I mirrored this because I find WLC's cosmological argument problematic. Indeed, I find all apologetic arguments problematic because they conveniently ignore the fact that it is impossible to define or argue anything other than a concept into existence. The Bible does not constitute evidence for the veridicality of its claims. Weasel categories such as ineffability and the "supernatural" do not rescue apologetic argument from the fatal flaw of total lack of evidence where evidence ought to exist.
The very fact that Craig has been forced to define an *impossible* creator demonstrates that no such agency exists. His attempt to define his fantasy out of reach of falsification has led to a truly ludicrous conceptualization.
Whereas the Lambda-CDM model, like all scientific models, can be revised if contradictory evidence is found, the fact that there is absolutely NO evidence for a creator indicates that the fantasy should be scrapped along with dualism.
"William Lane Craig is finally brought to his senses about cosmological realities and arguments for the existence of "God" ;^/
Lawrence M. Krauss is an internationally known theoretical physicist and author of several bestselling books including "The Physics of Star Trek " His research interests include the interface between elementary particle physics and cosmology. He is foundation professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration, a professor in the physics department and director of the Origins Initiative at Arizona State University.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss
http://krauss.faculty.asu.edu/
http://www.q2cfestival.com/play.php?lecture_id=7742
Funny and fascinating:
'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
Lawrence Krauss Discussion (1/12) - Richard Dawkins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLctxRf7duU
William Lane Craig is an American philosopher and theologian known for his contributions to the philosophy of religion, the philosophy of time, philosophical theology, and historical Jesus studies. He is currently a Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University (a private, non-denominational, evangelical Christian, liberal arts university located near Los Angeles.
William Lane Craig has used essentially the same failed arguments repeatedly. This footage comes from an old debate with Anthony Flew. Craig has modified an old cosmological argument (Kalām) that originated with al-Ghazali. I have edited the video for accuracy. His uncorrected argument holds:
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Neither premise 1 nor 2 is established. Instead, Craig relies upon the fact that the commonsense lay- view, based on living in a Newtonian world, renders these premises acceptable on the basis of simple experience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument
The Cassiopeia Project makes science education videos freely available.
http://www.cassiopeiaproject.com/
http://www.cassiopeiaproject.com/videos2.php
ΛCDM or Lambda-CDM is an abbreviation for Lambda-Cold Dark Matter. It is frequently referred to as the concordance model of big bang cosmology, since it attempts to explain cosmic microwave background observations, as well as large scale structure observations and supernovae observations of the accelerating expansion of the universe. It is the simplest model that is in general agreement with observed phenomena.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
http://www.newuniverse.co.uk/Lambda-CDM_model.html "
Original video by:
http://www.youtube.com/user/musekiteer
3:10 - 3:22
"Our new picture of cosmology is that we live in a universe dominated by nothing... 70 percent of the energy in the universe resides in empty space."
Ahem... since energy resides there, it's not technically 'empty space.'
ScottishProfessor 1 year ago 4
@ScottishProfessor
Which is why he say's "nothing isn't nothing anymore." You are nitpicking.
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago 2
@EvolvedAtheist My apologies, didn't mean to come across as nit picky, just making a point; point being that there is something everywhere and "literally no thing" hasn't been found anywhere :) There are just...,well... 'things.'
ScottishProfessor 1 year ago
@ScottishProfessor
Brevity is the soul of confusion. This video attracts a lot of pseudo-intellectual creationist nonsense, so I apologize for misunderstanding your intent.
Lawrence is rather tongue-in-cheek about "nothing" and "empty." The full lecture is very good -- I linked to it in the description box.
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago