God is complex, even if we suppose it's immaterial. Just think how knowledgeable must it be to have enginereed the process which would have spawned our immense universe. But apparently WLC is satysfied with saying that God is unembodyed. Mah...
If the archaeologists had found the arrow heads, pottery etc, they could assume that these artifacts where brought there from Jupiter by purple elephant-shaped aliens. This is an explanation. We don't need an explanation for this explanation, so it is valid.
I cant believe the negative reaction to Criags assertion on the over anyalizing of the infinite regress in explination. Hes right! After a certain point the atheist argument halts, where they shrug their sholders and say, "we dont know". Yet they lash out at theists who say, we do know. Granted many theists use God to fill the gaps, but that does not conclude their statment is false, only their method of obtaining their conclusion. Craig uses logic as sufficient evidence for his conclusions
@Inverita1 The reason craig is wrong about infinite regressions is because when atheists say "who designed the designer?" they are using the theist argument against themselves. It's theists that fall into the infinite regression when they say "who designed the universe?". If the claim that "everything is designed" is true then why is this rule not applied to god?
He calls god "simple to explain" when he means "easy to imagine" btw.
All these arguments are bogus. Message me if you want.
I can't believe this, He clearly has no idea, it's embarrassing to watch him make these stupid errors time and time again. If people didn't come up with explanations of the explanations then the whole process of science would ground to a halt, but Craig doesn't get this.
He goes on to say that you would never have an explanation of anything if you needed an explanation for the explanation. Hokum. That's how science works - its goal is to fill in the gaps, modifying and updating existing theories. So from a scientific perspective, and Dawkins is a scientist; Dawkins question is perfectly valid.
You don't seem to understand Science very well. According to General Relativity, spacetime curvature explains gravity (and there are very good scientific reasons to believe this is true). However, no one has yet explained why the presence of mass bends spacetime at all. There are some ideas, but nothing conclusive. So, we don't need an explanation of the explanation, in order to recognize it as the best.
@Mentat1231 you are mistaken between what is needed and what we do not have. we don't have the answer of what causes gravity to work the way it does. it is laughable to say that scientists have stopped looking for the answer. should scientists find out the cause for gravity, they wouldn't stop there and say this is where we'll stop. they will look behind that cause too. one of the tenets of science is all knowledge is provisional. so why does the scientific inquiry stops at a certain point?
Who said anything about stopping?? Craig specifically said that these were good subjects for "further inquiry". Did you not watch the video at all? His point isn't that we stop looking for further explanation. It's that we don't reject a good explanation just because we don't YET have an explanation of that explanation. Like the civilization in his analogy. We wouldn't reject them as an explanation off-hand, just because we haven't YET fully explained them.
William Lane Craig sure has a professional way of presenting his arguments which perfectly conceals that he in fact is leading the opponents arguments away from their original meaning to a new one that he just created. This video is a great example of him misunderstanding/guiding the argument. It all sounds logical, but really Craig, what do you think what the meaning of Dawkins argument??
markcaddo - It's my understanding that the ID people are not simply arguing that "The universe is complex, therefore it must have a designer" - wouldn't be fairer to say that their argument is "The universe is so improbably, specifically complex that non-deliberate processes cannot adequately account for it"?
@capoman1 I know this was eleven months ago but did you misread my response? I said that Craig defeated his own argument. I also think he is assuming God exists. His argument completely misunderstands what Richard Dawkins was arguing. Dawkins explains in his book that if the evidence for creation is complexity than any being which is complex would need a designer including God. If one God requires a designer than that God would require a designer. It's a dumb argument from Craig.
In short I guess what I'm trying to say is that Dawkins isn't asking for an explanation of Craig's Theory as Craig underhandedly tries to confuse you into believing. He doesn't have to know who created the creator. He's saying that through Intelligent Design we can infer that God was created. It's not a question: Humans are Complex= They were created by someone; God is even more complex= He was created by someone. Craig just doesn't like that....maybe because It's Sacrilege.
So Craig thinks God created a universe more complex than himself? I can't help but think an "unbodied mind" with infinite power would be just a tad more complex than that which it creates (sarcasm)
"Philosopher's of Science"..I really pity Dr. William Lane Craig .. poor guy is trying to put sense into bible. Mate stick to what u guys have been teaching the world "FAITH".
Craig's claim that god is "simple" is supported only by the fact that he/she/it is an offspring of simple minded people from stone age, trying to explain reality wondering about a "creator" who made the world the same way they made their stone tools.
Minds without a body do not exist, since a mind is a complex function of a brain, which is the most complex object in the known universe.
This argument is only a failed apologetic attempt to defend craig's superstition (IF he really believes!).
Did the good doctor just diss "God" by calling him simple? Anyways, his argument is valid. The best explanation for something does not necessarily need an explanation unless it is disproven. It's called a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, something intelligent design believers can't grasp because they have no evidence to back them up.
We were created by Unicorns. There you go, this explanation does not require any further explanation. Simple enough?
Would you cal that a Scientific theory?
No, science is defined as knowledge attained through observations and practice. If your claim has no backing up watsoever -->like god, it is not a scientific theory.
It is as much a theory, as the existnce of the cookie monster
Nice straw man of Dawkin's argument. That argument was originally a refutation of the creationist argument that basically states that an explanation is required for the existence of the universe (or the complexity of life) and in the absence of any other explanation, a supernatural First Cause (or Intelligent Designer) is the default explanation. They insist that we must have an explanation for the universe's existence, but they exclude their God from the same rule without proper justification.
@Chinchilla7Man Evolution makes the claim that the Universe and life on this planet had no outside cause, no God or Intelligence needed. The complexity of life and how it got that way, is what they claim to answer, so by their own claim they must explain how. They have failed to do so, on many levels, and cannot prove their claims, only assumptions. Now we look at the overwhelming amount of information needed to make the simpliest cell (which isn't that simple) to operate, and say chance? NO
@Chinchilla7Man I was about to say precisely the same thing. They want to denounce atheism by saying well then who created it, but contradicts itself if they can't explain who created the creator.
@Chinchilla7Man Why do you not believe that Dawkins explanation creates an infinite regress of explanations and therefore never allows one to explain one immediate thing?
This universe is not infinate, therfore we can logically asume it was created. It would be silly to think we were created by something in this universe, so again logically we can asume that what ever created us was outside of this universe. Things that are outside are not effected by time or space, what ever created this universe was infinate with infinate energy, either God or random string of energy. If something is infinate it does not need a creator.
@Chinchilla7Man actually we do have justification for saying that God does not have a cause. God if He exists must exist necessarily, necessary beings do not come into existence, thus they do not need a cause. The universe we know has a beginning, and therefore needs a cause, we know this because of Big Bang Cosmology, and philosophical arguments such as Aquinas's argument that if the universe had an infinite past then no contingent being would exist now...
@philosophizer149 wow... well then i can say that before the big bang there existed a sea of fluctuating energy that bubbled and expanded into the singularity that initiated the big bang. similar to your argument i can also say that this sea of energy is necessary and thus requires no cause, it is the uncaused cause of the universe
Craig's logic is perfectly sound in this video. He gave two good examples that were counter-proofs against Dawkins' argument, namely: If you insist that this complex Universe had a creator than you must answer who created the creator, etc. Dawkins says some version of thish argument all the time. Craig showed that that is an illogical argument.
He also shows that the Creator is by no means more complex than its creations. What's missing in his logic?
@Chinchilla7Man You are missing a huge point. The universe is contingent; its existence is externally causal. Therefore we must ask where this contingent universe came from. God on the other hand, by definition, must exist necessarily. Asking for the creator of God is like asking for the Bachelor's wife. It is irrelevant because God is ETERNAL. Nothing could exist before God to create God, because God is infinite, and nothing can happen before infinity. Dawkins argument is a logical fallacy.
dawkins is trying to say the creationists dont believe the universe came of nothing, yet they believe that a diety came from nothing. I see where wlc is coming from, but he does not do good job of getting his point across.
"Destroy science"??? It is precisely what propells science, the thirst for explanation. What a profound misunderstanding of what science actually is.
I may be reading him wrong, he may have just worded things wrong.
If god is a mind without a body, by which means does he achieve "work"(in a physical sense), how does he "cause". From what does he create? The god hypothesis gets us nowhere, gives us "magic". But "magic" would remove the neccessity for complexity.
lol Its so funny how atheist seem that they have stumped Dr. Craig's claims on youtube yet don't make the effort to talk to him in person or debate with him on their claims. Thats odd...
@doobersmanster In ancient times, thunder was thought to be "God's power", but science has disproven that with physical proof. Hundreds of years ago, when people got sick, they blamed curses and evil spirits. We discovered bacteria and viruses. To assume that God is the ONLY explanation for existence is ignorant because you fail to learn from the mistakes of people in the past. As you most likely guessed, I'm an atheist, but, that's my opinion. I'm not saying I'm right, just stay open minded.
you obviously need to have a explanation or basis of your explanation of a given occurance. Why? Well, if I need no explanation for my explanaton of where the arrow heads that Craig rambles about originated from, then i would be perfectly safe from counter arguments when saying that the best explanation of where the arrow heads originated from is the mighty power of the sandwich I ate this morning.
thats like saying an "explanation" of your missing socks is the sock elves stole them out of your dryer. God is not an explanation of how we got here it is a hypothesis. a horrible horrible hypothesis
god is simple becouse he has no parts? maybe yes, but, he's mind is very complex. he's mind isn't simple, so he's personality is complex - so he isn't simple explanation. mr. craig is very smart and i respect him and i respect his debate skills, but in this case he is wrong.
You don't have to explain the origins of anything unless you know that it had an origin. We know that the universe had an origin. Science tells us that.
If we knew that God had an origin, we might have to explain that too, but since we don't know any such thing, there is no need to ask "Who made God?"
Do you know that your reactions are predicted in the Bible?In the end times there will be scoffers and mockers of God. They will profess themselves wise,only to remain fools and the fool says in their heart there is no God. Doesen't that sound like today?Do you REALLY think you are no more than just an educated monkey? Or are we wonderfully and fearfully created by a powerful sentient being? Could it be that by saying no to him,you are saying YES to satan?No Hell? Are you sure? May God Bless.
I think in this case you do need an explanation for god. Positing that the judeo- christian god is the first cause and doesn't need to be explained is ridiculous. When the excuse for him being beyond space and time is "because he is god" it's just not good enough. Just using this so called limitless power of god as an excuse not to explain him is intellectually lazy and asinine. Not having to explain god because he is god is a joke not a theory.
