Beyond The Big Bang: William Lane Craig Templeton Foundation Lecture Q&A (HQ) 3/4

[tylerjamessharp88]

Is that Peter Singer sitting behind Michael Tooley at 3:15?

[notnilccm]

WOW finally a Craig video that has not disabled comments! Why is this guy such a chicken shit to allow anyone to make a comment on his idiotic babbling.

[thetraceur123]

@notnilccm So stupid people like you would stop babbling and start reasoning...

[notnilccm]

@thetraceur123 Nice reasoning! Disable comments so we can reason. Sorry to learn of your mental challenges.

[DigitalDecadence]

This entire lecture is purely awesome. Second time I'm watching it, and I can't get over the subjects raised. :>

[Purushadasa]

CONCLUSION:

God never began to exist -- He exists eternally, untouched by creation and destruction.

Modern science has shown conclusively that the universe began to exist, and since everything with a beginning has an external cause, the universe has an external cause.

That cause is God, just as Theists have always known, and just as the irrefutable factual conclusions of modern science attest.

[Purushadasa]

Modern science has proven conclusively and irrefutably that the universe began to exist. Anything that begins to exist has an external cause. Therefore the universe has an external cause.

Modern science confirms what Theists have known for millennia, and modern science also proves that atheism is utter nonsense.

atheist total fail

[Purushadasa]

Point out an empirical example of a hiccup without a hiccuper, and you will gain a modicum of credibility. Until you do so, you are just talking pure nonsense.

Everybody with a brain knows that a hiccup requires a living being to perform the hiccup, you dolt.

[Purushadasa]

Same goes for your insane theory of a so-called "unobserved phenomenon." Provide empirical evidence for one, or basically, shut up. Of course you will do neither -- the atheist never does.

Now you will proceed to post another clump of retarded nonsense without providing any evidence for it. That is my prediction -- go ahead.

[theansible]

@Purushadasa

wait :D hang on! are you seriously asking me for evidence for an unobserved event? i hope you see the humour in that :)

i could provide you with an example of one tho, but i will admit that it's a little cheesy: supernovae are unobserved until the light from them reaches earth. so one 10000 light years away is unobserved for 10000 years. however, they have already occured and would therefore classify as an unobserved event during those 10000 years.

[Purushadasa]

You posited an unobserved event -- the responsibility for providing evidence for it is yours. It's not so much that I asked you for the evidence, I just reminded you of your responsibility of providing evidence for your flimsy position. You still have to provide the evidence, or it will remain nothing but your own unsupported, illogical, irrational, personal belief.

BTW, your above post contains no evidence either, just more of your silly, unsupported personal beliefs.

[theansible]

does a tree falling in the forest make a noise if noone is there to hear the crash? that's basically what you are asking. i say it does make a noise, whether it is observed or not. events occur whether you are there to observe them or not.

now i'll give you a specific event: the 1987 supernova occured 168000 years ago. that means that it was unobserved for 168000 years, and therefore in that period an unobserved event. that's evidence right there.

[Purushadasa]

Do you have empirical evidence of the tree you posited in your post? If not, then your question is meaningless. No, that is not what I am asking -- it is what you are asking -- don't put words in my mouth. What I am asking is in my posts, not yours.

So, according to you, it's okay to accept something as fact without any evidence? Nice!

Your so-called "evidence" is first of all not evidence at all, and secondly, it refers to an observed event not an unobserved one. Exactly how stupid are you?

[theansible]

i go out in the woods, take a picture. i then return the day after and one of the trees in the picture has fallen over. that would be evidence.

now, if noone was there when it fell, it was an unobserved event. however, we can infer from the evidence that it did happen. i now have evidence of an unobserved event.

[Purushadasa]

Wrong. The event you are describing in your hypothetical situation is an observed event, not an unobserved one. In the hypothetical situation, you are the one observing the whole event, which takes place over several days.

Check mate.

[theansible]

hardly. the result of the event is observed, which is that the tree has fallen. the event itself, the tree falling, was not observed.

results are different from events. consider shroedinger's cat. if the death of the cat in the box is the event, then the seeing the dead cat is observing the result of that event, not the event itself.

[Purushadasa]

If you didn't observe the tree falling, then you have no evidence that nobody was there.

Check mate.

[theansible]

you're joking right? fine. let's set up video surveillance to moniter the 3d space around the tree, without looking at the tree naturally. if noone is detected in the timeperiod the tree falls we can safely say that noone observed it falling.

same with schroedinger's cat: if you are in possession of the box with the cat, then you can confirm that it has not been opened.

[Purushadasa]

Wrong. You cannot say conclusively that nobody observed it falling -- someone could have tampered with your surveillance device. Besides, it is impossible to observe all around a tree without also observing the tree, numb-nuts.

You are obviously overdue for your schizoid meds, so I will be leaving this inane conversation now in search of someone sane, unlike you.

This conversation is now over, and you have been utterly defeated by dint of your ignorance and insanity.

[theansible]

i'll happily admit defeat if you do one thing: summerize the schroedinger's cat thought experiment.

and by the way, just because you can't think of a way to do something that doesn't mean it can't be done.

[theansible]

@Purushadasa

come on now. yes, actions require someone to perform them, but your hiccup example is a metaphor not an actual argument. what we are talking about are uncaused events.

i could say that the universe is an uncaused phenomenon, you could say that god did it, at which point i could reply that god is then a uncaused phenomenon. now i'll assume you'd prefer for god to be the uncaused event, none the less, that would be an example of hiccups without a hiccuper. qed

[Purushadasa]

The hiccup example is not mine. It is an atheistic theory -- I'm just injecting some sorely missed logic into it. All hiccups require a living entity to perform them, so the "cosmic hiccup" theory points very strongly to a "cosmic living entity," meaning God. I didn't come up with it, I'm just proceeding logically from the theory.

