me their I.Q. Or how smart they think they are. My dad gave me great advice when I was a kid. "Shut up and listen, you might learn something"!
paramattic70 3 weeks ago
I no Islam in its ash'ari/maturidi forms sez God is timeless, spaceless, exists without a place. the kalaam argument is widely emplyd by islamic philosophers.
in the Koran, it's not the universe but the seed is likend. (surah 56). it sez who sprouts the seed:
a) men,
b) itself
c) God.
wun can tranfur this t u the big bang, I ges.
nice wun.
adamseeb1 6 months ago
@adamseeb1 Daft one. Kalaam fails.
MrFogeyblue 4 months ago
@SuperWorldwide23 "Attention Atheist. Please understand that Philosophy is well a grounded discipline. Grounded in Logic and Reason. And your constant display of ignorance of the topic doesn't help your cause..."
Philosophy may grant you license to posit the supernatural, but to define it, characterize it and make positive claims (Christianity) defending these notions....Now who's being ignorant!
And Playing the intellectual intimidation card is getting old, get over yourself lol
sammy2trees 6 months ago
"God is a metaphysically necessary being..."
*SIGH*
OK, god is a metaphysically necessary being.
But how did he make the jump from a necessary being to the Christian god? How did he go from claiming our universe is the product of a supernatural force to defining it, giving it character and personality and calling it the "Christian" god?? So does this mean that if I earn myself a PhD I will have access and insight into the supernatural as well LOL
sammy2trees 6 months ago
you're wrong about the time thing at the beginning. an a-temporal being can be the first cause of a temporal being from the point of view of said temporal being, so in that case it's simply a matter of perspective.
hornylink 7 months ago
Eternal AND timeless? How the fuck does that work, then?
Good vid, dude.
hackenbollox 7 months ago
why does anybody take craig seriously??? he is such a fool
annatar3 7 months ago 3
But were you not convinced by the wonderful miracles of Our Lord, like when they came to arrest him in the garden, and Peter cut the ear from the soldier, and Jesus called out, 'Do you need a bandage over there?', and the soldier called back, 'No thanks, I've got one 'ear'.
gamesbok 7 months ago
again why does it have to be one god?if one would concede to Craig and say "ok there was a creator" why did it have to be one?why not a race of creators?why not a race of creators that have died?how is it logical to make the leap that it is one god and it is the christain god of the bible?This is a classic i.e of (god of the gaps)
alltiedup217 8 months ago
@SuperWorldwide23 - It's ironic indeed to attack something as uninformed & disjointed ramblings (something of which this video is neither) with uninformed & disjointed ramblings . What makes one look silly is a defense of Craig's pseudo-philosophy, whose position can be summed up with "I don't understand & I can't reason otherwise hence, a magic sky-daddy did it " . Thanks for clarifying the depth of your ignorance with the dim witted Hawking comment .
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago 3
ALSO I HATE HIM for his argument that argument that a timeless being can't come into being. This flatly contradicts his own definition of coming into being, which is that the thing exists at a point in time t where there is no time prior to t at which the thing exists. This is how he argues that the universe comes into being even though time also comes into being along with the universe. But that argument would mean god comes into being. He's a hack. He doesn't care about his own arguments.
Cadfan17 1 year ago
Craig has answers to most of your points, but they suck. Unfortunately this makes it really hard to make a good pwnage video, because you have to take his argument, point out what's dumb about them, then go to the arguments where he re-phrases everything slightly differently to avoid your criticism, and then you have to put it all together to show where he's failed.
Cadfan17 1 year ago
You know, it's a wonder how people like Craig have such cushy lifestyles when people on youtube can give him a smack down like this and never get noticed.
Raistlin13Majere 1 year ago 3
OOPS.
3:33 - 3:36
AWKWARD. That's better.
CalebAlucardtheHagan 1 year ago
0:33 - 0:36
AWKWARD.
CalebAlucardtheHagan 1 year ago
I would like to ask Dr Craig what the nature of this uncaused causer is: is it dynamic or static? If his god is a static entity then it could not have created anything otherwise this would be contradictory. If his god is dynamic, then by definition it must have had a first cause. thus, we encounter in Craig's argument, contradiction after contradiction after contradiction...
CamronJohn 1 year ago
@CamronJohn either way it seems his god cannot be an uncaused cause.
CamronJohn 1 year ago
@SuperWorldwide23 I call troll. No one makes such a weak statement without being a troll or half-retard...I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here buddy.
RhetoricalBullshit 1 year ago
i love the way this long haired head banging rocker systematically impales everything that comes out of this idiots mouth. legendery
reasonnotgod 1 year ago
@SuperWorldwide23 I read your comment and I noticed the funniest thing! There wasn't a SINGLE argument, simply a general attack on my "ignorance" of logic and reason. It's curious how many people will attack me on general grounds but not pick any specific points to try and refute. Do you think that simply telling me I'm ignorant constitutes an "argument"?