"You don't need explanasion of the explanasion" Yeah, sure. I partly agree with that Although it's not legit explanasion for that there is any intelligente designer that made the universe.
The problem with the ID argument is that it's a decoy. From what I can tell, all of these ID proponents are really arguing the existence of Jehovah. Since that is clearly, unarguable, they back off and insist that SOMEBODY must have designed all this. Look how COOL it is! Let's just go ahead and say what we're really thinking, that it was Jehovah, and argue that. The other issue would be the idea that Atheists don't have all the answers, so we must.
Mr. Craig is also trying to say that because we can't explain Y, lets use X as the explanation, still leaving the question of where X came from. Mr. Craig also doesn't explain why Richard Dawkins argument isn't logical, he simply says that the conclusion is logically invalid from the steps, because it logically doesn't follow. Ad Nauseum. Now we can understand why he thinks Y can explain X. Mr. Craig enjoys long walks on the beach, God, Circular reasoning, and Infinitely redundant tautologies.
The mind is NOT a simple construct, in fact it is the most complex besides the "physical realm", just because it doesn't have recognizable parts doesn't mean that it isn't complex. The mind is a very complex thinking machine, the parts are actually the processes of thinking, logic, linear equations, data compiling programs etc. God (his mind) would be much more infinitely complex than creation. Using God as an explanation is like saying, I don't understand gravity, so it must be wind spirits!
Dawkins isn't saying that you need and explanation for God to show that God explains the universe. He is saying that by using the same logic that says that the universe has a designer, the designer must have a designer, something which those who believe in God deny.
WLC goes on about ID as if it's proof of a designer. We all have a blind spot in our vision, some of us need glasses to see properly, the recurrent laryngeal nerve is poor design, we can choke to death because we breath and eat through the same hole, we have a curvature of the spine, we cannot detect ionizing radiation, we suffer from allergies which are sometimes fatal. God gets an F in design class then, F for FAIL.
Because science cannot answer what caused the singularity any possibility of how the universe came into existence is possible including a supernatural designer.If there is a God his power is way to great for the human brain to comprehend . Also the theory that before the Big Bang there was nothing sounds ridiculous. There was something, a dot with all the matter in the universe packed into it. No wonder the scientists are confused.
He misses the point of the complexity debate. "Who designed the designer" is not irrelevant, because it's not just an explanation of a local fact, itself contingent on the natural world (e.g. people creating arrowheads) but is presented as the ultimate explanation/cause of ALL biological beings.The arrowhead making tribes are also subject to cause. But God, for some reason, is not. This requires the use of the Kalam argument to avoid the regress problem (its inadequacies is another topic).
@gyniest In short, biological organisms do not require an ultimate undesigned desiger, or unmoved mover, to explain their complex composition. To quote Paulos: "If a certain entity is very complex and it's deemed extraordinarily unlikely that such an entity would have arisen by itself, then what is explained by attributing the entity's unlikely complexity to an even more complex and even more unlikely source? This creationist Ponzi scheme quickly leads to metaphysical bankruptcy."
"Immaterial entity" is, by definition, a contradiction. Unless Craig is arguing that a "spirit" is a thing, a substance, and in any way analogous to a material being, it is this theological explanation that is, on the face of it, "hopeless" . As an aside, the idea of a simple, uncompounded cause of the universe did not even originate in Thomist Christian theology, it comes from the Mu'tazili Muslims who appropriated Aristotle (whose arguments were themselves refuted long ago by philosophers).
Scientists have never claimed that the universe emerged from nothing. The possibility of multi universes, all created by natural laws, is highly debated by them. At this point, saying that would be as true as God. But think about it, what would be the best rational explanation, a supernatural being without evidences of its existence creating the universe or natural laws doing it, just like it happens with everything inside our universe?
@ricromo "The possibility of multi universes, all created by natural laws," Do all you guys simply not do your homework? According to multiverse theory there would be millions of dead universes BECAUSE they would have laws incompatible to life. Therefore natural laws CANNOT create these multiverse universes, because they would be an EFFECT of the BB not a CAUSE OF the BB. 500 word limit is hard.
@mike10121996 It seems that it's you who isn't doing the homework. At the link below Stephen Halking talks about multiple universes arising naturally from physical laws:
h t t p : / / w w w .nytimes . c o m / 2010 / 09 / 08 / books / 08book . h t m l (remove the spaces)
At any time he states "categorically" that those other universes can't have any form of life.
@ricromo The hawking article you cited was not flattering in the least towards Hawkins argument. I would be very interested in hear how you can have a universe created from nothing, but yet have it created by physical laws, by definition thats not "nothing" that something. So either hawking is contradicting himself (he says in the article that the universe came from nothing) OR somethings not getting portrayed right. Please explain to me how that's possible. I am interested.
@mike10121996 “I would be very interested in hear how you can have a universe created from nothing” That's your position not mine. I have been saying that there is not enough data that says one way or the other. The going model talks about a super hot super-dense ball of everything expanding. Is this true. That's not nothing. Can anybody categorically state "nothing" is a FACT. It sounds like you need the other side to say it was nothing so you can attack it more easily. Another fallacy
@ricromo "what would be the best rational explanation," Your RIGHT think about it! Does something come from NOTHING like Dr. Peter Slezak assertes, or out of nothing nothing comes! Whether or not you think a God is likely is immaterial. Plato aristotle and many other philosophers have rightly contended that nothing comes from nothing, we have something instead of NOTHING so SOMETHING gave us this SOMETHING we live in. What is that Something?
@ricromo "Scientists have never claimed that the universe emerged from nothing." Im sorry I beg to differ. Watch the video debate between Dr. peter Slezak and William lane Craig video 7 at about 3:20 Dr. slezak says the universe came from nothing. Who knows more about cosmology? You or Dr. Slezak a philosopher of science?
@mike10121996 Sorry about that, I'm brazilian and my english need some improvements. I thought that to claim was the same as to state categorically. Here's may statement reformuled: "Scientists have never stated categorically that the universe emerged from nothing."
So, God's nature is very simple. Well, try to think about that in a rational way and you'll depare yourself with something extremely complex. There's no evidences to claim that such entity exists. He claims that again because of his religion dogmas, which prevent him to question God. The only references we have about God are from people a thousand years ago who didn't know that killing people with other beliefs was wrong (Deuteronomy 13:13-15), let alone their place in this world.
The question "who created the creator" is totally legitimate. Craig is limited by his religion dogmas to make use of rationality. That questions is so legitimate that I've already seen it being made by several renowned cientists, including Stephen Hawking. That being said, this question wouldn't destroy science at all. While there are unanswered questions about the world and our place in it they will continue to be made.
For exemple: we have evidences of stars, planets, galaxies etc being created by natural laws; we have transitional fossils suggesting that the especies envolved over the time and the DNA shows how much we're related to the other living beings. We may not know yet what originated the universe or how the first living organisms emerged, but we have evidences supporting the theories for both events and giving them the status of "best explanation".
Craig's examples make no sense. We can certainly see or touch artefacts of some lost tribe from the past ot a pile of machines on the dark side of the moon. God, on the contrary, we definitely couldn't prove his existence using any of the senses. The best explanation in science is the one that has at least one evidence of the whole fact.
@Jordan The problem with positing that a deity did everything and is responsible for everything is inherently an unprovable premise. When you frame things in this type of light then you are saying god is a scientific explanation. Nothing could be further from the truth. First define god and then show the evidence for his existence. What evidence can you put forward that is testable and quantifiable to the point that anyone who runs the data gets the same answer?
One problem with the lost tribe scenario is that the items that were found are items that we have never seen occur in nature. We've never seen naturally occuring clay pots or naturally occuring machinery. So we're not just assuming they have a designer, we're using our previous experience specific to the items in question. A tree is a profoundly complex thing with bark and leaves and branches and roots, far more so than a spoon, but we don't assume someone built the tree as we do the spoon.
He has misinterpreted the word "simple" here (apparently Dawkins has to be less ambiguous with his language). A "simple" explanation, in this sense, is not one that is easy or concise but rather one which is most reasonable, can account for existing evidence and can make accurate (mathematical) predictions. For example, quantum mechanics is a "simple" explanation of black body radiation but certainly not easy to understand.
@ptango101 "I asked for evidence of why not." Because I'm not the one asserting anything here. It's your argument that WLC isn't following his own logic. It's your argument that God MUST exist within the universe. So far your ONLY argument is that Because you can't prove God exists, he MUST be within the universe. A logically invalid argument. I never asserted anything that I have to defend. It's your assertions that you seem to be unable to defend well.
@jmg94j " God exists outside the universe which is another baseless assumption" It is not a baseless assumption WLC demonstrates that what ever began the universe must be a changeless timeless, immaterial being, hes whole kalam argument demonstrates this. That you ignore that argument and call it a "baseless assumption" demonstrates 1) inattention to his argument or 2) deliberate refusal to examine the argument. either of which demonstrates intellectual dishonesty.
@mike10121996 WLC is asserting that what ever began the universe must be a changeless timeless, immaterial being. He doesn't know that. Nobody knows enough about the universe yet to know if it could happen naturally or if it required supernatural intervention. It is a baseless assupmtion to say that God did it. It is equally baseless for me to say that Klingons did it but I have the same amount of evidence to support that assertion as WLC does to support his assertion.
@jmg94j "He doesn't know that." It' logically makes sense. If everyphysical law, and material and energy began in the big bang. SOMETHING outside of everyphysical law, material and energy had to be source. So it has to be something outside of physical matter(it wasn't created yet) outside the laws of the universe (wasn't created yet) and outside time and space( wasn't created yet) What ever MADE matter cannot be within matter. Let me demonstrate
@mike10121996 I've had enough of this nonsense. I have devoted most of my extra time to the advancement of technology and today is a big day for me.Today I begin the process of applying for 2 patents for a discovery I made using my faulty logic. While it may not change the world, it is definitely going to change my world and if my calculations are accurate, it will improve some lives, help the environment, and advance our knowledge (slightly), something WLC will never accomplish. cont'd...
@jmg94j "It is a baseless assupmtion to say that God did it." It is not baseless, because YOU SAY it's baseless. Moreover that the ENTIRE POINT of his logic and reasoning, to demonstrate THAT its not baseless. That you don't LIKE that argument or that you dont' believe that argument, is immaterial. By HAVING that argument he is infact providing a BASE to assert what he believes.
