Thank you! He is terrible. He was clearly biased toward the atheist side, and kept helping Wolpert clarify his points, while giving Craig no such help (granted, Craig needed no help).
I think Craig uses his argument to prove the existence of THE CONCEPT OF GOD rather than God him[it?]self; indeed, the concept of God (and of anything else) is outside time and space, it is eternal and needs not a creator.
"Cosmologists sometimes claim that the universe can arise "from nothing". But they should watch their language, especially when addressing philosophers. We've realised ever since Einstein that empty space can have a structure such that it can be warped and distorted. Even if shrunk down to a "point", it is latent with particles and forces — still a far richer construct than the philosopher's 'Nothing'."
Two don't believe in God one does. So they argue to trip him up. Computational disfunctional but not personal God Therefore the argument is profane and not plausible.
Jesus dying on the cross of course is historical fact. After Jesus was crucified: It was Mary the mother of James saw the tomb was empty, Mary Magdalene and Joanna. It's not hard to see Jesus is God, simply by reading the Bible. Has bad as Herod and Pilate were they said he was innocent man.
@JohananRaatz Look; it's obvious that you know nothing about quantum physics. Just the way you use quantum terminology in such a liberal way, and apply it so casually to the most esoteric and unscientific areas, tells me more about your ideas than you possibly could.
@Drgamedood Well forget Orch-OR for a moment. We can tell in a more general sense that collapse is ontologically identical to observation. (the same fundamental physical process occurs when you observe something as when an inanimate detector does) We can know this as a fact from the Wigner's friend thought experiment.
This being the case, self-collapse (Orch-OR or otherwise) would be ontologically equivalent to self-observation, which is mental activity. Thus premise 2 would still work.
@JohananRaatz No, premise is predicated on the penrose-hameroff model. No other model argues that the mind is a " Self-collapsing wave-function".
Seriously, if anyone did just a bit of research, they would know that the penrose-hameroff model was refuted by physicist Max Tegmark. There are also plenty of later peer-reviewed critiques. All in all, Orch-OR does not stand up to logical scrutiny.
@Drgamedood Tegmark's argument as well as most other critiques is dependent on the warm brain argument. However quantum biology has shown that this is not necessarily valid, as quantum behavior has shown to affect increasingly warm biological systems.
"No other model"
No other well-formulated model yes. However it is quite apparent from the Wigner's Friend thought experiment that collapse = observation. All we need to do then is attach "self" to both of those terms to see the equivalence.
i love how the mod calls out dr.craig about not providing a shred of evidence. poor craig so dishonest, like my mom always said "You cant trust someone that has a first name for a last name"
@REDRAGON12345 Actually it is Wolpert who makes Craig look stupid here by demonstrating that you can insert almost anything as the first cause for the 'creation' of the universe if all you have to offer is speculation without evidence.
I've seen that Craig has an advantage in formal debates (because of his confidence and rehearsed answers) but when it comes to having a conversation, his ignorance is exposed
@timguyperson "A miracle is something that defies the laws of nature...." In this case christian God does not do any miracles. as for walking on water by Jesus - there is no reason to think he did defy any law - he just knew how to and could. If there were no experiments done and notes writen - all we have is eyewithness - we cannot be 100% sure. If Jesus was who he claimed to be then there is not much problem as his desciples did not walk on water nor claimed the ability.
I love the fact that Craig said it clearly, so that christians out there can understand the difference: this whole debate campaign is not a pursuit of truth, please christians, get that right, this is about propaganda, about promoting an ideology. I say it because christians keep saying Craig's arguments remain unrefuted because either he repeats them or has 'answers' to them. Or that he 'wins' the debates therefore he's right, when 'winning' here is not about truth but about persuassion.
@timguyperson "....However when the evidence stacks up to the point that it would be a miracle not to believe the evidence..." could you explain yourself ? I do not get it. You should define what you call a miracle to make sense.
@timguyperson "...What Wolpert asks for is a miracle to change his mind, a miracle that would be a genuine miracle and thus stand up to scientific investigation and not simply be explained as a delusion..." It is wrong due to limitations of science. All what science is able to do(at least this far) is a material descriptions of the proceses involved in the event. Can give paterns that would make an event a miricle?
@deanmean87 This is certainly the case with Richard Dawkins, he says if a marbles statue of Mary waved at him he would conclude that all the atoms in the statue's arm just happen to move in one direction and back again!
Craig: "Your computer is just another word for god if you rob it of all the attributes that make it a computer"
Except it's non-sentient. Can't believe Wolpert didn't counter with this. Everything in Craig's repertoire can be easily refuted. Craig always stops short of claiming god is real, instead he makes "arguments" for the existence of "a god" without mentioning any specific religion's god, or even claiming one as fact. He is a skilled apologist but ultimately disingenuous.
@sonicBlue00 Wolpert did counter with take, when he said "NO" but then went back on even that, as a result of Craig making (repeating) an argument, Wolpert then continued with his childish school yard retort, "not this computer, oh nooooooo." Where that was going should have been obvious to Wolpert but it wasn't and so got duly hit out of the stadium.
@Birdieupon He did and yet you read the comments on this thread and .............................well, facepalm. I am not Christian and yet I can see that these 'arguments' being made by these atheists are pretty darn shallow.
@SonnyDelight55 He most certainly did destroy it . Yet you then read the inane, delusional comment above by sonicBlue00 and wonder if he actually watched the clip he is commenting on or has selective hearing or something!
SoniBlue00 also speaks of Craig being "disingenuous" yet it is Wolpert who made a great feigned play about "I just don't know" but goes on to be pretty darn emphatic about a great many things that are truth claims from the Atheist Catechism.
@sonicBlue00 "Uh, no, he didn't destroy it because a computer is non-sentient." We have covered this already.
"And stop spamming" I am not 'spamming' I am replying to comments like you are. That is the purpose of the comments boxes, is it not?
"asspained creationtard" I am not Creationist, I am not even a Christian. But a response like that says a lot more about you than it ever says about me.
@sonicBlue00 (1) "You are still left with explaining why a non-sentient god," No I am not so left, as that was not quite the issue being discussed. But as you raise it; you seriously think a non-sentient God is as plausible as a sentient one? So if there is a God it (without being an agent) made me sentient when it was not sentient, how would it hold the idea? cont...
["you seriously think a non-sentient God is as plausible as a sentient one?"]
Sure, why not?
["So if there is a God it (without being an agent) made me sentient when it was not sentient, how would it hold the idea?"]
It doesn't "hold the idea" because it's non-sentient. It's simply a non-sentient force that could have brought the physical singularity into existence.
@sonicBlue00 cont… (2) And God made me better, in a very significant way, namely conscious, when it wasn’t? Can you make a sentient thing? Do you, or anyone else, even in principle know how one could be made? In any case; the issue was touched upon by Craig during the first half of the debate, he gave arguments there, particularly about agency. cont…
@sonicBlue00 cont... (3) “Oh sure you aren't.” This really is too much; surely I must know what I am better than you. Comments such as these really make a conversation pointless.
“all these atheist hate videos favourited” I have a wide variety of videos favourited, but none of them are “hate” videos!
Tipoomaster, on the contrary a good scientist is always open to new evidence and MUST be prepared to reject their beliefs, no matter how fondly held, in the teeth of overwhelmingly contadictary evidence.
