The Wit of Dr. Craig - Part 15 "The Gettysburg Address of Atheism"

Table of Contents: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B5F1CFD398216BB6

William Lane Craig speaks on the outrageous claims of atheists who believe that it makes perfect logical sense that some things that begin to exist do NOT need a cause!

Links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqfoiL9_deU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvqSlggxRiA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6kMWSo-Jz0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXke0dURBZQ
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=3D6D1F904C7AC1F8

Category:

Education

Tags:

• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Gettysburg
• Address
• of
• Atheism
• Nothing
• Beginning
• Cosmological
• Argument
• Naturalism
• Quentin
• Smith
• Faith

[tititata]

Craig is among the most formidable apologists because he has a knack for manipulating language. Given his level of intelligence, I would have to assume he knows quite well what is meant by 'nothing' when it comes to physical theories of the universe; or maybe he really doesn't. Regardless, 'something' coming from 'nothing' becomes not at all unthinkable to those willing to examine the evidence under a properly defined theoretical framework. That willingness does not seem to reside with Craig.

[drcraigvideos]

@tititata Yeah, I guess Craig should be smart enough to think that something comes from nothing. Boy, are you good!

[tititata]

@drcraigvideos

No, he should be smart enough to know what is meant by 'nothing' in the world of physics. Just like everyone should be smart enough to know what is meant by a 'theory' in the world of science. I'm sad to see you are also incapable of making that distinction.

[drcraigvideos]

@tititata Uh, yeah, Craig is sure dumb for not knowing what nothing is meant in physics: watch?v=Clr8uL3M7Ow. You sure are smart. You have Craig right in the palm of your hands, don't you?

[JusJuiceIt]

@drcraigvideos

i myself am a creationist, but does that mean i believe the world is 6 thousand years old... nooo... i believe the world is billions of years old.. does that contradict the Bible in anyway..... nooo it doesnt...

"You creationists are truly sick-minded people." this wasn't very nice to say.. specially when someone believes the exact same as you

[Christlovesanimals]

His response echoes my own undeniably logical conclusions about atheism. As an intellectually honest atheist, when I realized how much faith I had to have to continue as a atheist I knew I had to take the more rational and defensible position of agnosticism.

I just didn't have enough faith to be an atheist way back then.

[Satarack]

@07Aristotle Yes, that's part of what Dr. Craig was referring to when calling this irrational. Even without equivocating, "nothing," it remains logically incoherent since it defies the principle of sufficient reason. If the universe came from nothing with no cause, then there would be no reason why just about anything couldn't also come from nothing with no cause. Dr. Craig has given more detailed explanation before:

watch?v=OvqSlggxRiA

[07Aristotle]

@Satarack The vacuum cannot be used as an argument against anything if it is stills subject to laws and therefore in space and time. Yet some physicists use at as a substitute for god which is a categorical error.

[07Aristotle]

@Satarack So the use of ''nothing'' is rather arbitrary than anything. We could really just scratch it out all together.

''There is energy there, and laws which govern it, but it really is a vacuum ''

Because the vacuum is still subject to those laws it would still be in the time-space continuum. The only difference is that there is no matter there, just energy. Nothingness cannot be coherently defined and therefore, when the term 'nothingness' is used, it is misleading.

[Satarack]

@07Aristotle As for why it started being called nothing, I suspect it's because there is no matter in the quantum vacuum. There is energy there, and laws which govern it, but it really is a vacuum in the sense that there is no material there, because this vacuum is the space in between matter where there is only energy.

[Satarack]

@07Aristotle In serious scientific discussion I don't think you would hear it called nothing like that, it is more properly the quantum vacuum. It's usually only called nothing when popularized, or spoken in a familiar manner between physicists.

The biggest offender for this though is the media; things like "mystery particles created from nothing" is supposedly more interesting than "sub-atomic particles arising from energy fluctuations in the quantum vacuum."

[07Aristotle]

@Satarack That is preposterous, if this 'nothing' in physics has something in it then why call it nothing? It seems physicists that follow this idea are the ones committing equivocations. Nothingness cannot be coherently defined, therefore it does not exist. It does not matter the pedigree or presumed 'sophistication' of the person.

[Satarack]

@peteface24 When physicists talk about the "nothing," they are talking about the quatum vacuum; a sea of fluctuating energy that accounts for about 70% of the mass of the universe through the relativistic mass of energy of the forces of the universe. This "nothing" has something in it, and is governed by the laws of the universe.

Philosophical Nothing though is truly nothing, no energy, no laws, no matter, no time, no space. Nothing. Saying from Nothing by nothing is committing equivocation.

[peteface24]

@tititata Please explain how what 'nothing' means in science changes the soundness of the argument.

[RogueLance]

@tititata I would suggest, after reading several of Mr. Craig's books, the he does have a firm grasp of nothing, versus the idea of the physical vacuum. The vacuum, which most people think of as being devoid of anything, is really a sea of energies, structure and the same physical foundation upon which the rest of existence is built. Mr. Craig, in speaking of "nothing", is speaking of a pre-Bang lack of anything. No elementary particles, no energies, no structure, no chaos, no order..Nothing.