@mike10121996 cont'd.. 64% of scientists in the US are non-believers. In the National Academy of Sciences, that number is 93%. My guess is they all use the same faulty logic that I use. If scientists thought the same way WLC thinks, we wouldn't be having philosophical debates on the internet, we would be naked, up a tree, fighting over females. I think I'm going to stick with my screwed up faulty logic thank you very much. It works for me. Well, off I go to see my patent lawyer. Wish me luck.
@jmg94j "He doesn't know that." did you even listen to his argument? How do you know what a person can or cannot know? He's allowed to hypothesize right? Isn't he allowed to take the information that he has and build a hypothesis? you assume that unless he has perfect knowledge he can't assert ANYTHING. thats simply silly.
@mike10121996 He is not basing his wild guess on information, he is basing it on ignorance and his own personal beliefs. Like I said before, we don't know enough about the universe to know if the big bang happened naturally or if it needed a supernatural cause. I do not accept the idea of perfect knowledge so how could I assume the WLC needs it? Why is WLC allowed to assert that one being created the universe and not 2 or more? Why can't I assert that Klingons did it?
@jmg94j "Why can't I assert that Klingons did it?" Go right ahead, go ahead and assert a klingon did it. But I find it rather odd that WLC is NOT allowed to have his "personal beliefs" affect his theories, but your atheism IS allowed to affect your beliefs. As to the BB happening naturally, THATS the very problem what natural explanation IS there? Saying I don't know, but I sure know it's NOT designed by a being outside the universe looks just as biased, if not more.
@mike10121996 You are obviously a smart guy. It is too bad that won't use your intellectual prowiss to help advance civilization instead of helping WLC drag us all backwards into the dark ages of superstition and ignorance. I would bet that you too could make discoveries and perhaps own a few patents. What is even more depressing is thinking about how many millions of great minds were laid waste by the cancer that is religion. I guess only the Klingons will ever know.
@jmg94j "backwards into the dark ages of superstition and ignorance." ALmost all historians of the early middle ages disavow the use of the term, dark ages. What's really pathetic is that if the church did no preserve the knowledge, we wouldn't have anything. The church WAS the center of learning and education for hundreds of years. Just because they had different values that us now doesn't mean it was "dark". Humanist polemics not actual history.
@jmg94j "because I can't prove that if a God/s does/do exist...they, must exist in this universe" There is NOTHING about the premise " I cannot prove God exists." That warrants the conclusion therefore "such a being MUST exist within the universe" There is nothing about that argument that even remotely comes close to that conclusion. At best is proves you cannot reason logically. you have 1 premise and a conclusion that has nothing in common with the conclusion except the word God.
@mike10121996 cont'd.. The other problem with your assertion that a supernatural being caused the universe to begin with the big bang is that the big bang was not the beginning of the universe. The universe existed before the big bang it just existed in a different state, as a singularity. So let me flip it around on you. What is your proof of your assertion that it was a non physical, non energy, timeless, changeless being that caused the big bang and not beings? Why did it have to be only one?
@jmg94j "The universe existed before the big bang it just existed in a different state, as a singularity" based upon what evidence? you say it did? Is that evidence. You say you don't want to believe something just because I say so. But what is your evidence that there WAS a universe prior to the big bang? Your say so?
@jmg94j ". What is your proof of your assertion that it was a non physical," A) it's not my assertion it's WLC. 2) His argument is that what ever CAUSED the big bang cannot be physical (since it didn't exist) energy, (since it didn't exist yet) and timeless (because time wasn't created yet) That's how. Are you saying energy that didn't exist prior to the BB is responsible FOR the big bang? How would that be possible?
@jmg94j "which states that "everything that exists in the universe needs to have a first cause" patently false assertion about the first cause, which is why your argument isn't well thought out. The first premise is "what ever BEGINS to exist has a cause." By deliberately changing the first premise you deliberately misconstrue the argument. God, according to WLC, does not begin to exist, hence needs no first cause.
@jmg94j " to show that an outside of the universe is even possible." the entire universe gravity, matter, energy, began 13 billion years ago in the big bang. What ever CAUSED the big bang must be a non physical non energy timeless changeless being that is NOT part of the universe itself. Otherwise you have something WITHIN the universe CAUSING the very universe to begin. As WLC states metaphysically silly.
@mike10121996 Natives on south pacific Islands concluded that whatever caused the big bang from the fire mountain spewing ash and lava everywhere must be a non physical non energy timeless changeless being that is NOT part of the universe itself. It is a natural assumption to make when you know nothing about the world around you. We are like those natives. We don't know enough about the universe yet to make those kind of assertions about the big bang. Yes you are making an assertion. contd..
@jmg94j " We don't know enough about the universe yet to make those kind of assertions" Oh but you do. In your very next post you assert that the universe existed in a "different state" prior to the big bang. Exactly how do you know that? That assertion has less evidence than natives in the south pacific. at least THEY had an erupting volcano. What do you have? Nothing.
@jmg94j " The physical world is real because you and I can see, and feel it." Once again very nievete philosophically. What makes something real? some people have intricate hallucinations Can you PROVE we're all not in some matrix like environment? No, of course not. But is it rational to argue it? No. but the question is about PROOF not rationality. More over you use the "proof enough" which isn't absolutely irrefutable, but merely a subjective standard thats HARDLY aboslute
@jmg94j " We have written accounts from several sources that Julius Ceasar was assasinated" Sure but can you proves absolutely that they are not lying? Isn't that what you make Christians do? Prove the gospel accounts are NOT lying in order to prove they are reliable. How do you know these accounts are not unreliable? Moreover there's ZERO empirical evidence that Caesar WAS murdered, no blood, no knife, no body, no nothing.
@jmg94j "If your wife tells you that she loves you, that is proof enough." that's hilarious!!! you demand absolute irrefutable empirical evidence that God exists. Yet you take your wifes "word for it" Are you saying it's impossible for her to lie? Or that she is only deluding herself into thinking she's lying? Moreover "proof enough" is a relative subjective measurement. Your demanding absolute irrefutable empirical proof when it comes to God, why not demand the same of my wife?
@mike10121996 When did I say I wanted absolute proof? I have never met a scientist who accepts the idea of absolute proof. In my experience absolutes are something only religious people believe in so it is logical for me to conclude that you are neither a scientist, nor an atheist troll just checking my logic. Do I know that absolutely, no, but that is my hypothesis based on the evidence that I have. All we humans can do is try to come to the best conclusions possible with the evidence we have.
@jmg94j "When did I say I wanted absolute proof?" Oh well my apologies, Most atheist demand absolute irrefutable empirical proof. It is a rare atheist indeed who does NOT demand it. Since you are not I'm fine with that. So since we are not longer demanding absolute proof we are talking about reasonable proof. correct?
Do you have any reasonable proof that if a god exists it MUST exist within the universe?
@jmg94j " All we humans can do is try to come to the best conclusions possible with the evidence we have." Now THAT is a reasonable and enlightened assertion. Do you think WLC has NOT drawn the best conclusion possible with the evidence at hand?
@mike10121996 You accused me of arguing from ignorance. Back it up. How was I arguing from ignorance? How is proving your foundational premise of the existence of god a red herring? This is what your whole story hinges on.
@ptango101 "How is proving your foundational premise of the existence of god a red herring?" 1) you never proved anything, the best you came up with was I can't disprove God so God MUST be within the universe,an invalid argument. 2) You threw out repeated demands that I prove miracles, that I prove God exists, that I prove this that and the other. When I clearly never asserted anything. It's a red herring because none of these issues demonstrates your argument true OR false, irrelevant. RH
@ptango101 "This is what your whole story hinges on." My story? Im not the one who asserted anything, I merely asked YOU to prove your asserts true. You keep shifting the burden of proof TO ME who has never asserted anything. You keep demanding that my story hangs on this or the other. The only story I've presented is that YOU don't know logic very well and you've repeatedly demonstrated that.
@mike10121996 " "evidence" to ONLY mean physical object that directly prove something""
What the hell are you talking about? Do you have big evidence (as I defined it) for your big claims? I find it intelectually dishonest when you change the meaning of the word so you can squeeze your explanation into it. I have given you the requirements for evidence. The super natural is not evidence. Science makes no comment on anything that can't be proved one way or the other.
@ptango101 " Do you have big evidence (as I defined it) for your big claims? " What claims I've made no claim about anything. I never claimed God exists, I never claimed I could prove God exists. What claim have I made? As to arguing from ignorance. You began your assertion by saying that WLC hasn't proven that God exist so his arguments are false. If you demand a person is wrong simply because they haven't proven it right, that's arguing from ignorance, by definition.
@mike10121996 WLC's argument is inept and dishonest. He tries to argue that the current explanations for the beginnings of the universe and the existence of a deity are wrong because they won't take into account the myths and legends of the supernatural. If a person is wrong because they haven't proved them selves right then they are wrong. WLC is making huge claims about god's existence and he has nothing to back it up except good debating skills and philosophical ramblings that achieve nothing
@ptango101 " He tries to argue that the current explanations for the beginnings of the universe and the existence of a deity are wrong because they won't take into account the myths and legends of the supernatural." No where does WLC assert this. Your just making stuff up. Not once in his KALAM argument does he mention legends or myths.
@ptango101 "except good debating skills and philosophical ramblings" I find this funny, WLC is inept but he's apparently good at debating, than by definition doesn't that mean he's NOT inept? And just because you cannot understand philosophical arguments it doesn't mean he's dishonest. It simply means you don't understand philosophy. Big surprise.
@mike10121996 Oh I understand the argument. I just think it fails as an ultimate explanation. You can be a good debator and be wrong. WLC does it all the time. He can out debate somone but that doesn't automaticaly make him right.
@ptango101 " I just think it fails as an ultimate explanation." That is profoundly different than, asserting a belief that is "baseless" and ignorant. That you are not convinced, does not mean WLC is offering a baseless assertion. There are multiple reasons an person might not be convinced by a perfect good argument. One of which COULD be apriori bias. Using YOUR acceptance of a belief as the criteria of whether or not it is "baseless" demonstrates profound bias.
@ptango101 "You can be a good debator and be wrong." Thats fine but, you have not demonstrated THAT he is wrong. so far all you've done is ASSERT God MUST be considered inside the universe but only provided 1 argument, Because God is not proven, he must be considered a part of the universe. A blatantly invalid argument. So you haven't demonstrated he IS wrong all you've done is complained ABOUT him being wrong.
