Oh Jesus... Craig just has a script memorized. For his opening, rebuttal, conclusion... Just MEMORIZED and delivered in exactly the same way no matter WHAT his opponent has to say. Think I'm full of it? Watch WLC do his thing. Each one of his arguments has been ruined 1000 times over, and an overabundance of these well executed video rebuttals can been watched (ad nauseum) right here on Youtube. In conclusion: Religion is nonsense & Craig is a clown. Honk Honk!
If you know anyone who's been falsely DMCA'd by William Lane Craig collaborator John Leonard, otherwise known as drcraigvideos, please contact @thunderf00t.
"Mathematicians recognize that the existence of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions."
What? What mathematicians? In what way do they lead to self-contradictions? What sort of self-contradictions, and what do they imply? Are they universal or contextual?
Is this truly what a consensus of mathematicians acknowledge, or is he quote-mining something that's contradicted in the very same book the quote appears in (as with his Vilenkin quote)?
Also, things CAN pop into being out of nothing. This has been scientifically observed. So he at least has to change his argument to "things don't usually pop into being out of nothing," or "big things don't pop into being out of nothing," which are really pretty weak by comparison...
@pastafarianprophet When has something ever popped into being out of nothing, and what was it? I'm not a proponent of Craig, I have simply never heard of such a event, and am curious as to where you heard this
A "cause" implies a succession of events, a succession of events implies time, time is a part of the universe, therefore it makes no sense to say that the universe was caused. How can something precede the beginning of time?
I watched Quentin Smith hang Craig and Plantinga on this and all Craig had was "but it can start at the point of nothing just before the beginning, can't it?" Smith: "how is that a point?" Craig: drinks from glass and shuts up. lol
@PhysicsMajor2014 I've looked into virtual particles already and find it to be an insufficient proof, not knowing the doesn't prove there isn't one, it's a possibility, but no more then that.
Theres a great deal you dont understand about the universe. Einsteins general theory of relativity proves the universe had a beginning. or how about earths rapid magnetic field reversal as proof of a young earth. try debunking some of the papers on genesis files in the creation section. your rebuttal was crap, theres not one good point i could take away from it and i was looking for a good argument to strengthen my faith. wait a let down the atheist team.
I'm sure that someone already pointed this out, but to be fair, Craig never said "Nothing can exist without a cause", instead he said "Nothing can come into existence without a cause". Though what it means for a being capable of action and thought to exist 'timelessly' is anyone's guess.
man this is dumb and yet look at the votes, my faith in the YouTube community is pretty much dead.
7:14 He never said nothing can exist without a cause (palm-face), it's right in the first premise! I don't know how you could miss this. It's whatever "begins to exist" needs a cause, not "everything" that exists needs a cause. Sigh. This is the type of shoddy work that gets thumbs up?
@TheHonestTheist Problem is, what is there that "begins" to exist as opposed to simply becoming a rearrangement of previously existing matter and energy? When does a beach begin to exist? We attach arbitrary points at which we state something begins to exist, but that doesn't mean a form has BEGUN to exist anything more than mixing ingredients together makes a cake begin to exist.
I recommend my William Lane Craig 6 video for a more indepth view, thought I doubt you're as honest as you claim.
As for your question "what is there that "begins" to exist", the answer is you, you began to exist. Now it is true that the matter which makes up your body was reconstructed from previously existing matter, but that doesn't mean that you existed forever. You began to exist in your Mother's womb (or earlier as the case may be), to say that nothing began is to say you have always existed. There is a distinction here that a lot of people miss.
The names and states given to particular arrangements of matter are arbitrary and anthropocentric, which means we only SAY things begin to exist at particular points in time and space, and also a beginning is not something you can pinpoint to a finite event or state. You may as well say our sun began to exist at the point where one atom which ends up incorporated in it started to move within the progenitor dust cloud from which it sprang.
@Th1sWasATriumph "You may as well say our sun began to exist at the point where one atom which ends up incorporated in it started to move within the progenitor dust cloud from which it sprang"
That's just silly, you can't call an atom a Sun. Precise definitions are pointless, this, like you other video, is pure semantics.
As for the point you avoided, look to the original comment, that's the point you failed to address.
@Th1sWasATriumph "You may as well say our sun began to exist at the point where one atom which ends up incorporated in it started to move within the progenitor dust cloud from which it sprang" I wonder if you listen to yourself...
@TheHonestTheist If Craig can say that God doesn't require a cause because he has always existed, could it be safe to say the same thing about the universe?
@urantivirus It would be, if it wasn't for the evidence against it. If you study the history of cosmology you will see that the belief that the universe is eternal is an old and now unfavourable belief. Einstein used to believe the universe was static and eternal, until Hubble came along (along with Lamatre and Friedman) and showed that the universe is expanding. Then later Penzias and Wilson discovered cosmic background radiation, which confirmed the hot big bang model and a finite universe.
@TheHonestTheist In short, no it's not safe to say the universe is eternal, it may be, but at the moment the science is not in favour of that conclusion. As science has refined it's results, it has moved towards the idea that the universe is finite, it had a beginning and thus a moment of creation.
@TheHonestTheist So it's not safe to say that the matter in the universe is eternal? What evidence do we have against that? I know the universe had a beginning, but we're not sure about the matter and space/time that makes up the universe. An eternal god is much less likely than an eternal universe. We have no evidence for a god. If we had any evidence, we'd be able to say something about god. Instead we know nothing, but you think it makes more sense to assume there is a god.
@TheHonestTheist You have evidence for God? If all the matter and space/time came from outside the universe, that requires a god? A god, period, is incredibly unlikely. More unlikely than a natural universe. A god is much more complicated than a universe, would you agree? So you think it's more likely that something more complicated than the universe occurred naturally, but it couldn't have happened to the universe.
"you think it makes more sense to assume there is a god" I don't assume it, I conclude it. Check out "Case for a Creator" (playlist on my channel), plus a few other videos at the top, there you will see some evidence. Such as evidence for a finite universe, both scientifically through the history of cosmology and philosophically through the kalam cosmological argument. You will also see a presentation of the Fine Tuning Argument, which demonstrates the odds against such a universe occurring.
"As for your question "what is there that "begins" to exist", the answer is you, you began to exist"
i never began to exist, and neither did you..there is no ME..i am a constantly changing entity..i was not the same person 15 years ago. i won't be 20 years from now..and before i was born, i was a fetus..before conception, i was dna from an ovary and a sperm cell..before that i was nature..we are temporary formations..we don't begin. we gradually evolve from previous states.
@itzahazylife There is a distinction between a thing and the matter that thing is made of. You keep pointing towards the matter/energy and try to say you were that, but you were not, your body was, not you. You had a beginning, maybe your body didn't, but you did. You are not eternal, to say otherwise is just silly and fails to make the obvious distinction I am trying to make clear.
you're still incorrect..when u say I had a beginning, u mean my consciousness, since it's what makes me who I am. the essence of my personality. but, my consciousness is generated by my brain, my brain was gradually constructed by my dna, that dna was constructed by atoms, and those atoms came from energy..but the main thing is, at what point did I become ME?..who am I really?..I was different 10 years ago, and I'll be different in 20..there is no actual moment I became me.
@itzahazylife "there is no actual moment I became me" There was a moment when you did exist, then a moment when you did, therefore you began. To say you never began in simply insane, a clutching at straws, trying to come up with philosophies to explain away the obvious. You began, things begin and if it wasn't for the KCA no one would make such an absurd suggestion as "nothing begins".
@TheHonestTheist Your personal failure to recognize emergent phenomena (when does a stone get "wet? When a single H20 molecule touches it? When 2 million H20s touch it? When?) does not justify the assertion that your conscience began to exist. Your intellect (such as it is) emerged from the cells (which emerged from molecules) that make up you. The matter that you are didn't begin when you emerged. KCA fails in this light.
Let's use one more example. My church has not existed forever, you can argue the bricks have, but I'm talking about the bricks, I'm talking about the church. You may want to say the church is the bricks and fail to make any distinction between the two, but they are not one and the same, there is the church and THEN the bricks the church is made of. That "church" began when it was built, before that point, there were only bricks.
@TheHonestTheist Why is that absurd? If someone DIDN'T decide to construct an edifice, it wouldn't begin to exist. The decision to undergo a course of action is where it begins. Simply labelling it "absurd" is simply your inability to debate, not damning evidence.
@Th1sWasATriumph this was a complete failure. if WLC gives you proof that god exist,and you deny the proof and dont provide evidence that he does not exist.then who are you to say he is wrong. you cant prove the bible is not true nor if god exist so if he is wrong then so are you
@Th1sWasATriumph let me ask you a question. do you believe that the bible/biblical events are historically accurate? if so why and if not then why not.
Finite past + finite future = infinitum. There is no time. It's a delusion built rom movement of a velocity in a dynamic pattern (one and more fractions, seconds etcetera of infinity) and comparison. Time is a virtual concept wich is infinite or a fraction/less). This works because time is not a sunstance of reality but rather a delusion. Any presumption of there being a beginning of time is incorrect analogy with the timeless reality. An analogy with the time delusion only works x/infinite.
Best Explanation = special pleading = A logical falacy. Just because we cant think of another explanation doesnt mean a specific explanation by default is TRUE. That is Bullshit!!!
This guy Craig is clearly smart enough to understand how & why his logic is dreadful, yet he continues to make his case in front of audiences. That means he's a willful liar. What a lowlife this guy is.
@mouthyweasel I think there's a good chance he knows he's being fallacious. His career prospects outside of the sheep pen are limited, so he has to keep singing "jesus" for his supper.
I never really understood why people have such a hard time with an infinite universe. It's like saying that even though we have stuff now, we can't have always had stuff. But why? Just because stuff was small and compact at one point doesn't mean it wasn't there. Or conversely, if you start out with nothing and there's not even a time or space to hold the nothing, how can you add something to the nothingness using nothingness? You'd never even get out the starting gate! Infinity FTW.
He obviously doesn't realize that there are an infinite number of past event because you can infinitely divide the time, so there were an infinite number of events in the time it took for me to write this comment.
Premis 1 WLC asserts that god did not begin to exist.
Premis 2 The only thing that can objectively be shown not to have begun to exist is nothing. (Nothing never began to exist because it does not exist.)