Do you have empirical evidence of an "uncaused phenomenon." No, you don't, so your theory is nonsense.

Moron, God IS the person in this example, NOT the "hiccup!"

[theansible]

your hiccup stuff is an example of the first cause argument, which is a theist argument ment to support the existence of god. it is not an atheist "theory".

i'm showing you the flaw in that argument not defending it.

first, a hiccup is a biological function, it is not an accurate analogy for the universe. second, if everything needs a cause (a painter for every painting), then what caused god. thirdly, if you maintain that god needs no cause, what is your argument for that position?

[Purushadasa]

I'm glad we both agree so-called "cosmic hiccup" theory is utter nonsense, wherever it came from.

However, your personal belief that "everything needs a cause" is unsupported by any evidence.

The logical evidence states that EVERYTHING THAT BEGAN must necessarily have an external cause, not that just "everything" needs a cause -- your personal belief, stated above, is just plain garbage.

Where is your evidence for your garbage personal belief that "everything needs a cause?" You have none.

[Purushadasa]

PS -- The "Who designed the designer" question has been thoroughly debunked as illogical and extremely ignorant, as well as not applying to the Carl Sagan's Science of Intelligent Design on any rational level.

See my Youtube Feature entitled, "Who Designed the Designer???" for complete details of its utter debunking.

[theansible]

@Purushadasa

you've misunderstood. i'm not of the opinion that everything needs a cause. my first comment was to point out that certain quantum events do not have causes.

if you wish to say that the universe began to exist then you should show that that was the case. but i can tell you right now that you couldn't, simply because you cannot peer beyond one planck time unit after the big bang. you have no way of demonstrating that the universe began.

[Purushadasa]

You have failed to provide any evidence of any event that has no cause, "quantum" or otherwise. Nobody but you has posited the personal belief that everything must have a cause, so it is definitely your personal belief, nobody else's.

Modern science has proven that the universe began to exist. You need to read a book, do some research, get an education, and stop showing yourself to be an utterly uneducated moron, because that's all you've shown here.

[Purushadasa]

Whatever begins to exist must necessarily have an external cause, and the universe is proven conclusively, by modern science, to have had a beginning -- therefore, the universe necessarily has an external cause.

All of God's revealed scriptures are in perfect accordance with the conclusions of modern science, but atheist dogma™ has missed the science boat on many issues.

atheist total fail

[theansible]

did god begin to exist?

if not, then god does not need a cause. i grant you this. but the easy objection is to say that the universe did not begin to exist. there is no way to show that it did, since we can noot peer further back than one planck time unit after the big bang. if the singularity is present before the expansion of space-time, then technically it would also classify as something that did no begin to exist, because there is no notion of time prior to the big bang.

[Purushadasa]

Modern science proves conclusively that the universe began to exist.

Check mate.

[theansible]

eh... no

science can show that the space-time that our universe occupies began to exist. science cannot currently comment on the singularity that our space-time originated from. there is no way to confirm that it (the singularity) began to exist.

[theansible]

no you've misunderstood modern cosmology. time and space began at the big bang, where space-time started to expand from the singluarity. all of our universe was in this singularity prior to that expansion. in a matter of speaking, the universe is older than the big bang, because the singularity would have to be there at the "time" of the big bang. modern science has shown that space-time began to exist, it does not mean that the singularity began to exist at the big bang.

[Purushadasa]

I'm glad that your entire post, above, is nothing but nonsense, because there is no need to refute utter nonsense: it speaks for itself.

Thank you for losing so thoroughly and so obviously and so irrevocably, and God bless you!

atheist total fail

[MetaphysicsAddict]

At 5:31 the screen quickly goes black. Just curious: Did you (or anyone else) remove any footage? I'd like to know if Mr. Tooley had anything else to say. Thanks

[Christianjr4]

@MetaphysicsAddict Hi MetaphysicsAddict. There was no footage removed, at least by me there wasn't. The black screen also appears on the DVD copy.

[MetaphysicsAddict]

Okay, thanks :)

[Purushadasa]

One questioner posits, without evidence, a so-called "cosmic hiccup" that somehow triggers the so-called "big bang." Other than the fact that it's purely speculative and has no evidence to back it up, I have no problem with his theory because we have no experience of a "hiccup" existing without a person from which the hiccup arises -- any "hiccup" necessarily implies a "hiccuper," if you will.

[Purushadasa]

The "cosmic hiccup" is essentially a personal Theistic argument, and all that remains for its completion is for the questioner to present some evidence for it.

[Purushadasa]

An additional proof for the personal nature of the necessary external cause of the universe is that, within the known universe, there is no observed or documented phenomenon in existence that is wholly impersonal, meaning wholly divorced from some person or group of persons. Therefore it is unscientific and illogical to posit a wholly impersonal external cause to the known universe, and the only alternative is a personal one.

[theansible]

any "hiccup" necessarily implies a "hiccuper,"

not neccessarily: at the quantum level cause and effect does not apply. which means, in leyman's terms, that if what started the universe was an event on the quantum level it could not have had a cause.

and what do you mean by "wholly impersonal phenomenon"? i mean, any phenomenon that we observe exist whether we observe them or not, which to me make it seem as if all observed phenomenon are wholly impersonal by definition. could you clarify?

[deathonallfronts]

Ahh, thanks. Ill go back and watch.

[deathonallfronts]

He ignores quantum tunneling as a means to get past a singularity.

[Christianjr4]

He dealt with quantum tunneling in the main part of his lecture.