@mike 1) He asserts that god exists and is the explanation we are looking for that essentially answers the big questions. He offers no proof of this concept except philosophical platitudes. If you assert that you know the ultimate answer to it all you have to do a bit better than that. I could disagree or agree with this as a philosophical argument because that 's all it is. We could discuss this solidly for a month and nothing would be achieved. I have been talking about using testable science
@ptango101 "He asserts that god exists and is the explanation we are looking for" 1) that's not what this video is about. Its' about Dawkins assertion that there must be an explanation for the the explanation. 2) God CAN be an explanation for many things but that's not why most christians follow God. It's has little to do with explanation, atheist polemics as if we don't know something and make it up, its about interacting with the divine, not proving it.
@ptango101 " He offers no proof of this concept except philosophical platitudes." Calling something "Philosophical platitudes" is a fantastic way of ignoring his reason and logic. He's not issuing platitudes he is using reason in order to understand his experiences. That you don't believe it doesn't mean he using platitudes. Nothing happens without a cause is not merely a platitude its a logical rule of our universe. Calling it such, is to trivialize it.
@mike10121996 I'm not ignoring his logic. It all sounds very plausable up until he asserts there is logically a god and he is an immaterial mind and spirit. Not only is he asserting that this entity exists but he is commenting on it's physical, or lack there of, make up. WTF! Where does this information come from? Do we just have to accept this as a given? What information source led him to maker a cut and dry statement like that?
@ptango101 " What information source led him to maker a cut and dry statement like that?" do you not listen? He said that what ever made universe cannot material, timeless changeless being. Aristotle and plato millennia ago proposed such a being, called the unmoved mover. People through out time have believed in the existence of things that simply not material but immaterial.
@mike 2) This is because he is essentially trying to argue a scientific point. How did the universe begin. If we can answer this practically then practical application can be derived from it. If we just rubber stamp it with “god did it” then you achieve nothing. At the end of the video he asserts that god is “immaterial, a mind without a body”. Does he have proof of this or is this just what needs to said to make his claims true?
@mike 3) This is the problem. If you are going to argue against science then you need to do it scientifically. You and I can go on and on about why you think it's impossible to prove history or the concept of ethics but that's a whole different argument and a pain in the arse to do with a 500 word limit. If you dig his silly ramblings then good for you. I think his excuses for god and why he must be so are built on a house of cards that answers absolutely nothing.
@ptango101 " If you are going to argue against science then you need to do it scientifically." That' silly. Why must I ONLY argue against science using scientific rules. Science would be no where with out logic. Its wouldn't even get off the ground. The fact of the matter is your entire argument as to why WLC is wrong hinges upon your assertion that God MUST be considered part of the universe. YET you have provided ZERO logic nor reasoning for this assertion. Who's acting illogically?
@mike10121996 Of course you must argue against science scientifically. If you don't you are just blathering on and wasting everyone's time.
""Science would be no where with out logic""
Of course it would. Logic is integral to the scientific process. What exactly do you think science is? Are you against science? Don't you think science employs logic?
@ptango101 "Of course you must argue against science scientifically." Says who? once again an assertion that MUST be true because ptango says so. Who are you Mike to question what ptango101 says.? Of course everyone in the whole universe knows that if ptango101 says it... it must be so. Why? Because he says it, and if you don't agree he'lljust say your blathering, and wasting time. How dare you question ptango101's assertion?
@mike10121996 So do you argue agasinst science with unscirentific arguments? That's not just my opinion. This is why creationism fails. You can't argue against somthing like evolution and common decent with a religious argument. Do you understand this? If you think a theory is wrong then you have to show the reasons why and why they are a better set of evidences.
@ptango101 "So do you argue agasinst science with unscirentific arguments?" There are other kinds of reasoning. For example philosophical reasoning or historical reasoning is not scientific reasoning, but philosophical reasoning is NOT unscientific reasoning. That you are incapable of understanding that non scientific reasoning does not automatically mean it is unscientific is not my fault. Just because something is NOT scientific doesn't mean its UNscientific.
@mike 4) If you have to start playing verbal gymnastics with words like proof, belief and evidence then my first thought is you have to make excuses for what you are saying and it's not going to be a scientific argument. This is fine when it's NOT a scientific argument. You wouldn't ramble on with philosophy if you were talking about entropy in closed systems or why a binary star follows a particular orbit would you?
@ptango101 "If you have to start playing verbal gymnastics" Im not playing verbal word games. 1) i want to make sure the words we use are understood properly, 2) MOST philosophical arguments like this FAIL because people are sloppy and lazy with the terms they use. Philosophy is about clarifying how we use term so that they are properly employed. 3) I'm not making excuse for ANYTHING. I'm simply pointing out YOUR arguments have no logical basis ie God MUST be a part of the universe.
@ptango101 "about entropy in closed systems or why a binary star follows a particular orbit ..." Yes but your making a philosophical argument about metaphysics. Your arguing that a being who, if exists, could have created everything, your argument is that this being MUST be part of the universe for no other reason than that YOU SAY SO. You want to make philosophical arguments and claims than BPT to defend those claims. Otherwise stop whining.
@mike10121996 Stop whining about my arguments and put up one of your own. Do you agree with him? What makes this a good argument? What evidence (or definition of) do you think is adequate to make his argument correct? You accuse me of complaining about him being wrong. Well why don't you stop complaining about me and give us your argument.
@ptango101 "put up one of your own." Why? I never asserted God exists or does not exist. Why can't you just defend your own assertions. You made them, you defend them. Why must I put up something of my "own"? Why can't you just defend your own assertions and defend your own claims. Isn't this exactly what you do with theist? They make claims and you atheist attack them and make theist defend their claims? Why is it unfair of me to ask you to defend your own claims when you do the same?
@ptango101 "You accuse me of complaining about him being wrong." are you saying that your NOT saying his arguments are wrong? You are the one who has said his arguments are wrong. doesn't that mean you have the burden to prove in fact that his arguments ARE wrong? So far all you've done is assert something about God you haven't been able to give 1 valid reason for? Why should I assert anything when you haven't even proven WLC wrong?
@mike10121996 "are you saying that your NOT saying his arguments are wrong?"
What is wrong with you. Are all those other posts just a waste of time? You seem to not really be following anything I am saying. Is it because of the format or are you being obstructive. I told you time and time again why this argument fails not on a philosophical level but a scientific one.
""Why should I assert anything when you haven't even proven WLC wrong?""
@ptango101 " why this argument fails not on a philosophical level but a scientific one." you haven't said one thing about it. You've asserted one thing that IF God exists he MUST be considered part of the universe,I asked why that was true, and your response was: Because I don't believe in God, God MUST Be a part of the universe. Nothing in there even logically follows a coherent train of thought. There isn't scientific evidence for this, it's just an assertion with no evidence.
God is complex, even if we suppose it's immaterial. Just think how knowledgeable must it be to have enginereed the process which would have spawned our immense universe. But apparently WLC is satysfied with saying that God is unembodyed. Mah...
kibo3232 4 days ago
I do think William Craig has a few good arguments... but this is not one of them. In fact it's in the category with the worst I've heard.
12onlyusernameleft34 1 week ago
Shocking how Craig gets away with daft speeches like these.
kleykenb 1 week ago
A comment on his example:
If the archaeologists had found the arrow heads, pottery etc, they could assume that these artifacts where brought there from Jupiter by purple elephant-shaped aliens. This is an explanation. We don't need an explanation for this explanation, so it is valid.
anvogian 2 weeks ago
atheists are ontological zombies.
Thaneym 1 month ago
I cant believe the negative reaction to Criags assertion on the over anyalizing of the infinite regress in explination. Hes right! After a certain point the atheist argument halts, where they shrug their sholders and say, "we dont know". Yet they lash out at theists who say, we do know. Granted many theists use God to fill the gaps, but that does not conclude their statment is false, only their method of obtaining their conclusion. Craig uses logic as sufficient evidence for his conclusions
Inverita1 1 month ago
@Inverita1 The reason craig is wrong about infinite regressions is because when atheists say "who designed the designer?" they are using the theist argument against themselves. It's theists that fall into the infinite regression when they say "who designed the universe?". If the claim that "everything is designed" is true then why is this rule not applied to god?
He calls god "simple to explain" when he means "easy to imagine" btw.
All these arguments are bogus. Message me if you want.
2Jax 4 weeks ago
737 peoples minds were blown after watching this
QuentaSilmarillion 1 month ago
Thatsa a good pt.
yaqubali 1 month ago
A Ph.D.? Seriously?
totipotent91 2 months ago
@totipotent91 hmmm, you have one?
zestydude87 2 months ago
I can't believe this, He clearly has no idea, it's embarrassing to watch him make these stupid errors time and time again. If people didn't come up with explanations of the explanations then the whole process of science would ground to a halt, but Craig doesn't get this.
huntmatuk 2 months ago
Does doctor of philosophy mean he has a really nice armchair?
ProDegiaque 3 months ago
He is comparing 'artifacts' that you can touch and feel to things that you can NOT touch or feel. He fails.
11Bomber29 3 months ago
He goes on to say that you would never have an explanation of anything if you needed an explanation for the explanation. Hokum. That's how science works - its goal is to fill in the gaps, modifying and updating existing theories. So from a scientific perspective, and Dawkins is a scientist; Dawkins question is perfectly valid.
aaoppe 4 months ago
@aaoppe
You don't seem to understand Science very well. According to General Relativity, spacetime curvature explains gravity (and there are very good scientific reasons to believe this is true). However, no one has yet explained why the presence of mass bends spacetime at all. There are some ideas, but nothing conclusive. So, we don't need an explanation of the explanation, in order to recognize it as the best.
Mentat1231 3 months ago 4
@Mentat1231 you are mistaken between what is needed and what we do not have. we don't have the answer of what causes gravity to work the way it does. it is laughable to say that scientists have stopped looking for the answer. should scientists find out the cause for gravity, they wouldn't stop there and say this is where we'll stop. they will look behind that cause too. one of the tenets of science is all knowledge is provisional. so why does the scientific inquiry stops at a certain point?
TinyFire1 2 months ago
@TinyFire1
Who said anything about stopping?? Craig specifically said that these were good subjects for "further inquiry". Did you not watch the video at all? His point isn't that we stop looking for further explanation. It's that we don't reject a good explanation just because we don't YET have an explanation of that explanation. Like the civilization in his analogy. We wouldn't reject them as an explanation off-hand, just because we haven't YET fully explained them.
Mentat1231 22 hours ago
William Lane Craig sure has a professional way of presenting his arguments which perfectly conceals that he in fact is leading the opponents arguments away from their original meaning to a new one that he just created. This video is a great example of him misunderstanding/guiding the argument. It all sounds logical, but really Craig, what do you think what the meaning of Dawkins argument??
