3:30 Introduction 5:33 Six ways in which science and theology are relevant to each other 6:55 A book recommendation for deeper study of the arguments in this presentation 7:40 Argument 1: Kalam cosmological argument 20:30 Argument 2: The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics 37:55 Argument 3: The fine-tuning of the universe for life 46:40 Conclusion 47:30 Q&A
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19 If are in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church (These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches) If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms or Wels Lutheran church. If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC. (Different from the Church of Scotland) If you are English I recommend the Free Church of England. (Different from the Church of England) Online you can look up church finders for each of the groups and it will show you locations .
♦"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." ♦"Only fools revere the myths just bc a book claims itself to be the holy truth." ♦"The delusional religious fools are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt." ♦"The religious believe by the millions what lunatics could believe on their own." ♦"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." ♦"It's difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."
@@AtamMardes @AtamMardes 1. All you've done is quote quips from Voltaire. 2. However you don't make a case or provide any kind of reason or evidence for anyone to believe (say) Christianity is false, while atheism is true. 3. Is there even a *positive* case for why you believe atheism is true? Most of what I've seen for atheism is negative. Such as atheism is the lack of belief in gods, atheism doesn't believe in fairies in the garden, like trying to find a teapot orbiting the sun, etc. But is there no positive case for atheism? 4. It seems atheism must prove a universal negative which is a very high bar to scale! Agnosticism seems more reasonable than atheism for the intellectually honest. 5. William Lane Craig makes a reasonable case for theism.
@@philtheo The human brain (educated or not) is very susceptible to pareidolia, apophenia, hallucinations, superstitions and gullibility; That's why religion has managed to fool so many people.
@@ianwatson194 The way Craig "wins" debates is the same Trump wins debates: Lying, interrupting, ignoring counterarguments.The man is totally thick and the worst philosopher I ever listened to. Just watch his debate with Sean Carroll.
@JoaoHenrique-yo1lo I know enough to tell a man, whose argumentation is based on wishful thinking, from a meaningful debater. If you fall for WLC, you can´t tell the difference.
"I don't have a problem with ignorance. We are all ignorant about a variety of subjects we are not currently aware of. The real problem is when that ignorance is wilful, intentional and used as a weapon against anyone who disagrees with you, or anyone who has the nerve to present facts you don't want to accept." - anyone who actually cares about verifiable reality
Sure, as always... 😂 "When I first heard the message of the Gospel as a non-Christian high school student, that my sins could be forgiven by God, that God *loved me, he loved Bill Craig,* and that I could come to know him and experience *eternal life* with God, I thought to myself (and I'm not kidding) I thought if there is just one chance in a million that this is true it's worth believing. So my attitude toward this is just the opposite of Kyle's. *Far from raising the bar or the epistemic standard that Christianity must meet to be believed, I lower it."* - William Lane Craig
@@steved5960 I listened to his response and the subsequent nuancing of that response and the conversation about his nuanced response, and Kyle and him talking, and Kyle talking to others, and Kyle's opinion about his response, etc. So how sure are you now? It's a good time to remember that what really got William Lane Craig into Christianity was the beautiful smile of a Christian girl at his school, "Sandy". That and no other is the real reason. A teenager's existential angst and psychological need to be loved did the rest... The rest, the theological arguments and the attempt to give a scientific tone to his diatribes, are merely rationalizations with which he has been doubling down ever since. So let me quote his own words one more time, I know you like them, and he could not have been clearer. "When I first heard the message of the Gospel as a non-Christian high school student, that my sins could be forgiven by God, that God *loved me, he loved Bill Craig,* and that I could come to know him and experience *eternal life* with God, I thought to myself (and I'm not kidding) I thought if there is just one chance in a million that this is true it's worth believing. So my attitude toward this is just the opposite of Kyle's. *Far from raising the bar or the epistemic standard that Christianity must meet to be believed, I lower it."* - William Lane Craig I recommend you a video recap of Low Bar Bill's confession called: "Christian Philosopher Fails to Fix the Internet he Broke! (William Lane Craig response)"
@@vejeke of course, even granting everything you said, not a single sentence in your comments even attempts to *engage* the arguments. If you feel it unnecessary, then there’s no point in anyone engaging you any further.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns I understand that you don't like what I say and you want me to shut up, but it's not in your power. The point I'm making is for me to decide, not you. None of the other comments in this thread engaged with Craig's straw man, not even your irrelevant tantrum did. So if you don't mind, I'm going to keep quoting Craig's own words while you decide to ignore what I say, change the subject and pretend there's no point in engaging me any further. "When I first heard the message of the Gospel as a non-Christian high school student, that my sins could be forgiven by God, that God *loved me, he loved Bill Craig,* and that I could come to know him and experience *eternal life* with God, I thought to myself (and I'm not kidding) I thought if there is just one chance in a million that this is true it's worth believing. So my attitude toward this is just the opposite of Kyle's. *Far from raising the bar or the epistemic standard that Christianity must meet to be believed, I lower it."* - William Lane Craig A.K.A. Low Bar Bill.
