Beyond The Big Bang: William Lane Craig Templeton Foundation Lecture at UC (HQ) 6/6

William Lane Craig delivers the 2004 Templeton Foundation lecture at the University of Colorado, Boulder, laying out the case from contemporary cosmology for the beginning of the universe and its theological implications.

Video in High Quality

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Big
• Bang
• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Templeton
• Foundation
• Lecture
• Theism
• Atheism
• Cosmology

[Mathenaut]

Craig makes a number of logical leaps in this.

- Timeless does not imply changeless.

- Beginning of our universe does not imply creation by agent.

- His explanation for why such an agent must be personal is outright BS.

- An agent existing before the beginning of our universe doesn't imply, in any way, that said agent is a single, all-powerful entity; much less one without cause itself.

It doesn't end there. He makes one jump after another to squeeze his god into a well-known gap.

Typical.

[Christianjr4]

You didn't exactly say much with those points.

How does timeless not imply changeless? I can't at all see how something can change without time.

If the universe began to exist, then it's plausible that it had a cause, therefore it does imply an agent. As for the personal aspect, well unless you think something like abstract numbers caused the universe, I don't see anything particularly "BS" about that either.

His points clearly stand. You haven't said anything to refute them.

[Mathenaut]

"I can't at all see how something can change without time."

This isn't saying much.

"If the universe began to exist, then it's plausible that it had a cause, therefore it does imply an agent."

Cause =/= creation. This does not affirm your agent.

"As for the personal aspect, well unless you think something like abstract numbers caused the universe, I don't see anything particularly "BS" about that either."

Argument from ignorance.

You have not properly addressed my objections.

[Christianjr4]

You still haven't said anything new. Here let me state it another way.

How does something change if there is no time to allow it to change. If it's timeless, it's static. To undergo change, you would need time to do so. Am I missing something?

As for agent, I took that to mean cause, since it seemed you were using it that manner. I see now you mean it in the standard sense of the word.

For the personal aspect, how is it an argument from ignorance? It's an argument for it based on what we know

[PobjedaIstine]

@JusJuiceIt 3. According to The Catholic Encyclopaedia, Mary was 12 yrs old when she gave birth to Jesus. So if we are going to make judgements based on our modern standards, she would be a little girl too. So are you ready to attribute the characteristics you mentioned of Muhammed on your god Yahweh? Because according to your doctrine he should be held responsible for this.

[PobjedaIstine]

@JusJuiceIt 2. Furthermore, your claims about the Prophet(pbuh) are misguided and twisted. The issue of the 9 yr old wife should be understd in terms of the environment, mentality, circumstances and time period of the people. All of these factors determined the age of consensual sex and marriage. So when making a statement these factors should play a part. By the way, it was extremeley insulting the way you said "he had sex with a little girl" and it just shows your level of intellect.

[PobjedaIstine]

@JusJuiceIt 5. My last point is that the Qur'anic view is definitely more historically plausible than the Biblical, bcos it is much more historically probable that a person who was seen after his alleged death (which was not witnessed by his close companions) did not actually die in the first place, isn't it? This is actually what the Qur'an says (4:157 "...the didn't kill him, neither they crucified him BUT it appeared that way to them...") This explains why he was seen afterwards. Peace.

[PobjedaIstine]

@JusJuiceIt 4. As a Bible believing Christian you should never boast about having conventiional history as a criterion. Because even if you can disprove the Qur'an on the point of Jesus' death and resurrection (which you can't) you are still stuck with Matthew 27:51 (saints coming out of graves) which would be laughable to every historian. This is only one example I am pointing out, there are countless others including the many contradictions in the gospels etc...

[PobjedaIstine]

@JusJuiceIt 1. Greetings, The reason I posted my initial comment is because what Dr Craig is presenting here is in harmony with my Islamic Faith and in fact was developed by Islamic Philosophers over 1000 years ago. But from the nature of your comments I can see that this may be a little too much for you to grasp. You may be best to stick with David Wood or Sam Shamoun etc...Anyhow, I thought it was better for me to remove my comment because I don't have time to reply to this type of discourse.

[JusJuiceIt]

@PobjedaIstine

who was just a plain and sinful person! like you and me!.. how can he, a mere man.. be placed in the same category as Jesus..

I urge you to look into what i said my friend.. i wouldn't of wrote all that if i didn't care!

[JusJuiceIt]

@PobjedaIstine

willing to go against the majority of people who spend there lives on this, all because a man named Muhammad came 600 years after the death of Jesus and made up his own story because he thought an angel came to him? My friend, logic is logic.. and these are the facts!

But you no whats funny, i dont see how at all, a man like Jesus, who was perfect, never sinned, can be in the same category like Muhammad, who has killed! who had sex with a little girl! who had manyyyy wives!

[JusJuiceIt]

@PobjedaIstine

but certainly, you can not undermine the decision these intellectual men and women who spend there lives finding out, who exactly this Jesus was.. now im not saying, oh look see, i just gave you these statistics, now i expect you to change your mind and become a Christian, No! not at all, but i am saying, look at these statistics, for what they are, by saying no i still dont accept the fact that Jesus died on a cross for the sin of man, and then rose again in 3 days, are you

[JusJuiceIt]

@PobjedaIstine

75% of scholars and nearly every historian who investigates the historicity of Jesus, come to agreement with three facts:

- his death on a cross

- his empty tomb

- his appearances to the disciples (many would define that as a resurrection)

these are three facts that the majority of scholars and nearly every historian who investigates the life of Jesus come to agreement with! now i understand that the majority of a group if they agree on something, doesn't make it true..

[JusJuiceIt]

@PobjedaIstine

i no its been two years since you wrote your comment but i felt i needed to respond. I very much agree with you! and im happy to read you liked Dr. Craigs lecture.. but if i may, id like to share something with you.. these statistics are fact, please ask me to see proof if you dont believe me! ill send you 3 different links from 3 different people, 1 scholar (Dr. Craig) and two of the worlds top historians on the topic, who will say the exact same thing i am going to say!