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
craig's arguments are all based on the fiction that the bible creates, but he uses the points from this fiction as facts in his debates.
another point to be made. who's to say that even if an intelligent designer could be 100% proven , that this entity is the god from the bible?
tiberiius 4 months ago 2
markcaddo - It's my understanding that the ID people are not simply arguing that "The universe is complex, therefore it must have a designer" - wouldn't be fairer to say that their argument is "The universe is so improbably, specifically complex that non-deliberate processes cannot adequately account for it"?
MightyFerg1 4 months ago
Dont ask who designed the designer!! Thats not part of the rules! GOD HAS ALWAYS BEEN! WE WIN!
Johnf85 5 months ago
who designed the univeres material? Atoms have caused the big bang and Atoms are meterial..
friday26th 5 months ago
@capoman1 I know this was eleven months ago but did you misread my response? I said that Craig defeated his own argument. I also think he is assuming God exists. His argument completely misunderstands what Richard Dawkins was arguing. Dawkins explains in his book that if the evidence for creation is complexity than any being which is complex would need a designer including God. If one God requires a designer than that God would require a designer. It's a dumb argument from Craig.
markcaddo 5 months ago
In short I guess what I'm trying to say is that Dawkins isn't asking for an explanation of Craig's Theory as Craig underhandedly tries to confuse you into believing. He doesn't have to know who created the creator. He's saying that through Intelligent Design we can infer that God was created. It's not a question: Humans are Complex= They were created by someone; God is even more complex= He was created by someone. Craig just doesn't like that....maybe because It's Sacrilege.
Schnigtheatheist 5 months ago
"Evolution makes the claim that the Universe and life on this planet had no outside cause"?? It absolutely does not claim that at all.
leercha 5 months ago
So Craig thinks God created a universe more complex than himself? I can't help but think an "unbodied mind" with infinite power would be just a tad more complex than that which it creates (sarcasm)
flackz16 5 months ago
"Philosopher's of Science"..I really pity Dr. William Lane Craig .. poor guy is trying to put sense into bible. Mate stick to what u guys have been teaching the world "FAITH".
sonuEEE 6 months ago
Craig's claim that god is "simple" is supported only by the fact that he/she/it is an offspring of simple minded people from stone age, trying to explain reality wondering about a "creator" who made the world the same way they made their stone tools.
Minds without a body do not exist, since a mind is a complex function of a brain, which is the most complex object in the known universe.
This argument is only a failed apologetic attempt to defend craig's superstition (IF he really believes!).
FreeSilio 6 months ago 4
Did the good doctor just diss "God" by calling him simple? Anyways, his argument is valid. The best explanation for something does not necessarily need an explanation unless it is disproven. It's called a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, something intelligent design believers can't grasp because they have no evidence to back them up.
TheCrasian1 6 months ago
@TheCrasian1 Yes I generally agree with your statement.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@TheCrasian1
We were created by Unicorns. There you go, this explanation does not require any further explanation. Simple enough?
Would you cal that a Scientific theory?
No, science is defined as knowledge attained through observations and practice. If your claim has no backing up watsoever -->like god, it is not a scientific theory.
It is as much a theory, as the existnce of the cookie monster
AgentBruck 6 months ago
Nice straw man of Dawkin's argument. That argument was originally a refutation of the creationist argument that basically states that an explanation is required for the existence of the universe (or the complexity of life) and in the absence of any other explanation, a supernatural First Cause (or Intelligent Designer) is the default explanation. They insist that we must have an explanation for the universe's existence, but they exclude their God from the same rule without proper justification.
Chinchilla7Man 6 months ago 57
@Chinchilla7Man Evolution makes the claim that the Universe and life on this planet had no outside cause, no God or Intelligence needed. The complexity of life and how it got that way, is what they claim to answer, so by their own claim they must explain how. They have failed to do so, on many levels, and cannot prove their claims, only assumptions. Now we look at the overwhelming amount of information needed to make the simpliest cell (which isn't that simple) to operate, and say chance? NO
vbirdieb 6 months ago
@Chinchilla7Man I was about to say precisely the same thing. They want to denounce atheism by saying well then who created it, but contradicts itself if they can't explain who created the creator.
MrNicMachiavelli 5 months ago
@Chinchilla7Man Why do you not believe that Dawkins explanation creates an infinite regress of explanations and therefore never allows one to explain one immediate thing?
sethdbeebe 4 months ago
@Chinchilla7Man
This universe is not infinate, therfore we can logically asume it was created. It would be silly to think we were created by something in this universe, so again logically we can asume that what ever created us was outside of this universe. Things that are outside are not effected by time or space, what ever created this universe was infinate with infinate energy, either God or random string of energy. If something is infinate it does not need a creator.
Silly athiest...
MisterFriggles 4 months ago
@Chinchilla7Man actually we do have justification for saying that God does not have a cause. God if He exists must exist necessarily, necessary beings do not come into existence, thus they do not need a cause. The universe we know has a beginning, and therefore needs a cause, we know this because of Big Bang Cosmology, and philosophical arguments such as Aquinas's argument that if the universe had an infinite past then no contingent being would exist now...
philosophizer149 4 months ago
@philosophizer149 wow... well then i can say that before the big bang there existed a sea of fluctuating energy that bubbled and expanded into the singularity that initiated the big bang. similar to your argument i can also say that this sea of energy is necessary and thus requires no cause, it is the uncaused cause of the universe
UtubeJKZ 4 months ago
@Chinchilla7Man
Craig's logic is perfectly sound in this video. He gave two good examples that were counter-proofs against Dawkins' argument, namely: If you insist that this complex Universe had a creator than you must answer who created the creator, etc. Dawkins says some version of thish argument all the time. Craig showed that that is an illogical argument.
He also shows that the Creator is by no means more complex than its creations. What's missing in his logic?
Mentat1231 4 months ago in playlist More videos from 100huntley
@Chinchilla7Man You are missing a huge point. The universe is contingent; its existence is externally causal. Therefore we must ask where this contingent universe came from. God on the other hand, by definition, must exist necessarily. Asking for the creator of God is like asking for the Bachelor's wife. It is irrelevant because God is ETERNAL. Nothing could exist before God to create God, because God is infinite, and nothing can happen before infinity. Dawkins argument is a logical fallacy.
steffencollen 2 months ago 7
dawkins is trying to say the creationists dont believe the universe came of nothing, yet they believe that a diety came from nothing. I see where wlc is coming from, but he does not do good job of getting his point across.
lordrazr 7 months ago
"Destroy science"??? It is precisely what propells science, the thirst for explanation. What a profound misunderstanding of what science actually is.
I may be reading him wrong, he may have just worded things wrong.
If god is a mind without a body, by which means does he achieve "work"(in a physical sense), how does he "cause". From what does he create? The god hypothesis gets us nowhere, gives us "magic". But "magic" would remove the neccessity for complexity.
mehico33 7 months ago 3
lol Its so funny how atheist seem that they have stumped Dr. Craig's claims on youtube yet don't make the effort to talk to him in person or debate with him on their claims. Thats odd...
Diachi26 7 months ago
God is the only explanation...
doobersmanster 7 months ago
@doobersmanster In ancient times, thunder was thought to be "God's power", but science has disproven that with physical proof. Hundreds of years ago, when people got sick, they blamed curses and evil spirits. We discovered bacteria and viruses. To assume that God is the ONLY explanation for existence is ignorant because you fail to learn from the mistakes of people in the past. As you most likely guessed, I'm an atheist, but, that's my opinion. I'm not saying I'm right, just stay open minded.
MrJolla11 7 months ago
@doobersmanster nope
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 6 months ago
no wonder dawkins wants no piece of WLC...he would get absolutely destroyed!!!
fivethirty 7 months ago
you obviously need to have a explanation or basis of your explanation of a given occurance. Why? Well, if I need no explanation for my explanaton of where the arrow heads that Craig rambles about originated from, then i would be perfectly safe from counter arguments when saying that the best explanation of where the arrow heads originated from is the mighty power of the sandwich I ate this morning.
grusplan123 7 months ago 4
thats like saying an "explanation" of your missing socks is the sock elves stole them out of your dryer. God is not an explanation of how we got here it is a hypothesis. a horrible horrible hypothesis
pewp89 7 months ago 3
god is simple becouse he has no parts? maybe yes, but, he's mind is very complex. he's mind isn't simple, so he's personality is complex - so he isn't simple explanation. mr. craig is very smart and i respect him and i respect his debate skills, but in this case he is wrong.
kuczyLBN 7 months ago
explanation don't need a explanation, ok, thats right. but god isn't a scientific explanation. so it needs explanation i think.
kuczyLBN 7 months ago
You don't have to explain the origins of anything unless you know that it had an origin. We know that the universe had an origin. Science tells us that.
If we knew that God had an origin, we might have to explain that too, but since we don't know any such thing, there is no need to ask "Who made God?"
Jesrael1986M 7 months ago
He sure says "logic" a lot for someone who uses none.
k1ngkoo0pa 7 months ago 48
it worries me that this man has attained a docterate. He provides no basis for his 'simplicity argument' and wants to pick and choose causal effects.
TheLecrunch 7 months ago
Do you know that your reactions are predicted in the Bible?In the end times there will be scoffers and mockers of God. They will profess themselves wise,only to remain fools and the fool says in their heart there is no God. Doesen't that sound like today?Do you REALLY think you are no more than just an educated monkey? Or are we wonderfully and fearfully created by a powerful sentient being? Could it be that by saying no to him,you are saying YES to satan?No Hell? Are you sure? May God Bless.
roddy35wv 7 months ago
@roddy35wv Well. If Hell exists, oh well, it'll be annoying. Otherwise... Meh...
raydredX 7 months ago
but the problem is, that god is not an explanation XD
silicium555 7 months ago
@silicium555 why not?
chopstick89 7 months ago
@chopstick89 apparently you haven't thought of it that much, so take your time, and you will find out why.
silicium555 7 months ago
I think in this case you do need an explanation for god. Positing that the judeo- christian god is the first cause and doesn't need to be explained is ridiculous. When the excuse for him being beyond space and time is "because he is god" it's just not good enough. Just using this so called limitless power of god as an excuse not to explain him is intellectually lazy and asinine. Not having to explain god because he is god is a joke not a theory.
ptango101 7 months ago
"You don't need explanasion of the explanasion" Yeah, sure. I partly agree with that Although it's not legit explanasion for that there is any intelligente designer that made the universe.
