although i am not a christian the way lane craig makes his arguments are amazing also he starts most of his debates in the same tone it sounds too nice.
objections to Craig's arguments. Cosmological- causality is incoherent prior to the universes existence Moral- circular reasoning . God gives objective morals objective morals prove god Fine Tuning - begs the question assumes that the universe has a purpose Ontological argument - incoherent concept of a Maximal Great being. Omniscience and omnipotence are inescapable with omni-benevolence.
Atkins did better than most people give him credit for. At least he managed to cut to the core of WLC's fallacy: all his arguments require a metaphysical leap while simpler explanations cannot be ruled out. 1. The universe appears to be designed so there must be a supernatural designer 2. There are reports of a supernatural event so it must be supernatural 3. I feel God from within so there must be... etc. Atkins 'science can explain everything'-argument is shaky at best though
Even if we agree that there is a personal god who created everything, what on earth makes you think that "Abrahamic" god did it? There are so many different personal gods all over the world.
@ThisIDIsTheLongestID thats when you have to learn religion.. what you commented was so ignorant in the religious view .. religion is knowledge too. am muslim..
@AxtoxthexJ How much do you know about Hinduism then, or Shinto, or Chinese Traditional, et al.? How can you reject any of those faiths when you don't understand them?
@AxtoxthexJ You were indeed talking to someone else. You claimed he was ignorant of religion. Presumably you mean of your religion. My point is that we're all ignorant of some religions. That doesn't mean we're wrong to reject them when there sis no evidence.
@Eirikofs I am not speaking of intellectual inquiries as something negative, on the contrary, I am saying that science is extremely concerned with the origin of the cosmos, and rightly so.
I've watched 70 seconds of this debate, and the christian fool is already asking the atheist to provide good evidence to disprove God's existence... If the fact that the bible taught that the earth was in center of the universe, that whores should be stoned to death, that non-believers should be burned, that someone walked on water and made water into wine is not proof enough for you to understand that the bible is no eternal truth, then I'm afraid you will be forever dumb.
@Eirikofs Regardless to your misinformed claim that the Bible teaches that the earth is the center of the universe, Dr. Craig is not defending or arguing the inspired revelation of the Bible. He is arguing from science, the thrust of his argument being "the law of causality" or how "matter" came into existence, which is at that the forefront of science itself e.g. the Hedron Accelerator and their efforts to confirm the existence of the Higg's Boson particle or "God Particle".
@ Eirikofs The law of causality, "Every effect, must have an antecedent cause" this physical law is immutable and irrefutable. In other words, if matter exists, the only reasonable and rational explanation is a "necessary first cause" and that the cause must be a self existent something that is not by definition itself an effect. Regardless of your position that God does not exist, you will be hard pressed to explain this as is science. How is this "forever dumb"?
@cq7us Everything needs a cause, yet your cause, god, escapes this necessity. It is forever dumb because you invent another fictional realm in which things don't need causes, without having any rational ground to base it upon. Science does not claim to know how the universe came to exist, but it is working on it. Christianity creates the illusion that we have a clue. Science is just admitting to not having one, and tries to find it rather than making it.
@Eirikofs The law of causality, again, states that "every EFFECT must have an antecedent cause", it does NOT state that "every CAUSE must have an antecedent effect". For anything to exist at all in a materialist universe, must begin with an antecedent first cause. However, a self-existent eternal being who transcends its own creation does not violate the law of causality. The necessary existence of an uncaused causer does not violate the law of causality.
@cq7us What if I say that an enormous cloud of undiscovered energies, totally unconscious, materialized and made all matter and energy in the universe. Would that then mean that this cloud is a cause, not an effect, and therefore doesn't require a cause? I state it again. Neither I nor science claim to know how the universe came into existance (if it did). All I'm saying is that it is quite presumtious and ignorant to adamantly claim that it was a personal god, and even more so YOUR god.
@Eirikofs I haven't made the claim for a "personal god" or even my god. I'm only speaking in terms of science, specifically causality and its implications in a contingent universe. I am claiming that for a materialistic contingent cosmos to exist, either it exists as self-created, self-existent or it was created. A self-created cosmos would violates the law of non-contradiction, that is, for self-creation something must exist and not exist in the same time and space, this would be absurd.
@Eirikofs I would contend, as Dr. Craig does, that the explanation for the universe's existence must transcend space-time, no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account for the origin of the universe. However the cosmos came into existence, logically has to include a self-existent eternal something that transcends space-time (supernatural). "Ex nihilo nihil fit" Latin for "Out of nothing, nothing comes".
@cq7us I would like to reemphasize that the "law" of causality is not a law in the same way as mathematical laws, for example. This law has no real basis in other sciences than philosophy, which deals with eventual thinking rather than scientific evidence. When faced with a problem that has not been solved by science yet, we differ. I choose to rely on and wait for evidence, the basis on which all other human inquiries have been made, while you choose to believe in something supernatural.
@Eirikofs Wow, causality is indeed fundamentally essential to physics and the natural sciences. The antithesis of causality is that things just arbitrarily happen. How is this not intrinsic to science or scientific method? or How is there no real basis for causality in the sciences?
@Eirikofs In the top five unsolved questions in science, the number one issue is what is the origin of matter? At the very core of this question is the law of causality. If a non-causal answer is that matter arbitrarily appeared into existence, then there would be no debate about the origin of the universe and would satisfy physicists. There would be on physics without causality.
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
WLC " I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion. " Craigs answer to a rebuttal of Quentin Smith is COMMON SENSE. WTF?
@Purity03 Craig uses the same fallacious arguments Over and over and over. His arguments while illogical are difficult to refute in the forum of a debate. They however have been destroyed by Quentin Smith and Arif Ahmed . I recommend watching debates WLC had in 1996 with Smith. Basically Smith demolishes WLC's argument for the creation of the universe by a god. WLC's response is to say that Philosophy is inadequte to talk about the creation, . To this day he still uses it
As an agnostic - the debate between Craig and Hitchens was a pleasure to watch. You could tell Hitchens was fuming and shaking in silent rage at some points Craig made. I used to favour Hitchens and Dawkins, that's before I had an epiphany, that something inside me was at war with the notion of god and his silence in all the chaos that is the universe. It might very well be true for Hitchens apparent in his complete disgust at such a notion. I've made my peace - now I keep silent.
@mykebulvai You mean to say that you were angry at the lack of evidence for the existence of any such thing as a god, and that this somehow invalidates the position that there isn't enough evidence to justify belief? Explain to me how your personal revelation that you were angry (as one probably should be, were God a real thing), trumps a well reasoned position of agnostic atheism.
oh come now, you can do better than that can't you? "the #1 official postion of scientists"? I mean that is laughable on the surface - do they all get together, from all corners of the world and release official statements as one?
There is plenty out there that contradicts your statement, anonymous youtube atheist, about Craig being respected - hitchens, harris dennett and so many others have stated their respect, is it that those atheists are not as smart as you are?
Hmmm. The Greeks did not understand thunder and lightening: It must be the gods !! The native Hawaiians did not understand volcunism: It must be the gods!! Now we don't completely understand how the universe began: It must be God !!!! How many times is the human race going to play this sorry game?
Richard Dawkins needs to man up and debate Craig. His logic is very sound and makes much more sense than the atheistic position. For atheists who claim to be logical and rational, they don't follow they own rules very much.
@cocoalovethax Your last statement was a non-sequitur and a straw man. How does Dawkins' refusal to debate someone (for which he has given his reasons for not doing so) lead to a conclusion like "atheists don't follow logic and reason very much"?
WLC's logic does not "make much more sense than the atheistic position". He never actually presents evidence for god he just constructs arguments (i.e Cosmological Argument - with false premises) to try and support a presupposition that god exists.
@emailpobox666 - you know what slays me pal? every well known and presumably respected atheist that has debated Craig (hitchens, harris, atkins etc.etc.) has been admitted that he is a formiddable opponent, in some cases will acknowledge they did not do well against him (hitchens, dennett) but it is the unknown, anonymous atheist writing from their mothers basement who really know Craig is weak on this issue, and could give him a schooling. Do you know any imbeciles like that?
@mollkatless He's a good debater . But he is still a blow hard and his arguments are anything but logical." Do you know any imbeciles like that?" As a matter of fact I do. He gos by the name mollkatless
@emailpobox666- I suspect you are not an academic? how do you balance that he is a good debater, & that his arguments are "anything but logical" when his arguments are based on logic?
I'll phrase it another way, not 1 of his well know atheist foes has accused Craig of being illogical. Craig has a Phd in Philiosophy. Is this starting to make sense?
I have an idea, why don't you challenge Craig to a debate, I am sure you are fully credentialed, I'm sure he would be honored, think about it
@mollkatless Tell you what champ. I'll post statements from one of his debates and you can be the judge for yourself. Often time men's belief in the supernatural (ie God) blinds hem to logic and reason. Craig say so himself. I'll parphrae . Craigs said even if he found evidence negating the existence of god he would still believe. He makes ridicoulus steatement like the cosmological argument . Everything has a cause except one uncaused god. WTF.
@mollkatless I have an idea why doesn't craig take on challanges like the obne posed for him by TheoreticalBullshit on youtube. Or maybe get his ass handed to him nby Quentin Smith . He got destroyed by Smith refuting the comsmological arguement and still use the same argument even thoug he has no adequte rebutal
@mollkatless He commits a strawman argument 2:00 minutes into the debate by decrying that the big bang is the BEGINNING of all matter. He still has no idea about the #official position of scientists concerning The Big Bang. He's not respected academically outside of his little bubble, and performs abysmal actions that most people who know of formal debate consider to be in very bad taste.
@cocoalovethax I'm an atheist and I am usually disappointed in the approach that Hitchens and Harris take in debates against Craig. Craig has flaws in his premises that are eloquently disguised and hardly noticed. But they are not impossible to spot, and I wish the atheists would recognize them.