@strangetranceoffaith Strange, I have to admit I think it's funny that you seem so insistent on getting me to debate the existence of God with you. Based on what you have written in these comments, a debate with you seems likely to be pointless--not because you are necessarily wrong, but because you continue to demonstrate an incapacity for logical argumentation. I think it unlikely that if you were to lose such a debate that you would even know it because you lack the necessary critical tools
@strangetranceoffaith to make the determination. Consider the syllogism you offer. Your "conclusion" is a non-sequitur, meaning it does not naturally follow. Ask yourself: Can something that cannot be demonstrated objectively, exist? For your conclusion to follow you would need an intermediate premise equating objective demonstration with the possibility of existence. The problem is that the premise required is absolutely absurd. You could try taking our the whole "objectively show"
@strangetranceoffaith portion out of the argument, but then you would have two antithetical premises from which nothing could follow, ie Thing A did not begin to exist; all things begin to exist; therefore, ...uh-oh. Of course, you could try and distinguish between metaphysical things and physical things, but then there would be no conclusion. Constructing good logical arguments is a monstrously difficult task; constructing BAD logical arguments is eminently easy, as evidenced by nearly every
@stuntpickle you could try and distinguish between metaphysical things and physical things, but then there would be no conclusion" You mean like WLC. God on the one hand and everything else on the other.
Your lack of aptitude is most clearly demonstrated when you describe Craig as being good at rhetoric and bad at logic, which is an inversion of the truth. I have never seen Craig demonstrate a mastery of what Aristotle would call rhetoric, in which devices such as analacouthon, for instance are wonderfully utilized. If anything, the valid criticisms of Craig are that he is often dry and humorless and utilizes a style that is
@strangetranceoffaith purely functional. The reason he has been so successful against the atheists in his debates is that he is incredibly precise in both his arguments and definitions and possesses a startling capacity to think on his feet. All the amateur videos on youtube I've seen criticizing Craig make the same mistake: they don't make the necessary effort to even understand what Craig is saying.
@stuntpickle I understand him very well thats why I can spot the obvious flaw of equivocating the mathematical manipulation of the concept of infinity with a posible infinite universe in which the law of conservation of energy does not allow for subtractions and additions that are the basis of Craig's objections. I understand why it is irrational to have a separate category of one just for god on no basis other than that the semantics of the argument require it.
@strangetranceoffaith You know what strange, something about your second premise has been nagging me. I think what you have in your second premise is a syntactical irrationality. The statement suggest that "nothing" is, in fact, a thing, and it can, moreover, be "objectively demonstrated. I don't even think further analysis is required. Just "objectively demonstrate" nothing. See there? The grammar of the statement is actually a sort of negative prohibition, rather than an a challenge.
@stuntpickle I actually agree with your analysis entirely of this last point its a well understood problem that in naming a thing that isn't it in some sense is. But if this is true then the same argument aplies to God. Of course the real answer to this conundrum is that the conception of the thing, and the thing, are not the same thing one reefers to the other, or discussion is futile. Clearly if this is true it is also true of premis 1.
@strangetranceoffaith Your premise said another way: Nothing can be objectively shown to begin to exist. This premise not only fails to further your argument, but actually contradicts your first premise. I've probably written too much here already, so suffice it to say there's a lot wrong with your argument.
@stuntpickle Your quite right actually the use of the word thing implies existence of some sort.
Syllogism
Premis 1 WLC asserts that god did not begin to exist.
Premis 2 The actuality of the concept of nothing can objectively be shown not to have begun to exist. (Nothing never began to exist because it does not exist.)
Conclusion 3 Objectively WLC's God is actually nothing.
@strangetranceoffaith Strange, you're getting to be a bit funny. If you were under the impression that I was actually engaging in a full-fledged debate with you and offering you my sternest criticism, you were wrong. What I was trying to demonstrate was that you couldn't even assemble your point into the FORM of a necessarily consequential statement. The more you go on, the more errors you commit. Seriously, bud, stop for a second and just consider your argument. Look at Craig's.....
@stuntpickle I have to confess that your right about my syllogism but craig's is equally crap. What does not exist clearly can not be demonstrated as beginning to exist and if everything else can as WLC proposes the only justification for putting god in any category is that of those things that don't exist.
@strangetranceoffaith Cosmological argument and then look at your "refutation." Seriously, try to figure out why your argument not only fails at being a refutation, but fails at even being relevant. I'm not kidding: take a moment and review both arguments. Can you see why your argument is wholly irrelevant to the Cosmological/Kalam argument? Can you not see that the Cosmological argument has nothing to do with God, per se? A refutation of the Kalam argument that relies heavily on God can't
@stuntpickle I agree with you on this point. The question of why anything exists can not be answered by fred did it. But never the less can you answer what the justification for putting god in a category of one is. WLC can't without ignoring any alternatives that compromise his argument. He postulates infinity as leading to irrational outcomes irrationally. How do we subtract and add parts of the universe?
@strangetranceoffaith can't be a refutation of the Kalam argument, which doesn't even mention God. What you don't seem to understand is that Craig's argument for God is an ensemble of distinct arguments. The Kalam argument is merely an argument for what I like to call "intelligibility." Identifying the Kalam's concluding "cause" as God is accomplished when Craig uses the teleological and ontological arguments. He further identifies this God as the Christian God by using historical analysis
@stuntpickle But he does not get past justifying a category of one as things that don't begin to exist. He can't demonstrate it, he can only infer it and only if he ignores all other theories that conflict with his basic premises. That is not rational. It is an assertion without foundation. In what way is it rational to assert the existence of something that is uncaused in a universe that only has verifiable examples of things that are caused? It is a god of the gaps argument.
@stuntpickle I understand this but his whole argument is a house of cards. Equivocation, cherry picking, straw man, He is like a detective who goes to a death by natural causes develops an elaborate theory for who the murderer is. Don't take me seriously at all I have no pretentions clearly i have demonstrated that i make mistakes but adress my criticisms? What is the justification for a category of things that dont begin to exist, infinity minus one. Don't make me laugh.
@strangetranceoffaith I think you misunderstand both the point and the importance of what is often called the "prime mover" or the "causeless cause." Forget God altogether for just a moment. We seem to live in a reality of interdependent contingencies: one in which all objects and actions seem to follow naturally from some sort of cause. I push the ball, and it rolls across the table. Very early in the history of philosophy it was realized that the phenomenon can be explained in one of two
@stuntpickle "primum movens" was conceptually similar the Judaic notions of Yahweh. The argument for a "first cause" isn't an argument for God, but rather an argument stating that the universe is ultimately intelligible.
The truth is that neither option is stupid. And your implication that the first cause principle is, in fact, stupid says far more about you than it does about the argument itself.
@stuntpickle That is not my implication. My implication is very simply that there is no justification for separating existence into two categories. Postulating another category of existence because its convenient for our pet theory is no better than suggesting saying the words somehow makes it true even if Aristotle says so. It is clearly the case that things that can not be objectively demonstrated to exist should magically be put into an entire category of there own.
@strangetranceoffaith different ways. The first way is that this succession can be traced backward in time forever. This is called an infinite regress. The problem is that this, while theoretically possible, is fundamentally unintelligible. It represents what is called a "practical infinity," which can never be rationally rendered in the human mind. The implications for science are as dire as they are for theology. What this suggests is that regardless of our efforts we can never fully
@strangetranceoffaith understand the universe. The good news is that most people, including most physicists, consider practical infinites unimportant and largely irrelevant. As far as I understand it infinity has only theoretical value and doesn't seem at all necessary to the study of anything, including the universe.
The second way of addressing the contingent phenomena around us is to suppose that there is some cause categorically different than the others, one that does not need to
@stuntpickle "We can never fully understand the universe" This is not dire it is clearly honest. It is a problem clearly if you believe in an eternal god surely eternity is a temporal infinity? The point about infinity being irrelevant to studying the nature of the universe is true of god as well. Demonstrably the statement god did it tells us nothing about how it was done.
@strangetranceoffaith to be caused itself. Many New Atheists have wrongly argued that this too leads to infinite regress, but that is merely because they don't understand what is being proposed. What is being proposed is not something infinite in time, but extra-temporal; not something infinite in space, but extra-spatial. This isn't merely a rationalization of Christians. In fact, it wasn't proposed initially by a Christian at all, but rather by Aristotle. It just so happened that this
@stuntpickle I understand the argument and in my experience most atheists do but what are the properties of this extra temporal/spacial thing. Presumably:
1. It has no comparable like in material existence
2. It has no observable material form
3. It can not be objectively observed to exist temporally or spatially
4. It is predicated upon its absence (There is no demonstrable object to compare its suposed existence to)
@strangetranceoffaith regarding the historical figure of Jesus. Craig isn't really saying "therefore the Christian God," but rather "the Christian God is the likeliest explanation." Basically Craig's argument is divided into something like this: "therefore something intelligible; therefore something intelligent; therefore something divine; so probably Jesus." What this means is that you can't try to refute Craig's cosmological argument by trying to refute Jesus, nor can you refute by refute
@stuntpickle Thats clearly not true. The deist god is clearly more likely just by the fact that gods presence in the universe can not be demonstrated.
@strangetranceoffaith nor can you refute the Kalam argument by trying to refute "Craig's notion of God," simply because the Kalam argument doesn't include any notion of God.
The problem is, as I hope you can see, isn't that you are necessarily wrong but that you are having trouble even identifying the conversation. The necessary preconditions of us having a debate about Craig's arguments are that 1. you understand them and 2. I agree with them--neither of which are true. This is further
@strangetranceoffaith complicated by the fact that you are having trouble expressing your ideas in logically cogent statements, which is not a consequence of you being stupid, but a consequence of the creation of logically cogent statements being extremely difficult.
Did you know that even Bertrand Russel considered the ontological argument sound? That's called intellectual honesty. The reality is that Craig is today the most feared theologian for good reason. It's just a little difficult
@stuntpickle The ontological argument Anselm? Imagine a perfect mermaid. I'm sure you know the rest. what about imagine something more perfect than god... I don't think Russel particularly likes the ontological argument. Surely the only way out of this argument is to put god in a special category again. Are you not a little suspicious of the continual necessity for special categories of existence of perfection of place of existence?