@ .20 seconds into this clip, notice Dr. Wolpert try to nudge his chair as far away as possible from Dr. Craig's chair. Ok, fine you disagree, but the man doesn't have AIDS! LOL
I'll tell you what people, I am in awe of the Craig's benevolence in the face of such provocation and willful filibustering. How he can smile, keep his composure and maintain his presence of mind despite such stupidity is a tribute to his veracity and the integrity of his character
Wolpert is not taking the discussion seriously at all. That's why he is messing about in abandon, freely contradicting himself and not minding. Can be funny but it's also a bit annoying.
We don't know and can't prove that there is an eternal timeless intelligence. For all we know it could be an emergent transient intelligence that started our universe, fine-tuning it from some other dimension or parallel universe. It is unwise to make assumptions before the verdict is out. Let science investigate this for a couple hundred years and we should have a much better answer.
@craigblack1234 "We don't know and can't prove that there is an eternal timeless intelligence. For all we know it could be an emergent transient intelligence that started our universe"
@craigblack1234 "Let science investigate this for a couple hundred years and we should have a much better answer." Hate to point this out to you but you will be dead.
A few miracles will change his mind? I just think that is so disingenuous. If he is a scientific naturalist and fundamental about his beliefs, then even a miracle won't convince him. First, how can he recognize a miracle? And second, holding sternly onto his beliefs, won't he try to explain them as hallucinations or whatever?. So in the end, the status quo is maintained.
@deanmean87 Very well said. Any miracle would be explained away via the best naturalistic explanation someone could think up. If no naturalistic explanation could be thought then it would be explained away as us not having a natural explanation yet.
@Dexiclecom This is certainly the case with Richard Dawkins, he says if a marbles statue of Mary waved at him he would conclude that all the atoms in the statue's arm just happen to move in one direction and back again!
Well, a miracle is a suspension of the natural order.
My mindset would indeed be that if I ever did witness a proclaimed miracle, i.e. seeing the walking dead, I would think I was hallucinating.
But I'm not speaking for Wolpert, and I would assume that you cannot either. You don't know that if after a few [prophecised] miracles in favour of Christianity would not change Wolperts mindset.
["won't he try to explain them as hallucinations or whatever?"]
With multiple witnesses that can be ruled out. Or if there are no witnesses, one can have their state of mental health scientifically evaluated and deemed likely to be not hallucinatory.
@deanmean87 seriously?? U don't think there's any way he would accept that God has intervened in nature?? That's just willfully ignorant on your part.. Sure if he experienced it by him self alone with no eye witnesses than he wouldn't accept it.. But if 1000 people saw it, it left behind physical evidence, perhaps some video tape evidence??? Considering the things God COULD do but ISN'T doing.... That's a wild statement...
I can't even begin to express the venom I am heaping on you right now..
This is great hahahaa I've gotten belly laughs from these interchanges so far. It's great to see a more congenial, light hearted treatment of these issues- have some fun with it. It's a huge topic. The moderator and Wolpert are very entertaining.
How would Craig explain Horace, Mithra, and many many other greek gods before the supposed jesus that were born from virgins, had three wise men, 12 disciples, all crucified and raised on the 3rd day. Answer, he can't. Watch zeitgeist.
@the1qb have it your way. You're welcome to worship any deity you like. I just think the masochism is a creepy and sinister impulse. It's the essence of unfreedom.
@setmedic but on the one point I know most about in Zeitgeist it was COMPLETETLY wrong. It claimed that Krishna was born of a virgin! How would you explain that?
@tipoomaster Even with all the molecules needed for life proteins RNA DNA enzymes cell wall...EVERYTHING..put it all in the perfect solution in a test tube under amazing conditions in the most advanced laboratory in the world..
It would all breakdown in seconds and fall apart..
and this was suppose to happen on a harsh Toxic poisonous primordial earth in some sea vent or mud..
@5tonyvvvv that's the new 'science' for ya, courtesy of the atheists. But remember they only deal in observable, repeatable, demonstrable, and falsifiable facts! Yeah right.
@tipoomaster If evolutionists had optically pure DNA, RNA, and amino acids, they would still have nothing. In fact, the energy needed to form the bonds to make the macromolecules necessary for a cell, will destroy any DNA, RNA, and amino acids that are outside of a cell. to get amino acids to self assemble is impossible..there is no natural process.to make a cell evolve ..it would be easier to build the space shuttle..blindfolded while riding a unicycle
@finchy633 Craig has been quoted (by ex-minister John Loftus) as saying if he was taken back in time and watched jesus not rise from the dead on easter Sunday -- he would STILL believe because of his faith.
@keatris Of course, anyone who uses the bones of jesus as falsification knows that condition can't be met: How would we identify them as jesus' bones? Is there a DNA sample to match them against?
The Loftus book I'm citing is "How I Became an Atheist", where he quotes Craig as saying his faith would trump witnessing the event first-hand.
@punnet2 - if loftus is as incompetent an author as he is a debator, I would consider looking for others sources if I were you
incidentally, and this is advice you can choose to ignore, if you want to make a favorable opinion on others in intellectual debates, I would quote loftus as little as possible (if at all) in public
@mollkatles Pardon, me, but my only mention of Loftus was to provide the source of the quote attributed to Craig (which he made in response to a question from Mark Smith). Unless you're insinuating that Loftus is slandering Craig with a false quote, your poor opinion of Loftus is irrelevant.
And as long as there are christians who embrace Craig as a defender of their faith, there's no need to raise the bar higher than someone like Loftus.
Wolpert deflects his lack of intellectual prowess with his mildly-witty comments and British accent which amplifies his ostensibly sound refutations. William Lane Craig is leagues above this man.
Wolpert deflects his lack of intellectual prowess with his mildly-witty comments and British accent which amplifies his ostensibly sound refutations. William Lane Craig is leagues about this man.
Lewis claims to have no idea what caused the universe, then when a plausible explanation is presented he claims he knows it wasn't that. He's essentially saying "I know it wasn't God because I don't know what it (the cause) was". Foolish. If your gonna make a claim that God did not cause it, you need to be able to explain why, and give a better alternative explanation.
Anyone that requires justification for my claim (above) is also a complete idiot. (assuming they have watched all the vids in the series and do not think he is an idiot.)
@Roper122 "b/c he has more arguements" meaning WLC has thought out well all the possible reasons why he himself might have his faith shaken & adressed those points. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. That did not mean if ALL of his arguements were debunked would WLC change his mind ...we the audiesnce, don't have a conclusion on that.
@hexusziggurat ...No actually, WLC has pointed out that even if his top, and most credible arguments ( and if these are his most credible he's on shaky ground )...even if they were all shown to be 100% wrong... He would not even consider changing his position.
And you are seriously trying to imply that if all of his arguments were refuted he might change? Nonsense. He would simply make up new ones ( which is what he does for a living )
@Roper122 actually coming to assumptions is shaky ground at best! I'm not implying anything other than what I said...though as to what you said....
"And you are seriously trying to imply that if all of his arguments were refuted he might change? Nonsense." We the audience do not know. Which is, a completely true statement.