@cocoalovethax Nonsense, Craig is just very persuasive, but all he has is words and thoughts, no evidence and very little technical research. That is why Dawkins doesn't waste time with him, he is no expert, he is just very good at debating: twisting words, tampering with phrasing and making logic traps.
@cocoalovethax Craig's Logic? That's a laugh. Crig uses the same 5 arguments over and over and over. His arguments have been demolished in other debates by individuals like Quentin Smith . Check out this WLC debate w w w (dot).leaderu(dot)com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith5.html
@cocoalovethax I've never heard any logic from from the theistic position. Richard Dawkins doesn't debate theists period, so to say he needs to man up and debate Craig makes no sense. Does someone who doesn't play basketball have to play the game? Also Dr. Craig may be a good debater, but the points he uses and his logic is extremely flawed. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a fallacy for example that has no base in reality. I have seen Dr. Craig use clever tactics, but never make a legit point
@theBartone9119 The crux of the cosmological argument is the law of causality "Every effect must have an antecedent cause". Is this always true expect when atheists can't explain a "necessary first cause"? How is Dr. Craig's argument is "extremely flawed"? My guess is that you have no idea what he's talking about, thus your rhetorical claim.
@cq7us A cause is the rearrangement of matter preceding it's effect in time, time and matter didn't exist until after The Big Bang so how could there be a cause? The law of cause and effect only applies to the universe after is came into existence. Also Quantum Fluctuations occur uncaused all the time, Dr. Craig has no clue what he's talking about.
@theBartone9119 The singularity did indeed exist before the big bang, therefore, what was it's origin? Wrap your head around this, if nothing existed prior to the singularity or big bang what did it expand into? Area is a thing and needs to exist before something can expand into it. I often have this debate with atheists and they often have a limited understanding of "nothingness" and the fact that "nothingness" is without any ontological properties or has the power to create anything.
@theBartone9119 You are then left with a self-existent eternal singularity. If the singularity is indeed "actually eternal" (without beginning or end) It would have taken an eternity to reach the big bang event, in other words we would have never arrived at the big bang event. When speaking in terms that a self-existent anything whether its the unknown properties of some sort of self existent, self perpetuating energy source without beginning cont...
@theBartone9119 cont... or end or a creator who transcends time. A self-existent eternal creator is necessarily logical in order to explain the existence of anything that exists in time and space. A first cause is logically necessary in a contingent cosmos.
@cocoalovethax The problem with most Atheists is that they believe that they can't prove a negative, this is false, disproving God can be done very easily and has been by many people bold enough to take that position. If you want to see a debate where Craig gets completely demolished by an Atheist, watch his debate vs Austin Dacey.
@cocoalovethax William Lane Craig pays lip service to logic. But the fact that he opens his talk with a shifting of the burden of proof is all the evidence you need to see that he doesn't really use it.
They must first define God for the purpose of the debate.
Then use that definition and only that definition in there debate.
Otherwise they can both be right and both be wrong because of there different definitions.
However good argument style and proper use of logic, too often I see God exists because it says so in the bible or Qur'an it is weak almost as weak as saying God exists because God exists.
@eddiekoski It seems that is what Craig was doing whenever he said that the cause of the universe must be changeless, timeless, immaterial, spaceless, and unimaginably powerful. Craig gave the definition of God at the beginning of the debate. To say atheism is true just because atheists believe it is incredibly weak. It is a subjective argument with no real ground in objectivity.
They must first define God for the purpose of the debate.
Then use that definition and only that definition in there debate.
However good argument style and proper use of logic, too often I see God exists because it says so in the bible or Qur'an it is weak almost as weak as saying God exists because God exists.
The BB was the cause of the expansion of the universe, but as I understand, it is only descriptive of a change in state and does not describe an origin for the matter/energy (especially not a literal 'nothing'). Craig uses that quote from Anthony Kenny in many debates; and if that quote was not taken out of context, then Kenny was wrong. Labeling the knowledge gap 'god' is not an explanation, nor is it useful. The rest of Craig's assertions sound like unsupported trash as well.
@urcorrect Craig doesn't subscribe to a "God of the gaps" theory. In fact, the Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn't seek to establish a god, per se, but rather an external cause of the universe. Unfortunately debate format is restrictive when it comes to providing serious, in-depth support arguments. If you'd like to see the research and extensive support behind Craig's arguments, I recommend reading some of his written work. His book "Reasonable Faith" is a good start.
@jackl91 Well, I've read his version of the kalamist ideology and he reflects it in debate as he reconstructed it in writing; aside from the bb problem, I also reject his premise because his purported logical inference based on attempting an operation for real numbers with infinity as an operand is ridiculous. I reject his morality and fine tuning arguments as well. I'll see if I can find a free version of that book and give it a chance though (I don't want to buy it after seeing his debates).
@urcorrect I'm not sure that you've got it quite right on your BB objection. Even if Craig (and I don't think he does) misstates the Big Bang Theory, on this theory the universe does come into being from nothing. Even if one holds that there was a pre-BB state (e.g., a quantum vacuum), according to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem this state cannot be past-eternal and must begin to exist.
Why do you reject his argument against actual infinity?
@jackl91 I'm not sure either, but a citation is in order regardless. Craig's argument vs actual ∞ is a misuse of the concept of ∞ which only shows that it's not in the set of real numbers, and works the same if he replaces ∞ with god. If he proved -∞ didn't work with limits (calculus) it might mean something. Causal infinite regression wouldn't require a past eternal state, in fact quite the contrary unless you call change a state, but I'll look into BVG theorum anyway.
@urcorrect Maybe the confusion lies here: ∞ is the symbol for potential infinity and can describe a collection that increases toward infinity as a limit but never gets there. The symbol for actual infinity is the Hebrew letter aleph (looks like a funky X). In reality you can say that there exists a potentially infinite number of, for example, unequal segments into which you can divide a football field but not an actually infinite number of equal divisions of, e.g., time (seconds, days, years).
@jackl91 Trying to "get there" is misusing the concept again. A football field is a spacial 'section', so your example is begging the question (you're referencing Zeno's paradox which is about infinite divisions of finite structures). The same can be said for 'sections' of time (seconds, days, years). If you consider it in terms of spacetime, you will need to show that spacetime did not exist in order to prove its past finite, or that spacetime will not exist in order to prove its future finite.
@urcorrect I don't think I was misusing the concept or begging the question, and, although I don't think Craig's example is fallacious, you've cut to the more important issue: the finitude of spacetime. Neither I nor Craig claim that the spacetime will be future-finite. And all scientifically viable models do indeed have the universe coming into existence, whether at the Big Bang or before the Big Bang. In fact there's great reason to believe that the universe isn't past eternal. CONT'D
@jackl91 Trying to reach infinity IS misusing the concept; again, it's not in the set of real numbers. Your examples of a football field or a time period (day, year, etc) beg the question of finitude if you're applying them as analogous to existence because the examples are already known to be finite. And the finitude of spacetime is not the end of the issue as it doesn't discount cyclic, bubble, and other models in the least. If you have explanations or citations about what is 'viable', great.
@urcorrect Friend, I hope you didn't think I was aiming the Vilenkin quote at you. In no way was I trying to imply that you're unreasonable.
Now let's remember that our conversation has centered on the nature of infinity and the beginning of the universe. How did we get to God? I was merely trying to show that we have good reason to believe that the universe began; I haven't said anything about God yet. Hawking and Vilenkin's religious views are irrelevant. I only maintain the universe began.
@jackl91 Right on. I did make some assuptions, and I apologize for doing so. This conversation started with my disapproval of Craig's arguments & assertions about the existence of a god; you came in his defense when I accused him of an argument from ignorance, and so I hope you can forgive my eventual mistake of attributing the whole of his position to you in this long convo. I wouldn't have mentioned H's atheism had I not assumed the quote was to defend theism, but yes, even then its irrelevant
@urcorrect I never said anything about trying to reach infinity, but forgive me if I said "get there"; perhaps I should have stopped at "increases toward infinity as a limit." Neither did I imply that infinity is in the set of real numbers.
Also, I was never using a football field as an analogy for spacetime, but only to clarify the concept of potential infinity (thus there's no question to be begged). I agree, cyclic, bubble and other models aren't ruled out by saying that the universe began.
@urcorrect "Causal infinite regression wouldn't require a past eternal state, in fact quite the contrary unless you call change a state." Could you possibly expand on this and maybe suggest some reading. Thanks.
@jackl91 To expand, the observation kalam theory is based on (a motion has a cause, and a cause is a motion) points to an infinite regression of cause and effect (changes). The way Craig phrases this is faulty to begin with as we haven't observed things begin to exist, but only to change. Craig makes an actual infinity sound impossible in order to justify a need for a prime mover. Even if one accepts his fallacious algebraic example, he still owes an explanation of nonphysical causing physical.
@urcorrect Consider these quotations: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Alexander Vilenkin
"Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." Stephen Hawking
@jackl91 I'm unimpressed by quote mining appeals to authority. Hawking himself is an atheist. His wave function theory (as I understand) is still a form change, and not an end to the conversation. I haven't read BVG yet. I maintain that Craig's argument about infinity is inadequate, and he still owes a definition of his 'god' with an explanation and proof for the function of the universe. The important issue is god is not an explanation.
"Comprehension is what convinces reasonable men." Myself
@jackl91 That quote from Alexander Vilenkin comes from his 2006 book "Many World In One". On the same page, he wrote:
"Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. (Cont...)
@jackl91 (Cont...) Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist."
@Drgamedood Yes, I've read that. I introduced the quote in a conversation where I was trying to establish that there's strong evidence that the universe began to exist. I was not using the quote in itself as evidence for God.
@emailpobox666 I skimmed through the video you recommended. I think you're right. Craig might have miscategorized the argument. However, the original "Kalam Argument AGAINST God" presented by the author of the video is incredibly weak. It's first premise is "P1: Nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist to begin existing," and the entire argument hinges on this first premise. I can think of plenty examples that falsify P1. Do you know of anything that supports it?