Also, I doubt you meant "uniformed". You probably meant "unformed". I guess it's ironic to tell me I'm disjointed when you can't write.
Th1sWasATriumph 1 year ago 33
Brilliantly presented.
Hereticbooks 1 year ago
William Lane Craig is a perfect illustration of the difference between intelligent and clever.
mewrenchturner 1 year ago
keep em coming! very entertaining channel.
japonizieify 1 year ago
Arguing with reliots is like attacking windmills. The problem with delusions like RCD (Religious Conviction Disorder) is that whenever an argument used to sustain or support the delusion is taken away, the first urge of the sufferer is to create an other hard-to-defuse argument in its place; the strength of the delusion makes this much more preferable than facing the fact of being delusional.
youneac 1 year ago
I am just about to upload a video response completely refuting you.
warriorchristian1994 1 year ago
@warriorchristian1994 OH SHIT
Well, let me know.
Th1sWasATriumph 1 year ago 19
@Th1sWasATriumph - Don't waste time trembling in fear of the warriorchristians rebuttal, just run for the hills . These morons have all but run my country into the ground . I hope yours fairs better .
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago 2
@Th1sWasATriumph He will refute you by quoting the Bible...
kingkong8974 7 months ago
@warriorchristian1994 Yeah that response sucked.
TheNamelessCharacter 1 year ago
@TheNamelessCharacter
And your comment sucks.
warriorchristian1994 1 year ago
@warriorchristian1994 And what does that have to do with your rebuttal sucking.
TheNamelessCharacter 1 year ago
@warriorchristian1994 Your video was an epic failure dude, repent to Krishna or DIE!
Your refutation was as bad as WLC's muscle disease:D
buktomsin 11 months ago 2
Great work, as always.
eszettfromhell 1 year ago
Saying cock with a british accent is gold!
simsi1616 1 year ago
Everything must have a 'first cause,' well, except god, because he's uncausable. Samething with the flying spaghetti monster.
Poisinn 1 year ago
If you actually stop to listen to what William Lane Craig has to say, you will find it very *funny* even thought the humour was unintended on his part. He is like those other great unintentional comedians like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham and Ray Comfort.
sjuas690 1 year ago
@sjuas690 He reminds me a bit of the Die Hard 3 stuttering villan. I think he has a very similar face, though is voice is completely different. In any case, that always brings a little smile to my face, when I immediately associate him with a greedy, bloodthirsty terrorist in a Bruce Willis movie. :D
Daealis 1 year ago
@Daealis Jeremy Irons. You know, it's still a plan of mine to sub part of that film with Craig stuff, maybe dub Hitchens into Willis :)
Th1sWasATriumph 1 year ago
If all plausible situations of Cosmogony seem equally ridiculous to everyone, I don't see how adding an equally ridiculous idea(God) helps in the slightest.
Are people psychologically incapable of saying the words "I don't know", that's what us Atheists say. Is is so fucking hard?
UncomfortableSilence 1 year ago
The Q continuum were there before the big bang...
neil73 1 year ago
For all we know right now there could very well be something eternal and metaphysical that caused our universe to exist, it's an interesting idea.
However, people who make the Uncaused Causer argument make me want to turn myself inside out to distract from the pain.
To assume that a being or intelligence like this would do anything for us, or even care about us, is horrifically arrogant. To claim to know what it wants, I don't think there's even a word for how reprehensible I find this.
PaulFace 1 year ago
"To assume that a being or intelligence like this would do anything for us, or even care about us, is horrifically arrogant"
on the flip side, if it was said that this being or intelligence created the universe within which there are humans for the sake of worshipping it and for these humans to explore this universe to be at awe over the maker of it(who/which is the being or intelligence).
you would accuse the being/intelligence of arrogance.
xXBlackxRebelXx 1 year ago
@xXBlackxRebelXx
Interesting point, and one I have thought about, but I prefer not to even acknowledge the specific theistic beliefs of anyone. To do so gives them an opening to talk about their own personal idea of what their particular god/s is/are, which is utterly irrelevant. They realize this as soon as you ask them why they chose a particular god/s. I always get a sadistic kick out of asking that question.
For me, deism is interesting but wrong, theism is morally reprehensible and wrong.
PaulFace 1 year ago
I would argue that something "outside/before" the universe is not necessarely eternal or infinite. That has yet to be demonstrated.
TheResidentSkeptic 1 year ago
@TheResidentSkeptic Agreed.
fatkat444 1 year ago
I disagree:
A human life begin when the nerve system begins to work.
Other than this small point though, nice video.
MegaYippie 1 year ago
@MegaYippie Actually that's largely a legal distinction, I believe. It's opinion, and one that every pro-life campaigner, for example, would dispute.