Well I know, so let me educate you... WLC believes the holy spirit showed him god... He also clearly stated that if his best arguments were wrong it wouldn't change his mind. Seems pointless debating someone like that.
@Roper122 No, He said it would not diminish his faith if his arguments were demolished. He said so because his faith is not based on arguments, also he has other arguments. If he has other arguments, it seems further debate wouid NOT be pointless.
Now debating someone who is continuously condescending, insulting, and disrespectful for it's own sake would be pointless.
@Deke101 ...not sure if you're implying that I'm being condescending... I think what really annoys you is that I'm right.
The reason that question was so revealing was that it showed the truth about WLC, he himself doesn't put any "faith" in these arguments...
I'm sure he has other arguments, but these are clearly his best ( unfortunately for him )... He's far too cunning to discuss what his faith is really based on.
I'm sorry if you find my pointing out errors insulting...
@Deke101 ...well actually, if you're seeking to demonstrate to others that your faith is correct...then yeah...it does need to be based on something ..sorry.
Again, I don't consider pointing out mistakes disrespectful...and as for being insulting...well if you're that thin skinned, perhaps there's better places for you to try your luck.
@Deke101 ...I agree completely, if your faith is based on unseen evidence then it's impossible to justify...which is why it is inappropriate to attempt to, or to claim any authority.
Actually, being thin skinned is taking offence easily and quickly. I could easily take offence at what you say about me...but I don't, because I can clearly see it as an attempt to claim some high ground in an otherwise losing argument.
@Roper122 I only claim what I believe. I do not claim authority, at least not yet.
I have not taken offense. As I have already said, I was making an observation. Since you are not concerned, perhaps you CAN refrain from being condecending and stick to the subject matter. Doing so, I am not claiming any high ground. If the other IS losing the argument, WHY resort to playground antics? Since it does not further your argument, it can be concluded that you do it to stroke your own ego.
@Deke101 ...You may not claim authority, but others do. And it appears you claim to believe something which you cannot justify or prove, and you claim no authority...fine with me.
As for the other...apparently you take no offense...so why bring it up at all?
If you take no offense, and don't seek some self proclaimed moral high ground, it seems pointless...stick to the subject matter indeed.
"but others do." So? Others have grouped together and drank poisoned Kool-Aid. It is irrelevant to me. Stupid people do stupid things and use ALL manner of reasons to justify themselves.
I do justify my beliefs almost every day. Now, proof is another matter entirely. I guess I would say I have sufficient proof for ME, but it may not be for you.
Does one have to take offense at something to bring it up? Can one not just make a casual observation?
@Deke101 ..nope not hard at all. If you claim no authority, good for you, the vast majority of religious believers do, including WLC.
If you claim that your beliefs have no proof, at least not proof that could convince anyone else, good for you.
If more were like you these debates could stop.
As for the other, passing judgement on comments that by your own standards are not offensive...seems either pointless, or motivated by other intentions...Just my observation.
@Roper122 Besides, to persuade the other is not the ONLY point of a dabate. There is the exchange of ideas and information, as well as the benefit of the audiences. Also, the entertainment value.
@hexusziggurat ..thank you... Except that is exactly the point. I don't claim to know, but WLC does...and as you pointed out, he can't show any proof.
I don't blame him, I just point out where he's really coming from.
Craig is absolutely right. All those attributes preclude the creative agency from being a computer. They do, however, match the historical, philosophical definition of God. lol
Well noted by anyone who doesn't have an agenda to push. As I'm sure you already understand, the realm of atheism hasn't produced an original thought or concept since the days of Ingersoll and Voltaire. How could they? They have put their saddles on a long-dead and thoroughly decayed mule. How appropriate, since Craig routinely makes JACKASSES of them all. If Wolpert and Zindler are indicative of the BEST atheism has to offer, then their emperor truly has no clothes!
Ooooh! I think I've just been dissed. Among your basic understanding errors is (1) thinking that I'm promoting "religion". Couldn't be further from the truth. NO ONE gains eternal life because of religion; (2) superstition is based on myth and legend. That is YOUR area of expertise, my friend! My faith is based on the tried and true words of scripture. And lastly (3) there are lots of small-g gods out there. I serve the singular big-G God and He's fully clothed in righteousness!
Craig blew Wolpert out of the water in the same manner he has demolished every other atheist I've seen him debate. Craig is masterful, sincere, and well-versed in all that he said. The only point I'll give Wolpert is that he frankly acknowledged that the specifics about the "Big Bang" simply cannot be verified and should simply be accepted as such - remarkable since he espouses the anti-God position. How ironic that the CHRISTIAN in the debate takes what amounts to an evolutionist viewpoint!
@tigerlilly66 Then he has debated the wrong atheist. All you have to do is bring up the Bible and it's over. That was Wolpert's problem. He didn't use the right ammo. Whenever I debate a brainwashed christian apologist, i stick to the facts of the bible and have an easy time of it. Like shooting fish in a barrel.
Well, because YOU say that Craig isn't sincere, it MUST be so! No one of your stature and intellect could possible be wrong on this or any other point, not could he!
@HonestTechnoAtheist he did answer it though. You cannot have an infinite number of causations superceding the cause before it.....at some point (when considering the time stream) there MUST be a beginning...that beginning has to come from an uncaused source....immensly powerful...intellegent....immmaterial...etc, etc (WLC's platform).
@hexusziggurat "you cannot have an infinite number of causations superceding the cause before it...."
This may or may not be true. If there was a first cause it is more plausible to use something natural rather then something supernatural.
"that begnning has to come from an uncaused source..."
No that is only something Craig says. Modern cosmology is showing new information about the quantum vacuum and phyiscal particles which sheds new light on the origins of the big bang.
@HonestTechnoAtheist ok so if there can be a infinite number of causations superceding the prior causations (& they all exist in the time stream) we would never arrive at the point in time we are at now....b/c infinity backwards would still be unfolding. Thats the point i was trying to make. Even if each causation occured for only a millisecond....if it is infinately back into the time stream (infinite number of causations) & hence could never arrive "when" we are right now.
@hexusziggurat This is why I said it is possible that there was a first cause. But no need to use an even more complex god to explain a complex universe.
Countless philosphers hypothesized about the nature of time throughout history. They all had reasons for their conclusions, but none of them mattered because they weren't tested. Einstein, on the other hand, tested his theories and proved them. Craig = FAIL!
Well, what he is saying is describing the attributes minimally needed in order to create the universe. I'm sure "God" could sport a cane and a top hat, but it has no play in how the universe is created. Though I would not be able to reason why God sport a top hat and a cane in the first place. Does he feel fancy ?! lol Though I must admit, Craig is not really argueing the first cause as attributable to Christianity, but to a generic creator. This would be a proof for Deism at best.
Craig's well worn argument of who created the creator is quite laughable. Out of fiat he assigns attributes to an entity he could not possibly know anything about. If one can just assign any attribute at will, then I can say god wears a top hat and sports a cane, in addition to transcending time, space etc. So let's assign god more attributes and keep it going to make you god believers more secure in your beliefs. Anyone have more to offer? I bet he's good at playing computer games.