@emailpobox666 The reason I asked if you know of any support for P1 is just to make sure I'm not misunderstanding it, because on the surface it seems so obviously untrue. When a human being is conceived and a new life begins to exist, is this not caused by something that already exists?
@jackl91 The new life is caused by the childs parents .Thngs which already exist like sperm and egg combine with nutritients from the mother (all of which exists) just combine to form a baby.The baby is just those molecules atoms elements arranged differently
@emailpobox666 I thought you might say something like this, but look here. In what you wrote, you contradicted P1: "The new life is caused by the child's parents." Now to say that the baby is a rearrangement of existing atoms is not to say that it doesn't exist. A new life exists. It didn't exist before. It came from an existing source. Do you wish to say that the new life doesn't exist or that it is not actually a thing?
@jackl91The arrangement didn't exist the components did therefore there is no contradiction. Lokk at it this way you cause a chemical reaction to occur new arrangement occur does that mean that you brought something into Existence or that you rearranged what already existed. Your dispute is because of the definition of existence that you are using
@emailpobox666 You're right, we are debating terminology, but let's remember that P1 is "Nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist to begin existing." Even if we work with your framework, as you admit, the "arrangement didn't exist." Therefore something which exists brings a new arrangement (which didn't exist) into existence. Is this new arrangement not "something"? If it is, then P1 is false. Further, what positive evidence do we have to think that P1 is true?
@jackl91 Look at it this way I make a fist this is a new thing 'brought into existence "but it really is a rearrangement of things which already exist. Nothing is brought into existence only arranged into a different arrangement. Arrangement is just the way we look at something it is not the thing but our concept for that thing.
@BinaryPill Do you agree that William Lane Craig didn't address the argument that TheoreticalBullshit put out to Craig or do you have any other disagreements with TheoreticalBullshit's argument
@emailpobox666 I just disagree with how pathetically arrogant he is in dealing with this guy. He misinterprets this guy who speaks in clear language that even I, a casual year 11 student with little philosophical understanding, can mostly understand.
If you want my position on the creation of the world, I do not give one. I think we have insufficient scientific knowledge to adequately explain the creation of the universe. Saying however something like 'God did it' is just lazy.
@emailpobox666 ... I believe that we cannot absolutely disprove God created the universe, but only in a way we cannot absolutely disprove the events carried out in 'Star Wars' for example.
Listening to that Craig asshole talk is like pumping feces inside your head. Redundant asshole, I hate this religious rethoric, or the idiot sees what a dumbass he is for himself, or you just have to shoot him I guess.
@emailpobox666 He's a complete tool, and yet religious imbeciles say he won the debate, relativist rethoric just pisses me off, it doesn't get you anywere.
@Konicava All some apologetic has to do is throw the label logic on their argument and they buy hook line and sinker. Even thought their logic contains fallacies
You sound like a couple of dolts. Every time an imminent Theist philosopher or scholar steps into the ring the atheists throw a hissy-fit. The man's a world-renowned philosopher and has written 30 books and more articles than you can probably count in peer-reviewed philosophical journals. And who the hell are you again?
@AgApE010 I the man who had to listen to his foolish ontological argument for god. the same argument which contains logical fallacies ."renowned philosopher" by Christian who he caters..Who are you to question who I am?"
Im an agnostic.. This whole debate is pointless. It is all based on possibilities which cannot be proven irregardless of how compelling the arguments on both sides are.
Craig comes across like a preacher and Atkins as a scientist .. as one would expect. Preaching is dogma whilst science is truth. How does Craig know the universe is 15 billion yrs old ? Well, yes, he's got this info from science ! His big argument that you can't get something out of nothing IS NOT SO .. science has proved conclusively whatever section of space [a cubic meter if you like] you examine, atoms pop into existence from non-existence - and then back into non-existence. etc.
@brindow1 This is a misunderstanding. On this theory atoms never come into existence from nonbeing but from a rich, physical structure. A cubic meter of space is most definitely something, not nothing. These particles go from something to something, then back to something.
@jackl91 "Space" can be comprehended in two ways 1-It is "smthng" that everything else[physical universe]is in or 2-It can be seen as "nothing" that everything else is in. If the latter is a fact, then would it not be so that "space"is eternal? Do you agree? In fact, I think I would agree with you that space is something rather than nothing. Big Bang theorist postulate that the big bang creatd space and time ! In other words,there was no space or time outside the initial stage of univrse.
@brindow1 I hold to your first definition of space and agree with the Big Bang theorists. Indeed there was no spacetime before the Big Bang. For this reason, I don't think that the second definition of space as nothing in which everything else resides is correct. For "nothing" has no properties at all. Space couldn't be nothing, because it has dimensional properties (height, width, length, etc.). And if time began at the Big Bang then space did not exist eternally before that event.
Every one of the critics of Atkins Craig quoted are Christian hacks. You want to make a case, quote a single person not going through the motions of confirmation bias. It's like when he refers to "New Testament Historians" and sometimes just "Historians" as overwhelmingly accepting the evidence for Jesus's resurrection. In other words, Christians state things as Christians. And this guy is considered the top apologist, with his transparently specious arguments?
@JiangZiyaTabooDays “So a perfect god would allow confusion over his own doctrines....?”
Simply regurgitating the same theological assumption in the form of a question does not make it any more credible. I asked how you can OBJECTIVELY verify it (meaning without basing your answer on assumptions) and you failed to do so because you cannot.
@ShogunV You are making theological assumptions as well when you claim that god is yahweh. But you have to realize that being the author of confusion about your own beliefs doesn't really give any answers, it simply distorts and allows for varying sects to all believe something is truth when in actuality all are wrong. Also before you can even say god exists you should show some proof ( which you haven't).
Yes God is perfect, but humans are not. So conflict is a logical consequence of their defects & imperfections combined with their different choices in life.
Your argument seems to implicitly claim that if humans fall short of absolute Godly perfection then there is no God. So it is rooted in yet another theological assumption
@ShogunV No there could be a god, but a failed creation implicates a faulty creator if there is one. But from what we have observed there is nothing supernatural in this world, we have yet to see any angels, dragons, or demons. Assuming that god is perfect then we would not be flawed, because a perfect being can't make mistakes in creating something.
@JiangZiyaTabooDays “Atheists are probably better at guessing god's motives because they don't have any emotional attachment ”
Provided that they do so on purely objective grounds, instead of just departing from a holy book to come up with their own theological assumptions & guess work regarding the motives of God.
I couldn’t help but notice the irony of how atheists are better qualified to explain a being that they say does not exist.
@ShogunV Well actually none of us probably can, we haven't observed any gods and all the ones that have come are from old legends and the christian god is no different. All we can gather if a god does exist would be based on science, and it appears that we as humans are a miniscule part to the whole of the universe since we haven't been around that long. Whatever gods motives are anyones guess.
But they do have emotional attachments to the world, which lies at the root of the emotional arguments that they come up with: People are dying & suffering...How could there be God!!
So atheists are also guilty of emotional arguments that spin off from the problem of evil to produce lousy theological arguments that have been refuted by real philosophers & theologians.
@ShogunV If god is all good then naturally there should be no evil, since a perfectly good god would destroy it. Yet you seem to think god needs evil, so in turn god would be evil as well. Not to mention there is a chance that god could be apathetic, evil, or lazy. The problem of evil hasn't been refuted, and most theologians come up with petty excuses " it's in gods plan". " he's using evil to gain people", these could be evidence of a purely evil god as well.
@JiangZiyaTabooDays “many of the things in the bible can be scientifically verified and have shown to be untrue”
Let me point out first of all that I am not Christian. And secondly, as W.L.Craig explained once, the existence of God does not rest on the infallibility of the Bible. So simply attacking the bible does not give the atheist any more scientific credibility nor does it prove the atheist worldview.
@ShogunV That's the problem with craig though he moves between a deistic god and his god to try and assert that it's the christian god. But I agree there is a possibility for a god but it seems highly unlikely that it's his god, so naturally he should be a deist not a theist. As the bible only hinders craigs point.
@ShogunV Then Craig should be a deist not a theist, and should not try to assert his god into the equation and switch between the two gods. The bible only hinders the existence of a god because of it's scientific downfalls.
“but giving some proof would allow us to study and identify it”
Again I will quote W.Craig: as we study cosmology & the natural world we see many sign posts of supreme design & creation that compel us to arrive to the conclusion of God. Some follow the them, others reject them in favor of a deity called nature which they ascribe mysterious creative power to. You reject what's already there & demand special proof based on lousy theological assumptions that are subjective at best.
@ShogunV Neil Degrasse Tyson an astrophysicist disagrees. The universe has been around for a long time and if it's only goal was for us to exist that seems highly unlikely. Especially because everything is trying to kill us and 99% life has died on this planet, furthermore just because something looks designed doesn't mean it is, but people tend to think that because of the way we think because we anthrpormoph what we do not yet understand. Assuming it's god we then have to explain god.
@ShogunV Craig is assuming the universe was designed, all he's doing is anthropormophisizing as primitive people have done before. Furthermore just because you think it's designed does not mean it is, also it would be pretty ignorant to think the universe was created for us when we have only been around for a fragment of the whole of the universe's being. People think it was made for us when it's clearly indifferent. If it's god we then have to explain god which further complicates things.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence “before you can even say god exists you should show some proof”
No you got wrong; I’m not obliged to prove anything to you. If you don’t want to believe it’s your own fault. I’m only showing you the mistakes in your arguments since no proof is good enough for you. You set your personal bar high for proof as if you are the ultimate authority on what counts as proof & what doesn’t. But guess what, it’s not like theists are waiting for you to approve their worldview.
Again this is subjective. What an atheist views as a mistake might be seen by the theist as having justifiable reasons. So this issue involves some degree of subjectivity from both sides.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence “ it appears that we as humans are a miniscule part of the universe”
But how can you say that the universe does not have us in mind when the initial conditions of the big bang had been so fine-tuned to allow for complex intelligent life to arise?
The fine-tuning is a FACT that is objectively verified & no atheist can prove it to be the work of chance or necessity, which points to the only other logical conclusion that is design. Or dream up imaginary multiple universes.
@ShogunV Just because the universe can support life does not equate to there must be a god. Also your thing on fine tuning is not a fact by any means, we don't have any other universes to observe to test this claim. There are multiple theories on this and currently we don't know but most theists claim god. So your conclusion is subjective.
How long it took for humans to appear is of no significance here since time is relative. What takes billions of years for us could be moments to God.
In any case, this whole issue of time efficiency & vastness of the universe is only a concern to beings (humans) with limited time & resources, but it’s not a concern to a transcendent God with infinite time & resources.
@ShogunV So god created the universe just so humans could live in it? That seems extremely doubtful and assuming god did it you would have to provide reasoning as to why. It also ignores the amount of life that has died off since we've been here which is 99%. Why create and destroy without reason?
By what means? How about humans fighting against evil & corruption in this world? Humans are under trial after all & have moral duties to do so, but a transcendent God is not under a moral trial & is not bound by worldly laws. The giver of life can also take it away. You seem to demand a fantastical alternate reality where a lightning bolt from the heavens strikes anyone who dares think of committing evil.
@ShogunV Not what I was saying. But you seem to think god should not be under any type of laws himself, if we have specific physics here and laws here then god would also have the same things. Also if evil did happen it would only effect the person attempting to do it and not harm the innocent. But you seem to think we humans are to blame for everything even though we had no say in anything.
Is that subjective or objective evil that you speak of? If it is subjective then it’s a man-made idea that does not objectively apply to God. And if it’s objective then that would imply the existence of an objective moral sense through which we can define evil within an objective framework, which would prove the theists’ argument regarding the existence of objective moral grounds.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence “most theologians come up with petty excuses " it's in gods plan"
You reduce their view to a strawman, but theologians & objective philosophers see no contradiction between God & evil. They understand that evil allows us to exercise good. How can we show mercy & compassion to others if they were not suffering? It is through such acts of goodness that we achieve moral growth & spiritual fulfillment which would’ve been impossible if there was no evil & suffering to combat.
@ShogunV Not true, plenty of philosophers have objections to these things. Only currently there are more christian theologians and philosophers today than there were before. You can also have growth and learning without suffering and evil, if you are a god you would have the power to create a universe without these things and still allow those things to happen with no problems whatsoever.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence “You are making theological assumptions as well when you claim that god is yahweh”
It is crystal clear that your position is rooted in subjective theological assumptions that you cannot objectively prove. So instead you accuse me of making assumptions when I have not explicitly stated my belief. And suppose I made deluded assumptions, does this give you any legitimacy to do the same and pretend to speak in the name of science & intellect?
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Your arguments at their best go no further than suggesting that God may be evil instead of good, or impotent instead of omnipotent. But nothing you said even comes close to proving that there is no God.
It is interesting when atheists claim there is no God, & then gravitate towards attacking God with such subjective accusations while totally failing at objectively refuting his existence.
@ShogunV My intention wasn't to disprove god, but make those points you've stated. I am not an atheist, you are jumping to conclusions as well without even realizing it. If I wanted to disprove god I would definitely make better arguments for it, but currently I have no sway towards proving or disproving god.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Look, anybody can come up with subjective assumptions (if God is X he should do Y). It is easy to make such conditional theological assumptions and pretend to be witty while attacking strawman versions of theism. But it is not so easy to prove those conditional assumptions on an objective basis. So if there is anything that atheists managed to prove it is the fact that they are lousy theologians.
@ShogunV No I understand when you are making a theological position you have to use the correct reasoning and form a proper argument with many different proofs to show it. I simply disagree with craig because I have heard of some proper refutations for his arguments which he slides by with different tactics. And as i've said before i'm not an atheist, you just continue pressing this assumption.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence No, God does not need to follow the commands he gives us. You seem to equate him with a human leader, but in most cases God's commands to us are vastly inadequate to be applied to the Author and Giver of life. Most of these commands can't apply to God: Don't commit adultery, don't steal, etc. Others would be inappropriate. E.g., God must choose when we all die. In this world how could he then avoid breaking the command "don't kill"?
@jackl91 Would that make him a subjective moralist then? I can understand killing for the cycle of life but I do think some do apply like lying for instance (specifically for the biblical god). But this brings up another question why is morality not held to an equal standard? Because if god is allowed to do immoral things he would no longer be benevolent unless there is some type of cosmic law which god must follow. Is ruler that is above laws not a tyrant, whether he is god or man?
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I don't think that everyone who's not a theist is therefore a nihilist, but I do think that atheism begets nihilism. I.e., if there really is no God, then morality really is illusory, despite what anyone thinks about it. I don't deny that there are many non-theists who are moral people and don't call themselves nihilists, but I don't think that they have good reasons for doing so. An atheistic worldview leads inescapably to a world devoid of meaning or objective morality.
@jackl91 Well I don't think you necessarily need an objective galactic meaning in order to have meaning, and with humanism you can still have objective morality because you are fully responsible for what you do and bear full guilt. But I am not an atheist. I think we define ourselves, having a god give you galactic meaning seems unnecessary, we are a part of the universe in many ways as it is which already gives us meaning to it's inherent existence.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I've seen the debate with Kagan, and Kagan absolutely does not provide a legitimate foundation for objective moral values, duties and accountability. Kagan admits this ontological difficulty in his written work. If you think that he has provided such a foundation, then please lay it out for me.
@jackl91 Objective moral values would exist whether god existed or not. you wouldn't have a functional society if people did not follow the laws, nor would they survive as long as humans have, or even work together. The reasons why people do so is because that is how we've adapted to the earth as a species, and it also fits into our emotions because we all feel the same feelings and experiences, and it even rewards us with self made chemicals. God is simply a reflection of these values.
@jackl91 Our accountability is not only to ourselves, but also the people around us, and to the laws we've given to support a working society. If we do not bother to have accountability ourselves but still believe in god then our accountability would simply be on subjective religious belief which in turn could result in immoral actions ( not saying nonbelievers are immune to this either with philosophical beliefs). But we all have a universal account for one another in this world.
lol
AdamDLDixon 4 days ago
Amen
KoBred1 4 days ago
although i am not a christian the way lane craig makes his arguments are amazing also he starts most of his debates in the same tone it sounds too nice.
mummafier 6 days ago
@7SethMurrant7 *Sigh* Do some homework on Craig and the Kalam Cosmological
Argument before you spout nonsense that's been answered times over by philosophers and theologians
mbelma6329 1 week ago
objections to Craig's arguments. Cosmological- causality is incoherent prior to the universes existence Moral- circular reasoning . God gives objective morals objective morals prove god Fine Tuning - begs the question assumes that the universe has a purpose Ontological argument - incoherent concept of a Maximal Great being. Omniscience and omnipotence are inescapable with omni-benevolence.
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@emailpobox666 should have been "omnipotence are incompatible with omni-benevolence.
emailpobox666 1 week ago
What I don't get is how Craig says it's ridiculous for something to be eternal and has to have a beginning, yet never says how God was created.
7SethMurrant7 1 week ago
Atkins did better than most people give him credit for. At least he managed to cut to the core of WLC's fallacy: all his arguments require a metaphysical leap while simpler explanations cannot be ruled out. 1. The universe appears to be designed so there must be a supernatural designer 2. There are reports of a supernatural event so it must be supernatural 3. I feel God from within so there must be... etc. Atkins 'science can explain everything'-argument is shaky at best though
OSTube1 1 week ago
Craig looks awsome with beard
skuterixas91 1 week ago 2
Your vid is popular on Antigua and Barbuda
itostrong923v 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you were to castrate David Lee Roth you would end up with William Lane Craig.
MrBeautifulba1 2 weeks ago
test?
244Ohiro 2 weeks ago
Even if we agree that there is a personal god who created everything, what on earth makes you think that "Abrahamic" god did it? There are so many different personal gods all over the world.
ThisIDIsTheLongestID 3 weeks ago
@ThisIDIsTheLongestID thats when you have to learn religion.. what you commented was so ignorant in the religious view .. religion is knowledge too. am muslim..
AxtoxthexJ 2 weeks ago
@AxtoxthexJ How much do you know about Hinduism then, or Shinto, or Chinese Traditional, et al.? How can you reject any of those faiths when you don't understand them?
ralph489 2 weeks ago
@ralph489 u look confused cuz i was talking to someone else...
AxtoxthexJ 2 weeks ago
@AxtoxthexJ You were indeed talking to someone else. You claimed he was ignorant of religion. Presumably you mean of your religion. My point is that we're all ignorant of some religions. That doesn't mean we're wrong to reject them when there sis no evidence.
ralph489 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Eirikofs I am not speaking of intellectual inquiries as something negative, on the contrary, I am saying that science is extremely concerned with the origin of the cosmos, and rightly so.
cq7us 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
cq7us 3 weeks ago
I've watched 70 seconds of this debate, and the christian fool is already asking the atheist to provide good evidence to disprove God's existence... If the fact that the bible taught that the earth was in center of the universe, that whores should be stoned to death, that non-believers should be burned, that someone walked on water and made water into wine is not proof enough for you to understand that the bible is no eternal truth, then I'm afraid you will be forever dumb.
Eirikofs 3 weeks ago
@Eirikofs Regardless to your misinformed claim that the Bible teaches that the earth is the center of the universe, Dr. Craig is not defending or arguing the inspired revelation of the Bible. He is arguing from science, the thrust of his argument being "the law of causality" or how "matter" came into existence, which is at that the forefront of science itself e.g. the Hedron Accelerator and their efforts to confirm the existence of the Higg's Boson particle or "God Particle".
cq7us 3 weeks ago
@ Eirikofs The law of causality, "Every effect, must have an antecedent cause" this physical law is immutable and irrefutable. In other words, if matter exists, the only reasonable and rational explanation is a "necessary first cause" and that the cause must be a self existent something that is not by definition itself an effect. Regardless of your position that God does not exist, you will be hard pressed to explain this as is science. How is this "forever dumb"?
cq7us 3 weeks ago
@cq7us Everything needs a cause, yet your cause, god, escapes this necessity. It is forever dumb because you invent another fictional realm in which things don't need causes, without having any rational ground to base it upon. Science does not claim to know how the universe came to exist, but it is working on it. Christianity creates the illusion that we have a clue. Science is just admitting to not having one, and tries to find it rather than making it.