Szmirka 7 months ago
i sit here shaking my head at the screen as my faith in humanity decreases
kickmeout1 7 months ago
The problem with the ID argument is that it's a decoy. From what I can tell, all of these ID proponents are really arguing the existence of Jehovah. Since that is clearly, unarguable, they back off and insist that SOMEBODY must have designed all this. Look how COOL it is! Let's just go ahead and say what we're really thinking, that it was Jehovah, and argue that. The other issue would be the idea that Atheists don't have all the answers, so we must.
etchkid 7 months ago
Mr. Craig is also trying to say that because we can't explain Y, lets use X as the explanation, still leaving the question of where X came from. Mr. Craig also doesn't explain why Richard Dawkins argument isn't logical, he simply says that the conclusion is logically invalid from the steps, because it logically doesn't follow. Ad Nauseum. Now we can understand why he thinks Y can explain X. Mr. Craig enjoys long walks on the beach, God, Circular reasoning, and Infinitely redundant tautologies.
TheBlackPhilosophy 7 months ago
The mind is NOT a simple construct, in fact it is the most complex besides the "physical realm", just because it doesn't have recognizable parts doesn't mean that it isn't complex. The mind is a very complex thinking machine, the parts are actually the processes of thinking, logic, linear equations, data compiling programs etc. God (his mind) would be much more infinitely complex than creation. Using God as an explanation is like saying, I don't understand gravity, so it must be wind spirits!
TheBlackPhilosophy 7 months ago
Dawkins isn't saying that you need and explanation for God to show that God explains the universe. He is saying that by using the same logic that says that the universe has a designer, the designer must have a designer, something which those who believe in God deny.
XZohar123 7 months ago
WLC goes on about ID as if it's proof of a designer. We all have a blind spot in our vision, some of us need glasses to see properly, the recurrent laryngeal nerve is poor design, we can choke to death because we breath and eat through the same hole, we have a curvature of the spine, we cannot detect ionizing radiation, we suffer from allergies which are sometimes fatal. God gets an F in design class then, F for FAIL.
Zed1967 7 months ago
Because science cannot answer what caused the singularity any possibility of how the universe came into existence is possible including a supernatural designer.If there is a God his power is way to great for the human brain to comprehend . Also the theory that before the Big Bang there was nothing sounds ridiculous. There was something, a dot with all the matter in the universe packed into it. No wonder the scientists are confused.
TheEgertak 7 months ago
He misses the point of the complexity debate. "Who designed the designer" is not irrelevant, because it's not just an explanation of a local fact, itself contingent on the natural world (e.g. people creating arrowheads) but is presented as the ultimate explanation/cause of ALL biological beings.The arrowhead making tribes are also subject to cause. But God, for some reason, is not. This requires the use of the Kalam argument to avoid the regress problem (its inadequacies is another topic).
gyniest 7 months ago
@gyniest In short, biological organisms do not require an ultimate undesigned desiger, or unmoved mover, to explain their complex composition. To quote Paulos: "If a certain entity is very complex and it's deemed extraordinarily unlikely that such an entity would have arisen by itself, then what is explained by attributing the entity's unlikely complexity to an even more complex and even more unlikely source? This creationist Ponzi scheme quickly leads to metaphysical bankruptcy."
gyniest 7 months ago
"Immaterial entity" is, by definition, a contradiction. Unless Craig is arguing that a "spirit" is a thing, a substance, and in any way analogous to a material being, it is this theological explanation that is, on the face of it, "hopeless" . As an aside, the idea of a simple, uncompounded cause of the universe did not even originate in Thomist Christian theology, it comes from the Mu'tazili Muslims who appropriated Aristotle (whose arguments were themselves refuted long ago by philosophers).
gyniest 7 months ago
Comment removed
gyniest 7 months ago
Scientists have never claimed that the universe emerged from nothing. The possibility of multi universes, all created by natural laws, is highly debated by them. At this point, saying that would be as true as God. But think about it, what would be the best rational explanation, a supernatural being without evidences of its existence creating the universe or natural laws doing it, just like it happens with everything inside our universe?
ricromo 7 months ago
@ricromo "The possibility of multi universes, all created by natural laws," Do all you guys simply not do your homework? According to multiverse theory there would be millions of dead universes BECAUSE they would have laws incompatible to life. Therefore natural laws CANNOT create these multiverse universes, because they would be an EFFECT of the BB not a CAUSE OF the BB. 500 word limit is hard.
mike10121996 7 months ago
@mike10121996 It seems that it's you who isn't doing the homework. At the link below Stephen Halking talks about multiple universes arising naturally from physical laws:
h t t p : / / w w w .nytimes . c o m / 2010 / 09 / 08 / books / 08book . h t m l (remove the spaces)
At any time he states "categorically" that those other universes can't have any form of life.
ricromo 7 months ago
@ricromo The hawking article you cited was not flattering in the least towards Hawkins argument. I would be very interested in hear how you can have a universe created from nothing, but yet have it created by physical laws, by definition thats not "nothing" that something. So either hawking is contradicting himself (he says in the article that the universe came from nothing) OR somethings not getting portrayed right. Please explain to me how that's possible. I am interested.
mike10121996 7 months ago
@mike10121996 “I would be very interested in hear how you can have a universe created from nothing” That's your position not mine. I have been saying that there is not enough data that says one way or the other. The going model talks about a super hot super-dense ball of everything expanding. Is this true. That's not nothing. Can anybody categorically state "nothing" is a FACT. It sounds like you need the other side to say it was nothing so you can attack it more easily. Another fallacy
ptango101 7 months ago
@ricromo "what would be the best rational explanation," Your RIGHT think about it! Does something come from NOTHING like Dr. Peter Slezak assertes, or out of nothing nothing comes! Whether or not you think a God is likely is immaterial. Plato aristotle and many other philosophers have rightly contended that nothing comes from nothing, we have something instead of NOTHING so SOMETHING gave us this SOMETHING we live in. What is that Something?
mike10121996 7 months ago
@ricromo "Scientists have never claimed that the universe emerged from nothing." Im sorry I beg to differ. Watch the video debate between Dr. peter Slezak and William lane Craig video 7 at about 3:20 Dr. slezak says the universe came from nothing. Who knows more about cosmology? You or Dr. Slezak a philosopher of science?
mike10121996 7 months ago
@mike10121996 Sorry about that, I'm brazilian and my english need some improvements. I thought that to claim was the same as to state categorically. Here's may statement reformuled: "Scientists have never stated categorically that the universe emerged from nothing."
ricromo 7 months ago
THIS GUY IS SO WRONG!!!...THANKS TO SCIENCE THAT HE KNOWS THE EARTH IS ROUND!!!...
BadmashFactory 7 months ago
Finally...
So, God's nature is very simple. Well, try to think about that in a rational way and you'll depare yourself with something extremely complex. There's no evidences to claim that such entity exists. He claims that again because of his religion dogmas, which prevent him to question God. The only references we have about God are from people a thousand years ago who didn't know that killing people with other beliefs was wrong (Deuteronomy 13:13-15), let alone their place in this world.
ricromo 7 months ago
Comment removed
ricromo 7 months ago
Comment removed
ricromo 7 months ago
Comment removed
ricromo 7 months ago
The question "who created the creator" is totally legitimate. Craig is limited by his religion dogmas to make use of rationality. That questions is so legitimate that I've already seen it being made by several renowned cientists, including Stephen Hawking. That being said, this question wouldn't destroy science at all. While there are unanswered questions about the world and our place in it they will continue to be made.
Continues above...
ricromo 7 months ago
For exemple: we have evidences of stars, planets, galaxies etc being created by natural laws; we have transitional fossils suggesting that the especies envolved over the time and the DNA shows how much we're related to the other living beings. We may not know yet what originated the universe or how the first living organisms emerged, but we have evidences supporting the theories for both events and giving them the status of "best explanation".
Continues above...
ricromo 7 months ago
Comment removed
ricromo 7 months ago
Comment removed
ricromo 7 months ago
Comment removed
ricromo 7 months ago
Comment removed
ricromo 7 months ago
Comment removed
ricromo 7 months ago
Craig's examples make no sense. We can certainly see or touch artefacts of some lost tribe from the past ot a pile of machines on the dark side of the moon. God, on the contrary, we definitely couldn't prove his existence using any of the senses. The best explanation in science is the one that has at least one evidence of the whole fact.
Continues above...
ricromo 7 months ago
Certainly William Craig masters the rhetoric, but he's saying the same old fallacies we're used to hear from religious people less educated than him.
Why an entity, without any prove of its existence, would be the best explanation for the origin of the universe and the origin of the especies?
Continues above...
ricromo 7 months ago
Both of his points seemed valid. Can someone who disliked this video explain to me how what he said in this video was wrong please?
I get the feeling that athiests spam all the Christian and pro-God videos and just dislike them without listening to their content.
JordanRossMackenzie 7 months ago
@Jordan The problem with positing that a deity did everything and is responsible for everything is inherently an unprovable premise. When you frame things in this type of light then you are saying god is a scientific explanation. Nothing could be further from the truth. First define god and then show the evidence for his existence. What evidence can you put forward that is testable and quantifiable to the point that anyone who runs the data gets the same answer?
ptango101 7 months ago
God is evolving.
cmonty72 8 months ago
What a retard......God doesnt exist, get over it....your wrong!!!!
crowman131 8 months ago
Unfortunately for Craig, ID isn't the best explanation for biological complexity.
JasonBensleyDrain 8 months ago
One problem with the lost tribe scenario is that the items that were found are items that we have never seen occur in nature. We've never seen naturally occuring clay pots or naturally occuring machinery. So we're not just assuming they have a designer, we're using our previous experience specific to the items in question. A tree is a profoundly complex thing with bark and leaves and branches and roots, far more so than a spoon, but we don't assume someone built the tree as we do the spoon.
pyrobryan 8 months ago
This guy's "degrees" are from a fake faith based school aren't they? Because he is not remotely intelligent.
Ryakki 8 months ago
You don't need to ask those questions I can not answer.
Please don't or else I will call you an unsophisticated dumb and winn the debate still.
Great stuff.
fiesta181 8 months ago
He has misinterpreted the word "simple" here (apparently Dawkins has to be less ambiguous with his language). A "simple" explanation, in this sense, is not one that is easy or concise but rather one which is most reasonable, can account for existing evidence and can make accurate (mathematical) predictions. For example, quantum mechanics is a "simple" explanation of black body radiation but certainly not easy to understand.