@@stephenconnolly3018That’s rich! In this world, some people happen to believe there’s a higher power, and I just so happen to be one of them. If you don’t like it, turn the other cheek. I’m not forcing you to glorify my God, just like how nobody is forcing me to glorify theirs, or in your case, not glorifying your lack of one. Grow a backbone, and/or go to some atheist channel where the content/comments don’t offend you.
Yes, Craig is such a great gift, doing great work. He’s been gifted with a great mind, and is using it in great ways to serve humanity. Those who don’t agree are free to disagree and move on. I think it’s their loss.
Many kudos to DOE. I worked for the DOJ for 25 years before retiring. While they allowed Muslim and other scholars to speak to employees, usually under the auspices of heritage months, we never heard from Christian scholars. Most of the speakers were great, so I am not disparaging them. DOJ would never support posting the speaker regardless of background. I am doubtful they would allow employee groups to host something like this at all. This was awesome, and I am grateful the DOE and Lawrence Livermore encourages this type of productive discussion, especially as we continue to consider the essence of the Big Bang, the problems with Neo Darwinism, and the shutdown of these discussions in most of the academy. BRAVO!
Wasn't his answer basically 'oh, it's all part of God's grand design and because of butterfly effect you can't actually calculate the moral worth of suffering today because of downstream effects, in fact you can't judge God at all, so all my opponents haven't thought this through or are emotional and I win 😎' These are the same people who mock atheists for having standards on whether the resurrection happened 😂
Rubbish mis quoting out mode philosopher is far from a well thought out coherent argument. There was only rhetoric and stale dogma, it may work on the sheep. Grow up your child like believes should have died along with other myths like father Christmas or do you still believe in him?.
1. Infinite Regress Problem: If you trace back the cause of everything that exists, you eventually reach a point where you need a first cause or an origin. This is because an infinite chain of causes without a starting point is difficult to conceptualize logically. 2. First Cause Necessity: To avoid an infinite regress, there must be an initial cause or a creator that set everything into motion. This cause is often identified as God. 3. Conditions for Existence: Even if one posits that our universe was created by a highly intelligent being, a quantum state, or some other entity, the question remains: what created the conditions for that being or state to exist? This line of questioning ultimately leads to a need for a fundamental origin. 4. Simulation Hypothesis: If the universe is a simulation, then the simulation must have been created by some entity. The existence of such an entity would still require an explanation, which leads back to the need for a first cause. 5. Endless Causation: Even if something else caused our universe, such as a quantum state or another dimension, something must have caused that initial cause as well. This continuous need for a cause suggests that there must be an ultimate, uncaused cause to stop the infinite regress. In summary: If you trace the cause of everything back far enough, you eventually need a first cause or origin to avoid an infinite regress. This necessity for a first cause suggests that belief in an ultimate creator, often conceptualized as God, is rational, as it provides a logical endpoint to the chain of causation.