The point where conceiving a child is decided to be acted upon concretely is just as arbitrary and valid a beginning for a human life.
Th1sWasATriumph 1 year ago
@Th1sWasATriumph Exactly. If you look into the matter of abortion, the countries that allow it have very different limit settings. Whatever limit one fixes, it is always arbitrary (which makes this issue such a difficult one, imo).
My personal opinion is that human life starts with birth. After all, that is when you get a name, i.e you are recognizable. But this is just an opinion and I'll admit, somewhat arbitrary aswell.
Bottom line is, there's no exact, objective moment when life starts.
narsil1984 1 year ago
I've wondered in the past if there is a confusion in WLC's argument between the particular physical universe in which we inhabit and the metaphysical, total universe. We do not know - indeed, cannot know - that anything we know from this physical universe applies anywhere else in the metaphysical universe. Craig has to allow that there is something outside of this particular universe (which necessarily is part of the metaphysical universe) as there must be at least the domain of the deity he
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLandonCole posits. Given that, it is possible that we are dealing with a completely natural set of processes but, for want of a better expression, are not of this nature. That is, of course, all conjecture but it strikes me as being at least as valid as WLC's conjecture and I see no reason to call it God.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLandonCole what exactly is the metaphysical universe? Can you please explain why it is not part of this one and how you have come to know about it.
jujumen 1 year ago
@jujumen The metaphysical universe would be the totality of existence; everything that is. This physical universe is a subset of the metaphysical universe. I have no evidence for it - it's a concept that I'm using, or trying to use, to show the futility of WLC's effort: even if he's right, he's wrong.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLandonCole I see. Fair enough.
jujumen 1 year ago
@DLandonCole " I have no evidence for it - it's a concept that I'm using, or trying to use, to show the futility of WLC's effort: even if he's right, he's wrong."
sorry I don't get what you were trying to mean with that.
xXBlackxRebelXx 1 year ago
@DLandonCole " indeed, cannot know - that anything we know from this physical universe applies anywhere else in the metaphysical universe."
well for one you seem to be able to have the concept of this metaphysical universe and hypothesize your own ignorance regarding it.
your consciousness, intelligence and cognition are all phenomena within this universe. if you did not have these, that thing would not even be thought about.
xXBlackxRebelXx 1 year ago
its place now is a thought in the fabric of your mind, even though its presence may not be intertwined or even in any way connected to this universe.
it otherwise would not have been possible atleast from this universe's perspective should there not be a living entity capable of processing information regarding it and rationalizing the knowledge that could be obtained about it.
xXBlackxRebelXx 1 year ago
I simply do not understand why theists cannot accept an eternal universe on the grounds that "everything has a cause", yet is perfectly content with the uncaused gap filler of their choice. Bullocks!
CalebAlucardtheHagan 1 year ago
To be fair to Craig, he said that is what "the atheists used to say" which is true. People like Carl Sagan did say it was always eternal, but most atheists now think it had some sort of beginning, which, as you hint at, is loosely defined as a "beginning" because our concepts of time break down at that level. It's too complicated for non-physicists to really apprehend, I think.
Lawrence Krauss will be debating Craig sometime this spring, I believe in April FWIW.
AtheistAltar 1 year ago
@AtheistAltar Holy shit, Lawrence Krauss, a man of incredible intellect and Scientific knowledge against Craig?
What possesses Lawrence to do so?
Craig often employs rather cheap philosophical tactics to leave rational-minded people distracted. I hope Lawrence is ready for that.
UncomfortableSilence 1 year ago
the question "where does the universe come from is a stupid question" it's asking, "where do circles get their diameters?" First have to establish that there exist some other place to come from. If it there was only one country on earth it would be quite stupid to ask a stranger what country do you come from. We know there are other countries so that is a perfectly logical question.
jujumen 1 year ago
craig seems to claim some scientific evidence points to this "begin to exist" postulate but i am well aware that no such notion exist in any scientific discipline. NO one has ever provided and shred evidence that there is or ever was such a thing as nothing!
jujumen 1 year ago
has anyone ever provided evidence that there is such a thing as nothing!
jujumen 1 year ago
@jujumen " has anyone ever provided evidence that there is such a thing as nothing! "
Not as silly as it sounds... no one ever asks " why would there be nothing instead of something ? "
What is nothing?
How would you measure it?
I mean... you could check between WLCs ears.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 hmmm..... you cant really ask that because something has to be there to ask it. As for WLC inner workings...... it is safe to say he has nothing wrt to argument.
jujumen 1 year ago
How much time would a timeless being have to create anything?
that's right.. NONE, no time means no creating...