Eirikofs 3 weeks ago
@Eirikofs The law of causality, again, states that "every EFFECT must have an antecedent cause", it does NOT state that "every CAUSE must have an antecedent effect". For anything to exist at all in a materialist universe, must begin with an antecedent first cause. However, a self-existent eternal being who transcends its own creation does not violate the law of causality. The necessary existence of an uncaused causer does not violate the law of causality.
cq7us 3 weeks ago
@cq7us What if I say that an enormous cloud of undiscovered energies, totally unconscious, materialized and made all matter and energy in the universe. Would that then mean that this cloud is a cause, not an effect, and therefore doesn't require a cause? I state it again. Neither I nor science claim to know how the universe came into existance (if it did). All I'm saying is that it is quite presumtious and ignorant to adamantly claim that it was a personal god, and even more so YOUR god.
Eirikofs 3 weeks ago
@Eirikofs I haven't made the claim for a "personal god" or even my god. I'm only speaking in terms of science, specifically causality and its implications in a contingent universe. I am claiming that for a materialistic contingent cosmos to exist, either it exists as self-created, self-existent or it was created. A self-created cosmos would violates the law of non-contradiction, that is, for self-creation something must exist and not exist in the same time and space, this would be absurd.
cq7us 3 weeks ago
@Eirikofs I would contend, as Dr. Craig does, that the explanation for the universe's existence must transcend space-time, no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account for the origin of the universe. However the cosmos came into existence, logically has to include a self-existent eternal something that transcends space-time (supernatural). "Ex nihilo nihil fit" Latin for "Out of nothing, nothing comes".
cq7us 3 weeks ago
@cq7us I would like to reemphasize that the "law" of causality is not a law in the same way as mathematical laws, for example. This law has no real basis in other sciences than philosophy, which deals with eventual thinking rather than scientific evidence. When faced with a problem that has not been solved by science yet, we differ. I choose to rely on and wait for evidence, the basis on which all other human inquiries have been made, while you choose to believe in something supernatural.
Eirikofs 3 weeks ago
@Eirikofs Wow, causality is indeed fundamentally essential to physics and the natural sciences. The antithesis of causality is that things just arbitrarily happen. How is this not intrinsic to science or scientific method? or How is there no real basis for causality in the sciences?
cq7us 3 weeks ago
@Eirikofs In the top five unsolved questions in science, the number one issue is what is the origin of matter? At the very core of this question is the law of causality. If a non-causal answer is that matter arbitrarily appeared into existence, then there would be no debate about the origin of the universe and would satisfy physicists. There would be on physics without causality.
cq7us 3 weeks ago
@Eirikofs Just give the entire debate a try.
Legomyegoorj 1 week ago
Your video is popular on Concord
tiamarquez0 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 4 weeks ago
WLC " I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion. " Craigs answer to a rebuttal of Quentin Smith is COMMON SENSE. WTF?
emailpobox666 1 month ago
AND OHHH RAVI!!!!!
Purity03 1 month ago
Yooooooo Atkins has been murderfied!! That's what I'm talking about, brother Craig!
Purity03 1 month ago
@Purity03 Craig uses the same fallacious arguments Over and over and over. His arguments while illogical are difficult to refute in the forum of a debate. They however have been destroyed by Quentin Smith and Arif Ahmed . I recommend watching debates WLC had in 1996 with Smith. Basically Smith demolishes WLC's argument for the creation of the universe by a god. WLC's response is to say that Philosophy is inadequte to talk about the creation, . To this day he still uses it
emailpobox666 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey! Have you tried intellectus 424 diet (do a search on google)? Ive heard some amazing things about it and my father lost a ton of weight with it.
zahid2447 1 month ago
As an agnostic - the debate between Craig and Hitchens was a pleasure to watch. You could tell Hitchens was fuming and shaking in silent rage at some points Craig made. I used to favour Hitchens and Dawkins, that's before I had an epiphany, that something inside me was at war with the notion of god and his silence in all the chaos that is the universe. It might very well be true for Hitchens apparent in his complete disgust at such a notion. I've made my peace - now I keep silent.
mykebulvai 1 month ago 8
@mykebulvai Do not project. It doesn't suit you.
Schwazoom 1 month ago
@mykebulvai Epiphany uh? Can I download that?
foroparapente 4 weeks ago
@mykebulvai You mean to say that you were angry at the lack of evidence for the existence of any such thing as a god, and that this somehow invalidates the position that there isn't enough evidence to justify belief? Explain to me how your personal revelation that you were angry (as one probably should be, were God a real thing), trumps a well reasoned position of agnostic atheism.
ralph489 2 weeks ago
oh come now, you can do better than that can't you? "the #1 official postion of scientists"? I mean that is laughable on the surface - do they all get together, from all corners of the world and release official statements as one?
There is plenty out there that contradicts your statement, anonymous youtube atheist, about Craig being respected - hitchens, harris dennett and so many others have stated their respect, is it that those atheists are not as smart as you are?
mollkatless 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hmmm. The Greeks did not understand thunder and lightening: It must be the gods !! The native Hawaiians did not understand volcunism: It must be the gods!! Now we don't completely understand how the universe began: It must be God !!!! How many times is the human race going to play this sorry game?
n52nimbus 2 months ago
their*
cocoalovethax 2 months ago
Richard Dawkins needs to man up and debate Craig. His logic is very sound and makes much more sense than the atheistic position. For atheists who claim to be logical and rational, they don't follow they own rules very much.
cocoalovethax 2 months ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
@cocoalovethax
Actualy, Craid is nothing but a walking God of the Gaps fallacy.
What good evidence is there to think that God does not exist?
Intellect relies on braincell reactions
Track record = Falsehoods that abound
Records indicate influence from different Mythos in the Bible
Bible is self contradictory on many points
whiteowl1415 2 months ago
@cocoalovethax Your last statement was a non-sequitur and a straw man. How does Dawkins' refusal to debate someone (for which he has given his reasons for not doing so) lead to a conclusion like "atheists don't follow logic and reason very much"?
WLC's logic does not "make much more sense than the atheistic position". He never actually presents evidence for god he just constructs arguments (i.e Cosmological Argument - with false premises) to try and support a presupposition that god exists.
qlchampion 2 months ago
@cocoalovethax You've got to be kidding? Craig is a blow hard . His arguments are complete and utter nonsense
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666 - you know what slays me pal? every well known and presumably respected atheist that has debated Craig (hitchens, harris, atkins etc.etc.) has been admitted that he is a formiddable opponent, in some cases will acknowledge they did not do well against him (hitchens, dennett) but it is the unknown, anonymous atheist writing from their mothers basement who really know Craig is weak on this issue, and could give him a schooling. Do you know any imbeciles like that?
mollkatless 1 month ago
@mollkatless He's a good debater . But he is still a blow hard and his arguments are anything but logical." Do you know any imbeciles like that?" As a matter of fact I do. He gos by the name mollkatless
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666- I suspect you are not an academic? how do you balance that he is a good debater, & that his arguments are "anything but logical" when his arguments are based on logic?
I'll phrase it another way, not 1 of his well know atheist foes has accused Craig of being illogical. Craig has a Phd in Philiosophy. Is this starting to make sense?
I have an idea, why don't you challenge Craig to a debate, I am sure you are fully credentialed, I'm sure he would be honored, think about it
mollkatless 1 month ago
@mollkatless Tell you what champ. I'll post statements from one of his debates and you can be the judge for yourself. Often time men's belief in the supernatural (ie God) blinds hem to logic and reason. Craig say so himself. I'll parphrae . Craigs said even if he found evidence negating the existence of god he would still believe. He makes ridicoulus steatement like the cosmological argument . Everything has a cause except one uncaused god. WTF.
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@mollkatless I have an idea why doesn't craig take on challanges like the obne posed for him by TheoreticalBullshit on youtube. Or maybe get his ass handed to him nby Quentin Smith . He got destroyed by Smith refuting the comsmological arguement and still use the same argument even thoug he has no adequte rebutal
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@mollkatless He commits a strawman argument 2:00 minutes into the debate by decrying that the big bang is the BEGINNING of all matter. He still has no idea about the #official position of scientists concerning The Big Bang. He's not respected academically outside of his little bubble, and performs abysmal actions that most people who know of formal debate consider to be in very bad taste.
SocialDissimulation 1 month ago in playlist DOES GOD EXIST? William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins
@cocoalovethax I'm an atheist and I am usually disappointed in the approach that Hitchens and Harris take in debates against Craig. Craig has flaws in his premises that are eloquently disguised and hardly noticed. But they are not impossible to spot, and I wish the atheists would recognize them.
exotheist1 1 month ago
@cocoalovethax Nonsense, Craig is just very persuasive, but all he has is words and thoughts, no evidence and very little technical research. That is why Dawkins doesn't waste time with him, he is no expert, he is just very good at debating: twisting words, tampering with phrasing and making logic traps.
foroparapente 1 month ago
@cocoalovethax Craig's Logic? That's a laugh. Crig uses the same 5 arguments over and over and over. His arguments have been demolished in other debates by individuals like Quentin Smith . Check out this WLC debate w w w (dot).leaderu(dot)com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith5.html
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@cocoalovethax He already did months ago maybe you missed it.