1)we dont know if the universe is infinite or had a start, 2)if you trace back the cause of everything that exists we dont know where we end up cause we dont know what happened in the beginning. We can follow a rough chain of evolution for most living things but at some point we just dont know. Saying because we know that everything had a beggining or a cause in the time we know,means that everything also had an origin/cause/beggining is not correct 3)if one says any of these things, they are just a hypothesis, theres no evidence for them right now. The answer here is i dont know. It is wrong to say : who created these conditions?we dont know. therefore god. Anytime you say i dont know, you remain with that answer 4)Simulation hypothesis is fun to think about but also no evidence for it 5)Even if something else caused our universe , which we dont know if it did, you eventually need a first cause , which we also dont know. See how many times all these questions include we dont know. In summary, i disagree with the premise that everything needs a first cause, we know that for a certain time in human history we can trace SOME things that have a cause, but we just dont know when we go far enough back in time. There is no necessity to believe in a first cause because theres no evidence there was one if that cause needed smth intelligent or not. Therefore, the most logical position here is i dont know.
As you seem to think you have proven god, can you please be a bit more precise and share with us the knowledge which of the countless gods is the true one and who you derive at your conclusion.
Then how did the creator come to be? It's considered rational to think that the big bang set everything into motion, but then people argue about who created the big bang. They settle on a conscious fully formed, fully aware being of some description, but never question how they came to be either. They just say "It always was". Yet, energy existing doesn't get the same pass. That had to come from something. The chicken had to come before the egg (don't question where the chicken came from, they just were) Vs The chicken evolved from another iteration of something similar to a chicken and that also evolved from something similar till they all became separate classes in the animal kingdom. What really came first was microbes which could be considered closer to a chick in gestation, but with out the protection of the egg as the egg development came later when the chicken actually evolved and eventually used the egg to protect future offspring. And all of that was possible due to energy getting complex into matter that eventually mutated into life at all as a way to perpetuate existing and existence itself doesn't exist because it wants to, but because it does. Much like a chemical reaction doesn't decide to be volatile or be set off by certain things, but it just does, like math. And math was just a clever way we found to be able to explain all the complex phenomena we became conscious enough to observe. I think people just want to think everything has purpose or meaning or intent and especially is simple. When I don't think most things do and most of the universe seems to suggest that it's not conscious thought or motive. And we find that scary, because it's not what we are or at least what we think we are and we don't like complex answers because we live a finite amount of time and don't have time for them.
Your first cause being god is nothing more than special pleading. Something seems tp not need a cause. You assume its god. you assume a god exists but you have no evidence for one. I assume the universe is the first cause. We do not have to assume the universe exists. Occam's razor applies.
Much as I love Dr. Craig, and think many of his arguments are great, I don't get the argument from mathematics at all. It seems related to arguments from laws of nature (which I think are very good) and fine-tuning arguments (also good). But, this particular argument just seems incoherent to me.
Why would we not expect the logic of quantity and pattern to apply to quantitative and patterned things, like the things of the cosmos? It's literally impossible for math not to apply because math can describe anything. Why should we be surprised to find a mathematical universe? As opposed to what? We cannot create models or theories beyond what we can understand, obviously. It's just a god of the gaps from personal incredulity, like most theistic arguments.
New research confirms that there is a negative relationship between religiosity and intelligence. The findings have been published in the scientific journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. (6-8% lower than non believers the research is the combined findings of 83 studies) “Religiosity is a pervasive phenomenon. Its influence can be felt in all spheres of life. However, a sizeable portion of the population defines itself as atheist. Why do some people decide not to be religious? I thought it was an important and fascinating question,” said study author Miron Zuckerman of the University of Rochester.
New research confirms that there is a negative relationship between religiosity and intelligence. The findings have been published in the scientific journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. (6-8% lower than non believers the research is the combined findings of 83 studies) “Religiosity is a pervasive phenomenon. Its influence can be felt in all spheres of life. However, a sizeable portion of the population defines itself as atheist. Why do some people decide not to be religious? I thought it was an important and fascinating question,” said study author Miron Zuckerman of the University of Rochester.