GronTheMighty 1 year ago
Let's let William Craig or whatever his name is be in charge of a scientific research project. See how far he gets.
charlesfloyb 1 year ago
Wait. Is he denying the FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS?
unassumption 1 year ago
The special pleading makes their god untouchable.. When we know all we can about this universe.. They'll just move this nebulous god idea into an unknown dimension.. He's come a long way from destroying the tower of babel.. He's not the same bearded cloud sitter
lukeism2 1 year ago
I can only utter my innermost disrespect to those who claim to know the deepest mysteries and simultaneous look down upon those who admit their ignorance but seek with all their strength to illuminate them (scientists, especially physicists).
SeltsamerAttraktor 1 year ago
i love this argument so much....he had to leave the universe to find a place for his god to exist! i rofl every time:P
superextremelaser 1 year ago
The whole "everything has a cause, so .." argument is complete bullshit because there ARE in fact things that do NOT have any cause, such as radioactive decay, which originates in the very stochastic nature of quantum mechanics.
Now think of the beginning of our universe, when it was, say, smaller than a nucleus. It's not hard to see that these effects become inconceivable large then.
SeltsamerAttraktor 1 year ago
Cock!.. and then we can begin to understand.
8DX 1 year ago
The real proof that there isn't a god is that christians need to delicately construct these elaborate philosophical constructs that tiptoe around science wherever it can, as opposed to simply asking god for knowledge about physics with which to impress the scientists and nonbelievers. Why is it this great all knowing being never tells his followers a damn thing they don't already know? Anybody should be able to ask the air how many days old the universe is and everyone would get the same answer.
Philosification 1 year ago
Help!.. um I'm debating this guy on mereology... I'll just shut up and post my repost.
8DX 1 year ago
I was just looking up today a philosopher on wikipedia and I found a template at the bottom of the page with a bunch of great thinkers on religion with Russell, Voltaire, and a bunch of other familiar names and WILLIAM LANE CRAIG? WHY? WHY?WHY?
Mulholland107 1 year ago
(continued from previous post) Secondly, if you can just arbitrarily assign God attributes, that exclude him from causality and time, that govern all other existent things, couldn't atheists do that with the universe as well? Couldn't atheists say that, "until" the Big Bang, the universe existed as a timeless, causeless, non-spatial, and immaterial "thing", and then, at the "moment" of the Big Bang it manifested itself as time/material? A nonmaterial universe is just as easy to rationalize.
alphacause 1 year ago
@alphacause Yes, but if you say that then you'll cause the theists to cry because they'll have to face up to their own mortality for the first time, as well as the realisation that all their fairy stories about living forever in eternal happiness amount to nothing more than wishful thinking and... and.... that's just plain mean!
JesusCockInAllahAss 1 year ago
@JesusCockInAllahAss I suppose it would be mean. Though I would say that they (the Christians) have been mean for centuries, by saying that decent people who had the intellectual honesty and temerity to doubt are deserving of eternal torment, while genocidal maniacs, who accepted Jesus on their death bed are deserving of everlasting paradise for sheepishly accepting something implausible. These people don't deserve to have their precious feelings taken into consideration.
alphacause 1 year ago
@alphacause I agree with everything you said and in case you didn't pick up on my pitiful attempt, I was just being silly with my first comment.
JesusCockInAllahAss 1 year ago
@JesusCockInAllahAss LOL AT YOUR FUCKING USERNAME.
Funniest shit ever.
JustGhastly 1 year ago
If theists say something coming out of NOTHING is absurd, one must ask why it is absurd? They will answer because it defies everything we know about causality. Well, then by the same notion of what we know about causality, God is also absurd, because we know of no phenomenon in the universe that creates something out of nothing, or is eternally the same. If you preclude one explanation because of a lack of observational evidence, you must deny the other for the exact same reasoning (continued).
alphacause 1 year ago
Of the two possibilities presented here, only the Universe is self-evident, observable and knowable (in a scientific sense) and God is none of these.
IntelligentProbe 1 year ago
So when are you gonna respond to my PM?
KarinMikazuki 1 year ago
@KarinMikazuki Which one? I'm a busy man.
Th1sWasATriumph 1 year ago
@Th1sWasATriumph
The one about you saying that Thunderf00t's girlfriend snorted off drugs from a key then telling me to look it up when you made the claim instead of just telling me what you saw or what you read to reach that conclusion.
KarinMikazuki 1 year ago
@KarinMikazuki I think he was talking about factsvsreligion. In one video from her road trip (can't remember which one) she snorted coke from a stranger.
AjaPuppy 1 year ago
@KarinMikazuki Let me give you an example.
I make a video where I talk about a specific solo that Brian May plays, captured on video. You ask me to prove it. I don't actually need to, because it has happened. I don't need to prove to you that FvR did coke off a key with a stranger, and I don't need to try and find the original video. It happened. Whether you believe actuality or not is entirely my unconcern.