Hey...I have an idea! Why don't you and Brushles83 collaborate your thoughts? Maybe you can come up with ONE that isn't ludicrous, inane, and completely vapid?
i really like this guy wolpert, and now i know why. he is much too humble to be an atheist, or especially an ANTI-theist. he's agnostic. charmingly so.
well, einstein wasnt an atheist, he was only an atheist with regards to "a personal god" and "from the perspective of a jesuit priest' these qualifications seperate it from the general possible definitions of the word "god".
however i could be wrong about wolpert...i actually think he's an atheist. but not an ANTI-theist, which ANTI-theists deeply resent. wolpert might be the first atheist i've heard say that religious people live better lives. and yet, he points out, "i'm terribly sorry..."
So Craig is not interested in the truth..
balouthewatz 2 weeks ago
Humphry's may be the worst moderator I've seen recently.
johnmarkg 4 weeks ago
@johnmarkg Not a moderate is he? Craig destroyed Wolpert, but Humphry sees it the other way around!
shizzleman8 2 weeks ago
@johnmarkg
Thank you! He is terrible. He was clearly biased toward the atheist side, and kept helping Wolpert clarify his points, while giving Craig no such help (granted, Craig needed no help).
Mentat1231 1 week ago in playlist IS GOD A DELUSION? William Lane Craig vs Lewis Wolpert
8:56 he disproved God.. the debate is over
Metal1998 2 months ago
@Metal1998 He proved God... were you listening?
ThisMemory 4 weeks ago in playlist More videos from Christianjr4
craig-exposed.webs.com
Metal1998 2 months ago
I think Craig uses his argument to prove the existence of THE CONCEPT OF GOD rather than God him[it?]self; indeed, the concept of God (and of anything else) is outside time and space, it is eternal and needs not a creator.
maujo2009 2 months ago
Wolpert is brilliant and hilarious here!
nyscholartist 2 months ago
Since Craig is fond of quoting Martin Rees,
"Cosmologists sometimes claim that the universe can arise "from nothing". But they should watch their language, especially when addressing philosophers. We've realised ever since Einstein that empty space can have a structure such that it can be warped and distorted. Even if shrunk down to a "point", it is latent with particles and forces — still a far richer construct than the philosopher's 'Nothing'."
-Martin Rees on Universes Coming from Nothing
Drgamedood 3 months ago
7:58 I find it interesting that they use a false dichotomy to agree on bandwangon fallacy.
There are those who disagree with the BB or any other Universal beginning theory.
SC0RePIO 3 months ago
Two don't believe in God one does. So they argue to trip him up. Computational disfunctional but not personal God Therefore the argument is profane and not plausible.
stevalianarbone 4 months ago
Jesus dying on the cross of course is historical fact. After Jesus was crucified: It was Mary the mother of James saw the tomb was empty, Mary Magdalene and Joanna. It's not hard to see Jesus is God, simply by reading the Bible. Has bad as Herod and Pilate were they said he was innocent man.
stevalianarbone 4 months ago
Man cannot undestand eternal things unless God opens his eyes,
stevalianarbone 4 months ago
It's a wicked generation who ask for metrical
stevalianarbone 4 months ago
3 love now
stevalianarbone 4 months ago
Ironically both Craig and Wolpert are simultaneously correct:
The cosmic quantum computer:
1.) The wave-function of the universe is self-collapsing. (true by definition)
2.) Self-collapsing wave-functions are minds. (The Penrose-Hameroff quantum mind model, Orch-OR)
Conclusion, the wave-function of the universe is a mind: watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8
And if you don't believe it, google Paola Zizzi and "The Big Wow."
JohananRaatz 4 months ago 5
@JohananRaatz What a bunch of nonsense.
wownov83 4 months ago
@wownov83 Hey Stuart Hameroff agrees with me. I emailed him with the idea. He's the one who told me to look up Paola Zizzi.
Is it nonsense? Well if it is, then a pair of major name scientists are involved in nonsense.
JohananRaatz 4 months ago
@JohananRaatz Look; it's obvious that you know nothing about quantum physics. Just the way you use quantum terminology in such a liberal way, and apply it so casually to the most esoteric and unscientific areas, tells me more about your ideas than you possibly could.
wownov83 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wownov83 That's not true. My major in college was physics. I've taken 400 level QM classes. I know a fair deal about it.
"Just the way you use quantum terminology in such a liberal way,"
In what way was it liberal? It's just a simple extension of the conclusion of the measurement problem, and both premises are fairly simple.
JohananRaatz 4 months ago
@JohananRaatz Their model of the mind is not universally accepted by scientists or philosophers.
Drgamedood 3 months ago
@Drgamedood Well forget Orch-OR for a moment. We can tell in a more general sense that collapse is ontologically identical to observation. (the same fundamental physical process occurs when you observe something as when an inanimate detector does) We can know this as a fact from the Wigner's friend thought experiment.
This being the case, self-collapse (Orch-OR or otherwise) would be ontologically equivalent to self-observation, which is mental activity. Thus premise 2 would still work.
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@JohananRaatz No, premise is predicated on the penrose-hameroff model. No other model argues that the mind is a " Self-collapsing wave-function".
Seriously, if anyone did just a bit of research, they would know that the penrose-hameroff model was refuted by physicist Max Tegmark. There are also plenty of later peer-reviewed critiques. All in all, Orch-OR does not stand up to logical scrutiny.
Drgamedood 3 months ago
@Drgamedood Tegmark's argument as well as most other critiques is dependent on the warm brain argument. However quantum biology has shown that this is not necessarily valid, as quantum behavior has shown to affect increasingly warm biological systems.
"No other model"
No other well-formulated model yes. However it is quite apparent from the Wigner's Friend thought experiment that collapse = observation. All we need to do then is attach "self" to both of those terms to see the equivalence.
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
i love how the mod calls out dr.craig about not providing a shred of evidence. poor craig so dishonest, like my mom always said "You cant trust someone that has a first name for a last name"
atheistcommonsense 5 months ago
"What your calling a computer is actually God" haha William Lane Craig is amazing
REDRAGON12345 6 months ago
@REDRAGON12345 Actually it is Wolpert who makes Craig look stupid here by demonstrating that you can insert almost anything as the first cause for the 'creation' of the universe if all you have to offer is speculation without evidence.
petestutz 5 months ago
I've seen that Craig has an advantage in formal debates (because of his confidence and rehearsed answers) but when it comes to having a conversation, his ignorance is exposed
94jmcorrea 6 months ago
wow wolpert had a pretty gay attitude here, I mean, literally
signofthehammer 6 months ago
@timguyperson "A miracle is something that defies the laws of nature...." In this case christian God does not do any miracles. as for walking on water by Jesus - there is no reason to think he did defy any law - he just knew how to and could. If there were no experiments done and notes writen - all we have is eyewithness - we cannot be 100% sure. If Jesus was who he claimed to be then there is not much problem as his desciples did not walk on water nor claimed the ability.
girtkaz 6 months ago
I love the fact that Craig said it clearly, so that christians out there can understand the difference: this whole debate campaign is not a pursuit of truth, please christians, get that right, this is about propaganda, about promoting an ideology. I say it because christians keep saying Craig's arguments remain unrefuted because either he repeats them or has 'answers' to them. Or that he 'wins' the debates therefore he's right, when 'winning' here is not about truth but about persuassion.
sirdelrio 6 months ago
@timguyperson "....However when the evidence stacks up to the point that it would be a miracle not to believe the evidence..." could you explain yourself ? I do not get it. You should define what you call a miracle to make sense.
girtkaz 6 months ago
@timguyperson "...What Wolpert asks for is a miracle to change his mind, a miracle that would be a genuine miracle and thus stand up to scientific investigation and not simply be explained as a delusion..." It is wrong due to limitations of science. All what science is able to do(at least this far) is a material descriptions of the proceses involved in the event. Can give paterns that would make an event a miricle?
girtkaz 6 months ago
All Wolpert has going for him is that he's witty.. that's it. He didn't bring ANYTHING to the table.