Thank you Dr. Craig for your well reasoned and respectful presentation arguing for the Uncreated Creator as the cause…the origin of the manifest universe.
Thank you Dr Craig , may the lord continue to use your wonderful brain to reach those in the dark! Many are searching, and I know you are reaching many! I pray for you and your family forever and ever amen!
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19 If are in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church (These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches) If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms or Wels Lutheran church. If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC. (Different from the Church of Scotland) If you are English I recommend the Free Church of England. (Different from the Church of England) Online you can look up church finders for each of the groups and it will show you locations .
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:01 🎙️ Introduction to event and speaker Dr. William Lane Craig. 02:21 📚 Dr. Craig's background and purpose of the lecture. 03:15 🕒 Limited time for evidence of God's existence; aim is to spark conversation. 06:13 🌌 Presentation of three arguments with scientific support for theological implications. 10:49 🌠 Kalam Cosmological Argument: Universe's beginning supported by scientific and theoretical evidence. 20:09 📐 Mathematics' remarkable applicability in describing natural phenomena. 26:14 🧙♂️ Theistic explanation for mathematics' effectiveness in explaining the physical world. 34:34 📜 Theistic anti-realists explain mathematics' applicability to the physical world as God's mental model. 38:14 🎯 Fine-tuning of fundamental constants for life's existence challenges natural explanations. 41:23 🎲 Physical necessity and chance are implausible explanations for fine-tuning. 43:10 🔍 Observer self-selection and Boltzmann brain problem challenge the multiverse explanation. 46:50 🌟 Science provides evidence for theological conclusions; dialogue between science and theology is thriving. 48:08 ⛪️ Miracles, like Jesus' resurrection, can be reconciled with scientific understanding. 52:16 🤔 The problem of human suffering involves both intellectual and emotional challenges. 56:38 🌄 Doubt and uncertainty coexist with faith; faith involves trust based on good reasons.
"Think critically" 😂 "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart and that this gives me a self authenticating means of knowing that Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence and therefore if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity I don't think that that controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit." - William Lane Craig
@@vejeke Self authentic witness is also based on some kind of experience and if one experience something then this is rationally acceptable. Because God doesn't need to give empirical evidences that can only be known in some kind of laboratory but he can give signs inside a person. So I find nothing wrong with what wlc said. It is still rationally acceptable.
@@munafghori4052 Of course, there is nothing wrong with putting confirmation bias and self-deception before evidence. That's why Muhammad was fully justified in believing that he actually spoke to angel in a cave. It's a good time to remember that what really got William Lane Craig into Christianity was the beautiful smile of a Christian girl at his school, "Sandy". That and no other is the real reason. A teenager's existential angst and psychological need to be loved did the rest. "When I first heard the message of the Gospel as a non-Christian high school student, that my sins could be forgiven by God, that God *loved me, he loved Bill Craig,* and that I could come to know him and experience *eternal life* with God, I thought to myself (and I'm not kidding) I thought if there is just one chance in a million that this is true it's worth believing. So my attitude toward this is just the opposite of Kyle's. *Far from raising the bar or the epistemic standard that Christianity must meet to be believed, I lower it."* - William Lane Craig The rest, the theological arguments and the attempt to give a scientific tone to his diatribes, are merely rationalizations with which he has been doubling down ever since.
@@vejeke If you want to call a persons experiences as confirmation bias then I cannot argue more because you made up your mind. For you to believe need a witness of holy feelings and if I show you a way then I don't know whether you would do it or not but you will not believe until you experience it. For if I show you evidences then ofcourse you would verify it but I don't know whether you are open to spiritual feelings. But as a Muslim I can only tell you that do two things. one is seek forgiveness from God 100 times daily in morning and evenings. And second pray to God for guidance. Hope he will help you and give you better evidences. Second you say Dr Craig gave theological claim with scientific evidences. I think he didnt do any thing wrong in that. If you had scientific evidence for non existence of God then you will provide it. There is nothing wrong to give scientific evidences for philosophical arguments. Actually those arguments are not theological. They are philosophical. None of the conclusion and premises are theological. It is in the end that dr criag tries to show that these philosophical arguments back by science leads to theological beliefs. This is what he is doing. I don't think this is wrong. But there is nothing wrong if scientific evidences exist in support of religious claims. You just blindly deny theology and religion.