Th1sWasATriumph 1 year ago
@Th1sWasATriumph
You kinda have to justify your claims, otherwise you're reasoning just like a creationist. Which you are by saying she did it but not really giving away where or when it happend. Then you have the gall to tell me to look it up because you're too lazy.
KarinMikazuki 1 year ago
Excellent points, condensed and presented in an concise and intelligent manner. Bravo.
LordLanceJH 1 year ago
The First Uncaused Cause? Is that something like The Thing That Made the Things For Which There is No Known Maker?
ikesbrain 1 year ago
If god is eternal, what was he doing for the infinite eternity before he caused the universe? And why did he cause it when he did, and not an infinite eternity later, or earlier?
NekuraCa 1 year ago
Dude you lost me a couple of times there, my brain couldn't keep up. That'll teach me to watch a video dealing with metaphysics and theology just before going to bed :) But yeah the whole "they say the universe didn't have a cause and that's silly so it must have been an uncaused God behind it all" argument is just insane and only works if you already believe that conclusion. Love the picture by the way, very rock and roll, specially the sheep in the background.
rabbitpirate 1 year ago
I would bear your children, and I'm a dude.
musli4brekkies 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I really see no argument that can adequately refute the concept of a First Uncaused Cause. To suggests that there is something otherwise is to suggests that something brought itself into existence, which is simply absurd.
Something has existed for eternity, else the whole concept of existence becomes an absurdity.
DawahFilms 1 year ago
@DawahFilms Can you explain to me the actual effective difference between something bringing itself into existence and something existing eternally? There really seems no difference in consequence aside from semantically, in order to legitimise an explanation for a God which does not violate the premise for all subsequent cause and effect.
Is there a reason why this first uncaused cause can't simply be the universe itself, once you accept the necessity that the first cause is even plausible?
Th1sWasATriumph 1 year ago 66
@Th1sWasATriumph
Sure. I really don't see the difficulty. The former supposes the idea that existence is an attribute of something and that at some point nothing before existence. This is simply wrong to believe since existence is definition of being. To suppose that from nothing comes something is to suppose there was something from which that thing could come from, but NOTHINGness is not something. Semantics if you wish, but you need words to understand.
The latter simply falls into place.
DawahFilms 1 year ago
@DawahFilms You are yet to explain the concept of eternity, and how an eternal entity could exist eternally not within something but simply of itself. Using "eternal" to explain things really doesn't help, it simply restates the problem another way by making up qualities that can only be attributed to CERTAIN types of entity (like Gods but not universes). As I said, special pleading. Something creating itself is ridiculous but something existing forever without cause is plausible? . . .
Th1sWasATriumph 1 year ago
@DawahFilms . . . at least the former has some plausibility, if my understanding of physics is correct. The concept of an uncaused cause is NOT somehow reasonable purely because you arrive at it by removing all the possibilities that you would prefer not to be true. An eternal being raises as many problems as it solves, because you don't understand eternity and are simply using the term to avoid responsibility.
Also: "existence is definition of being" You wouldn't be able to prove that?
Th1sWasATriumph 1 year ago
@DawahFilms we do need the words to understand but at some point in time, delusional brainwashed believers such as muslims, christians, mormons, scientologists etc. etc. etc., need to provide the EVIDENCE to back up those words. EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRES EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE and there's no talking your way out of it semantics or not.
mytv80 1 year ago
@Th1sWasATriumph You're the first person I've seen use the words 'effective difference' other than, well, me. Must be an indicator of some sort, as I tend to run into a hangup when it gets to the effective difference between treating a hypothesis as unknown and treating it as false...
Setar 1 year ago
@Setar I not only also use that phrase, but I even use "effectief verschil" in Dutch. Boy, the looks I get. :(
Iced1992 1 year ago
"Can you explain to me the actual effective difference between something bringing itself into existence and something existing eternally?"
"Is there a reason why this first uncaused cause can't simply be the universe itself, once you accept the necessity that the first cause is even plausible?"
these questions were posed as a response to some Muslim's comment. I do not like Islam nor Muslims.
xXBlackxRebelXx 1 year ago
However I would like to know the intention of these questions. And whether you yourself know these answers to these questions.
It appears to me that the Atheist only seeks to object to almost every single proposition posed by Theists for the sake of being what they think is Atheist.
xXBlackxRebelXx 1 year ago
@DawahFilms
"To suggests that there is something otherwise is to suggests that something brought itself into existence, which is simply absurd."
quantum fluctuations, virtual particles, Cassimir effect .
those are things that have no cause. this is literally matter out of nothing.
addmoreice 1 year ago
@addmoreice
No, it isn't. This is a silly misinterpretation of what physicists say when they mention "nothingness". They are not using the term "nothingness" in the sense of something NOT existing. They are mentioning this in terms of primary attributes not having any measurable qualities.