Moh5Itachi1 4 weeks ago
@cocoalovethax I've never heard any logic from from the theistic position. Richard Dawkins doesn't debate theists period, so to say he needs to man up and debate Craig makes no sense. Does someone who doesn't play basketball have to play the game? Also Dr. Craig may be a good debater, but the points he uses and his logic is extremely flawed. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a fallacy for example that has no base in reality. I have seen Dr. Craig use clever tactics, but never make a legit point
theBartone9119 4 weeks ago
@theBartone9119 The crux of the cosmological argument is the law of causality "Every effect must have an antecedent cause". Is this always true expect when atheists can't explain a "necessary first cause"? How is Dr. Craig's argument is "extremely flawed"? My guess is that you have no idea what he's talking about, thus your rhetorical claim.
cq7us 3 weeks ago
@cq7us A cause is the rearrangement of matter preceding it's effect in time, time and matter didn't exist until after The Big Bang so how could there be a cause? The law of cause and effect only applies to the universe after is came into existence. Also Quantum Fluctuations occur uncaused all the time, Dr. Craig has no clue what he's talking about.
theBartone9119 3 weeks ago
@theBartone9119 The singularity did indeed exist before the big bang, therefore, what was it's origin? Wrap your head around this, if nothing existed prior to the singularity or big bang what did it expand into? Area is a thing and needs to exist before something can expand into it. I often have this debate with atheists and they often have a limited understanding of "nothingness" and the fact that "nothingness" is without any ontological properties or has the power to create anything.
cq7us 3 weeks ago
@theBartone9119 You are then left with a self-existent eternal singularity. If the singularity is indeed "actually eternal" (without beginning or end) It would have taken an eternity to reach the big bang event, in other words we would have never arrived at the big bang event. When speaking in terms that a self-existent anything whether its the unknown properties of some sort of self existent, self perpetuating energy source without beginning cont...
cq7us 3 weeks ago
@theBartone9119 cont... or end or a creator who transcends time. A self-existent eternal creator is necessarily logical in order to explain the existence of anything that exists in time and space. A first cause is logically necessary in a contingent cosmos.
cq7us 3 weeks ago
@cocoalovethax The problem with most Atheists is that they believe that they can't prove a negative, this is false, disproving God can be done very easily and has been by many people bold enough to take that position. If you want to see a debate where Craig gets completely demolished by an Atheist, watch his debate vs Austin Dacey.
theBartone9119 4 weeks ago
@cocoalovethax William Lane Craig pays lip service to logic. But the fact that he opens his talk with a shifting of the burden of proof is all the evidence you need to see that he doesn't really use it.
ralph489 2 weeks ago
WHOLE DEBATE IS FAIL
They must first define God for the purpose of the debate.
Then use that definition and only that definition in there debate.
Otherwise they can both be right and both be wrong because of there different definitions.
However good argument style and proper use of logic, too often I see God exists because it says so in the bible or Qur'an it is weak almost as weak as saying God exists because God exists.
eddiekoski 2 months ago
@eddiekoski It seems that is what Craig was doing whenever he said that the cause of the universe must be changeless, timeless, immaterial, spaceless, and unimaginably powerful. Craig gave the definition of God at the beginning of the debate. To say atheism is true just because atheists believe it is incredibly weak. It is a subjective argument with no real ground in objectivity.
Apologetics102 2 months ago
WHOLE DEBATE IS FAIL
They must first define God for the purpose of the debate.
Then use that definition and only that definition in there debate.
However good argument style and proper use of logic, too often I see God exists because it says so in the bible or Qur'an it is weak almost as weak as saying God exists because God exists.
eddiekoski 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
atheism just got owned :)
MysteryoftheGods 3 months ago
The BB was the cause of the expansion of the universe, but as I understand, it is only descriptive of a change in state and does not describe an origin for the matter/energy (especially not a literal 'nothing'). Craig uses that quote from Anthony Kenny in many debates; and if that quote was not taken out of context, then Kenny was wrong. Labeling the knowledge gap 'god' is not an explanation, nor is it useful. The rest of Craig's assertions sound like unsupported trash as well.
urcorrect 3 months ago
@urcorrect Craig doesn't subscribe to a "God of the gaps" theory. In fact, the Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn't seek to establish a god, per se, but rather an external cause of the universe. Unfortunately debate format is restrictive when it comes to providing serious, in-depth support arguments. If you'd like to see the research and extensive support behind Craig's arguments, I recommend reading some of his written work. His book "Reasonable Faith" is a good start.
jackl91 3 months ago
@jackl91 Well, I've read his version of the kalamist ideology and he reflects it in debate as he reconstructed it in writing; aside from the bb problem, I also reject his premise because his purported logical inference based on attempting an operation for real numbers with infinity as an operand is ridiculous. I reject his morality and fine tuning arguments as well. I'll see if I can find a free version of that book and give it a chance though (I don't want to buy it after seeing his debates).
urcorrect 3 months ago
@urcorrect I'm not sure that you've got it quite right on your BB objection. Even if Craig (and I don't think he does) misstates the Big Bang Theory, on this theory the universe does come into being from nothing. Even if one holds that there was a pre-BB state (e.g., a quantum vacuum), according to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem this state cannot be past-eternal and must begin to exist.
Why do you reject his argument against actual infinity?
I can send you a copy of Reasonable Faith.
jackl91 3 months ago
@jackl91 I'm not sure either, but a citation is in order regardless. Craig's argument vs actual ∞ is a misuse of the concept of ∞ which only shows that it's not in the set of real numbers, and works the same if he replaces ∞ with god. If he proved -∞ didn't work with limits (calculus) it might mean something. Causal infinite regression wouldn't require a past eternal state, in fact quite the contrary unless you call change a state, but I'll look into BVG theorum anyway.
urcorrect 3 months ago
@urcorrect Maybe the confusion lies here: ∞ is the symbol for potential infinity and can describe a collection that increases toward infinity as a limit but never gets there. The symbol for actual infinity is the Hebrew letter aleph (looks like a funky X). In reality you can say that there exists a potentially infinite number of, for example, unequal segments into which you can divide a football field but not an actually infinite number of equal divisions of, e.g., time (seconds, days, years).
jackl91 3 months ago
@jackl91 Trying to "get there" is misusing the concept again. A football field is a spacial 'section', so your example is begging the question (you're referencing Zeno's paradox which is about infinite divisions of finite structures). The same can be said for 'sections' of time (seconds, days, years). If you consider it in terms of spacetime, you will need to show that spacetime did not exist in order to prove its past finite, or that spacetime will not exist in order to prove its future finite.
urcorrect 3 months ago
@urcorrect I don't think I was misusing the concept or begging the question, and, although I don't think Craig's example is fallacious, you've cut to the more important issue: the finitude of spacetime. Neither I nor Craig claim that the spacetime will be future-finite. And all scientifically viable models do indeed have the universe coming into existence, whether at the Big Bang or before the Big Bang. In fact there's great reason to believe that the universe isn't past eternal. CONT'D
jackl91 3 months ago
@jackl91 Trying to reach infinity IS misusing the concept; again, it's not in the set of real numbers. Your examples of a football field or a time period (day, year, etc) beg the question of finitude if you're applying them as analogous to existence because the examples are already known to be finite. And the finitude of spacetime is not the end of the issue as it doesn't discount cyclic, bubble, and other models in the least. If you have explanations or citations about what is 'viable', great.
urcorrect 3 months ago
@urcorrect Friend, I hope you didn't think I was aiming the Vilenkin quote at you. In no way was I trying to imply that you're unreasonable.
Now let's remember that our conversation has centered on the nature of infinity and the beginning of the universe. How did we get to God? I was merely trying to show that we have good reason to believe that the universe began; I haven't said anything about God yet. Hawking and Vilenkin's religious views are irrelevant. I only maintain the universe began.
jackl91 3 months ago
@jackl91 Right on. I did make some assuptions, and I apologize for doing so. This conversation started with my disapproval of Craig's arguments & assertions about the existence of a god; you came in his defense when I accused him of an argument from ignorance, and so I hope you can forgive my eventual mistake of attributing the whole of his position to you in this long convo. I wouldn't have mentioned H's atheism had I not assumed the quote was to defend theism, but yes, even then its irrelevant
urcorrect 3 months ago
@urcorrect No worries, man. Good talk.
jackl91 3 months ago
@urcorrect I never said anything about trying to reach infinity, but forgive me if I said "get there"; perhaps I should have stopped at "increases toward infinity as a limit." Neither did I imply that infinity is in the set of real numbers.
Also, I was never using a football field as an analogy for spacetime, but only to clarify the concept of potential infinity (thus there's no question to be begged). I agree, cyclic, bubble and other models aren't ruled out by saying that the universe began.
jackl91 3 months ago
@urcorrect "Causal infinite regression wouldn't require a past eternal state, in fact quite the contrary unless you call change a state." Could you possibly expand on this and maybe suggest some reading. Thanks.
jackl91 3 months ago
@jackl91 To expand, the observation kalam theory is based on (a motion has a cause, and a cause is a motion) points to an infinite regression of cause and effect (changes). The way Craig phrases this is faulty to begin with as we haven't observed things begin to exist, but only to change. Craig makes an actual infinity sound impossible in order to justify a need for a prime mover. Even if one accepts his fallacious algebraic example, he still owes an explanation of nonphysical causing physical.
urcorrect 3 months ago
@urcorrect Consider these quotations: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Alexander Vilenkin
"Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." Stephen Hawking
jackl91 3 months ago
@jackl91 I'm unimpressed by quote mining appeals to authority. Hawking himself is an atheist. His wave function theory (as I understand) is still a form change, and not an end to the conversation. I haven't read BVG yet. I maintain that Craig's argument about infinity is inadequate, and he still owes a definition of his 'god' with an explanation and proof for the function of the universe. The important issue is god is not an explanation.
"Comprehension is what convinces reasonable men." Myself
urcorrect 3 months ago
@jackl91 That quote from Alexander Vilenkin comes from his 2006 book "Many World In One". On the same page, he wrote:
"Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. (Cont...)
Drgamedood 2 months ago
@jackl91 (Cont...) Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist."