Soul4JC 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@deanmean87 This is certainly the case with Richard Dawkins, he says if a marbles statue of Mary waved at him he would conclude that all the atoms in the statue's arm just happen to move in one direction and back again!
allan3141 8 months ago
Craig: "Your computer is just another word for god if you rob it of all the attributes that make it a computer"
Except it's non-sentient. Can't believe Wolpert didn't counter with this. Everything in Craig's repertoire can be easily refuted. Craig always stops short of claiming god is real, instead he makes "arguments" for the existence of "a god" without mentioning any specific religion's god, or even claiming one as fact. He is a skilled apologist but ultimately disingenuous.
sonicBlue00 8 months ago
@sonicBlue00 Wolpert did counter with take, when he said "NO" but then went back on even that, as a result of Craig making (repeating) an argument, Wolpert then continued with his childish school yard retort, "not this computer, oh nooooooo." Where that was going should have been obvious to Wolpert but it wasn't and so got duly hit out of the stadium.
allan3141 8 months ago
"This is a special computer" lol. I love this old geezer Lewis Wolpert. I can only wish to be as sharp an witty as him when im the same age.
Henkera 8 months ago
This computer is aaaaamazing!
integralmath 8 months ago
It's a great invention for sophists, isn't it?
God is _by definition_ whatever stuffs the yawning gaps in a Christian apologist's fallacious arguments!
MareIngenii 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
8:47
Craig SMACKDOWN!!!
Wolpert manages to make himself look like a complete fool!
Birdieupon 9 months ago
@Birdieupon He did and yet you read the comments on this thread and .............................well, facepalm. I am not Christian and yet I can see that these 'arguments' being made by these atheists are pretty darn shallow.
allan3141 8 months ago
Comment removed
Birdieupon 9 months ago
Comment removed
Birdieupon 9 months ago
The computer analogy cracked me up. Dr. Craig completely destroyed his argument.
SonnyDelight55 9 months ago
@SonnyDelight55 He most certainly did destroy it . Yet you then read the inane, delusional comment above by sonicBlue00 and wonder if he actually watched the clip he is commenting on or has selective hearing or something!
SoniBlue00 also speaks of Craig being "disingenuous" yet it is Wolpert who made a great feigned play about "I just don't know" but goes on to be pretty darn emphatic about a great many things that are truth claims from the Atheist Catechism.
allan3141 8 months ago
@allan3141
Uh, no, he didn't destroy it because a computer is non-sentient. And stop spamming the comments you asspained creationtard.
sonicBlue00 8 months ago
@sonicBlue00 "Uh, no, he didn't destroy it because a computer is non-sentient." We have covered this already.
"And stop spamming" I am not 'spamming' I am replying to comments like you are. That is the purpose of the comments boxes, is it not?
"asspained creationtard" I am not Creationist, I am not even a Christian. But a response like that says a lot more about you than it ever says about me.
allan3141 8 months ago
@allan3141
["We have covered this already."]
lol no we haven't. You are still left with explaining why a non-sentient god is not as plausible as a sentient one.
["I am not Creationist, I am not even a Christian"]
Oh sure you aren't. That's why you have all these atheist hate videos favourited on your channel.
sonicBlue00 7 months ago
@sonicBlue00 (1) "You are still left with explaining why a non-sentient god," No I am not so left, as that was not quite the issue being discussed. But as you raise it; you seriously think a non-sentient God is as plausible as a sentient one? So if there is a God it (without being an agent) made me sentient when it was not sentient, how would it hold the idea? cont...
allan3141 7 months ago
@allan3141
["you seriously think a non-sentient God is as plausible as a sentient one?"]
Sure, why not?
["So if there is a God it (without being an agent) made me sentient when it was not sentient, how would it hold the idea?"]
It doesn't "hold the idea" because it's non-sentient. It's simply a non-sentient force that could have brought the physical singularity into existence.
sonicBlue00 7 months ago
@sonicBlue00 cont… (2) And God made me better, in a very significant way, namely conscious, when it wasn’t? Can you make a sentient thing? Do you, or anyone else, even in principle know how one could be made? In any case; the issue was touched upon by Craig during the first half of the debate, he gave arguments there, particularly about agency. cont…
allan3141 7 months ago
@allan3141
["Do you, or anyone else, even in principle know how one could be made?"]
Yes, through simple recursive processes repeating for billions of years, which result in complexity, eg. evolution.
sonicBlue00 7 months ago
@sonicBlue00 cont... (3) “Oh sure you aren't.” This really is too much; surely I must know what I am better than you. Comments such as these really make a conversation pointless.
“all these atheist hate videos favourited” I have a wide variety of videos favourited, but none of them are “hate” videos!
allan3141 7 months ago
@SonnyDelight55
yea me too. I literally lol'd.
177xxxx 7 months ago
I fucking love the British.
Zimnyification 9 months ago
Tipoomaster, on the contrary a good scientist is always open to new evidence and MUST be prepared to reject their beliefs, no matter how fondly held, in the teeth of overwhelmingly contadictary evidence.
susanlee17 10 months ago
@ .20 seconds into this clip, notice Dr. Wolpert try to nudge his chair as far away as possible from Dr. Craig's chair. Ok, fine you disagree, but the man doesn't have AIDS! LOL
djs259 10 months ago
I'll tell you what people, I am in awe of the Craig's benevolence in the face of such provocation and willful filibustering. How he can smile, keep his composure and maintain his presence of mind despite such stupidity is a tribute to his veracity and the integrity of his character
happysappy21 11 months ago 3
@happysappy21 I am not a Christian but I agree with you.
allan3141 8 months ago
Wolpert is not taking the discussion seriously at all. That's why he is messing about in abandon, freely contradicting himself and not minding. Can be funny but it's also a bit annoying.
stephenblackman2003a 1 year ago
@stephenblackman2003a agreed in part, but I think it is also a reflection of something deeper.
allan3141 8 months ago
We don't know and can't prove that there is an eternal timeless intelligence. For all we know it could be an emergent transient intelligence that started our universe, fine-tuning it from some other dimension or parallel universe. It is unwise to make assumptions before the verdict is out. Let science investigate this for a couple hundred years and we should have a much better answer.
craigblack1234 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@craigblack1234 "We don't know and can't prove that there is an eternal timeless intelligence. For all we know it could be an emergent transient intelligence that started our universe"
Occam's Razor favors the God hypothesis.
Jugglable 1 year ago
@craigblack1234 "Let science investigate this for a couple hundred years and we should have a much better answer." Hate to point this out to you but you will be dead.
allan3141 8 months ago
So the whole point of Lewis' argument, was to prove that he doesn't know anything?