DawahFilms 1 year ago
@DawahFilms
"They are mentioning this in terms of primary attributes not having any measurable qualities. "
No, they mean this in the sense that as far as they can detect, there is nothing there.
in some cases we can literally measure that there is no energy there....and then under slightly different surrounding changes we GAIN energy...yes, from the vacuum 'ground' state. Hence the 'zero point' energy thing. of course if you know how it works (roughly) you know that isn't going to happen.
addmoreice 1 year ago
@DawahFilms Even if your argument here bore any weight, which it doesn't (see: Quantum Mechanics), how do you know (evidence) that it is Allah?
Tyrtamus 1 year ago
@Tyrtamus
Having read up quite a bit on Quantum mechanics I can easily say that the idea that something just spontaneously "comes into existence" from absolute nothingness is simply rubbish. I think you're confusing the language.
DawahFilms 1 year ago
@DawahFilms
As for your second question, I never suggested anywhere that this is evidence for Allah (swt) directly. I was never arguing that point to begin with so I don't understand why you'd ask that.
DawahFilms 1 year ago
@DawahFilms Of course you see no argument. Just like I cannot prove to you there is no God, I cannot prove to you there is no First Uncaused Cause. God and First Uncaused Cause are the same thing. I CAN show you that if there is a God, this God is in hiding, mute and somewhat of an asshole.
AnnRKey 1 year ago 30
@DawahFilms - You are confusing what is with what ought to be or what might be. Have you ever experienced nothing? Can you point me to "nothing" without invoking philisophical human concepts of nothing? Seperately, causality, which your argument relies on is a part of universe, you have absolutely no evidence at all that those same laws apply outside of our universe, indeed even within our universe we have observed particles coming into and out of existence seemingly without cause.
TheSpankymonkey 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DawahFilms - You are confusing what is with what ought to be or what might be. Have you ever experienced nothing? Can you point me to "nothing" without invoking philisophical human concepts of nothing? Seperately, causality, which your argument relies on is a part of universe, you have absolutely no evidence at all that those same laws apply outside of our universe, indeed even within our universe we have observed particles coming into and out of existence seemingly without cause.
TheSpankymonkey 1 year ago
@DawahFilms - So to be blunt, your argument about nothingness and something bringing itself into existence as absurd, therefore not true is simply a misnomer, as you haven't demonstrated that "nothing" can exist. Of course this brings it's own problems with eternity, however, nothing demands that we now insert "gawwwwdd did it" at this stage. We are honest, decent human beings that simply say we do not know. You however insert a fuzzy idea of a god in that bit and then tack your flavour on top.
TheSpankymonkey 1 year ago 2
@DawahFilms first of all, why is the idea of a universe that brought itself into existence absurd, but not a God who has done so? And if you say God's eternal and never began existence, then why can't the universe have been that way as well?
Regardless, time began at the same point as the big bang. there was no "before" it, any more than there is anything north of the north pole.
roentgen571 1 year ago 3
@DawahFilms The problem with the ''First Uncaused Cause'' argument is as follows. 1.)The laws of causality apply within the boundaries (if there are any) of this Universe. For you to say that they also operate externally to the Universe is special pleading as it is impossible to prove. ...but by all means ...please try so I can laugh at you! So to state that the Universe was ''Caused'' into existence, is to state that the laws of causality operate outside of the Universe. 2.) Also, and ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
this is possibly more important; lets state for the sake of argument that the laws of causality do apply ''outside'' of the Universe. For their to be a causal relationship their must be at the the very least two entities participating. One entity to excert the 'cause' and another to feel the 'effect' of that cause. So ...if the ''First Uncaused Cause'' really did ''exist'' and it was the only uncaused entity in ''existence'' ...what exactly was there for it to ''effect''??? If you wish ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
to state that a causal relationship can occur which involves only one entity operating ...I await your case with anticipation. It will be interesting to hear your illogical back flips and all that jazz... :) Face it ...to say that the Universe had a ''cause'', is an exercise in futility and a prime example of extreme cognitive dissonance once one understands the limitations of the laws of causality. You also ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
mentioned in the thread that scientists do not claim that the Universe could have come from ''nothing''. I strongly disagree. I suggest you watch the following. Its a lecture by a world renowned physicist who is specifically advocating such a theory:
watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
Enjoy!
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00 "two entities participating" That's easy, that would have to be Mrs God, otherwise known as Asherah. But of course, if we are going to get into the historical origins of Craig's religion, we should mention Sophia, the Syrian goddess who was god's mum... she would have to be the first uncaused cause... ah but wait... damn!
