Can God's Existence be Demonstrated? (William Lane Craig)

Robert Lawrence Kuhn (host of PBS' "Closer to Truth") asks philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig about whether God's existence can be demonstrated or not. Questions explored: Can you demonstrate God's existence mathematically? Does an argument have to convince everybody in order for it to be valid? What are some of the best arguments for God's existence? What is the Cosmological Argument? What is Leibniz's argument for God's existence? Does the contingency argument depend on a universe having a beginning? What is the Teleological Argument? What is meant by Fine-Tuning and Intelligent Design? Can the universe be "designed" by chance? What is the moral argument for God? Is the moral argument just an assumption? What is the difference between an assumption and intuition? Do all cultures really have different morals? What is meant by "objective morality"? How does Jesus' resurrection demonstrate God's existence? What are some of the evidences of Jesus' death that the majority of historical scholars agree with? What is the ontological argument? What is meant by necessary existence? What is meant by possible worlds? Are religious experiences philosophically valid? Does everything must have evidence (and arguments) prior to acceptance? Can you disprove with arguments and evidences that you are nothing more than a brain in a vat? Can you disprove with arguments and evidences that you were just made five minutes ago with built-in memories that gave you the illusion of being made longer than that? What is meant by a properly basic belief? How are they not arbitrary? What is a "defeater"? Is there an absolute psychological profile for religious people? Is God just a Freudian projection? What is something that is self-authenticating?

Playlist: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=165E8B200ED4D44F

Closer to Truth: http://www.closertotruth.com

Video index of Dr. William Lane Craig: http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com

Category:

Education

Tags:

• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Cosmological
• Moral
• Ontological
• Teleological
• Argument
• God
• Experience
• Jesus
• Nazareth
• Resurrection
• Properly
• Basic
• Belief
• Christian
• Apologetics
• Religion
• Philosophy
• Robert
• Lawrence
• Kuhn
• Closer
• to
• Truth

[drcraigvideos]

@VitalSigns1 LOL! Uhm, okay, the laws of logic are uncaused and never came into being (because they're necessary), that doesn't mean they don't exist, genius.

[drcraigvideos]

@Ag8MrE Well, if you actually watched this video, you'd see why the first cause can't be fairies at the bottom of the Garden (for one, the first cause is immaterial). However, you can't say it wasn't fairies at the bottom of the garden since you admitted you don't know. So, dude, keep laughing at yourself. I know I"m laughing at you.

[1tabligh]

The Manifestations of God in Nature!

Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?

When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?

[kaliber1234]

@Ramiromasters 4) We do have empirical evidence. Most cultures think unjustified murder or theft is wrong. Is child abuse ever right even if a culture permits it?

[svenypoodles]

1. Just because something must preclude the universe does not mean that it's 'God'. Certainly not the God of any texts. That's an unfounded leap.

2. All improbable events if given enough time will occur. Intelligent Design is another unfounded leap.

3. Kohlberg and Piaget explain how morality comes to be. Morals are not objective.

4. There is no evidence other than texts written lifetimes after jesus death that can confirm the jesus story.

5. You can't define something into existence.

[needtoalwayslearn]

@Ramiromasters Consider only point (4) above:

Would you consider performing violence against a stranger a non-objective (ie. a relative) moral value? Assume that the stranger has not injured or violated you in any way.

From a more general point of view, would you consider all facts to be empirically testable ? If your answer is NO, when then are facts supposed to be empirically testable ie what is the criteria for testing facts like yours where objective morality doesn't exist ?

[EdyMar77]

@TheRebelOfTyrus Good arguments , tell me one argument that does not contains fallacies.

[Inverita1]

@Ramiromasters Part 2:

3. Correct! Any system of complexity would be observed as needing a cause. This is a huge reason for disbelief in evolution. No matter the size of a system (universe or cell), complexity causes improbability for belief in self creating systems, which is why there is a need for a creator.

4. I disagree. Whether theist or atheist, there appears to be an inate set of morals within all cultures through time, hence objective morality. Even many atheists agree.

[Inverita1]

@Ramiromasters

Part 1:

Hello, I disagree with some of your assertions.

1. A place of existence can be contained within self system of existance. For instance, where does the universe exist if there is nothing outside itself?

2. According to science, the singularity is the point at which all energy (including magnetic fields) were condensed to a single point. Therefore everywhere but that singularity would be empty.

to be continued...