New research confirms that there is a negative relationship between religiosity and intelligence. The findings have been published in the scientific journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. (6-8% lower than non believers the research is the combined findings of 83 studies) “Religiosity is a pervasive phenomenon. Its influence can be felt in all spheres of life. However, a sizeable portion of the population defines itself as atheist. Why do some people decide not to be religious? I thought it was an important and fascinating question,” said study author Miron Zuckerman of the University of Rochester.
Talk is cheap. There are plenty of arguments for gods but absolutely no evidence, someone told you there is a god and you took their word for it, it's why all religions are called 'faiths', the more gullible you the more you are convinced there is a god.
@@Shytot-1you must have more faith then us since the we came out of nothing and their was no force behind the nothing that exploded us into existence. Your faith is the strongest.
@@edwardb911Yes, seeing things as they are does not work for everyone, some people need to see things as they would like them to be, for a lot of people reality sucks, so they either make something up for themselves or they latch onto something someone else made up. I take it you prefer the latter. It's OK as long as it doesn't affect anyone else but religious people are not happy just minding their own business, they have to try and contaminate everyone else and make them as damaged as they are.
The boundary that all space time rewinds back to is an x, y axis,, the matrix of the physical world, the Cross. The zero point extends out in all directions; God divides himself into everything, transferring energy outward. Bless it!!
What evidence do we have for God's existence: The resurrection of Yeshua Nazarene, the gift of his Spirit and new life thereby, the energy of the apostles and the spread of the church against the might of Rome.
Dr Craig--someone who has no real academic connection to science, treats theology as science when it is actually mythology and has been trying to manufacture evidence for God ever since becoming an apologist. It that’s his job-mesmerizing Christians into believing in a magic genie and to stop asking questions.
I'd say this is just evidence of the larger issues with metaphysics and the temptation to logically "prove" things in a mental a universe of one's own creation. Personally, I think it's interesting and useful to dig into metaphysical questions (e.g. "what is truth?") but it seems to me that the wheels come off when someone like Craig tries to reason the Christian god into existence.
@@shassett79 Yes exactly-he is a minimalist on evidence and likes to mesmerize people with magical dissertations because he knows that should work well with most Christians since they take the lazy way out and do not care to learn about the realities in the world.
@@shassett79 science can tell us "how" the universe operates and with scientific knowledge we have further better our lives, divers inventions are here as evidence of these facts. To think that this is all the human society needs is a very shallow way of reasoning, science can answer the "how" question but can't answer "why" the universe is, the quest for meaning is our truest need, I applaud science but I believe religion with strong emphasis on Christianity is the closest to giving us Meaning. Yess, I came by random events and evolution brought me to this point of my existence, but why are my here in the first place, what do I live for. If I am living to die with no purpose why don't I then live the way I so please, what is the moral restrain holding me from raping a 5 year old. The Bible answers the question of meaning, this is humanity's greatest need.
@danielajah5262 It's fine if you personally need to know "the meaning of life," or whatever, and I'll grant that science can't provide it for you. That said, it always sends a shiver down my spine when a theist proposes that they might just as well be raping and murdering people if not for whichever meaning or moral authority they've found in religion...
@@shassett79 oh not in any way, we all know that man is inherently deprived, if not we won't be hearing of street shootings every now and then, my point here is this, we can not have a standard for morality if there is no universal moral law giver that is consistent in every part of the world. If we live the issue of morality to be relative saying do what makes you happy, what if killing makes me happy. The issue of ethics and morality can not be relative, now I have heard of an era in a particular African state where twins were considered demonic and so killed, this practice was widely accepted by the community as morally justified, but is this so for every other community? Ethics and morality will always draw us back for a universal law giver. He is the restrain not because I'm saying this, but because it is an obvious fact.