NewAgainChelmsford 1 year ago
@NewAgainChelmsford ...a real mind bender alright! :)
ndjm00 1 year ago
@DawahFilms not at all. The only REAL answer, given the weight of evidence is "we don't know." We don't have enough data yet to understand the big bang event itself, let alone have strong data about what, if anything, preceded it. Hence the supercolliders and try to get closer and closer to a real answer. To say "the uncaused cause is the answer" is to insert something that you cannot possibly know. Craig simply employs a rhetorical trick to take advantage of a dearth of evidence.
CapeandCowl 1 year ago
excellent video. The uncaused cause argument is, I think,pretty vapid. It's merely god of the gaps wrapped in bad quasi-science speak.
CapeandCowl 1 year ago
@DawahFilms arent you that guy who made death threats on youtube where the whole world can see? i've met plenty of gay ppl but you must really fricken love the cock to be begging the authorities to throw you in pound-me-in-the-ass-prison for a few years.
largegrainsofsalt 1 year ago
@DawahFilms
Time like space is property of the universe. The concept of before the universe is effectively meaningless. The universe is eternal in the sense of having existed for 'all time', it's just that 'all time' is finite.
Or maybe not, maybe the above is all bunkum, maybe something else, you see when it comes to universes we have a lot still to work out and are hampered by a sample size of 1. The uncaused cause however is just a god of the gaps.
Rambleale 1 year ago
@DawahFilms "Something has existed for eternity, else the whole concept of existence becomes an absurdity."
Even if that were true, your assertion is totally baseless (unless you can have some evidence) then it would certainly not be an infinitely powerful being. EVERYTHING must have a cause. The only logical explanation is that simple begats less simple and so on until you get to complex. This is what we observe since the BB. What evidence do you have against?
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
WLC always builds his arguments on a baseless intitial foundation. How does he know that space/time did not exist before the BB? If this so called entity exists outside time then it could NEVER operate. To operate you need events. The seperator between events is TIME (even if it is not time as we know it ... Jim).
And moving to his personal god, then why would a being outside space/time have all the atrributes of a spiteful human dictator and relish the smell of burnt offerings?
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@DawahFilms why don't u provide us with the evidence of ur "first uncaused cause" so it can be adequately refuted or not. How would YOU even know of a such a 'thing'? Does ur beard give u special powers of this "knowledge" or does it only get in the way when u eat Lucky Charms in the morning? This thing that "is/isn't", what do u call it? 'Allah'? Does 'it' still tell ppl of islamic faith to throw rocks at womens' heads bashing their brains or to cut the throats n decapitate heads of infidels?
mytv80 1 year ago
@DawahFilms "[Something] has existed for eternity, else the whole concept of existence becomes an absurdity."
What's absurd is that theists (like you) PRETEND to know what that eternal "SOMETHING" is. The rest of us are quite comfortable in saying, "I don't know."
The "I don't know" position is better, because it's honest, it's humbling, it's open to revision, and it doesn't require imaginary, magical, superheroes. You should try it sometime when you're not busy declaring Jihad on yourself.
drgoldteef 1 year ago
Why can't the universe be eternal -and- have had cause and effect all along? Why does there have to be a beginning and a first cause at all?
CuriousMoth 1 year ago
@CuriousMoth Actually, forget the above. I just realised by 'cause' he doesn't mean 'part of cause and effect and the transformation of matter and energy in the universe', he means 'creator'.
CuriousMoth 1 year ago
The more concrete the attributes given to god are, the easier it is to debunk and falsify them. Apologists know this, which is why their "god" bears little resemblance to the actual account of him given in holy books. Someone should point out to Lane that his definition of god (something without time, space, a beginning, and end, etc) is an equally suitable definition for the word "nothing." He has tried his best to remove from this thing, God, any attributes that would make it a "thing" at all.
jetboyJ22 1 year ago 3
@jetboyJ22 That is a great point. Every attribute that Craig assigns God (timeless, immaterial, and non-spatial) makes his God indistinguishable from nothing. Maybe Craig's whole Kalam Cosmological argument is a big rhetorical Freudian slip, revealing Craig's hidden atheism.
alphacause 1 year ago 2
@alphacause "That is a great point. Every attribute that Craig assigns God (timeless, immaterial, and non-spatial) makes his God indistinguishable from nothing." - Whilst making himself (WLC) indistinguishable from his own parody. ;-)
TheSpankymonkey 1 year ago
William Lane Craig is dishonest as fuck and I find it strange how so many people take his bullshit seriously, when it's in no way compelling.
helldogas2 1 year ago 2
@helldogas2 It sound compelling because he uses big words, and if you use enough big words people will fill in the bits they don't understand by assuming he meant what they wanted him to mean. I guess it's a form of confirmation bias.
CuriousMoth 1 year ago
@helldogas2 what I find amusing is that people tear up his arguments all the time, yet he never changes them and still people take him seriously. I wonder if there is some unseen power in ignoring reality..../shrug
1n354a 1 year ago
3. At the other extreme, if the set of all items that begin to exist is equal to the set of all items that exist then the set would be the universe and the argument would be circular.