Drgamedood 2 months ago
@Drgamedood Yes, I've read that. I introduced the quote in a conversation where I was trying to establish that there's strong evidence that the universe began to exist. I was not using the quote in itself as evidence for God.
jackl91 2 months ago
I will say though, this William Lane Craig guy is pretty good.
BinaryPill 3 months ago
@BinaryPill Actually he's a blow hard. Full of logical fallacies. Check out watch?v=4IGlgYExLOo. he's can't address an argument from a guy on Youtube
emailpobox666 3 months ago
@emailpobox666 I skimmed through the video you recommended. I think you're right. Craig might have miscategorized the argument. However, the original "Kalam Argument AGAINST God" presented by the author of the video is incredibly weak. It's first premise is "P1: Nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist to begin existing," and the entire argument hinges on this first premise. I can think of plenty examples that falsify P1. Do you know of anything that supports it?
jackl91 3 months ago
@jackl91 " I can think of plenty examples that falsify P1"Please provide one example
emailpobox666 3 months ago
@emailpobox666 The reason I asked if you know of any support for P1 is just to make sure I'm not misunderstanding it, because on the surface it seems so obviously untrue. When a human being is conceived and a new life begins to exist, is this not caused by something that already exists?
jackl91 3 months ago
@jackl91 The new life is caused by the childs parents .Thngs which already exist like sperm and egg combine with nutritients from the mother (all of which exists) just combine to form a baby.The baby is just those molecules atoms elements arranged differently
emailpobox666 3 months ago
@emailpobox666 I thought you might say something like this, but look here. In what you wrote, you contradicted P1: "The new life is caused by the child's parents." Now to say that the baby is a rearrangement of existing atoms is not to say that it doesn't exist. A new life exists. It didn't exist before. It came from an existing source. Do you wish to say that the new life doesn't exist or that it is not actually a thing?
jackl91 3 months ago
@jackl91The arrangement didn't exist the components did therefore there is no contradiction. Lokk at it this way you cause a chemical reaction to occur new arrangement occur does that mean that you brought something into Existence or that you rearranged what already existed. Your dispute is because of the definition of existence that you are using
emailpobox666 3 months ago
@emailpobox666 You're right, we are debating terminology, but let's remember that P1 is "Nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist to begin existing." Even if we work with your framework, as you admit, the "arrangement didn't exist." Therefore something which exists brings a new arrangement (which didn't exist) into existence. Is this new arrangement not "something"? If it is, then P1 is false. Further, what positive evidence do we have to think that P1 is true?
jackl91 3 months ago
@jackl91 Look at it this way I make a fist this is a new thing 'brought into existence "but it really is a rearrangement of things which already exist. Nothing is brought into existence only arranged into a different arrangement. Arrangement is just the way we look at something it is not the thing but our concept for that thing.
emailpobox666 3 months ago
@emailpobox666 Watched the video, I get your point. Poor claim on my behalf
BinaryPill 3 months ago
@BinaryPill Do you agree that William Lane Craig didn't address the argument that TheoreticalBullshit put out to Craig or do you have any other disagreements with TheoreticalBullshit's argument
emailpobox666 3 months ago
@emailpobox666 I just disagree with how pathetically arrogant he is in dealing with this guy. He misinterprets this guy who speaks in clear language that even I, a casual year 11 student with little philosophical understanding, can mostly understand.
If you want my position on the creation of the world, I do not give one. I think we have insufficient scientific knowledge to adequately explain the creation of the universe. Saying however something like 'God did it' is just lazy.
BinaryPill 3 months ago
@emailpobox666 ... I believe that we cannot absolutely disprove God created the universe, but only in a way we cannot absolutely disprove the events carried out in 'Star Wars' for example.
BinaryPill 3 months ago
3:18 "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" ( ... except God apparently)
BinaryPill 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BinaryPill Re: " 'Whatever begins to exist has a cause" ( ... except God apparently)' "
God didn't begin to exist. He therefore requires no cause.
jackl91 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
... Can i get a thumbs up... i just want to be the top comment....
questawockeez824 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Listening to that Craig asshole talk is like pumping feces inside your head. Redundant asshole, I hate this religious rethoric, or the idiot sees what a dumbass he is for himself, or you just have to shoot him I guess.
Konicava 3 months ago
Comment removed
Konicava 3 months ago
Craig is an idiot
emailpobox666 3 months ago
@emailpobox666 He's a complete tool, and yet religious imbeciles say he won the debate, relativist rethoric just pisses me off, it doesn't get you anywere.
Konicava 3 months ago
@Konicava All some apologetic has to do is throw the label logic on their argument and they buy hook line and sinker. Even thought their logic contains fallacies
emailpobox666 3 months ago
@emailpobox666
You sound like a couple of dolts. Every time an imminent Theist philosopher or scholar steps into the ring the atheists throw a hissy-fit. The man's a world-renowned philosopher and has written 30 books and more articles than you can probably count in peer-reviewed philosophical journals. And who the hell are you again?
AgApE010 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AgApE010 I the man who had to listen to his foolish ontological argument for god. the same argument which contains logical fallacies ."renowned philosopher" by Christian who he caters..Who are you to question who I am?"
emailpobox666 3 months ago
Im an agnostic.. This whole debate is pointless. It is all based on possibilities which cannot be proven irregardless of how compelling the arguments on both sides are.
CMVMic 3 months ago
what good evidence is there that proves, that the spaghetti monster doesn't exist?
mrjohnyrocketballsac 3 months ago
@mrjohnyrocketballsac Plenty, actually. /watch?v=NqBa8b5BIqU
tomdenman 3 months ago
they should give atkins no grant money, and then he will see where nothing gets him :D
Falcondick69 3 months ago
Fair play to Atkins, he's going up against Craig again in a few weeks.
Ohyewildthong 3 months ago
Seriously, fuck that quote from anthony kenny. All craig is doing is making a fallacious appeal to authority by using it over and over again.
Drgamedood 3 months ago
God exists
{vote here}
giorgiv18 3 months ago
Craig comes across like a preacher and Atkins as a scientist .. as one would expect. Preaching is dogma whilst science is truth. How does Craig know the universe is 15 billion yrs old ? Well, yes, he's got this info from science ! His big argument that you can't get something out of nothing IS NOT SO .. science has proved conclusively whatever section of space [a cubic meter if you like] you examine, atoms pop into existence from non-existence - and then back into non-existence. etc.
brindow1 3 months ago
@brindow1 This is a misunderstanding. On this theory atoms never come into existence from nonbeing but from a rich, physical structure. A cubic meter of space is most definitely something, not nothing. These particles go from something to something, then back to something.
jackl91 3 months ago
@jackl91 "Space" can be comprehended in two ways 1-It is "smthng" that everything else[physical universe]is in or 2-It can be seen as "nothing" that everything else is in. If the latter is a fact, then would it not be so that "space"is eternal? Do you agree? In fact, I think I would agree with you that space is something rather than nothing. Big Bang theorist postulate that the big bang creatd space and time ! In other words,there was no space or time outside the initial stage of univrse.
brindow1 3 months ago
@brindow1 I hold to your first definition of space and agree with the Big Bang theorists. Indeed there was no spacetime before the Big Bang. For this reason, I don't think that the second definition of space as nothing in which everything else resides is correct. For "nothing" has no properties at all. Space couldn't be nothing, because it has dimensional properties (height, width, length, etc.). And if time began at the Big Bang then space did not exist eternally before that event.
jackl91 3 months ago
@brindow1
Atoms are created into vacuums moron, not in ´´nothing´´ as you say. Vacuums are in fact seas of energy.
Furthermore, the matter is created by Intelligent Design, namely, the Scientists who in fact design/create the matter...
tjobv 3 months ago
Every one of the critics of Atkins Craig quoted are Christian hacks. You want to make a case, quote a single person not going through the motions of confirmation bias. It's like when he refers to "New Testament Historians" and sometimes just "Historians" as overwhelmingly accepting the evidence for Jesus's resurrection. In other words, Christians state things as Christians. And this guy is considered the top apologist, with his transparently specious arguments?
JiangZiyaTabooDays 4 months ago
@JiangZiyaTabooDays “So a perfect god would allow confusion over his own doctrines....?”
Simply regurgitating the same theological assumption in the form of a question does not make it any more credible. I asked how you can OBJECTIVELY verify it (meaning without basing your answer on assumptions) and you failed to do so because you cannot.
ShogunV 4 months ago
@ShogunV You are making theological assumptions as well when you claim that god is yahweh. But you have to realize that being the author of confusion about your own beliefs doesn't really give any answers, it simply distorts and allows for varying sects to all believe something is truth when in actuality all are wrong. Also before you can even say god exists you should show some proof ( which you haven't).
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@JiangZiyaTabooDays “The definition of perfect is without defect”
Yes God is perfect, but humans are not. So conflict is a logical consequence of their defects & imperfections combined with their different choices in life.
Your argument seems to implicitly claim that if humans fall short of absolute Godly perfection then there is no God. So it is rooted in yet another theological assumption
ShogunV 4 months ago
@ShogunV No there could be a god, but a failed creation implicates a faulty creator if there is one. But from what we have observed there is nothing supernatural in this world, we have yet to see any angels, dragons, or demons. Assuming that god is perfect then we would not be flawed, because a perfect being can't make mistakes in creating something.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@JiangZiyaTabooDays “Atheists are probably better at guessing god's motives because they don't have any emotional attachment ”
Provided that they do so on purely objective grounds, instead of just departing from a holy book to come up with their own theological assumptions & guess work regarding the motives of God.
I couldn’t help but notice the irony of how atheists are better qualified to explain a being that they say does not exist.
ShogunV 4 months ago
@ShogunV Well actually none of us probably can, we haven't observed any gods and all the ones that have come are from old legends and the christian god is no different. All we can gather if a god does exist would be based on science, and it appears that we as humans are a miniscule part to the whole of the universe since we haven't been around that long. Whatever gods motives are anyones guess.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@JiangZiyaTabooDays “Atheists...don't have any emotional attachment ”
But they do have emotional attachments to the world, which lies at the root of the emotional arguments that they come up with: People are dying & suffering...How could there be God!!