Eyepatchness 8 months ago
@ptango101 "I asked for evidence of why not." Because I'm not the one asserting anything here. It's your argument that WLC isn't following his own logic. It's your argument that God MUST exist within the universe. So far your ONLY argument is that Because you can't prove God exists, he MUST be within the universe. A logically invalid argument. I never asserted anything that I have to defend. It's your assertions that you seem to be unable to defend well.
mike10121996 8 months ago
@jmg94j " God exists outside the universe which is another baseless assumption" It is not a baseless assumption WLC demonstrates that what ever began the universe must be a changeless timeless, immaterial being, hes whole kalam argument demonstrates this. That you ignore that argument and call it a "baseless assumption" demonstrates 1) inattention to his argument or 2) deliberate refusal to examine the argument. either of which demonstrates intellectual dishonesty.
mike10121996 8 months ago
@mike10121996 WLC is asserting that what ever began the universe must be a changeless timeless, immaterial being. He doesn't know that. Nobody knows enough about the universe yet to know if it could happen naturally or if it required supernatural intervention. It is a baseless assupmtion to say that God did it. It is equally baseless for me to say that Klingons did it but I have the same amount of evidence to support that assertion as WLC does to support his assertion.
jmg94j 8 months ago
@jmg94j "He doesn't know that." It' logically makes sense. If everyphysical law, and material and energy began in the big bang. SOMETHING outside of everyphysical law, material and energy had to be source. So it has to be something outside of physical matter(it wasn't created yet) outside the laws of the universe (wasn't created yet) and outside time and space( wasn't created yet) What ever MADE matter cannot be within matter. Let me demonstrate
mike10121996 8 months ago
@mike10121996 I've had enough of this nonsense. I have devoted most of my extra time to the advancement of technology and today is a big day for me.Today I begin the process of applying for 2 patents for a discovery I made using my faulty logic. While it may not change the world, it is definitely going to change my world and if my calculations are accurate, it will improve some lives, help the environment, and advance our knowledge (slightly), something WLC will never accomplish. cont'd...
jmg94j 8 months ago
@jmg94j "It is a baseless assupmtion to say that God did it." It is not baseless, because YOU SAY it's baseless. Moreover that the ENTIRE POINT of his logic and reasoning, to demonstrate THAT its not baseless. That you don't LIKE that argument or that you dont' believe that argument, is immaterial. By HAVING that argument he is infact providing a BASE to assert what he believes.
mike10121996 8 months ago
@mike10121996 cont'd.. 64% of scientists in the US are non-believers. In the National Academy of Sciences, that number is 93%. My guess is they all use the same faulty logic that I use. If scientists thought the same way WLC thinks, we wouldn't be having philosophical debates on the internet, we would be naked, up a tree, fighting over females. I think I'm going to stick with my screwed up faulty logic thank you very much. It works for me. Well, off I go to see my patent lawyer. Wish me luck.
jmg94j 8 months ago
@jmg94j "He doesn't know that." did you even listen to his argument? How do you know what a person can or cannot know? He's allowed to hypothesize right? Isn't he allowed to take the information that he has and build a hypothesis? you assume that unless he has perfect knowledge he can't assert ANYTHING. thats simply silly.
mike10121996 8 months ago
@mike10121996 He is not basing his wild guess on information, he is basing it on ignorance and his own personal beliefs. Like I said before, we don't know enough about the universe to know if the big bang happened naturally or if it needed a supernatural cause. I do not accept the idea of perfect knowledge so how could I assume the WLC needs it? Why is WLC allowed to assert that one being created the universe and not 2 or more? Why can't I assert that Klingons did it?
jmg94j 8 months ago
@jmg94j "Why can't I assert that Klingons did it?" Go right ahead, go ahead and assert a klingon did it. But I find it rather odd that WLC is NOT allowed to have his "personal beliefs" affect his theories, but your atheism IS allowed to affect your beliefs. As to the BB happening naturally, THATS the very problem what natural explanation IS there? Saying I don't know, but I sure know it's NOT designed by a being outside the universe looks just as biased, if not more.
mike10121996 8 months ago
@mike10121996 You are obviously a smart guy. It is too bad that won't use your intellectual prowiss to help advance civilization instead of helping WLC drag us all backwards into the dark ages of superstition and ignorance. I would bet that you too could make discoveries and perhaps own a few patents. What is even more depressing is thinking about how many millions of great minds were laid waste by the cancer that is religion. I guess only the Klingons will ever know.
jmg94j 8 months ago
@jmg94j "backwards into the dark ages of superstition and ignorance." ALmost all historians of the early middle ages disavow the use of the term, dark ages. What's really pathetic is that if the church did no preserve the knowledge, we wouldn't have anything. The church WAS the center of learning and education for hundreds of years. Just because they had different values that us now doesn't mean it was "dark". Humanist polemics not actual history.
mike10121996 8 months ago
@jmg94j "because I can't prove that if a God/s does/do exist...they, must exist in this universe" There is NOTHING about the premise " I cannot prove God exists." That warrants the conclusion therefore "such a being MUST exist within the universe" There is nothing about that argument that even remotely comes close to that conclusion. At best is proves you cannot reason logically. you have 1 premise and a conclusion that has nothing in common with the conclusion except the word God.
mike10121996 8 months ago
@mike10121996 cont'd.. The other problem with your assertion that a supernatural being caused the universe to begin with the big bang is that the big bang was not the beginning of the universe. The universe existed before the big bang it just existed in a different state, as a singularity. So let me flip it around on you. What is your proof of your assertion that it was a non physical, non energy, timeless, changeless being that caused the big bang and not beings? Why did it have to be only one?
jmg94j 8 months ago
@jmg94j "The universe existed before the big bang it just existed in a different state, as a singularity" based upon what evidence? you say it did? Is that evidence. You say you don't want to believe something just because I say so. But what is your evidence that there WAS a universe prior to the big bang? Your say so?
mike10121996 8 months ago
@jmg94j ". What is your proof of your assertion that it was a non physical," A) it's not my assertion it's WLC. 2) His argument is that what ever CAUSED the big bang cannot be physical (since it didn't exist) energy, (since it didn't exist yet) and timeless (because time wasn't created yet) That's how. Are you saying energy that didn't exist prior to the BB is responsible FOR the big bang? How would that be possible?
mike10121996 8 months ago
@jmg94j "which states that "everything that exists in the universe needs to have a first cause" patently false assertion about the first cause, which is why your argument isn't well thought out. The first premise is "what ever BEGINS to exist has a cause." By deliberately changing the first premise you deliberately misconstrue the argument. God, according to WLC, does not begin to exist, hence needs no first cause.
mike10121996 8 months ago
@jmg94j " to show that an outside of the universe is even possible." the entire universe gravity, matter, energy, began 13 billion years ago in the big bang. What ever CAUSED the big bang must be a non physical non energy timeless changeless being that is NOT part of the universe itself. Otherwise you have something WITHIN the universe CAUSING the very universe to begin. As WLC states metaphysically silly.
mike10121996 8 months ago
@mike10121996 Natives on south pacific Islands concluded that whatever caused the big bang from the fire mountain spewing ash and lava everywhere must be a non physical non energy timeless changeless being that is NOT part of the universe itself. It is a natural assumption to make when you know nothing about the world around you. We are like those natives. We don't know enough about the universe yet to make those kind of assertions about the big bang. Yes you are making an assertion. contd..
jmg94j 8 months ago
@jmg94j " We don't know enough about the universe yet to make those kind of assertions" Oh but you do. In your very next post you assert that the universe existed in a "different state" prior to the big bang. Exactly how do you know that? That assertion has less evidence than natives in the south pacific. at least THEY had an erupting volcano. What do you have? Nothing.
mike10121996 8 months ago
@jmg94j " The physical world is real because you and I can see, and feel it." Once again very nievete philosophically. What makes something real? some people have intricate hallucinations Can you PROVE we're all not in some matrix like environment? No, of course not. But is it rational to argue it? No. but the question is about PROOF not rationality. More over you use the "proof enough" which isn't absolutely irrefutable, but merely a subjective standard thats HARDLY aboslute
mike10121996 8 months ago
@jmg94j " We have written accounts from several sources that Julius Ceasar was assasinated" Sure but can you proves absolutely that they are not lying? Isn't that what you make Christians do? Prove the gospel accounts are NOT lying in order to prove they are reliable. How do you know these accounts are not unreliable? Moreover there's ZERO empirical evidence that Caesar WAS murdered, no blood, no knife, no body, no nothing.
mike10121996 8 months ago
@jmg94j "If your wife tells you that she loves you, that is proof enough." that's hilarious!!! you demand absolute irrefutable empirical evidence that God exists. Yet you take your wifes "word for it" Are you saying it's impossible for her to lie? Or that she is only deluding herself into thinking she's lying? Moreover "proof enough" is a relative subjective measurement. Your demanding absolute irrefutable empirical proof when it comes to God, why not demand the same of my wife?
mike10121996 8 months ago
@mike10121996 When did I say I wanted absolute proof? I have never met a scientist who accepts the idea of absolute proof. In my experience absolutes are something only religious people believe in so it is logical for me to conclude that you are neither a scientist, nor an atheist troll just checking my logic. Do I know that absolutely, no, but that is my hypothesis based on the evidence that I have. All we humans can do is try to come to the best conclusions possible with the evidence we have.
jmg94j 8 months ago
@jmg94j "When did I say I wanted absolute proof?" Oh well my apologies, Most atheist demand absolute irrefutable empirical proof. It is a rare atheist indeed who does NOT demand it. Since you are not I'm fine with that. So since we are not longer demanding absolute proof we are talking about reasonable proof. correct?