ArgentinianTraceur 1 year ago 3
@ArgentinianTraceur Yes but be was't being honest for he goes no to be pretty darn emphatic about a great many things and contradicting himself.
allan3141 8 months ago
A few miracles will change his mind? I just think that is so disingenuous. If he is a scientific naturalist and fundamental about his beliefs, then even a miracle won't convince him. First, how can he recognize a miracle? And second, holding sternly onto his beliefs, won't he try to explain them as hallucinations or whatever?. So in the end, the status quo is maintained.
deanmean87 1 year ago 5
@deanmean87 Very well said. Any miracle would be explained away via the best naturalistic explanation someone could think up. If no naturalistic explanation could be thought then it would be explained away as us not having a natural explanation yet.
Dexiclecom 9 months ago
@Dexiclecom This is certainly the case with Richard Dawkins, he says if a marbles statue of Mary waved at him he would conclude that all the atoms in the statue's arm just happen to move in one direction and back again!
allan3141 8 months ago
@deanmean87
Well, a miracle is a suspension of the natural order.
My mindset would indeed be that if I ever did witness a proclaimed miracle, i.e. seeing the walking dead, I would think I was hallucinating.
But I'm not speaking for Wolpert, and I would assume that you cannot either. You don't know that if after a few [prophecised] miracles in favour of Christianity would not change Wolperts mindset.
ElDuorPaso 9 months ago
@deanmean87
["how can he recognize a miracle?"]
An event that doesn't follow the natural order.
["won't he try to explain them as hallucinations or whatever?"]
With multiple witnesses that can be ruled out. Or if there are no witnesses, one can have their state of mental health scientifically evaluated and deemed likely to be not hallucinatory.
sonicBlue00 8 months ago
@deanmean87 seriously?? U don't think there's any way he would accept that God has intervened in nature?? That's just willfully ignorant on your part.. Sure if he experienced it by him self alone with no eye witnesses than he wouldn't accept it.. But if 1000 people saw it, it left behind physical evidence, perhaps some video tape evidence??? Considering the things God COULD do but ISN'T doing.... That's a wild statement...
I can't even begin to express the venom I am heaping on you right now..
SHIBBYiPANDA 7 months ago
@deanmean87 He was being facetious.
PhillyLet 7 months ago
@PhillyLet Actually I think he was being largely sincere with a few grains of ironic humor thrown in.
ShawDAMAN 7 months ago
@ShawDAMAN Incredible insight.
PhillyLet 7 months ago
@PhillyLet As was your comment. ;)
ShawDAMAN 7 months ago
This is great hahahaa I've gotten belly laughs from these interchanges so far. It's great to see a more congenial, light hearted treatment of these issues- have some fun with it. It's a huge topic. The moderator and Wolpert are very entertaining.
ShawDAMAN 7 months ago
@PhillyLet Oh you've never been more wrong in your life.
BobDole3005 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why did God make me an atheist?
cazannep 1 year ago
How would Craig explain Horace, Mithra, and many many other greek gods before the supposed jesus that were born from virgins, had three wise men, 12 disciples, all crucified and raised on the 3rd day. Answer, he can't. Watch zeitgeist.
setmedic 1 year ago
@setmedic I agree. The religion is a rehash of older mythology.
supersmash43 1 year ago
@setmedic You obviously have incredibly poor scholarship in this area the zeitgeist is almost completely false and has been show to be so
the1qb 1 year ago
@the1qb have it your way. You're welcome to worship any deity you like. I just think the masochism is a creepy and sinister impulse. It's the essence of unfreedom.
setmedic 1 year ago
@setmedic Again you have made no argument you just simply thrown an ad hominem fallacy which shows that you really have no argument.
the1qb 1 year ago
@setmedic you believe you are one big chemical reaction how unfree can you get?
allan3141 8 months ago
Comment removed
allan3141 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@setmedic but on the one point I know most about in Zeitgeist it was COMPLETETLY wrong. It claimed that Krishna was born of a virgin! How would you explain that?
allan3141 8 months ago
I bet the cosmic computer uses an IBM Power7 processor.
tipoomaster 1 year ago 29
@tipoomaster Even with all the molecules needed for life proteins RNA DNA enzymes cell wall...EVERYTHING..put it all in the perfect solution in a test tube under amazing conditions in the most advanced laboratory in the world..
It would all breakdown in seconds and fall apart..
and this was suppose to happen on a harsh Toxic poisonous primordial earth in some sea vent or mud..
What a Fuckin JOKE!!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv that's the new 'science' for ya, courtesy of the atheists. But remember they only deal in observable, repeatable, demonstrable, and falsifiable facts! Yeah right.
allan3141 8 months ago
@tipoomaster If evolutionists had optically pure DNA, RNA, and amino acids, they would still have nothing. In fact, the energy needed to form the bonds to make the macromolecules necessary for a cell, will destroy any DNA, RNA, and amino acids that are outside of a cell. to get amino acids to self assemble is impossible..there is no natural process.to make a cell evolve ..it would be easier to build the space shuttle..blindfolded while riding a unicycle
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv
And why are you replying to my post? I just made a joke.
tipoomaster 1 year ago
@tipoomaster
LOL
keatris 10 months ago
@tipoomaster I hope not.
djs259 10 months ago
@tipoomaster Dell for sure not! (just for fun, watch on youtube:"what if Matrix was made in WIndows!" funny)
Cisser 4 months ago
Who are they clapping for at 9:00. Craig or Lewis?
berno91 1 year ago
Nothing Wolpert could say would change Craig's mind? Jeez, stubborn much?
finchy633 1 year ago
@finchy633 Craig has been quoted (by ex-minister John Loftus) as saying if he was taken back in time and watched jesus not rise from the dead on easter Sunday -- he would STILL believe because of his faith.
punnet2 11 months ago
@punnet2
I don't think so. Watch this vid where Craig says the opposite at about 4:10 (The quality is a little poor, but tolerable)
watch?v=WMxTghJQxEc
keatris 10 months ago
@keatris Of course, anyone who uses the bones of jesus as falsification knows that condition can't be met: How would we identify them as jesus' bones? Is there a DNA sample to match them against?
The Loftus book I'm citing is "How I Became an Atheist", where he quotes Craig as saying his faith would trump witnessing the event first-hand.
punnet2 10 months ago
@punnet2 - if loftus is as incompetent an author as he is a debator, I would consider looking for others sources if I were you
incidentally, and this is advice you can choose to ignore, if you want to make a favorable opinion on others in intellectual debates, I would quote loftus as little as possible (if at all) in public
mollkatles 10 months ago
@mollkatles Pardon, me, but my only mention of Loftus was to provide the source of the quote attributed to Craig (which he made in response to a question from Mark Smith). Unless you're insinuating that Loftus is slandering Craig with a false quote, your poor opinion of Loftus is irrelevant.
And as long as there are christians who embrace Craig as a defender of their faith, there's no need to raise the bar higher than someone like Loftus.
punnet2 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wolpert deflects his lack of intellectual prowess with his mildly-witty comments and British accent which amplifies his ostensibly sound refutations. William Lane Craig is leagues above this man.
richp860 1 year ago
Wolpert deflects his lack of intellectual prowess with his mildly-witty comments and British accent which amplifies his ostensibly sound refutations. William Lane Craig is leagues about this man.
richp860 1 year ago
9:21 "I'm saying I don't KNOW what caused it"
Wolpert sounds like a whining kid here.