@strangetranceoffaith Look, strange, I think you are suffering from a couple of major misunderstandings. First, Craig is more than just a theologian; he is a well respected philosopher with two PhD's. The sort of philosophical fetishism for science from which you seem to be suffering is no longer a major component of academia. The seeds for logical positivism's destruction were planted in the 1930's when Godel formulated his theorems of incompleteness. ...
@strangetranceoffaith Consider your implication that somehow the truth of a proposition entails an "objective demonstration" of its truth. Now for the instant evaporation for your claim, I demand that you "objectively demonstrate" the truth of the aforementioned proposition. The radical devotion to empiricism prevalent in the early 20th century is no longer a respectable position. What you don't understand is that Christian Philosophy is now a legitimate and significant field in academia.
@strangetranceoffaith Christian philosophy was largely restricted to seminaries during the early part of the 20th century because it couldn't satisfy logical positivism's requirements for falsifiability, but then Godel came along and demonstrated that truth did not necessarily entail provability, and now Christian philosophy is again a part of the academy. The problem is that popular literature is generally years behind academy. The irony is that the best refutation in the theist/atheist....
@strangetranceoffaith I'm saying that the standards for radical skepticism in logical positivism are no longer tenable. Since we're talking about a fact of academic standards, trying to argue against it seems a little ridiculous. I feel fairly certain that if you wanted to verify it, you could just look it up. And, as far as I know, most Christian philosophers, including Craig, acknowledge that arguments for God prove, at best, the likelihood of God and not the certainty of Him.
@stuntpickle This seems very reasonable in philosophy logical positivism may well be dead in the water not all schools of positivism are though and of course the hilarious thing about WLC and christian philosophy or suposed christian philosophy is that like WLC it clearly makes use of logical positivism to make its case. WLC does not make his case with Aristotle and for good reason WLC makes his arguments with the fruits of modern science and mathematics misrepresented.
Respond to this video... I don't think your contention that atheists find his arguments hard to pull to pieces is reasonable. His arguments are clearly superficial and he does not present them with an even handed approach. Even his best arguments rest on huge suppositions and at the root are a huge house of cards. You claim the ontological argument is sound but it is ridiculous clearly. again the cosmological argument relies on special pleading. 20 comments and no idea what you think
@strangetranceoffaith I can assure you that WLC is NOT a logical positivist. Craig uses science in his argumentsl; this is true, but he hardly advocates scientism. The vast majority of Christian Philosophers are, contrary to what you say, deeply indebted to either Aristotle or Plato; this is a result of a conscious effort on behalf of the church to appropriate antique philosophy when many Greek texts were rediscovered. If you want to know what I think, I'll say this much: most people would
@stuntpickle I have a copy of the Nichomanchean ethics and polotics and i accept that christian philosophy is based on outmoded forms of thought but this clearly is a trifling matter when compared to the absurdity of convolution that the necessity of arguing for a supernatural causality imposes on the paradigm. There is no justification other than spurious cherry picked theoretical Name dropping doesn't deter WLC, Christian existentialism which existence is that of things that begin to or not?
@strangetranceoffaith Sorry, Strange, you're starting to get a little ridiculous. An empiricist calling someone's thinking outmoded is a little funny. It's apparent that even after I have informed you about Christian philosophy, the current state of philosophy in general, etc. all you care to do is call me dull and WLC a moron. At least this is consistent with New Atheist thinking: NOT-God whatever the cost. New atheism is dangerous in the same sense that fundamentalist Christianity is:
@stuntpickle it's just a group of idiots convinced that they're right, no matter the objections, and who are just itching to follow their leader lemming off a cliff for the "cause." Idealogical obstinance is something you have in common with most Christians. In fact, you seem to me to be mostly the same as someone involved with popular Christianity. Popular Christianity and popular atheism are different only superficially. They're just badges of association linking you to a social group
@strangetranceoffaith call me a Christian existentialist. I'm not particularly interested in logical arguments concerning God, either in the affirmative or the negative. Sure, it's interesting, but I tend to think it misses the entire point. I am, however, glad that WLC has been busy embarrassing the New Atheists. I don't have a problem with Atheist philosophers or anything, but NEW atheists are dangerous dullards.
@stuntpickle I don't think anyone is in any position to judge what you are from your comments. As for new atheists being dangerous clearly all the places they have been bombing and people they have been threatening is testament enough to your powers of rationality. As for being dull haven't you got anything better to do, I have. WLC is a good talker but at the root its still an argument for his invisible best friend. What is a new atheist anyway LOL.
@strangetranceoffaith and inciting you to belligerence wherever the opposition is concerned. Maybe you should go take the "blasphemy challenge" or something else highly original.
You're right, Strange: I do have better stuff to do. It was fun I suppose. Have fun trying to figure it all out.
@stuntpickle Why would i waist my time in such futile things as the blasphemy challenge. Maybe you can figure out the extra temporal/spacial realm of supernatural hyperouterness thingy after all such things must be valid explanations if you can imagine they really exist. You clearly have a much higher opinion of yourself than the evidence would suggest. Your not big on evidence though are you. Be well.
@strangetranceoffaith debate is Plantinga's refutation of naturalism. As far as Craig is concerned, I think he is primarily regarded as the fiercest debater of our age. In terms of scholarship, I think's Craig's revival of the Kalam argument is well respected not merely in Christian philosophy, but in philosophy in general. It's the so-called horsemen of the apocalypse--Dawkins, HItchens, and Harris--who are considered to be hacks--not merely by Christian philosophers, but by atheist
The only reason I am still chatting with you is that you have shown that you are, at least, willing to recognize your own mistakes, which is rare trait among so-called New Atheists. But you still seem to be suffering from the worst possible affliction of being unpersuadable. What makes dialogue different from a plain old disagreement is that the participants are, at least in theory, willing to change their minds. In fact...
@strangetranceoffaith the only time true learning takes place (and by "true learning" I mean more than just committing something to memory) is when you change your mind. Obstinance is not a virtue. Realistically, I don't expect you to convert to Christianity, but I do think you are in some way now obligated to take Craig seriously. Try actually reading one of his books or scholarly articles. He has both popular and scholarly articles posted on his website for free. The truth is
@strangetranceoffaith you could learn a lot more from Craig than from a hack like Hitchens. If you need proof, watch the end of the HItchens Turek debate in which they cross examine one another. I don't even agree with Frank Turek, but the cross examination is hilarious. Just ask yourself, while watching it, if Hitchens is even answering the questions. Then ask yourself if he even understands the questions.
WLC argument infinity + or - = irrationality. Whilst this might lead to irrational outcomes in mathematics how does WLC intend to delete sections of the universe or add bits on given the accepted laws of conservation? I find it incredible that he gets away with this blatant equivocation. Does he not know that perfect triangles do not exist materially.
When you suggest that Craig is asserting two incompatible ideas, all you accomplish is a demonstration of your failure to understand what is actually being proposed. Craig isn't claiming that everything that exists has a cause, but that everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause. It is clear from even the clips of Craig you include that he believes God to be timeless and changeless, which necessarily implies that Craig believes God did not begin to exist.
@stuntpickle So are you saying that WLC's justification for the existence of god is god? If not then god must be nothing because nothing does not begin to exist either. Of course you could provide a full list of things, that don't begin to exist, that we could base the assumption that such a thing exists on. But why bother I've just listed them all in this comment everything else according to the selective criteria of WLC begins to exist.
@strangetranceoffaith You know what, strange? You perfectly demonstrate the problems with popular atheism: namely, that the adherents are incapable of rational discussion. All I am saying is that the basic syllogism Craig is using (a syllogism being the basic logical argument of two or more premises from which a conclusion naturally follows) is concerned with things that come into existence having causes. It's a logical fallacy to argue against a premise that isn't being proposed: a straw-man
@stuntpickle I think you will find that the premisses of a syllogism need to be rational to start with or it can lead to irrational conclusions. There is no rational reason to divide the nature of existence into things that begin to exist and things that don't begin to exist. we have no evidence for things that don't begin to exist within the framework of WLC's argument just bald assertion. Here's a syllogism for you see next comment.
Respond to this video... Syllogism. Premis 1. There is an assertion that god did not begin to exist Premis 2. The only thing we can objectively prove that does not begin to exist is nothing. Conclusion. God is nothing. Do you prefer this? Until you prove the existence of god then the cause of the universe can not be established and this is despite the fact that the assertion of who did it does not answer the question of how it came to be. The cosmological question.
@strangetranceoffaith Listen, Strange, you have apparently misapprehended my entire point. I never intended to "prove" God; that's not the conversation we're having. I commented on a video that pretends to criticize Craig's argument while simultaneously demonstrating an insufficient understanding of the aforementioned argument. It doesn't matter if YOU think one of the premises is bad because the author of the video never makes that point. The reality is that Craig.....
@stuntpickle Sorry I thought this video was about WLC and his arguments. But never mind i'm making that point. your the one who brought up syllogism not me but its all good.
@strangetranceoffaith (Continued) The reality is that Craig's capacity for argumentation vastly exceeds that of most persons. The debate he has, for instance, with Hitchens is a total blowout, not because Hitchens is necessarily wrong about God, or even at all stupid, but rather because he lacks the rational apparatus to even properly identify the points being made and muster a defense against them. Craig could easily handle someone like Richard Dawkins, regardless of the debate topic--....
@stuntpickle 'The reality is that Craig's capacity for argumentation vastly exceeds that of most persons.' I think his capacity for rhetoric vastly exceeds most people though why he then attempts thoroughly dishonest tactics such as ad homonyms is puzzling. I saw the Hitchens debate and I can see why you think he got the better of the exchange. But the truth of his arguments do not rest on his ability to project confidence they rest on their objective truth.
@stuntpickle WlC says an infinite universe as irrational, that infinity leads to irrational outcomes. In one of his but employs the concept of infinity to construct his notion of time. When asked about the law of conservation of energy undermining his premis of things beginning to exist he replies with the inane response 'didn't I begin to exist' equivocating the notion of existence as essence with existence as material. Good talker, poor arguments!
I tend to never take a video seriously when the commentator is arrogant and smarmy in his criticism whilst making biased and non-factual assertions. I do note your objections however.
The reason you don't want to believe in God, is because you do not want to take responsibility as a sinner. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. Your intellect will not save you...