Do you have any reasonable proof that if a god exists it MUST exist within the universe?
mike10121996 8 months ago
@jmg94j " All we humans can do is try to come to the best conclusions possible with the evidence we have." Now THAT is a reasonable and enlightened assertion. Do you think WLC has NOT drawn the best conclusion possible with the evidence at hand?
mike10121996 8 months ago
@mike10121996 You accused me of arguing from ignorance. Back it up. How was I arguing from ignorance? How is proving your foundational premise of the existence of god a red herring? This is what your whole story hinges on.
ptango101 8 months ago
@ptango101 "How is proving your foundational premise of the existence of god a red herring?" 1) you never proved anything, the best you came up with was I can't disprove God so God MUST be within the universe,an invalid argument. 2) You threw out repeated demands that I prove miracles, that I prove God exists, that I prove this that and the other. When I clearly never asserted anything. It's a red herring because none of these issues demonstrates your argument true OR false, irrelevant. RH
mike10121996 8 months ago
@ptango101 "This is what your whole story hinges on." My story? Im not the one who asserted anything, I merely asked YOU to prove your asserts true. You keep shifting the burden of proof TO ME who has never asserted anything. You keep demanding that my story hangs on this or the other. The only story I've presented is that YOU don't know logic very well and you've repeatedly demonstrated that.
mike10121996 8 months ago
@mike10121996 " "evidence" to ONLY mean physical object that directly prove something""
What the hell are you talking about? Do you have big evidence (as I defined it) for your big claims? I find it intelectually dishonest when you change the meaning of the word so you can squeeze your explanation into it. I have given you the requirements for evidence. The super natural is not evidence. Science makes no comment on anything that can't be proved one way or the other.
ptango101 8 months ago
@ptango101 " Do you have big evidence (as I defined it) for your big claims? " What claims I've made no claim about anything. I never claimed God exists, I never claimed I could prove God exists. What claim have I made? As to arguing from ignorance. You began your assertion by saying that WLC hasn't proven that God exist so his arguments are false. If you demand a person is wrong simply because they haven't proven it right, that's arguing from ignorance, by definition.
mike10121996 8 months ago
@mike10121996 WLC's argument is inept and dishonest. He tries to argue that the current explanations for the beginnings of the universe and the existence of a deity are wrong because they won't take into account the myths and legends of the supernatural. If a person is wrong because they haven't proved them selves right then they are wrong. WLC is making huge claims about god's existence and he has nothing to back it up except good debating skills and philosophical ramblings that achieve nothing
ptango101 8 months ago
@ptango101 " He tries to argue that the current explanations for the beginnings of the universe and the existence of a deity are wrong because they won't take into account the myths and legends of the supernatural." No where does WLC assert this. Your just making stuff up. Not once in his KALAM argument does he mention legends or myths.
mike10121996 8 months ago
@ptango101 "except good debating skills and philosophical ramblings" I find this funny, WLC is inept but he's apparently good at debating, than by definition doesn't that mean he's NOT inept? And just because you cannot understand philosophical arguments it doesn't mean he's dishonest. It simply means you don't understand philosophy. Big surprise.
mike10121996 8 months ago
@mike10121996 Oh I understand the argument. I just think it fails as an ultimate explanation. You can be a good debator and be wrong. WLC does it all the time. He can out debate somone but that doesn't automaticaly make him right.
ptango101 8 months ago
@ptango101 " I just think it fails as an ultimate explanation." That is profoundly different than, asserting a belief that is "baseless" and ignorant. That you are not convinced, does not mean WLC is offering a baseless assertion. There are multiple reasons an person might not be convinced by a perfect good argument. One of which COULD be apriori bias. Using YOUR acceptance of a belief as the criteria of whether or not it is "baseless" demonstrates profound bias.
mike10121996 8 months ago
@ptango101 "You can be a good debator and be wrong." Thats fine but, you have not demonstrated THAT he is wrong. so far all you've done is ASSERT God MUST be considered inside the universe but only provided 1 argument, Because God is not proven, he must be considered a part of the universe. A blatantly invalid argument. So you haven't demonstrated he IS wrong all you've done is complained ABOUT him being wrong.
mike10121996 8 months ago
@mike 1) He asserts that god exists and is the explanation we are looking for that essentially answers the big questions. He offers no proof of this concept except philosophical platitudes. If you assert that you know the ultimate answer to it all you have to do a bit better than that. I could disagree or agree with this as a philosophical argument because that 's all it is. We could discuss this solidly for a month and nothing would be achieved. I have been talking about using testable science
ptango101 8 months ago
@ptango101 "He asserts that god exists and is the explanation we are looking for" 1) that's not what this video is about. Its' about Dawkins assertion that there must be an explanation for the the explanation. 2) God CAN be an explanation for many things but that's not why most christians follow God. It's has little to do with explanation, atheist polemics as if we don't know something and make it up, its about interacting with the divine, not proving it.
mike10121996 8 months ago
@ptango101 " He offers no proof of this concept except philosophical platitudes." Calling something "Philosophical platitudes" is a fantastic way of ignoring his reason and logic. He's not issuing platitudes he is using reason in order to understand his experiences. That you don't believe it doesn't mean he using platitudes. Nothing happens without a cause is not merely a platitude its a logical rule of our universe. Calling it such, is to trivialize it.
mike10121996 8 months ago
@mike10121996 I'm not ignoring his logic. It all sounds very plausable up until he asserts there is logically a god and he is an immaterial mind and spirit. Not only is he asserting that this entity exists but he is commenting on it's physical, or lack there of, make up. WTF! Where does this information come from? Do we just have to accept this as a given? What information source led him to maker a cut and dry statement like that?
ptango101 8 months ago
@ptango101 " What information source led him to maker a cut and dry statement like that?" do you not listen? He said that what ever made universe cannot material, timeless changeless being. Aristotle and plato millennia ago proposed such a being, called the unmoved mover. People through out time have believed in the existence of things that simply not material but immaterial.
mike10121996 8 months ago
@mike 2) This is because he is essentially trying to argue a scientific point. How did the universe begin. If we can answer this practically then practical application can be derived from it. If we just rubber stamp it with “god did it” then you achieve nothing. At the end of the video he asserts that god is “immaterial, a mind without a body”. Does he have proof of this or is this just what needs to said to make his claims true?
ptango101 8 months ago
@mike 3) This is the problem. If you are going to argue against science then you need to do it scientifically. You and I can go on and on about why you think it's impossible to prove history or the concept of ethics but that's a whole different argument and a pain in the arse to do with a 500 word limit. If you dig his silly ramblings then good for you. I think his excuses for god and why he must be so are built on a house of cards that answers absolutely nothing.
ptango101 8 months ago
@ptango101 " If you are going to argue against science then you need to do it scientifically." That' silly. Why must I ONLY argue against science using scientific rules. Science would be no where with out logic. Its wouldn't even get off the ground. The fact of the matter is your entire argument as to why WLC is wrong hinges upon your assertion that God MUST be considered part of the universe. YET you have provided ZERO logic nor reasoning for this assertion. Who's acting illogically?
mike10121996 8 months ago
@mike10121996 Of course you must argue against science scientifically. If you don't you are just blathering on and wasting everyone's time.
""Science would be no where with out logic""
Of course it would. Logic is integral to the scientific process. What exactly do you think science is? Are you against science? Don't you think science employs logic?
ptango101 8 months ago
@ptango101 "Of course you must argue against science scientifically." Says who? once again an assertion that MUST be true because ptango says so. Who are you Mike to question what ptango101 says.? Of course everyone in the whole universe knows that if ptango101 says it... it must be so. Why? Because he says it, and if you don't agree he'lljust say your blathering, and wasting time. How dare you question ptango101's assertion?
mike10121996 8 months ago
@mike10121996 So do you argue agasinst science with unscirentific arguments? That's not just my opinion. This is why creationism fails. You can't argue against somthing like evolution and common decent with a religious argument. Do you understand this? If you think a theory is wrong then you have to show the reasons why and why they are a better set of evidences.
ptango101 8 months ago
@ptango101 "So do you argue agasinst science with unscirentific arguments?" There are other kinds of reasoning. For example philosophical reasoning or historical reasoning is not scientific reasoning, but philosophical reasoning is NOT unscientific reasoning. That you are incapable of understanding that non scientific reasoning does not automatically mean it is unscientific is not my fault. Just because something is NOT scientific doesn't mean its UNscientific.
mike10121996 8 months ago
@mike 4) If you have to start playing verbal gymnastics with words like proof, belief and evidence then my first thought is you have to make excuses for what you are saying and it's not going to be a scientific argument. This is fine when it's NOT a scientific argument. You wouldn't ramble on with philosophy if you were talking about entropy in closed systems or why a binary star follows a particular orbit would you?
ptango101 8 months ago
@ptango101 "If you have to start playing verbal gymnastics" Im not playing verbal word games. 1) i want to make sure the words we use are understood properly, 2) MOST philosophical arguments like this FAIL because people are sloppy and lazy with the terms they use. Philosophy is about clarifying how we use term so that they are properly employed. 3) I'm not making excuse for ANYTHING. I'm simply pointing out YOUR arguments have no logical basis ie God MUST be a part of the universe.
mike10121996 8 months ago
@ptango101 "about entropy in closed systems or why a binary star follows a particular orbit ..." Yes but your making a philosophical argument about metaphysics. Your arguing that a being who, if exists, could have created everything, your argument is that this being MUST be part of the universe for no other reason than that YOU SAY SO. You want to make philosophical arguments and claims than BPT to defend those claims. Otherwise stop whining.
mike10121996 8 months ago
@mike10121996 Stop whining about my arguments and put up one of your own. Do you agree with him? What makes this a good argument? What evidence (or definition of) do you think is adequate to make his argument correct? You accuse me of complaining about him being wrong. Well why don't you stop complaining about me and give us your argument.
ptango101 8 months ago
@ptango101 "put up one of your own." Why? I never asserted God exists or does not exist. Why can't you just defend your own assertions. You made them, you defend them. Why must I put up something of my "own"? Why can't you just defend your own assertions and defend your own claims. Isn't this exactly what you do with theist? They make claims and you atheist attack them and make theist defend their claims? Why is it unfair of me to ask you to defend your own claims when you do the same?
mike10121996 8 months ago
@ptango101 "You accuse me of complaining about him being wrong." are you saying that your NOT saying his arguments are wrong? You are the one who has said his arguments are wrong. doesn't that mean you have the burden to prove in fact that his arguments ARE wrong? So far all you've done is assert something about God you haven't been able to give 1 valid reason for? Why should I assert anything when you haven't even proven WLC wrong?
mike10121996 8 months ago
@mike10121996 "are you saying that your NOT saying his arguments are wrong?"
What is wrong with you. Are all those other posts just a waste of time? You seem to not really be following anything I am saying. Is it because of the format or are you being obstructive. I told you time and time again why this argument fails not on a philosophical level but a scientific one.
""Why should I assert anything when you haven't even proven WLC wrong?""
Then is he right? Why?
ptango101 8 months ago
@ptango101 " why this argument fails not on a philosophical level but a scientific one." you haven't said one thing about it. You've asserted one thing that IF God exists he MUST be considered part of the universe,I asked why that was true, and your response was: Because I don't believe in God, God MUST Be a part of the universe. Nothing in there even logically follows a coherent train of thought. There isn't scientific evidence for this, it's just an assertion with no evidence.