Science and theology are two different ways that brains can think. Science is about breaking beliefs so that knowledge can evolve. Theology is about maintaining beliefs for a sense of purpose and reward.
@Turtle1967A I don't know if you care but Area 51 Scientist Boyd Bushman Lead Scientist of Lockheed Martin has proof of ours souls... It's amazing our Government🇺🇲 knows Jesus Exists
New research confirms that there is a negative relationship between religiosity and intelligence. The findings have been published in the scientific journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. (6-8% lower than non believers the research is the combined findings of 83 studies) “Religiosity is a pervasive phenomenon. Its influence can be felt in all spheres of life. However, a sizeable portion of the population defines itself as atheist. Why do some people decide not to be religious? I thought it was an important and fascinating question,” said study author Miron Zuckerman of the University of Rochester.
@@stephenconnolly3018 ok if you're so smart then explain how a man came back from the dead and pushed a bolder out of the way, which was recorded weeks after the event. How do you bring other people back to life. Boy atheists are so smart, for example the French revolution, the Russian revolution, Spanish Republicans, hitler.
@@stephenconnolly3018 'Intelligence' doesn't equate to spiritual insight and wisdom, however...Nice try though...The Gospel of Christ is open to rich or poor, old or young, educated or undereducated...If people choose to reject it because they think they're too 'intelligent'/'educated', that is up to them...
Whether you agree with him or not i think hes one of the greatest Theist debaters since there has been film recordings. Razor sharp mind and such command of language
For me it was him presenting 'one in a million chance' as a rational standard for believing, from the same guy that loves presenting probabilistic arguments for god.
@@Julian0101you missed it!! With such great probability of everything lining up almost perfect, the perfect distance from the sun, the tides from the moon creating life sustaining waves in the ocean, the sun at the right distance and providing nutrients for life on earth, instructions in dna, suggest a brilliant mind behind the creation of
@@christ_is_coming_back9118 See, the fact that all those things keep shifting, and thus are not perfect, is evidence your mind thing was not involved at all. Good on you for figuring out why that argument fails so bad.
Very interesting lecture! My thanks to the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory people who organized the event! I think that the argument about math and natural laws to be somewhat inverted and misplaced - it should actually be in the first point on theology creating a mental framework that supports the development of science. The Christian God is Platonic - ideal and good. It was this platonic characterist that led early scientists to look for the simpler and most elegant mathematical description: Galileo, I'm sure, did not find the square law of falling bodies from his experiments - he found that results were around the power of 2 but since Nature was created by God, then it could only be the power of 2. The platonic framework and the works of Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. Augustine wrote that God composed two books being one written by his own hands and the other by men He inspired. Since the second had been written by humans, in case of conflict the first one should be considered as the correct one. The first is Nature and the second is the Bible. Thomas Aquinas wrote around the 14th or 15th century about the limits of God's power: 1) God can't create a copy of Himself; 2)God can't sin; and 3) God can't make a [eucledian] triangle with the sum of the internal angles different thatn 180 degrees. In my opinion the invertion comes out of the fact that math came first and was very successful early on - that resulted in the predilection of science for Laws of Nature that could be elegantly described by mathematics. That predilection created a view that's widely held nowadays - that all we need to predict the future is a sufficient large and precise set on inputs while the fact is even a simple double pendulum (depending on the state space it's moving through) is impossible to predict. Early scientists did not have computers and the calculations necessary to even see the double pendulum problem were unfeasible and that led them to ignore the problems that could not be easily tackled through mathematics. Nowadays, given the successes of the sicence and techology partnership, that mindset - simple mechanicism and the unlimited power of mathematics - has become widely accepted as a universal truth. The problem is that that mindset is wrong - and people can't wrapt their minds around the complexity and seriousness of problems like climate change.