@RetSquid I would agree with you if Craig posed the KCA as a philosophical question, but sadly he states it as FACT. Facts must be supported by evidence, and there Craig fails miserably.
There IS evidence. We know that the Universe had a begining, it is not infinitely old. Either it caused itself to begin to exist or something else caused it to begin to exist. If it did cause itself to begin, why do other things not cause themselves to exist? Something cannot cause itself to begin to exist, that would be some non-existing thing acting on itself. If you go watch one of his videos on the Kalam argument it makes a lot more sense than THIS video.
@RetSquid OUR Universe began with a big bang from a singularity, that does not mean that it was the first cosmic event. We can't know anything before the big bang, if anyone claims otherwise he's lying.
We can also ask the same question about the creator, who created the creator?
If the creator is infinite, why cant the Universe be Infinite?
Where did the creator "exist" if there was no Universe? Something can't exist in nothing?
First, from all available information the Universe had a begining with the Big Bang. it is unknowable if there was a Universe that predated this Universe. The Creator is the First Uncaused Cause, by definition. We know that the Universe cannot be infinite because infinity cannot be contained within a Universe. God CAN be infinite because He is not within the Universe as we know it.
@RetSquid The "Universe" would have to be infinite if a creator existed, again something can not exist in a vacuum. Therefore there would have to be space where the creator existed=space=Universe=infinite.
And i don't need to watch anything, because i have heard it all before a 1000 times. Okay lets grant the notion that the creator was the first uncaused cause, no demonstrate it. Assertions carries absolutely no weight.
So your assertions carry the same weight as anyone's. The Creator would have to exist outside the known Universe in order to BE the creator of it. You are twisting/confusing the argument, I suggest getting a fresh view of the video.
Can you demonstrate that things come into being without being caused?
1. I believe the 1st premise is obviously true (just common sense), and the first refutation statement belongs below the second premise.
2. Doesn't Craig demonstrate this point both philosophically and scientifically in the debate? He shows that the universe must have an absolute beginning (one example is the impossibility of an actual infinite of past events).
3. Two options remain: The universe is eternal, there is a transcendent creator.
@estill4 Then the possibility of an actual infinite of an infinite god would also be impossible, and the creator would also need a creator.
Philosophical demonstration is not the same as scientific demonstration, and no he did not provide a single scientific demonstration for his assertions.
I think we can both agree that something must be infinite whether the universe or God. I believe it is more plausible to believe in a transcendent creator than an eternal universe. Also, you don't need an explanation of an explanation to decide that it is the most plausible.
I believe that Dr. Craig presented several scientific demonstrations such as the universe originating with a singularity prior to which nothing existed (support for prem 2)
@estill4 not even a god can be transcendent(beyond space and time), something can not exist in nothing.
If god exist then there must always have been space where god existed, if space has always existed then there is no need for a god to create space that already exists.
There being nothing prior to the singularity is an assertion, not demonstration. It was the beginning of our time and space, not Universal time and space(infinite). He never showed that nothing existed prior to the Big Bang.
@baldurus1 I believe that stating that nothing can be transcendent is false and clearly shows a bias against the supernatural.
The implication is that God is not governed by the laws of nature since they are imposed on his creation, not himself. Therefore, space and time become meaningless and God exists independently of both.
I agree that was an assertion, good point. Perhaps a demonstration would be the complexity of creation (Improbability paired with an independent pattern.)
@estill4 I don't think most people understand beyond space and time, it means in physics nothing.
Nothing consists of nothing, no matter no time and no space. It doesn't exist. You can not place something in nothing, if god is something he can not exist in nothing. If god "exists" in nothing god would also have to be nothing. Nothing is not a physical thing, also it's not a metaphysical thing. It just doesn't exist. If god has any properties he must exist in a space.
@baldurus1 I totally agree with you based on the laws of physics. However, I don't think we have any reason to believe that God is for some reason subject to the laws of physics. I'm not suggesting that God is somehow synonymous with non-being. Really I don't know what God exists in but I can still see that a creator outside of space and time as we know it is the best explanation.
Its interesting that you interrupt Craig's comments and add your biased commentary instead of allowing Craig to develop one single point. It is also interesting how you juxtapose his opening comments with some of his closing comments regarding subjective reasons for belief. As I am sure that you are aware, most who heard the debate, felt Craig won - including Anthony Flew. As a result of this debate, Anthony Flew gave up his atheism and exchanged it for deism. Thank you for the memories.
Your easily pleased In the beginning of one of his monologues he claims to prove that naturalism is untrue whilst supernaturalism is true. How hilarious that he thinks he can prove the transcendent by undermining the notion it transcends. Natural -> supernatural (over or beyond the natural) so WLC is going to prove that the natural is untrue but but the thing that is over or beyond the untrue thing is true? Yes I have no doubt he has answered his critics through the medium of dance.
@Writtenjustice It is an actual statement he makes. His objective is to ignore anything but the rhetoric that supports his beliefs. It is not rational. For instance there is no rational justification for assigning a category of things that don't begin to exist. It is an assertion that is incoherent with his evidence. Unless he can show god to others objectively how can he show evidentially that god did not begin to exist. He can assert it but thats not proof. His arguments rest on assertion.
@strangetranceoffaith Well considering the fact that Craig seems to be quite well-read on material proposing viewpoints that are the opposite of his own, I disagree with your suggestion that he's being solipsistic. Like you and most other atheists out there, he's merely assured his position is correct. Nothing wrong with that at all.
And I also disagree with your statement about God's not beginning to exist but that is another discussion entirely.
@Writtenjustice I think you misunderstand me. I do not have religious certainty. A god may exist. Rationality does not constitute adherence to my personal beliefs. it must adhere to the evidence. WLC argument is premised on a separate category of existence with only one inclusion. He can not justify this separate category, as you so rightly point out, without recourse to his presumed own correctness. Clearly this is irrational because it is assertion without reason.
The way this pipsqueak speaks gives me fucking ear cancer. I barely can't make out a thing. What's wrong with speaking properly? Afraid people are gonna hear your "refuting" is just empty objections?
The best stuff I heard was that "we don't know what caused the universe". Well the laws of physics began at the Big Bang, that's why science won't do any further.
The clown who made this video purposefully misrepresents Craigs argument.
1) Craig gives many logical and scientific evidences in his prime arguments. Cosmology, design, fine tuning among them. This clown dishonestly pretends Dr Craig's final and qualified (personal) argument IS his argument.
2) Personal experience IS as good of a PERSONAL verification as as empirical evidence. Much what we know is not veridical by empirical testing.
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh Jesus... Craig just has a script memorized. For his opening, rebuttal, conclusion... Just MEMORIZED and delivered in exactly the same way no matter WHAT his opponent has to say. Think I'm full of it? Watch WLC do his thing. Each one of his arguments has been ruined 1000 times over, and an overabundance of these well executed video rebuttals can been watched (ad nauseum) right here on Youtube. In conclusion: Religion is nonsense & Craig is a clown. Honk Honk!
mouthyweasel 5 days ago
Don't you know? Batman exist! WLC jus told me he read a copy of D.C comic, and there's evidence for Batman!!!
infernoboi92 1 week ago
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 1 month ago in playlist William Lane Craig
Fuck William Lane Craig. Incorrigible putz.
mouthyweasel 1 month ago
The title of this video is HILARIOUS!!!
dkthg 1 month ago
Logic can never prove that a god exists. I dont know how he can say that. Logic cant tell you if the moon exists or if the wall is painted in white.
And to argue that because there was a big bang that is proof that a god exists, its like saying that a lightning is proof that Zeus exists.
Pathetic
JawaRedSteel 2 months ago in playlist Dr. William Lane Craig: Dishonest Gasbag
"Mathematicians recognize that the existence of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions."
What? What mathematicians? In what way do they lead to self-contradictions? What sort of self-contradictions, and what do they imply? Are they universal or contextual?
Is this truly what a consensus of mathematicians acknowledge, or is he quote-mining something that's contradicted in the very same book the quote appears in (as with his Vilenkin quote)?
basmithtx 3 months ago
Also, things CAN pop into being out of nothing. This has been scientifically observed. So he at least has to change his argument to "things don't usually pop into being out of nothing," or "big things don't pop into being out of nothing," which are really pretty weak by comparison...
pastafarianprophet 4 months ago in playlist Refuting William Lane Craig's Proofs of God
@pastafarianprophet When has something ever popped into being out of nothing, and what was it? I'm not a proponent of Craig, I have simply never heard of such a event, and am curious as to where you heard this
firebirdthecody 2 months ago
A "cause" implies a succession of events, a succession of events implies time, time is a part of the universe, therefore it makes no sense to say that the universe was caused. How can something precede the beginning of time?
I watched Quentin Smith hang Craig and Plantinga on this and all Craig had was "but it can start at the point of nothing just before the beginning, can't it?" Smith: "how is that a point?" Craig: drinks from glass and shuts up. lol
pastafarianprophet 4 months ago in playlist Refuting William Lane Craig's Proofs of God
I'm making a note here: Huge success!
urantivirus 4 months ago
@PhysicsMajor2014 I've looked into virtual particles already and find it to be an insufficient proof, not knowing the doesn't prove there isn't one, it's a possibility, but no more then that.
TheHonestTheist 4 months ago
The man is a deluded fool that really should just be ignored.
damvid21 4 months ago
Theres a great deal you dont understand about the universe. Einsteins general theory of relativity proves the universe had a beginning. or how about earths rapid magnetic field reversal as proof of a young earth. try debunking some of the papers on genesis files in the creation section. your rebuttal was crap, theres not one good point i could take away from it and i was looking for a good argument to strengthen my faith. wait a let down the atheist team.
TruthAboutNet 4 months ago
I'm sure that someone already pointed this out, but to be fair, Craig never said "Nothing can exist without a cause", instead he said "Nothing can come into existence without a cause". Though what it means for a being capable of action and thought to exist 'timelessly' is anyone's guess.
Keeban3 6 months ago
man this is dumb and yet look at the votes, my faith in the YouTube community is pretty much dead.
7:14 He never said nothing can exist without a cause (palm-face), it's right in the first premise! I don't know how you could miss this. It's whatever "begins to exist" needs a cause, not "everything" that exists needs a cause. Sigh. This is the type of shoddy work that gets thumbs up?