4. Therefore, the set of all items that begin to exist must be smaller than the set of all items that exist- but that implies the existence of at least one item in the universe which did not begin to exist. Such a case would contradict the second line of the argument. That contradiction destroys the argument.
apeek7 1 year ago
1. Consider the set of all items that begin to exist. This set must be contained within the set of all items that exist- which is the definition of the universe.
2. If the set of all items that begin to exist has only one member then that member must be the universe as a whole, per the second line of the argument. In that event the first line of the argument would have to be rewritten, “The universe beginning to exist has a cause” but that would make the entire argument circular.
apeek7 1 year ago
Cock? How british can you be! :D
Relloq 1 year ago
I'll say: A man with a well trained Craig would be an impressive sight to behold!
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
The uncaused causer seen your video and gave it a thumbs down!
ndjm00 1 year ago
Beaches! Good points bro... And I like your sheepy guitar porn...
CrankyWombat 1 year ago
William Lane Craig is to apologetics what William Shatner's acting in that black-and-white clip of him is to the Oscars.
EdwardHowton 1 year ago
@EdwardHowton The said thing is that since there isn't really a "good" apologist for religion, the best ones are the ones who are actually the best, smuggest liars.
Enter Craig, stage left. He's the best.
Th1sWasATriumph 1 year ago
@Th1sWasATriumph By definition, an apologist is someone who argues for religious faith. This, by definition, means taking a position on the basis of faith, an a priori assumption, and then looking for reasons to believe it. It's therefore inherently intellectually dishonest and opens the door to all manner of logical fallacies. Therefore, there is no "good" apologist by any standard of "good" we would employ.
DeistPaladin 1 year ago
@DeistPaladin Well, yeah. I'm fully aware of this. That's why I said that good apologists are the ones best at being smug liars, because the whole concept is ridiculous. Because, you know, using irreverence is kind of my deal.
Th1sWasATriumph 1 year ago
@Th1sWasATriumph Yep. Good apologists. It's like saying 'good used car salesman', or 'good mafia lawyer'.
EdwardHowton 1 year ago
Thanks for making another video Tr1umph!
Legit73Resurected 1 year ago
Craig looks a lot like Steve Carell there in the opening. I'm not sure who's funnier.
GoblinXXX 1 year ago
"time-less space-less being"
Is there actually an evidence for a being like that?
123Atheist 1 year ago
@123Atheist There is if your evidence for God is based on your witness of the holy spirit, in your heart.
Direct quote from Craig there :(
Th1sWasATriumph 1 year ago
@Th1sWasATriumph but that's only evidence of a religious experience that happens inside your head.
123Atheist 1 year ago
@Th1sWasATriumph
Disclaimer: I'm a hard-core atheist.
Second disclaimer: every bit of evidence we have supporst the big bang.
But...
How can a quantum fluctuation create a universe of space and time? With no time, how could it fluctuate? With no space, where could it fluctuate.
Just because I'm unhappy with some of the explanations doesn't mean I'm right. And even if I am right it doesn't mean that God is the only other possibility.
Just wondering.
bdf2718 1 year ago
@bdf2718 It's pretty nutty, I grant you. And that's why I'm happy to wait. Scientific precedent is on our side :)
Th1sWasATriumph 1 year ago
@123Atheist actually, a being with those characteristics is impossible for our universe. that is like saying i can drive a space-less power-less car, nothing in our universe can have a 0 space without seriously affect gravity.
MobileThinker 1 year ago
.. that is.. What is "metaphysically necessary" supposed to mean? I can make up useless terms as well, to make it appear that I'm talking about something important.
This whole endeavour is coscrumptiously platonic..as we understand it ephemerally.
weskos 1 year ago
@weskos It scrupulously obvious that this conflagration of supermetabeing is the consequence of oh for fuck sakes I got bored of myself
Th1sWasATriumph 1 year ago
@weskos I wish somebody would actually do that to Craig. I guarantee you everybody would laugh, because it would reveal how utterly idiotic Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument is. The fact that Craig can willy nilly just make up things to make his God exist in a manner that defies what the word existence means is laughable. Can't atheists do the same thing, as you humorously pointed out. Can't we say that a "timeless immaterial universe" becoming material and time is metaphysically necessary?
alphacause 1 year ago
Craig throws the term "exist" around without taking into consideration that the term is functionally contingent upon time-space, then postulates a being that "exists" without time-space, as if that is somehow useful. That's as nonsensical as postulating a circle that is not round.
And btw, what then is this "metaphysical understanding" that he yammers about? Another made-up term with no basis in reality.
weskos 1 year ago 2
I like how he assumes that no Atheist would ever use special pleading.
Nashy119 1 year ago
It's either caused or uncaused. I