Jugglable 1 year ago
That bit about the "super computer" really puts the final nail into the coffin of this "flying spaghetti monster" nonsense.
SycrosD4 1 year ago
Lewis claims to have no idea what caused the universe, then when a plausible explanation is presented he claims he knows it wasn't that. He's essentially saying "I know it wasn't God because I don't know what it (the cause) was". Foolish. If your gonna make a claim that God did not cause it, you need to be able to explain why, and give a better alternative explanation.
EVSjahms 1 year ago
Lewis Wolpert is a complete idiot.
Anyone that requires justification for my claim (above) is also a complete idiot. (assuming they have watched all the vids in the series and do not think he is an idiot.)
othellopiano 1 year ago
You can't play minesweeper on God.
PossumCuber 1 year ago
God was created by the flying spaghetti monster.
PossumCuber 1 year ago
Lewis... "A few miracles would make me reconsider...."... what a winner!
shashintokyo 1 year ago
WLC... I believe because I want to... what a loser....
shashintokyo 1 year ago
WLC - " It wouldn't have mattered what he said "
That sums it all up perfectly.
and yet Wolpert admits he could reconsider... and therein lies the difference.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 "b/c he has more arguements" meaning WLC has thought out well all the possible reasons why he himself might have his faith shaken & adressed those points. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. That did not mean if ALL of his arguements were debunked would WLC change his mind ...we the audiesnce, don't have a conclusion on that.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat ...No actually, WLC has pointed out that even if his top, and most credible arguments ( and if these are his most credible he's on shaky ground )...even if they were all shown to be 100% wrong... He would not even consider changing his position.
And you are seriously trying to imply that if all of his arguments were refuted he might change? Nonsense. He would simply make up new ones ( which is what he does for a living )
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 actually coming to assumptions is shaky ground at best! I'm not implying anything other than what I said...though as to what you said....
"And you are seriously trying to imply that if all of his arguments were refuted he might change? Nonsense." We the audience do not know. Which is, a completely true statement.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat " We the audience do not know "
Well I know, so let me educate you... WLC believes the holy spirit showed him god... He also clearly stated that if his best arguments were wrong it wouldn't change his mind. Seems pointless debating someone like that.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 No, He said it would not diminish his faith if his arguments were demolished. He said so because his faith is not based on arguments, also he has other arguments. If he has other arguments, it seems further debate wouid NOT be pointless.
Now debating someone who is continuously condescending, insulting, and disrespectful for it's own sake would be pointless.
Deke101 1 year ago
@Deke101 ...not sure if you're implying that I'm being condescending... I think what really annoys you is that I'm right.
The reason that question was so revealing was that it showed the truth about WLC, he himself doesn't put any "faith" in these arguments...
I'm sure he has other arguments, but these are clearly his best ( unfortunately for him )... He's far too cunning to discuss what his faith is really based on.
I'm sorry if you find my pointing out errors insulting...
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 Lol. If you are right, it would certainly not annoy me. It would simply BE.
What exactly does faith NEED to be based on? I know what my faith is based on, but what would do it for you? I am sure you have faith in something.
No, pointing out errors is not insulting. Being condescendig and disrespectful is insulting, but you know exactly what I am talking about.
Deke101 1 year ago
@Deke101 ...well actually, if you're seeking to demonstrate to others that your faith is correct...then yeah...it does need to be based on something ..sorry.
Again, I don't consider pointing out mistakes disrespectful...and as for being insulting...well if you're that thin skinned, perhaps there's better places for you to try your luck.
Welcome to youtube - get a helmet.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 How can you demonstrate your faith is correct? If faith is based on things unseen, how does one do that?
As I have already agreed, pointing out errors, mistakes, etc. in and of itself is not insulting. Again, you still know what I am talking about.
Pointing out that someone is incapable of holding an adult conversation without being insulting is not being thin-skinned, it is an observation.
Deke101 1 year ago
@Deke101 ...I agree completely, if your faith is based on unseen evidence then it's impossible to justify...which is why it is inappropriate to attempt to, or to claim any authority.
Actually, being thin skinned is taking offence easily and quickly. I could easily take offence at what you say about me...but I don't, because I can clearly see it as an attempt to claim some high ground in an otherwise losing argument.
I'm not even slightly concerned.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 I only claim what I believe. I do not claim authority, at least not yet.
I have not taken offense. As I have already said, I was making an observation. Since you are not concerned, perhaps you CAN refrain from being condecending and stick to the subject matter. Doing so, I am not claiming any high ground. If the other IS losing the argument, WHY resort to playground antics? Since it does not further your argument, it can be concluded that you do it to stroke your own ego.
Deke101 1 year ago
@Deke101 ...You may not claim authority, but others do. And it appears you claim to believe something which you cannot justify or prove, and you claim no authority...fine with me.
As for the other...apparently you take no offense...so why bring it up at all?
If you take no offense, and don't seek some self proclaimed moral high ground, it seems pointless...stick to the subject matter indeed.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 There. That was not so hard.
"but others do." So? Others have grouped together and drank poisoned Kool-Aid. It is irrelevant to me. Stupid people do stupid things and use ALL manner of reasons to justify themselves.
I do justify my beliefs almost every day. Now, proof is another matter entirely. I guess I would say I have sufficient proof for ME, but it may not be for you.
Does one have to take offense at something to bring it up? Can one not just make a casual observation?
Deke101 1 year ago
@Deke101 ..nope not hard at all. If you claim no authority, good for you, the vast majority of religious believers do, including WLC.
If you claim that your beliefs have no proof, at least not proof that could convince anyone else, good for you.
If more were like you these debates could stop.
As for the other, passing judgement on comments that by your own standards are not offensive...seems either pointless, or motivated by other intentions...Just my observation.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 Besides, to persuade the other is not the ONLY point of a dabate. There is the exchange of ideas and information, as well as the benefit of the audiences. Also, the entertainment value.
Deke101 1 year ago
@Roper122 well if you know without proof...i guess then that WLC can't be blamed for knowing God & not showing you that proof.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat ..thank you... Except that is exactly the point. I don't claim to know, but WLC does...and as you pointed out, he can't show any proof.
I don't blame him, I just point out where he's really coming from.
Roper122 1 year ago
"No i don't have to prove, I have to admit ignorance" : my favorite part
chrismx24 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chrismx24 "No i don't have to prove, I have to admit ignorance"
isn't it odd though how the theist cannot get away with using that statement!
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
I'm watching this one a special computer as well :P
TheVodkaHaze 1 year ago
Craig is absolutely right. All those attributes preclude the creative agency from being a computer. They do, however, match the historical, philosophical definition of God. lol
ElasticGiraffe 1 year ago
The crowd is fucking stupid!!!!
radufefceac 1 year ago
I have noticed many comments on William Craig videos by Atheist complaining that Craig's arguments and evidence is the same in every debate.
Hmmm, when someone speaks the truth , their story never changes.