TheHonestTheist 6 months ago
@TheHonestTheist Problem is, what is there that "begins" to exist as opposed to simply becoming a rearrangement of previously existing matter and energy? When does a beach begin to exist? We attach arbitrary points at which we state something begins to exist, but that doesn't mean a form has BEGUN to exist anything more than mixing ingredients together makes a cake begin to exist.
I recommend my William Lane Craig 6 video for a more indepth view, thought I doubt you're as honest as you claim.
Th1sWasATriumph 6 months ago 9
@Th1sWasATriumph Way to completely avoid the point ^^
As for your question "what is there that "begins" to exist", the answer is you, you began to exist. Now it is true that the matter which makes up your body was reconstructed from previously existing matter, but that doesn't mean that you existed forever. You began to exist in your Mother's womb (or earlier as the case may be), to say that nothing began is to say you have always existed. There is a distinction here that a lot of people miss.
TheHonestTheist 6 months ago
@TheHonestTheist How EXACTLY did I avoid the point?
The names and states given to particular arrangements of matter are arbitrary and anthropocentric, which means we only SAY things begin to exist at particular points in time and space, and also a beginning is not something you can pinpoint to a finite event or state. You may as well say our sun began to exist at the point where one atom which ends up incorporated in it started to move within the progenitor dust cloud from which it sprang.
Th1sWasATriumph 6 months ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@Th1sWasATriumph "You may as well say our sun began to exist at the point where one atom which ends up incorporated in it started to move within the progenitor dust cloud from which it sprang"
That's just silly, you can't call an atom a Sun. Precise definitions are pointless, this, like you other video, is pure semantics.
As for the point you avoided, look to the original comment, that's the point you failed to address.
TheHonestTheist 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Th1sWasATriumph "You may as well say our sun began to exist at the point where one atom which ends up incorporated in it started to move within the progenitor dust cloud from which it sprang" I wonder if you listen to yourself...
TheHonestTheist 3 months ago
@TheHonestTheist If Craig can say that God doesn't require a cause because he has always existed, could it be safe to say the same thing about the universe?
urantivirus 4 months ago
@urantivirus It would be, if it wasn't for the evidence against it. If you study the history of cosmology you will see that the belief that the universe is eternal is an old and now unfavourable belief. Einstein used to believe the universe was static and eternal, until Hubble came along (along with Lamatre and Friedman) and showed that the universe is expanding. Then later Penzias and Wilson discovered cosmic background radiation, which confirmed the hot big bang model and a finite universe.
TheHonestTheist 4 months ago
@TheHonestTheist In short, no it's not safe to say the universe is eternal, it may be, but at the moment the science is not in favour of that conclusion. As science has refined it's results, it has moved towards the idea that the universe is finite, it had a beginning and thus a moment of creation.
TheHonestTheist 4 months ago
@TheHonestTheist So it's not safe to say that the matter in the universe is eternal? What evidence do we have against that? I know the universe had a beginning, but we're not sure about the matter and space/time that makes up the universe. An eternal god is much less likely than an eternal universe. We have no evidence for a god. If we had any evidence, we'd be able to say something about god. Instead we know nothing, but you think it makes more sense to assume there is a god.
urantivirus 4 months ago
@urantivirus No, it's not safe to say that any aspect of the universe is eternal.
"I know the universe had a beginning, but we're not sure about the matter and space/time" That is the universe.
"An eternal god is much less likely than an eternal universe"
Chance doesn't come into it with an eternal God, there is no chance, so you can't say whether an eternal God is more or less likely.
"We have no evidence for a god" Just because you don't know any, doesn't mean there isn't any.
TheHonestTheist 4 months ago
@TheHonestTheist You have evidence for God? If all the matter and space/time came from outside the universe, that requires a god? A god, period, is incredibly unlikely. More unlikely than a natural universe. A god is much more complicated than a universe, would you agree? So you think it's more likely that something more complicated than the universe occurred naturally, but it couldn't have happened to the universe.
urantivirus 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"If Craig can say that God doesn't require a cause because he has always existed, could it be safe to say the same thing about the universe?"
"no it's not safe to say the universe is eternal... science is not in favour of that conclusion"
"So it's not safe to say that the matter in the universe is eternal?"
""I know the universe had a beginning, but we're not sure about the matter and space/time" That is the universe."
So universe could be eternal, thanks.
urantivirus 4 months ago
"you think it makes more sense to assume there is a god" I don't assume it, I conclude it. Check out "Case for a Creator" (playlist on my channel), plus a few other videos at the top, there you will see some evidence. Such as evidence for a finite universe, both scientifically through the history of cosmology and philosophically through the kalam cosmological argument. You will also see a presentation of the Fine Tuning Argument, which demonstrates the odds against such a universe occurring.
TheHonestTheist 4 months ago
@TheHonestTheist
"As for your question "what is there that "begins" to exist", the answer is you, you began to exist"
i never began to exist, and neither did you..there is no ME..i am a constantly changing entity..i was not the same person 15 years ago. i won't be 20 years from now..and before i was born, i was a fetus..before conception, i was dna from an ovary and a sperm cell..before that i was nature..we are temporary formations..we don't begin. we gradually evolve from previous states.
itzahazylife 4 months ago
@itzahazylife There is a distinction between a thing and the matter that thing is made of. You keep pointing towards the matter/energy and try to say you were that, but you were not, your body was, not you. You had a beginning, maybe your body didn't, but you did. You are not eternal, to say otherwise is just silly and fails to make the obvious distinction I am trying to make clear.
TheHonestTheist 4 months ago
@TheHonestTheist
you're still incorrect..when u say I had a beginning, u mean my consciousness, since it's what makes me who I am. the essence of my personality. but, my consciousness is generated by my brain, my brain was gradually constructed by my dna, that dna was constructed by atoms, and those atoms came from energy..but the main thing is, at what point did I become ME?..who am I really?..I was different 10 years ago, and I'll be different in 20..there is no actual moment I became me.
itzahazylife 3 months ago in playlist The Craigening: Refuting William Lane Craig's Proofs For God
@itzahazylife "there is no actual moment I became me" There was a moment when you did exist, then a moment when you did, therefore you began. To say you never began in simply insane, a clutching at straws, trying to come up with philosophies to explain away the obvious. You began, things begin and if it wasn't for the KCA no one would make such an absurd suggestion as "nothing begins".
TheHonestTheist 3 months ago
@TheHonestTheist Your personal failure to recognize emergent phenomena (when does a stone get "wet? When a single H20 molecule touches it? When 2 million H20s touch it? When?) does not justify the assertion that your conscience began to exist. Your intellect (such as it is) emerged from the cells (which emerged from molecules) that make up you. The matter that you are didn't begin when you emerged. KCA fails in this light.
drfoxcourt 3 months ago in playlist The Craigening: Refuting William Lane Craig's Proofs For God
Let's use one more example. My church has not existed forever, you can argue the bricks have, but I'm talking about the bricks, I'm talking about the church. You may want to say the church is the bricks and fail to make any distinction between the two, but they are not one and the same, there is the church and THEN the bricks the church is made of. That "church" began when it was built, before that point, there were only bricks.
TheHonestTheist 4 months ago
@TheHonestTheist What about the time when someone decided to build a church? Didn't the church begin at that point?
Th1sWasATriumph 4 months ago
@Th1sWasATriumph No, it didn't. Deciding to make something in reality, doesn't mean it begins in reality, that's absurd.
TheHonestTheist 4 months ago
@TheHonestTheist Why is that absurd? If someone DIDN'T decide to construct an edifice, it wouldn't begin to exist. The decision to undergo a course of action is where it begins. Simply labelling it "absurd" is simply your inability to debate, not damning evidence.
Th1sWasATriumph 2 months ago
@Th1sWasATriumph this was a complete failure. if WLC gives you proof that god exist,and you deny the proof and dont provide evidence that he does not exist.then who are you to say he is wrong. you cant prove the bible is not true nor if god exist so if he is wrong then so are you
therealistone2003 1 month ago
@therealistone2003 You can't provide evidence that Thor does not exist.
So by your logic, hail Thor.
Th1sWasATriumph 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Th1sWasATriumph let me ask you a question. do you believe that the bible/biblical events are historically accurate? if so why and if not then why not.
therealistone2003 1 month ago
Comment removed
therealistone2003 1 month ago
Finite past + finite future = infinitum. There is no time. It's a delusion built rom movement of a velocity in a dynamic pattern (one and more fractions, seconds etcetera of infinity) and comparison. Time is a virtual concept wich is infinite or a fraction/less). This works because time is not a sunstance of reality but rather a delusion. Any presumption of there being a beginning of time is incorrect analogy with the timeless reality. An analogy with the time delusion only works x/infinite.
SaerdnaOoOoo 7 months ago
- As the universe expands it creates space, it is not expanding into space, there is nothing outside of the universe.
benaberry 7 months ago
Best Explanation = special pleading = A logical falacy. Just because we cant think of another explanation doesnt mean a specific explanation by default is TRUE. That is Bullshit!!!
benaberry 7 months ago
This guy Craig is clearly smart enough to understand how & why his logic is dreadful, yet he continues to make his case in front of audiences. That means he's a willful liar. What a lowlife this guy is.
mouthyweasel 7 months ago
@mouthyweasel I think there's a good chance he knows he's being fallacious. His career prospects outside of the sheep pen are limited, so he has to keep singing "jesus" for his supper.
punnet2 7 months ago
@punnet2 SO FUNNY!!! Thank you.
mouthyweasel 7 months ago
I never really understood why people have such a hard time with an infinite universe. It's like saying that even though we have stuff now, we can't have always had stuff. But why? Just because stuff was small and compact at one point doesn't mean it wasn't there. Or conversely, if you start out with nothing and there's not even a time or space to hold the nothing, how can you add something to the nothingness using nothingness? You'd never even get out the starting gate! Infinity FTW.
milesbennettdyson 8 months ago
He obviously doesn't realize that there are an infinite number of past event because you can infinitely divide the time, so there were an infinite number of events in the time it took for me to write this comment.
Ye4hBuddy 9 months ago
"Basic rules of logic" I dont think anything prior to the big bang follows 'basic logic', cheap attempts to appeal to the audience's common sense.
shawndimery 9 months ago
Sylogism
Premis 1 WLC asserts that god did not begin to exist.
