Did God Create From Nothing? --William Lane Craig

Well known international investment banker, scholar and scientist Robert Lawrence Kuhn interviews Christian philosopher William Lane Craig on the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing).

Category:

Education

Tags:

• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Cosmology
• God
• Creation
• Nothing

[kadene2]

@DougsDreamDotCom He insists on using philosophical arguments when scientific explanations suffice.

[DougsDreamDotCom]

@kadene2 I'm sure he already read it and can debate him with out a problem...lol...he is an academic legend and great philosopher even atheist academics acknowledge this.

[kadene2]

Craig needs to read Lawrence Krauss's new book. It dissolves all his philosophical babble. Here, science trumps stone age beliefs born of fear and ignorance..

[AegeanKing]

@gvman3670 No, they didnt just say it was a possibility. They said a STRONG case can be made for it. Thats much different than just declaring the possibility of it. Secondly, the reason its absurd to believe that the Universe popped into existence from non-being is because its metaphysically impossible. Non-being has no properties or potentialities. Craig cites many sources hundreds of times on his podcasts and debates. You need to research his work before criticizing him.

[gvman3670]

@AegeanKing Furthermore, the more I listen to him the more I see him talking BS. No data, no references to data and so on. Just one assertion after another with nothing to back it up.

What is wrong with seeing the universe's beginnings, whatever they may be, being caused by natural laws? I would think the odds are extremely high that's the case, since nothing else is created by a who unless humans are the who.

[gvman3670]

@AegeanKing No, those guys were being intellectually honest. No more and no less. They are still atheists (as in they don't believe any god claims). Just stating that a deistic god is a possibility doesn't mean they believe it. They do NOT believe in a personal god, though, and you couldn't make them believe that. No evidence and nothing but inconsistencies are why.

[gvman3670]

@AegeanKing I'm not being dishonest. His presuppositons are dishonest. We don't KNOW the universe was a creation, yet his entire argument presupposes it is. "the cause of the David"....don't you get it? The realistic way to view his argument is that the universe is a block of marble, not as the David. Get it?

[AegeanKing]

@gvman3670 He's not making the claim for a deistic God. My point in telling you that Krauss and Dawkins say that a strong case can be made for a deistic God, is significant because they believe that a strong case can be made for a type of God. That assertion is miles away from the strong atheism they pretend to assert.

[AegeanKing]

@gvman3670 He did give evidence. If time, space and matter had a beginning, that means whatever created the universe must have been timeless, space-less and immaterial. Then he gives a solid argument on why that cause must be personal as well. Listen to him instead of being intellectually dishonest.

[JuggernaughtJump]

@gvman3670 I could be aware of this argument just now that people accuses you of being an atheist. Or maybe are not an atheist. But what good does it do when you are uncertain of your views eg agnostic. "I don't know" - is not an answer. Just heard how this protestant says something about "sheltering theology". I may put it, God is not science. But it sounds a bit of a compliment for me. How about science is not God.