Set4Life22 1 year ago
@Set4Life22 =
Well noted by anyone who doesn't have an agenda to push. As I'm sure you already understand, the realm of atheism hasn't produced an original thought or concept since the days of Ingersoll and Voltaire. How could they? They have put their saddles on a long-dead and thoroughly decayed mule. How appropriate, since Craig routinely makes JACKASSES of them all. If Wolpert and Zindler are indicative of the BEST atheism has to offer, then their emperor truly has no clothes!
tigerlilly66 1 year ago
@tigerlilly66 ...oh I just saw this... It's hysterically funny.
Atheism hasn't had a new thought in years????
Religion has been the same B.S. For centuries.
I don't see how pointing out that superstitious nonsense is wrong requires anything new...it's Childs play.
Oh and by the way, the emperor does have no clothes...except you don't call him the emperor, you call him god.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 =
Ooooh! I think I've just been dissed. Among your basic understanding errors is (1) thinking that I'm promoting "religion". Couldn't be further from the truth. NO ONE gains eternal life because of religion; (2) superstition is based on myth and legend. That is YOUR area of expertise, my friend! My faith is based on the tried and true words of scripture. And lastly (3) there are lots of small-g gods out there. I serve the singular big-G God and He's fully clothed in righteousness!
tigerlilly66 1 year ago
@tigerlilly66 ... I'll give you a big G... Gee that was a weak response.
1/ you refer to scripture, that's religion my friend... Sorry.
2/ you actually use that scripture to claim that it's not myth ( this is both using religion & a weak argument )
And
3/ when someone proves that god is real, he can have a g...I don't need to use capitals for made up characters.
And Im sorry if I dissed you, it was too funny to pass up.
Roper122 1 year ago
Craig blew Wolpert out of the water in the same manner he has demolished every other atheist I've seen him debate. Craig is masterful, sincere, and well-versed in all that he said. The only point I'll give Wolpert is that he frankly acknowledged that the specifics about the "Big Bang" simply cannot be verified and should simply be accepted as such - remarkable since he espouses the anti-God position. How ironic that the CHRISTIAN in the debate takes what amounts to an evolutionist viewpoint!
tigerlilly66 1 year ago
@tigerlilly66 you gotta be pretty weak minded to think that Craig won this
Brushles83 1 year ago 2
@Brushles83 =
Thank you for pointing out that I'm "weak-minded". I never claimed to be the intellectual giant that YOU obviously are.
I Corinthians 1:27
tigerlilly66 1 year ago
@tigerlilly66 hey, don't mention it :o)
Brushles83 1 year ago
@tigerlilly66 Then he has debated the wrong atheist. All you have to do is bring up the Bible and it's over. That was Wolpert's problem. He didn't use the right ammo. Whenever I debate a brainwashed christian apologist, i stick to the facts of the bible and have an easy time of it. Like shooting fish in a barrel.
juarez2010 1 year ago
@tigerlilly66 Craig's anything but sincere...
JohnnyDizm 1 year ago
@JohnnyDizm =
Well, because YOU say that Craig isn't sincere, it MUST be so! No one of your stature and intellect could possible be wrong on this or any other point, not could he!
Get real
tigerlilly66 1 year ago
Dont Craig look like a older version of Face from the A-Team? hahaha
Buggz21 1 year ago
@Buggz21 he does haha..hes a legend tho...
tiarnan76 1 year ago
Craig didn't really answer what came before god. Other than to say that god doesn't need a beginning.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist he did answer it though. You cannot have an infinite number of causations superceding the cause before it.....at some point (when considering the time stream) there MUST be a beginning...that beginning has to come from an uncaused source....immensly powerful...intellegent....immmaterial...etc, etc (WLC's platform).
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat "you cannot have an infinite number of causations superceding the cause before it...."
This may or may not be true. If there was a first cause it is more plausible to use something natural rather then something supernatural.
"that begnning has to come from an uncaused source..."
No that is only something Craig says. Modern cosmology is showing new information about the quantum vacuum and phyiscal particles which sheds new light on the origins of the big bang.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist ok so if there can be a infinite number of causations superceding the prior causations (& they all exist in the time stream) we would never arrive at the point in time we are at now....b/c infinity backwards would still be unfolding. Thats the point i was trying to make. Even if each causation occured for only a millisecond....if it is infinately back into the time stream (infinite number of causations) & hence could never arrive "when" we are right now.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat This is why I said it is possible that there was a first cause. But no need to use an even more complex god to explain a complex universe.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
This moderator is awesome!
Eyelash85 1 year ago
Countless philosphers hypothesized about the nature of time throughout history. They all had reasons for their conclusions, but none of them mattered because they weren't tested. Einstein, on the other hand, tested his theories and proved them. Craig = FAIL!
MrSalamander7 1 year ago
Comment removed
112breaker 1 year ago
Well, what he is saying is describing the attributes minimally needed in order to create the universe. I'm sure "God" could sport a cane and a top hat, but it has no play in how the universe is created. Though I would not be able to reason why God sport a top hat and a cane in the first place. Does he feel fancy ?! lol Though I must admit, Craig is not really argueing the first cause as attributable to Christianity, but to a generic creator. This would be a proof for Deism at best.
hippo11222 2 years ago
Craig's well worn argument of who created the creator is quite laughable. Out of fiat he assigns attributes to an entity he could not possibly know anything about. If one can just assign any attribute at will, then I can say god wears a top hat and sports a cane, in addition to transcending time, space etc. So let's assign god more attributes and keep it going to make you god believers more secure in your beliefs. Anyone have more to offer? I bet he's good at playing computer games.
juarez2010 2 years ago
@juarez2010 =
Your logic is also quite laughable, in a rather pathetic sense, I might add.
tigerlilly66 1 year ago
@tigerlilly66 Sorry, but you don't even know what you are saying. Don't enter an arena in which you're ignorant of the facts.
juarez2010 1 year ago
@juarez2010 =
Hey...I have an idea! Why don't you and Brushles83 collaborate your thoughts? Maybe you can come up with ONE that isn't ludicrous, inane, and completely vapid?
Waddya think?
tigerlilly66 1 year ago
Luke 11:29
zsifk 2 years ago
Craig stays three steps ahead the entire time and Wolpert doesn't even realize it
tchristian04 2 years ago
I want Wolpert's computer!
Nocturnalux 2 years ago
Wolpert's computer is the most wonderful god :)
Muuzip99 2 years ago
What you are calling a magical computer is GOD? LOL!
daleshankins 2 years ago
we invented the number 7 it's a concept!! just as we invented god!!
carveawoodeneye 2 years ago
i really like this guy wolpert, and now i know why. he is much too humble to be an atheist, or especially an ANTI-theist. he's agnostic. charmingly so.
artistandy77 2 years ago
Well, he repeatedly stressed he didnt believe in a "personal deity". That would indeed make him an a-theist...
Wrath0fKhan 2 years ago
well, einstein wasnt an atheist, he was only an atheist with regards to "a personal god" and "from the perspective of a jesuit priest' these qualifications seperate it from the general possible definitions of the word "god".
however i could be wrong about wolpert...i actually think he's an atheist. but not an ANTI-theist, which ANTI-theists deeply resent. wolpert might be the first atheist i've heard say that religious people live better lives. and yet, he points out, "i'm terribly sorry..."