Premis 2 The only thing that can objectively be shown not to have begun to exist is nothing. (Nothing never began to exist because it does not exist.)
Conclusion 3 Objectively WLC's God is nothing.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith Strange, I have to admit I think it's funny that you seem so insistent on getting me to debate the existence of God with you. Based on what you have written in these comments, a debate with you seems likely to be pointless--not because you are necessarily wrong, but because you continue to demonstrate an incapacity for logical argumentation. I think it unlikely that if you were to lose such a debate that you would even know it because you lack the necessary critical tools
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith to make the determination. Consider the syllogism you offer. Your "conclusion" is a non-sequitur, meaning it does not naturally follow. Ask yourself: Can something that cannot be demonstrated objectively, exist? For your conclusion to follow you would need an intermediate premise equating objective demonstration with the possibility of existence. The problem is that the premise required is absolutely absurd. You could try taking our the whole "objectively show"
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith portion out of the argument, but then you would have two antithetical premises from which nothing could follow, ie Thing A did not begin to exist; all things begin to exist; therefore, ...uh-oh. Of course, you could try and distinguish between metaphysical things and physical things, but then there would be no conclusion. Constructing good logical arguments is a monstrously difficult task; constructing BAD logical arguments is eminently easy, as evidenced by nearly every
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@stuntpickle you could try and distinguish between metaphysical things and physical things, but then there would be no conclusion" You mean like WLC. God on the one hand and everything else on the other.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith argument occurring in youtube comments.
Your lack of aptitude is most clearly demonstrated when you describe Craig as being good at rhetoric and bad at logic, which is an inversion of the truth. I have never seen Craig demonstrate a mastery of what Aristotle would call rhetoric, in which devices such as analacouthon, for instance are wonderfully utilized. If anything, the valid criticisms of Craig are that he is often dry and humorless and utilizes a style that is
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@stuntpickle Its not my description, it is a commonly sighted criticism of him by those who understand why his metaphysical bablings are irational.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith purely functional. The reason he has been so successful against the atheists in his debates is that he is incredibly precise in both his arguments and definitions and possesses a startling capacity to think on his feet. All the amateur videos on youtube I've seen criticizing Craig make the same mistake: they don't make the necessary effort to even understand what Craig is saying.
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@stuntpickle I understand him very well thats why I can spot the obvious flaw of equivocating the mathematical manipulation of the concept of infinity with a posible infinite universe in which the law of conservation of energy does not allow for subtractions and additions that are the basis of Craig's objections. I understand why it is irrational to have a separate category of one just for god on no basis other than that the semantics of the argument require it.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith You know what strange, something about your second premise has been nagging me. I think what you have in your second premise is a syntactical irrationality. The statement suggest that "nothing" is, in fact, a thing, and it can, moreover, be "objectively demonstrated. I don't even think further analysis is required. Just "objectively demonstrate" nothing. See there? The grammar of the statement is actually a sort of negative prohibition, rather than an a challenge.
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@stuntpickle I actually agree with your analysis entirely of this last point its a well understood problem that in naming a thing that isn't it in some sense is. But if this is true then the same argument aplies to God. Of course the real answer to this conundrum is that the conception of the thing, and the thing, are not the same thing one reefers to the other, or discussion is futile. Clearly if this is true it is also true of premis 1.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith Your premise said another way: Nothing can be objectively shown to begin to exist. This premise not only fails to further your argument, but actually contradicts your first premise. I've probably written too much here already, so suffice it to say there's a lot wrong with your argument.
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@stuntpickle Your quite right actually the use of the word thing implies existence of some sort.
Syllogism
Premis 1 WLC asserts that god did not begin to exist.
Premis 2 The actuality of the concept of nothing can objectively be shown not to have begun to exist. (Nothing never began to exist because it does not exist.)
Conclusion 3 Objectively WLC's God is actually nothing.
Thanks for that
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith I meant to say that your premise rewritten would be "nothing can be objectively shown to NOT exist."
stuntpickle 9 months ago
Respond to this video... Clearly existence requires something.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith Strange, you're getting to be a bit funny. If you were under the impression that I was actually engaging in a full-fledged debate with you and offering you my sternest criticism, you were wrong. What I was trying to demonstrate was that you couldn't even assemble your point into the FORM of a necessarily consequential statement. The more you go on, the more errors you commit. Seriously, bud, stop for a second and just consider your argument. Look at Craig's.....
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@stuntpickle I have to confess that your right about my syllogism but craig's is equally crap. What does not exist clearly can not be demonstrated as beginning to exist and if everything else can as WLC proposes the only justification for putting god in any category is that of those things that don't exist.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith Cosmological argument and then look at your "refutation." Seriously, try to figure out why your argument not only fails at being a refutation, but fails at even being relevant. I'm not kidding: take a moment and review both arguments. Can you see why your argument is wholly irrelevant to the Cosmological/Kalam argument? Can you not see that the Cosmological argument has nothing to do with God, per se? A refutation of the Kalam argument that relies heavily on God can't
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@stuntpickle I agree with you on this point. The question of why anything exists can not be answered by fred did it. But never the less can you answer what the justification for putting god in a category of one is. WLC can't without ignoring any alternatives that compromise his argument. He postulates infinity as leading to irrational outcomes irrationally. How do we subtract and add parts of the universe?
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith can't be a refutation of the Kalam argument, which doesn't even mention God. What you don't seem to understand is that Craig's argument for God is an ensemble of distinct arguments. The Kalam argument is merely an argument for what I like to call "intelligibility." Identifying the Kalam's concluding "cause" as God is accomplished when Craig uses the teleological and ontological arguments. He further identifies this God as the Christian God by using historical analysis
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@stuntpickle But he does not get past justifying a category of one as things that don't begin to exist. He can't demonstrate it, he can only infer it and only if he ignores all other theories that conflict with his basic premises. That is not rational. It is an assertion without foundation. In what way is it rational to assert the existence of something that is uncaused in a universe that only has verifiable examples of things that are caused? It is a god of the gaps argument.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
@stuntpickle I understand this but his whole argument is a house of cards. Equivocation, cherry picking, straw man, He is like a detective who goes to a death by natural causes develops an elaborate theory for who the murderer is. Don't take me seriously at all I have no pretentions clearly i have demonstrated that i make mistakes but adress my criticisms? What is the justification for a category of things that dont begin to exist, infinity minus one. Don't make me laugh.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith I think you misunderstand both the point and the importance of what is often called the "prime mover" or the "causeless cause." Forget God altogether for just a moment. We seem to live in a reality of interdependent contingencies: one in which all objects and actions seem to follow naturally from some sort of cause. I push the ball, and it rolls across the table. Very early in the history of philosophy it was realized that the phenomenon can be explained in one of two
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@stuntpickle "primum movens" was conceptually similar the Judaic notions of Yahweh. The argument for a "first cause" isn't an argument for God, but rather an argument stating that the universe is ultimately intelligible.
The truth is that neither option is stupid. And your implication that the first cause principle is, in fact, stupid says far more about you than it does about the argument itself.
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@stuntpickle That is not my implication. My implication is very simply that there is no justification for separating existence into two categories. Postulating another category of existence because its convenient for our pet theory is no better than suggesting saying the words somehow makes it true even if Aristotle says so. It is clearly the case that things that can not be objectively demonstrated to exist should magically be put into an entire category of there own.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith different ways. The first way is that this succession can be traced backward in time forever. This is called an infinite regress. The problem is that this, while theoretically possible, is fundamentally unintelligible. It represents what is called a "practical infinity," which can never be rationally rendered in the human mind. The implications for science are as dire as they are for theology. What this suggests is that regardless of our efforts we can never fully
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith understand the universe. The good news is that most people, including most physicists, consider practical infinites unimportant and largely irrelevant. As far as I understand it infinity has only theoretical value and doesn't seem at all necessary to the study of anything, including the universe.
The second way of addressing the contingent phenomena around us is to suppose that there is some cause categorically different than the others, one that does not need to
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@stuntpickle "We can never fully understand the universe" This is not dire it is clearly honest. It is a problem clearly if you believe in an eternal god surely eternity is a temporal infinity? The point about infinity being irrelevant to studying the nature of the universe is true of god as well. Demonstrably the statement god did it tells us nothing about how it was done.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith to be caused itself. Many New Atheists have wrongly argued that this too leads to infinite regress, but that is merely because they don't understand what is being proposed. What is being proposed is not something infinite in time, but extra-temporal; not something infinite in space, but extra-spatial. This isn't merely a rationalization of Christians. In fact, it wasn't proposed initially by a Christian at all, but rather by Aristotle. It just so happened that this
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@stuntpickle I understand the argument and in my experience most atheists do but what are the properties of this extra temporal/spacial thing. Presumably:
1. It has no comparable like in material existence
2. It has no observable material form
3. It can not be objectively observed to exist temporally or spatially
4. It is predicated upon its absence (There is no demonstrable object to compare its suposed existence to)
sounds a lot like nothing to me.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago 3
@strangetranceoffaith regarding the historical figure of Jesus. Craig isn't really saying "therefore the Christian God," but rather "the Christian God is the likeliest explanation." Basically Craig's argument is divided into something like this: "therefore something intelligible; therefore something intelligent; therefore something divine; so probably Jesus." What this means is that you can't try to refute Craig's cosmological argument by trying to refute Jesus, nor can you refute by refute
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@stuntpickle Thats clearly not true. The deist god is clearly more likely just by the fact that gods presence in the universe can not be demonstrated.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago 5
@strangetranceoffaith nor can you refute the Kalam argument by trying to refute "Craig's notion of God," simply because the Kalam argument doesn't include any notion of God.
The problem is, as I hope you can see, isn't that you are necessarily wrong but that you are having trouble even identifying the conversation. The necessary preconditions of us having a debate about Craig's arguments are that 1. you understand them and 2. I agree with them--neither of which are true. This is further
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith complicated by the fact that you are having trouble expressing your ideas in logically cogent statements, which is not a consequence of you being stupid, but a consequence of the creation of logically cogent statements being extremely difficult.
Did you know that even Bertrand Russel considered the ontological argument sound? That's called intellectual honesty. The reality is that Craig is today the most feared theologian for good reason. It's just a little difficult
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@stuntpickle The ontological argument Anselm? Imagine a perfect mermaid. I'm sure you know the rest. what about imagine something more perfect than god... I don't think Russel particularly likes the ontological argument. Surely the only way out of this argument is to put god in a special category again. Are you not a little suspicious of the continual necessity for special categories of existence of perfection of place of existence?
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago 7
@strangetranceoffaith Look, strange, I think you are suffering from a couple of major misunderstandings. First, Craig is more than just a theologian; he is a well respected philosopher with two PhD's. The sort of philosophical fetishism for science from which you seem to be suffering is no longer a major component of academia. The seeds for logical positivism's destruction were planted in the 1930's when Godel formulated his theorems of incompleteness. ...
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith Consider your implication that somehow the truth of a proposition entails an "objective demonstration" of its truth. Now for the instant evaporation for your claim, I demand that you "objectively demonstrate" the truth of the aforementioned proposition. The radical devotion to empiricism prevalent in the early 20th century is no longer a respectable position. What you don't understand is that Christian Philosophy is now a legitimate and significant field in academia.
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith Christian philosophy was largely restricted to seminaries during the early part of the 20th century because it couldn't satisfy logical positivism's requirements for falsifiability, but then Godel came along and demonstrated that truth did not necessarily entail provability, and now Christian philosophy is again a part of the academy. The problem is that popular literature is generally years behind academy. The irony is that the best refutation in the theist/atheist....
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@stuntpickle Hang on christian philosophy is predicated on god being an absolute standard now your telling me there is no absolute standard
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith I'm saying that the standards for radical skepticism in logical positivism are no longer tenable. Since we're talking about a fact of academic standards, trying to argue against it seems a little ridiculous. I feel fairly certain that if you wanted to verify it, you could just look it up. And, as far as I know, most Christian philosophers, including Craig, acknowledge that arguments for God prove, at best, the likelihood of God and not the certainty of Him.
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@stuntpickle This seems very reasonable in philosophy logical positivism may well be dead in the water not all schools of positivism are though and of course the hilarious thing about WLC and christian philosophy or suposed christian philosophy is that like WLC it clearly makes use of logical positivism to make its case. WLC does not make his case with Aristotle and for good reason WLC makes his arguments with the fruits of modern science and mathematics misrepresented.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
Respond to this video... I don't think your contention that atheists find his arguments hard to pull to pieces is reasonable. His arguments are clearly superficial and he does not present them with an even handed approach. Even his best arguments rest on huge suppositions and at the root are a huge house of cards. You claim the ontological argument is sound but it is ridiculous clearly. again the cosmological argument relies on special pleading. 20 comments and no idea what you think
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith I can assure you that WLC is NOT a logical positivist. Craig uses science in his argumentsl; this is true, but he hardly advocates scientism. The vast majority of Christian Philosophers are, contrary to what you say, deeply indebted to either Aristotle or Plato; this is a result of a conscious effort on behalf of the church to appropriate antique philosophy when many Greek texts were rediscovered. If you want to know what I think, I'll say this much: most people would
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@stuntpickle I have a copy of the Nichomanchean ethics and polotics and i accept that christian philosophy is based on outmoded forms of thought but this clearly is a trifling matter when compared to the absurdity of convolution that the necessity of arguing for a supernatural causality imposes on the paradigm. There is no justification other than spurious cherry picked theoretical Name dropping doesn't deter WLC, Christian existentialism which existence is that of things that begin to or not?
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith Sorry, Strange, you're starting to get a little ridiculous. An empiricist calling someone's thinking outmoded is a little funny. It's apparent that even after I have informed you about Christian philosophy, the current state of philosophy in general, etc. all you care to do is call me dull and WLC a moron. At least this is consistent with New Atheist thinking: NOT-God whatever the cost. New atheism is dangerous in the same sense that fundamentalist Christianity is:
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@stuntpickle it's just a group of idiots convinced that they're right, no matter the objections, and who are just itching to follow their leader lemming off a cliff for the "cause." Idealogical obstinance is something you have in common with most Christians. In fact, you seem to me to be mostly the same as someone involved with popular Christianity. Popular Christianity and popular atheism are different only superficially. They're just badges of association linking you to a social group
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith call me a Christian existentialist. I'm not particularly interested in logical arguments concerning God, either in the affirmative or the negative. Sure, it's interesting, but I tend to think it misses the entire point. I am, however, glad that WLC has been busy embarrassing the New Atheists. I don't have a problem with Atheist philosophers or anything, but NEW atheists are dangerous dullards.
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@stuntpickle I don't think anyone is in any position to judge what you are from your comments. As for new atheists being dangerous clearly all the places they have been bombing and people they have been threatening is testament enough to your powers of rationality. As for being dull haven't you got anything better to do, I have. WLC is a good talker but at the root its still an argument for his invisible best friend. What is a new atheist anyway LOL.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith and inciting you to belligerence wherever the opposition is concerned. Maybe you should go take the "blasphemy challenge" or something else highly original.
You're right, Strange: I do have better stuff to do. It was fun I suppose. Have fun trying to figure it all out.
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@stuntpickle Why would i waist my time in such futile things as the blasphemy challenge. Maybe you can figure out the extra temporal/spacial realm of supernatural hyperouterness thingy after all such things must be valid explanations if you can imagine they really exist. You clearly have a much higher opinion of yourself than the evidence would suggest. Your not big on evidence though are you. Be well.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith debate is Plantinga's refutation of naturalism. As far as Craig is concerned, I think he is primarily regarded as the fiercest debater of our age. In terms of scholarship, I think's Craig's revival of the Kalam argument is well respected not merely in Christian philosophy, but in philosophy in general. It's the so-called horsemen of the apocalypse--Dawkins, HItchens, and Harris--who are considered to be hacks--not merely by Christian philosophers, but by atheist
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith by atheist philosophers too.
The only reason I am still chatting with you is that you have shown that you are, at least, willing to recognize your own mistakes, which is rare trait among so-called New Atheists. But you still seem to be suffering from the worst possible affliction of being unpersuadable. What makes dialogue different from a plain old disagreement is that the participants are, at least in theory, willing to change their minds. In fact...
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith the only time true learning takes place (and by "true learning" I mean more than just committing something to memory) is when you change your mind. Obstinance is not a virtue. Realistically, I don't expect you to convert to Christianity, but I do think you are in some way now obligated to take Craig seriously. Try actually reading one of his books or scholarly articles. He has both popular and scholarly articles posted on his website for free. The truth is
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith you could learn a lot more from Craig than from a hack like Hitchens. If you need proof, watch the end of the HItchens Turek debate in which they cross examine one another. I don't even agree with Frank Turek, but the cross examination is hilarious. Just ask yourself, while watching it, if Hitchens is even answering the questions. Then ask yourself if he even understands the questions.
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith to take you seriously when you characterize him as something of a buffoon.
stuntpickle 9 months ago
"a tender slice of his own face" LOL, nice
MrTruthAddict 9 months ago
WLC argument infinity + or - = irrationality. Whilst this might lead to irrational outcomes in mathematics how does WLC intend to delete sections of the universe or add bits on given the accepted laws of conservation? I find it incredible that he gets away with this blatant equivocation. Does he not know that perfect triangles do not exist materially.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
Infinity is murder.
professorimpossible 9 months ago
@professorimpossible Infinitely so.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
When you suggest that Craig is asserting two incompatible ideas, all you accomplish is a demonstration of your failure to understand what is actually being proposed. Craig isn't claiming that everything that exists has a cause, but that everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause. It is clear from even the clips of Craig you include that he believes God to be timeless and changeless, which necessarily implies that Craig believes God did not begin to exist.
stuntpickle 10 months ago
@stuntpickle So are you saying that WLC's justification for the existence of god is god? If not then god must be nothing because nothing does not begin to exist either. Of course you could provide a full list of things, that don't begin to exist, that we could base the assumption that such a thing exists on. But why bother I've just listed them all in this comment everything else according to the selective criteria of WLC begins to exist.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith You know what, strange? You perfectly demonstrate the problems with popular atheism: namely, that the adherents are incapable of rational discussion. All I am saying is that the basic syllogism Craig is using (a syllogism being the basic logical argument of two or more premises from which a conclusion naturally follows) is concerned with things that come into existence having causes. It's a logical fallacy to argue against a premise that isn't being proposed: a straw-man
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@stuntpickle I think you will find that the premisses of a syllogism need to be rational to start with or it can lead to irrational conclusions. There is no rational reason to divide the nature of existence into things that begin to exist and things that don't begin to exist. we have no evidence for things that don't begin to exist within the framework of WLC's argument just bald assertion. Here's a syllogism for you see next comment.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
Respond to this video... Syllogism. Premis 1. There is an assertion that god did not begin to exist Premis 2. The only thing we can objectively prove that does not begin to exist is nothing. Conclusion. God is nothing. Do you prefer this? Until you prove the existence of god then the cause of the universe can not be established and this is despite the fact that the assertion of who did it does not answer the question of how it came to be. The cosmological question.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith Listen, Strange, you have apparently misapprehended my entire point. I never intended to "prove" God; that's not the conversation we're having. I commented on a video that pretends to criticize Craig's argument while simultaneously demonstrating an insufficient understanding of the aforementioned argument. It doesn't matter if YOU think one of the premises is bad because the author of the video never makes that point. The reality is that Craig.....
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@stuntpickle Sorry I thought this video was about WLC and his arguments. But never mind i'm making that point. your the one who brought up syllogism not me but its all good.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith (Continued) The reality is that Craig's capacity for argumentation vastly exceeds that of most persons. The debate he has, for instance, with Hitchens is a total blowout, not because Hitchens is necessarily wrong about God, or even at all stupid, but rather because he lacks the rational apparatus to even properly identify the points being made and muster a defense against them. Craig could easily handle someone like Richard Dawkins, regardless of the debate topic--....