So atheists are also guilty of emotional arguments that spin off from the problem of evil to produce lousy theological arguments that have been refuted by real philosophers & theologians.
ShogunV 4 months ago
@ShogunV If god is all good then naturally there should be no evil, since a perfectly good god would destroy it. Yet you seem to think god needs evil, so in turn god would be evil as well. Not to mention there is a chance that god could be apathetic, evil, or lazy. The problem of evil hasn't been refuted, and most theologians come up with petty excuses " it's in gods plan". " he's using evil to gain people", these could be evidence of a purely evil god as well.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@JiangZiyaTabooDays “many of the things in the bible can be scientifically verified and have shown to be untrue”
Let me point out first of all that I am not Christian. And secondly, as W.L.Craig explained once, the existence of God does not rest on the infallibility of the Bible. So simply attacking the bible does not give the atheist any more scientific credibility nor does it prove the atheist worldview.
ShogunV 4 months ago
@ShogunV That's the problem with craig though he moves between a deistic god and his god to try and assert that it's the christian god. But I agree there is a possibility for a god but it seems highly unlikely that it's his god, so naturally he should be a deist not a theist. As the bible only hinders craigs point.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@ShogunV Then Craig should be a deist not a theist, and should not try to assert his god into the equation and switch between the two gods. The bible only hinders the existence of a god because of it's scientific downfalls.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
“but giving some proof would allow us to study and identify it”
Again I will quote W.Craig: as we study cosmology & the natural world we see many sign posts of supreme design & creation that compel us to arrive to the conclusion of God. Some follow the them, others reject them in favor of a deity called nature which they ascribe mysterious creative power to. You reject what's already there & demand special proof based on lousy theological assumptions that are subjective at best.
ShogunV 4 months ago
@ShogunV Neil Degrasse Tyson an astrophysicist disagrees. The universe has been around for a long time and if it's only goal was for us to exist that seems highly unlikely. Especially because everything is trying to kill us and 99% life has died on this planet, furthermore just because something looks designed doesn't mean it is, but people tend to think that because of the way we think because we anthrpormoph what we do not yet understand. Assuming it's god we then have to explain god.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@ShogunV Craig is assuming the universe was designed, all he's doing is anthropormophisizing as primitive people have done before. Furthermore just because you think it's designed does not mean it is, also it would be pretty ignorant to think the universe was created for us when we have only been around for a fragment of the whole of the universe's being. People think it was made for us when it's clearly indifferent. If it's god we then have to explain god which further complicates things.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence “before you can even say god exists you should show some proof”
No you got wrong; I’m not obliged to prove anything to you. If you don’t want to believe it’s your own fault. I’m only showing you the mistakes in your arguments since no proof is good enough for you. You set your personal bar high for proof as if you are the ultimate authority on what counts as proof & what doesn’t. But guess what, it’s not like theists are waiting for you to approve their worldview.
ShogunV 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence “a perfect being can't make mistakes in creating something”
Again this is subjective. What an atheist views as a mistake might be seen by the theist as having justifiable reasons. So this issue involves some degree of subjectivity from both sides.
ShogunV 3 months ago
@ShogunV So a perfect being would make mistakes? Or would you not call them mistakes at all?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence “ it appears that we as humans are a miniscule part of the universe”
But how can you say that the universe does not have us in mind when the initial conditions of the big bang had been so fine-tuned to allow for complex intelligent life to arise?
The fine-tuning is a FACT that is objectively verified & no atheist can prove it to be the work of chance or necessity, which points to the only other logical conclusion that is design. Or dream up imaginary multiple universes.
ShogunV 3 months ago
@ShogunV Just because the universe can support life does not equate to there must be a god. Also your thing on fine tuning is not a fact by any means, we don't have any other universes to observe to test this claim. There are multiple theories on this and currently we don't know but most theists claim god. So your conclusion is subjective.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence “we haven't been around that long”
How long it took for humans to appear is of no significance here since time is relative. What takes billions of years for us could be moments to God.
In any case, this whole issue of time efficiency & vastness of the universe is only a concern to beings (humans) with limited time & resources, but it’s not a concern to a transcendent God with infinite time & resources.
ShogunV 3 months ago
@ShogunV So god created the universe just so humans could live in it? That seems extremely doubtful and assuming god did it you would have to provide reasoning as to why. It also ignores the amount of life that has died off since we've been here which is 99%. Why create and destroy without reason?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence “since a perfectly good god would destroy evil”
By what means? How about humans fighting against evil & corruption in this world? Humans are under trial after all & have moral duties to do so, but a transcendent God is not under a moral trial & is not bound by worldly laws. The giver of life can also take it away. You seem to demand a fantastical alternate reality where a lightning bolt from the heavens strikes anyone who dares think of committing evil.
ShogunV 3 months ago
@ShogunV Not what I was saying. But you seem to think god should not be under any type of laws himself, if we have specific physics here and laws here then god would also have the same things. Also if evil did happen it would only effect the person attempting to do it and not harm the innocent. But you seem to think we humans are to blame for everything even though we had no say in anything.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence “problem of evil hasn't been refuted”
Is that subjective or objective evil that you speak of? If it is subjective then it’s a man-made idea that does not objectively apply to God. And if it’s objective then that would imply the existence of an objective moral sense through which we can define evil within an objective framework, which would prove the theists’ argument regarding the existence of objective moral grounds.
ShogunV 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence “most theologians come up with petty excuses " it's in gods plan"
You reduce their view to a strawman, but theologians & objective philosophers see no contradiction between God & evil. They understand that evil allows us to exercise good. How can we show mercy & compassion to others if they were not suffering? It is through such acts of goodness that we achieve moral growth & spiritual fulfillment which would’ve been impossible if there was no evil & suffering to combat.
ShogunV 3 months ago
@ShogunV Not true, plenty of philosophers have objections to these things. Only currently there are more christian theologians and philosophers today than there were before. You can also have growth and learning without suffering and evil, if you are a god you would have the power to create a universe without these things and still allow those things to happen with no problems whatsoever.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence “You are making theological assumptions as well when you claim that god is yahweh”
It is crystal clear that your position is rooted in subjective theological assumptions that you cannot objectively prove. So instead you accuse me of making assumptions when I have not explicitly stated my belief. And suppose I made deluded assumptions, does this give you any legitimacy to do the same and pretend to speak in the name of science & intellect?
ShogunV 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Your arguments at their best go no further than suggesting that God may be evil instead of good, or impotent instead of omnipotent. But nothing you said even comes close to proving that there is no God.
It is interesting when atheists claim there is no God, & then gravitate towards attacking God with such subjective accusations while totally failing at objectively refuting his existence.
ShogunV 3 months ago
@ShogunV My intention wasn't to disprove god, but make those points you've stated. I am not an atheist, you are jumping to conclusions as well without even realizing it. If I wanted to disprove god I would definitely make better arguments for it, but currently I have no sway towards proving or disproving god.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Look, anybody can come up with subjective assumptions (if God is X he should do Y). It is easy to make such conditional theological assumptions and pretend to be witty while attacking strawman versions of theism. But it is not so easy to prove those conditional assumptions on an objective basis. So if there is anything that atheists managed to prove it is the fact that they are lousy theologians.
ShogunV 3 months ago
@ShogunV No I understand when you are making a theological position you have to use the correct reasoning and form a proper argument with many different proofs to show it. I simply disagree with craig because I have heard of some proper refutations for his arguments which he slides by with different tactics. And as i've said before i'm not an atheist, you just continue pressing this assumption.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence No, God does not need to follow the commands he gives us. You seem to equate him with a human leader, but in most cases God's commands to us are vastly inadequate to be applied to the Author and Giver of life. Most of these commands can't apply to God: Don't commit adultery, don't steal, etc. Others would be inappropriate. E.g., God must choose when we all die. In this world how could he then avoid breaking the command "don't kill"?
jackl91 3 months ago
@jackl91 Would that make him a subjective moralist then? I can understand killing for the cycle of life but I do think some do apply like lying for instance (specifically for the biblical god). But this brings up another question why is morality not held to an equal standard? Because if god is allowed to do immoral things he would no longer be benevolent unless there is some type of cosmic law which god must follow. Is ruler that is above laws not a tyrant, whether he is god or man?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I don't think that everyone who's not a theist is therefore a nihilist, but I do think that atheism begets nihilism. I.e., if there really is no God, then morality really is illusory, despite what anyone thinks about it. I don't deny that there are many non-theists who are moral people and don't call themselves nihilists, but I don't think that they have good reasons for doing so. An atheistic worldview leads inescapably to a world devoid of meaning or objective morality.
jackl91 3 months ago
@jackl91 Well I don't think you necessarily need an objective galactic meaning in order to have meaning, and with humanism you can still have objective morality because you are fully responsible for what you do and bear full guilt. But I am not an atheist. I think we define ourselves, having a god give you galactic meaning seems unnecessary, we are a part of the universe in many ways as it is which already gives us meaning to it's inherent existence.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I've seen the debate with Kagan, and Kagan absolutely does not provide a legitimate foundation for objective moral values, duties and accountability. Kagan admits this ontological difficulty in his written work. If you think that he has provided such a foundation, then please lay it out for me.
jackl91 3 months ago
@jackl91 Objective moral values would exist whether god existed or not. you wouldn't have a functional society if people did not follow the laws, nor would they survive as long as humans have, or even work together. The reasons why people do so is because that is how we've adapted to the earth as a species, and it also fits into our emotions because we all feel the same feelings and experiences, and it even rewards us with self made chemicals. God is simply a reflection of these values.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@jackl91 Our accountability is not only to ourselves, but also the people around us, and to the laws we've given to support a working society. If we do not bother to have accountability ourselves but still believe in god then our accountability would simply be on subjective religious belief which in turn could result in immoral actions ( not saying nonbelievers are immune to this either with philosophical beliefs). But we all have a universal account for one another in this world.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago