If christians are so in love with "kalams comological argument" perhaps they should consider the fact that the muslims are correct in not only this argument but in that Allah is the one true god and Jesus was only a prophet that didnt die on the cross. If they are correct about one thing then surely they can be correct about the other things too? no?? Christians?? Wanna bow down to Allah? Its the same god as yours!
WLC Continued “The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories! Quentin Smith vs Craig 1996
WLC “If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
The KCA fails on the basic premise that if there were ever 'nothing' there would also be no philosophical or scientific principles such as causality. So it's egregious taxicabbing "These principles break down, but only in so far as it allows me to arbitrarily put my god at the beginning"
your kinda begging the question p1) is false God is the greatest possible being he exists necessarily he can't have a beginning p2) controdicts p)1 & the conclusion doesn't follow its a terriable argument. P1) is also false because that would imply infinte regress which can't be true.
Isn't it possible Antybu86 didn't see this craig clip and wasn't actually lying? And craig only talks about this to argue against it, not accept it. I think. haha
@ryanwyshynski No, he's an atheist. We mustn't give him any benefit of the doubt no matter how reasonable it would be to do so. Antybu86 is obviously a liar and a communist.
Seems like less than 20 years ago since the curvature of spacetime was measured and the total energy of the universe turned out to be zero, wich means it could have been created from nothing and supports the quantum fluctuation hypothesis. Wonder why craig doesn't mention that.
exposed2000, I must commend you to expose where antybu86 went wrong. But I do not favour your condescending response against him. I don't know whether you are a christian or not, but the video expresses the latter rather than the former.
That is why I think your like/dislike ratio is quite off.
Keep it up and in the future, expose faults with meakness in your heart rather than hardiness.
In turn, Dr. William Lane Craig is dishonest in jettisoning the 30+ years of physics and cosmology that followed the original quantum fluctuation model. Just like most creationists do when they try to debunk Darwin.
Granted the expansion of the "primordial vacuum" mentioned in the video. Then that still proves that "our" universe was not created.
Not to mention, the premise that everything has a cause is also philosophically void.
This has been flagged as spam show
If christians are so in love with "kalams comological argument" perhaps they should consider the fact that the muslims are correct in not only this argument but in that Allah is the one true god and Jesus was only a prophet that didnt die on the cross. If they are correct about one thing then surely they can be correct about the other things too? no?? Christians?? Wanna bow down to Allah? Its the same god as yours!
The1VoiceOfReason 5 days ago
WLC Continued “The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories! Quentin Smith vs Craig 1996
emailpobox666 1 week ago
WLC “If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
emailpobox666 1 week ago
How about Craig admitting that the Cosmological Argument is incoherent?
emailpobox666 1 week ago
where does nothing come from?!?!!?
sniped101 1 week ago
The KCA fails on the basic premise that if there were ever 'nothing' there would also be no philosophical or scientific principles such as causality. So it's egregious taxicabbing "These principles break down, but only in so far as it allows me to arbitrarily put my god at the beginning"
TheScienceFoundation 2 weeks ago
@lxAgnosticxl youre mixing ontological with kalam. epic fail
atheistcommonsense 1 month ago
1. Everything that exists, has a beginning
2. God does not have a beginning
3. God does not exist
See? I can come up with cosmological arguments too!
Dr. Craig is such a moron.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119
what ever BEGINS TO EXIST moron
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl Everything that exists, has a beginning though.
So if your theory is God doesn't have a beginning, then he cannot exist moron.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119
your kinda begging the question p1) is false God is the greatest possible being he exists necessarily he can't have a beginning p2) controdicts p)1 & the conclusion doesn't follow its a terriable argument. P1) is also false because that would imply infinte regress which can't be true.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
Isn't it possible Antybu86 didn't see this craig clip and wasn't actually lying? And craig only talks about this to argue against it, not accept it. I think. haha
ryanwyshynski 2 months ago
@ryanwyshynski No, he's an atheist. We mustn't give him any benefit of the doubt no matter how reasonable it would be to do so. Antybu86 is obviously a liar and a communist.
rondus18 2 months ago
@rondus18 Just as I suspected! A Commie plot!
ryanwyshynski 2 months ago
It does not follow that for some probability function over an infinite time will result in the event occurring.
ItsShibboleth 2 months ago
Gotta love these Craig Apostles.
"heisenbaurg indeterminacy principle"? heh.
basmithtx 2 months ago
Seems like less than 20 years ago since the curvature of spacetime was measured and the total energy of the universe turned out to be zero, wich means it could have been created from nothing and supports the quantum fluctuation hypothesis. Wonder why craig doesn't mention that.
phookadude 3 months ago
exposed2000, I must commend you to expose where antybu86 went wrong. But I do not favour your condescending response against him. I don't know whether you are a christian or not, but the video expresses the latter rather than the former.
That is why I think your like/dislike ratio is quite off.
Keep it up and in the future, expose faults with meakness in your heart rather than hardiness.
MajSmJz 3 months ago
In turn, Dr. William Lane Craig is dishonest in jettisoning the 30+ years of physics and cosmology that followed the original quantum fluctuation model. Just like most creationists do when they try to debunk Darwin.
Granted the expansion of the "primordial vacuum" mentioned in the video. Then that still proves that "our" universe was not created.
Not to mention, the premise that everything has a cause is also philosophically void.
wutdaFU3K 4 months ago
The amount of butthurtitude in this video is astonishing. Did antybu86 wrong you somehow in the past?
blu2penguin 4 months ago