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@stuntpickle 'The reality is that Craig's capacity for argumentation vastly exceeds that of most persons.' I think his capacity for rhetoric vastly exceeds most people though why he then attempts thoroughly dishonest tactics such as ad homonyms is puzzling. I saw the Hitchens debate and I can see why you think he got the better of the exchange. But the truth of his arguments do not rest on his ability to project confidence they rest on their objective truth.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith (continued) not to mention some half-clever nitwit like the person who made this video.
stuntpickle 9 months ago
@stuntpickle WlC says an infinite universe as irrational, that infinity leads to irrational outcomes. In one of his but employs the concept of infinity to construct his notion of time. When asked about the law of conservation of energy undermining his premis of things beginning to exist he replies with the inane response 'didn't I begin to exist' equivocating the notion of existence as essence with existence as material. Good talker, poor arguments!
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
I tend to never take a video seriously when the commentator is arrogant and smarmy in his criticism whilst making biased and non-factual assertions. I do note your objections however.
BENebuchadnezzar 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The reason you don't want to believe in God, is because you do not want to take responsibility as a sinner. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. Your intellect will not save you...
sherrys6214 10 months ago
infinity is not a number
Mitche23 10 months ago
1st premise: everything that begins to exist must have a cause for it's existence.
Then show that the Universe began to exist at the big bang, oh you can't. To bad for your KCA argument.
2nd premise: The Universe has a beginning to it's existence.
Again your asserting it had a beginning, now demonstrate it.
3rd premise: Therefore the Universe has a cause.
Great, now demonstrate that cause to be god. Oh, you cant. To bad you lose.
baldurus1 10 months ago 17
@baldurus1
You have a total failure to understand what an "argument" is. It is not a proof.
This video show just how badly an atheist WANTS to misunderstand something as simple as the Kalam argument.
RetSquid 9 months ago
@RetSquid I would agree with you if Craig posed the KCA as a philosophical question, but sadly he states it as FACT. Facts must be supported by evidence, and there Craig fails miserably.
baldurus1 9 months ago
@baldurus1
There IS evidence. We know that the Universe had a begining, it is not infinitely old. Either it caused itself to begin to exist or something else caused it to begin to exist. If it did cause itself to begin, why do other things not cause themselves to exist? Something cannot cause itself to begin to exist, that would be some non-existing thing acting on itself. If you go watch one of his videos on the Kalam argument it makes a lot more sense than THIS video.
RetSquid 9 months ago
@RetSquid OUR Universe began with a big bang from a singularity, that does not mean that it was the first cosmic event. We can't know anything before the big bang, if anyone claims otherwise he's lying.
We can also ask the same question about the creator, who created the creator?
If the creator is infinite, why cant the Universe be Infinite?
Where did the creator "exist" if there was no Universe? Something can't exist in nothing?
baldurus1 9 months ago
@baldurus1
First, from all available information the Universe had a begining with the Big Bang. it is unknowable if there was a Universe that predated this Universe. The Creator is the First Uncaused Cause, by definition. We know that the Universe cannot be infinite because infinity cannot be contained within a Universe. God CAN be infinite because He is not within the Universe as we know it.
Again, go watch jX44V_at8TI
RetSquid 9 months ago
@RetSquid The "Universe" would have to be infinite if a creator existed, again something can not exist in a vacuum. Therefore there would have to be space where the creator existed=space=Universe=infinite.
And i don't need to watch anything, because i have heard it all before a 1000 times. Okay lets grant the notion that the creator was the first uncaused cause, no demonstrate it. Assertions carries absolutely no weight.
baldurus1 9 months ago
@baldurus1
So your assertions carry the same weight as anyone's. The Creator would have to exist outside the known Universe in order to BE the creator of it. You are twisting/confusing the argument, I suggest getting a fresh view of the video.
Can you demonstrate that things come into being without being caused?
RetSquid 9 months ago
@RetSquid Again, last time. Something can not exist outside space(vacuum). Actually "outside space" is a misnomer, there is no outside of space.
No i can't make any claims about pre big bang, and i don't.
It's the person making the claim that must support the claims with evidence, assertions and speculations are not evidence.
because the sky is blue does not mean my shoes are red, that is basically what the KCA is asserting.
baldurus1 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@baldurus1
"because the sky is blue does not mean my shoes are red, that is basically what the KCA is asserting."
No wonder you are so confused on the KCA! Do you believe that things can come in existence without any cause at all?
RetSquid 9 months ago
@baldurus1
1. I believe the 1st premise is obviously true (just common sense), and the first refutation statement belongs below the second premise.
2. Doesn't Craig demonstrate this point both philosophically and scientifically in the debate? He shows that the universe must have an absolute beginning (one example is the impossibility of an actual infinite of past events).
3. Two options remain: The universe is eternal, there is a transcendent creator.
Just my honest opinion.
estill4 7 months ago
@estill4 Then the possibility of an actual infinite of an infinite god would also be impossible, and the creator would also need a creator.
Philosophical demonstration is not the same as scientific demonstration, and no he did not provide a single scientific demonstration for his assertions.
baldurus1 7 months ago
@baldurus1
First, thank you for being polite.
I think we can both agree that something must be infinite whether the universe or God. I believe it is more plausible to believe in a transcendent creator than an eternal universe. Also, you don't need an explanation of an explanation to decide that it is the most plausible.
I believe that Dr. Craig presented several scientific demonstrations such as the universe originating with a singularity prior to which nothing existed (support for prem 2)
estill4 7 months ago
@estill4 not even a god can be transcendent(beyond space and time), something can not exist in nothing.
If god exist then there must always have been space where god existed, if space has always existed then there is no need for a god to create space that already exists.
There being nothing prior to the singularity is an assertion, not demonstration. It was the beginning of our time and space, not Universal time and space(infinite). He never showed that nothing existed prior to the Big Bang.
baldurus1 7 months ago
@baldurus1 I believe that stating that nothing can be transcendent is false and clearly shows a bias against the supernatural.
The implication is that God is not governed by the laws of nature since they are imposed on his creation, not himself. Therefore, space and time become meaningless and God exists independently of both.
I agree that was an assertion, good point. Perhaps a demonstration would be the complexity of creation (Improbability paired with an independent pattern.)
estill4 7 months ago
@estill4 I don't think most people understand beyond space and time, it means in physics nothing.
Nothing consists of nothing, no matter no time and no space. It doesn't exist. You can not place something in nothing, if god is something he can not exist in nothing. If god "exists" in nothing god would also have to be nothing. Nothing is not a physical thing, also it's not a metaphysical thing. It just doesn't exist. If god has any properties he must exist in a space.
baldurus1 7 months ago
@baldurus1 I totally agree with you based on the laws of physics. However, I don't think we have any reason to believe that God is for some reason subject to the laws of physics. I'm not suggesting that God is somehow synonymous with non-being. Really I don't know what God exists in but I can still see that a creator outside of space and time as we know it is the best explanation.
estill4 7 months ago
Its interesting that you interrupt Craig's comments and add your biased commentary instead of allowing Craig to develop one single point. It is also interesting how you juxtapose his opening comments with some of his closing comments regarding subjective reasons for belief. As I am sure that you are aware, most who heard the debate, felt Craig won - including Anthony Flew. As a result of this debate, Anthony Flew gave up his atheism and exchanged it for deism. Thank you for the memories.
johnpnewman 11 months ago
@johnpnewman
Not to mention the fact that practically all of this uploaders "refutation's"
of Craig's arguments can and have been answered by Craig himself.
There's nothing new or exciting here and certainly nothing worth getting worked up about.
Writtenjustice 11 months ago
Your easily pleased In the beginning of one of his monologues he claims to prove that naturalism is untrue whilst supernaturalism is true. How hilarious that he thinks he can prove the transcendent by undermining the notion it transcends. Natural -> supernatural (over or beyond the natural) so WLC is going to prove that the natural is untrue but but the thing that is over or beyond the untrue thing is true? Yes I have no doubt he has answered his critics through the medium of dance.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith I do not believe Craig's objective is to prove the natural is untrue. It seems to be to prove that both exist...
Writtenjustice 9 months ago
@Writtenjustice It is an actual statement he makes. His objective is to ignore anything but the rhetoric that supports his beliefs. It is not rational. For instance there is no rational justification for assigning a category of things that don't begin to exist. It is an assertion that is incoherent with his evidence. Unless he can show god to others objectively how can he show evidentially that god did not begin to exist. He can assert it but thats not proof. His arguments rest on assertion.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith Well considering the fact that Craig seems to be quite well-read on material proposing viewpoints that are the opposite of his own, I disagree with your suggestion that he's being solipsistic. Like you and most other atheists out there, he's merely assured his position is correct. Nothing wrong with that at all.
And I also disagree with your statement about God's not beginning to exist but that is another discussion entirely.
Writtenjustice 9 months ago
@Writtenjustice I think you misunderstand me. I do not have religious certainty. A god may exist. Rationality does not constitute adherence to my personal beliefs. it must adhere to the evidence. WLC argument is premised on a separate category of existence with only one inclusion. He can not justify this separate category, as you so rightly point out, without recourse to his presumed own correctness. Clearly this is irrational because it is assertion without reason.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith Again, I disagree, but it would take quite a while for me to explain why.
However, I appreciate your conduct and cogent speaking. :)
Writtenjustice 9 months ago
@Writtenjustice its quite nice to have a civil discourse if a disagreement. I wish you well and thanks right back at ya.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith Agreed, heh heh. Good day
Writtenjustice 9 months ago
what did you think about the recent Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig Debate ?
10sodot 11 months ago
"Not subbing would make you everything that is wrong with the world" Proof this video is not serious.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 11 months ago
The way this pipsqueak speaks gives me fucking ear cancer. I barely can't make out a thing. What's wrong with speaking properly? Afraid people are gonna hear your "refuting" is just empty objections?
The best stuff I heard was that "we don't know what caused the universe". Well the laws of physics began at the Big Bang, that's why science won't do any further.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 11 months ago
facepalm at end=epic
Epicdemicz 11 months ago
The Buy-Bull sez God maid teh werld, it also sez it's teh truth! So we shud beleeve it. Logical, XD
blackestjake 11 months ago
The clown who made this video purposefully misrepresents Craigs argument.
1) Craig gives many logical and scientific evidences in his prime arguments. Cosmology, design, fine tuning among them. This clown dishonestly pretends Dr Craig's final and qualified (personal) argument IS his argument.
2) Personal experience IS as good of a PERSONAL verification as as empirical evidence. Much what we know is not veridical by empirical testing.
4TruthMatters 11 months ago
You should have mentioned that Craig doesn’t accept the B-theory of time.