I’ve never understood the suffering bit. To put it simply, first of all human suffering is not a moral evil, and your distaste of it does not indicate anything significant besides that suffering is suffering. I fail to see why a man should not suffer. I’m rather reluctant to desire a heaven that would include no suffering. Not for the ups and downs but simply because I think human life is incomplete without suffering. And the degree of suffering must be beyond all imaginable reason. Why? Else it would not be real suffering. If you could really say to yourself “Thus suffering is reasonable and serves a purpose” you wouldn’t really be suffering in the true sense. You’d have purpose to console you. You’d be missing out on that perfect suffering without any conceivable purpose, that pinnacle of suffering which is so necessary to bring out the best qualities in man. That is to say, unless suffering can and frequently does exceed what is necessary to any conceivable purpose, it cannot serve any purpose. The purpose of suffering requires that it seem arbitrary and excessive
Well I believe heaven is so great we can’t even comprehend it. It’s more real than our realm. Dopamine and reward sensors do not exist in heaven so why would there be a need for suffering?
I’m not sure where your moral assumptions are being derived? How is human suffering not evil? If that is the case you would be arguing there is no good and evil?
What was the light that God created in the beginning? The Sun and Moon and Stars did not come until later so I wonder what kind of light was created when God said ‘let there be light’?
@@cirilloucazzu4457 I am an atheist. I just cited an argument that a muslim might make. Don't know why. But, yes. I think religion is made from charlatons and or superstitious people.
I think people over estimate consciousness in it's complexity. I think it's the process of a species that developed to be complex enough because there was enough energy dispersion in the big bang to cause that to happen. It is beneficial for a life to become self-aware to a higher degree as it allows for more knowledge and furthers it's evolution. It's not magic. But that doesn't make it any less fascinating to understand and I think people feel like when something is explained, it takes the "mystery" out and they feel it doesn't mean anything anymore. I find that baffling. Knowing how something works doesn't make it any less cool. I think the fundamental scientific arguing of proof of faith is inherently misunderstanding of what probability actually means. Conditions for life were one in a billion or whatever the number is. That doesn't mean impossible. In fact, i means, given enough time with the right conditions, the improbable WILL happen. Life is inevitable as improbable as it's calculated to be. If conditions are present for long enough, every probability will eventually happen, no matter how infinitesimal the chances. To put it a really simple way. Roll a 20 sided dice. Get 20 five times in a row. You have the same probability every roll to get it, but getting it at all and getting it consecutively is a far lower probability. Get a few thousand or more people to all do this. Someone will get it. Even though the probability is low, enough time and iterations means that someone will succeed in something that seems incredibly improbable. Because that's how probability actually works. Enough time and chance and it will happen. Existence is the same. We are inevitable because conditions existed to foster the probability to exist at all. And everything is cause and effect. Nothing happens with out other things. The one thing we don't know is also likely a limitation of the fact that we don't understand infinity or nothing as a concept. We get it abstractly, but our brains due to being things that have an expiration date likely do not. Most egregiously what I don't understand is, if there is a creator and there is some missing information that could prove that, why would it at all revolve around us when we know the universe is massive? it seems so ego-centric. I want a movie where the major Abrahamic god is real, but they don't care at all specifically about humans. We're just part of a greater equation of blue and orange morality. We were told or just outright assumed that said creator said we're special because we want to feel special as a survival mechanism. After all, we're terrified of death, as any creature is that's alive. So we came up with an explanation after finding proof that there is a creator because we don't want to die. And an afterlife is basically you don't really die. But this god doesn't even have time for us. We're such a blip and they have far far bigger things to be concerned about. It would be such a subversion to the self-circling idea our religions today have. I think religion is basically the desire to still be parented, to be cared for, to feel like you matter and that's a perfectly reasonable thing to want as a species so aware of it's own expiration date. But to assume that a literal other being that isn't our own kind, be they magical, metaphysical or alien is ALL about us? Not to mention the billions of other living creatures on this planet, but who cares about them, right? That's the weirdest part of it all for me. I prefer the religions and ideas of the ancient world where they all said Gods are also kind of jerks and don't necessarily think we're the be all end all. That makes much more sense if there was another being that had the means to create life on a planet. In short, no, I don't think that misunderstanding of probability in all proves the existence of a creator. In fact, if anything, it indicates the exact opposite.