[Ramiromasters]

Flash Debunk:

1. Claiming God always existed is no different than saying the universe always existed because where would God exist if there where no places to be...

2. Humans can imagine nothing, but a completely empty space have never been observed, not even in space, there are magnetic fields everywhere.

3. Any universe capable of life, would be complex and look so to living creatures.

4. There is in fact no objective moral values, as there is no empirical good or bad.

[drcraigvideos]

@julhund I wonder if you read Krauss' book because he does NOT believe the universe came from literally nothing. Sorry, but the qunatum vacuum is not nothing.

[julhund]

@drcraigvideos read Lawrence Krauss book, A Universe From Nothing...you are the one who have no idea what you're talking about. it's not all about virtual particles. read some real books and educate yourself

[mytruepower2]

But again, as Doctor Craig has said many times, discerning objective moral values and grounding objective moral values are two different things. Still, I think it helps that we can indeed discern objective moral values using a simple process of logic like this one.

[mytruepower2]

I would propose that the grounds for the moral argument is definitely as strong as the others. Honest thought is needed to study physical reality.

Objective morality can be discerned by a study of physical reality with sufficient intellectual honesty (for example, I shouldn't kill other intelligent beings, because then, to be honest, I as an intelligent being would need to allow myself to be killed.)

This is the method I've been using to establish objective morality.

[TheRebelOfTyrus]

It is not likely that Dr. Craig and I would agree on all matters equally, but it is refreshing to encounter a theist who presents good arguments. I believe religious communities would garner a far superior level of respect if they had leaders of Craig's caliber. Alas, he is too intelligent for the average Christian (or atheist) to understand. If there is ever going to be peace in our world, we must heavily reform our education systems. Read about the Nordic model, and stop fearing socialists.

[drcraigvideos]

@stargasm1 Actually, I'm not Dr. Craig. But Dr. Craig has two PhDs - one in theology, the other in philosophy.

[stargasm1]

@drcraigvideos Hi, Doctor Craig. What is your degree in? I thought you were a theologian? Are you a scientist?

[TheOrthodoxSteven]

While I agree with many of the arguments Dr. Craig puts forward here, I side with Immanuel Kant when it comes to the ontological argument: existence is not a predicate! In other words, the trouble with ontological argument is that by taking existence as a predicate, it proves too much--not just the existence of God but of any conceivable being and, therefore, is ultimately meaningless. As Kant put it, it falls into "miserable tautology."

[drcraigvideos]

@skuterixas91 Thank you for this comment. However, Craig is a protestant.

[skuterixas91]

@kenzo4000

well Craig is catholic and he finds comfort in religious vallues and also knows a great deal about history of world and can quote Bible perfectly he is really one of a kind i really like his views and he is really appealing as a person i'd love to see one of his speeches opposed to Dawkins who is almost psychopathic and a reall coward

[kenzo4000]

Craig had some very good points, all up until the 9th minute. I wish he didn't have these kind of specific religious beliefs.

[itheemartian]

Moral values are relative, not objective. We have an objective in our relative moral values, but that doesn't make morals objective.

[tonkrogerio]

@julhund No one said anything about proving. At least not in the video. You on the other hand...

[themediocrenontheist]

@WageASPSlaves "You're" presumably a grown man who has the universe all figured out, yet you just employed the possessive 'your' when you should have used "you're." Call me a grammar Nazi, say that I'm splitting hairs, but I guarantee you that Hitchens, Dawkins, Craig, damn, even Douglas WILSON would be literate enough, educated enough, not to make an elementary school error like that...before going too deep into the pool, be sure you don't need arm-floaties...

[HKOverlord117]

@indoctus41 Unfortunately, the tenets of philosophy have no basis in scientific study.

[drcraigvideos]

@julhund There are many things that don't need a cause. Also, when it comes to quantum mechanics you have no idea what you're talking about. Physics does not teach that something can come from nothing. You're a victim of junk science. Get your facts straight: watch?v=Clr8uL3M7Ow

[julhund]

So everything that begins to exist has to have a cause...except god...how convenient.

Quantum mechanics has proven that you can get something from nothing from random quantum fluctuations, so a god is unnecessary for explaining the existence of the universe.

Science grows every year and expands our knowledge of how things work, but everytime a theist's strongest argument for "proving" god, is explained in natural ways, they just ignore that and make up something else to cling to their belief