Saying the atheist has the burden of proof and must show that god doesn't have good reason for suffering is outrageous, the burden of proof is very much on you to show that he does. I'd give the example of infant mortality and how awfully diseases affect children under 5.
One observation about the bible quotation Prof. Craig mentioned at the end: it was a woman asking to cure her daughter¹ and Jesus replies "you have great faith!". Matthew 15:21-28 New International Version The Faith of a Canaanite Woman 21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” 23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” 25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. 26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” 27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” 28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment. (1) Until just now I used to misquote the passage: I used to say son intead of daughter.
"What evidence do we have for God's existence?" none whatsoever. Shall we make something up or have you already done that? Who needs to believe in gods? gullible frightened people.
Sure bro, It takes really Brave people to march to hell... The most powerful evidence for God are direct and indirect signs of the divine. As per: "[John 14:16]; And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, who will never leave you" ; we have a continuous flow of the signs and fulfillment of the promise. It started with the first apostles : John 14:16 Matthew 10:7-15 John 4:48 Acts 5:12-16 Acts 8:5-8 John 14:21 and last till today: #1 Apparitions of the Virgin Mary : eg. Our Lady of Guadalupe , Fatima etc. #2 Eucharistic Miracles " eg. Sokolka (Poland) etc #3 Healing miracles: examples fr. Pio, br. Andre (from Montreal) #4 Exorcisms : Look Up fr. Amorth, Fr. Gary Thomas, Fr. Vince Lampert #5 Stigmata ; eg. fr.Pio , Teresa Neuman, currently : Ghiselle from Trevignano Romano #6 Just awesome Nature miracles : eg. The Basilica of Our Lady of Good Health in Velankanni, India during Tsunami 2004 And the rest is just a side show speculation and philosophical entertainment, where one may loose himself completely and forget about the reality check.
@@iam604 You are so right. For example: the St-Joseph oratory in Montreal is really not there ... The 250k HEALING miracles recorded in the archives , thousands of them witnessed by the medical professionals are just stories for babies ... and so on , so on. Take another pill my friend .. or start to seriously looking at the commonly available evidence, the kind of evidence that is acceptable by any court of justice.
@@Matt6X I know I’m right and your failed deflection to believed healing miracles has NOTHING to do WITH THE STORY BOOK! I’m still waiting for a theist to win the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE for finally proving a god exists…oh wait a minute…according to you there is evidence? Where are the medical journals of these believed 250k healing miracles located at as well as who are those alleged “medical professionals” you speak of? Simply saying something does make it true little Timmy and grown ups require actual evidence of a claim while children will simply believe older people like you do.
Cheap shot from a weak mind. Thinking is difficult for a weak minds that’s why weak minds only try to judge to build themselves up but only make fools of themselves.
There are no parameters for God to exist and there for it is non-testable and unverifiable. There are no physical or theoretical parameters to measure god. There is no energy signature, agreed upon visual, impact or anything else. It's as wild as me saying pofdabapoodas are creatures on the microscopic level that control all the atoms in our body and influence our mood. You can't prove I'm wrong because I'm giving you nothing to work with except the concept that you can't see what I claim which only defends for a moment my idea in the first place. Proof of evidence is always in the one who claims. I would need to show you evidence of pofdabapooda's under a microscope and conclusively in an experiment and testing prove that due to micro-electron waves they give off based on their own survival status when they fight with other bacteria/viruses in our body so they can inhabit our system safely, that they send signals to our atoms which cause us to do different things and explains why we have mood swings. They evolved with us and in some they're more concentrated than others which is why some people have mood swings. Resolving the issue of pofdabapooda's is with medication that helps their environment flourish so that they are at a better rested state and less agitated as they also offer a benefit to us as a symbiotic species and they've learned to mimic protein signatures similar to our antibodies so that our immune system doesn't attack them, which is why we didn't know about them for so long. No one does this with a god or really a lot of things that they think are true. Common advice and knowledge also doesn't get this level of scrutiny and this was a purposefully silly nonsense made up thing to prove a point. I basically said a silly word for midichlorians with a slightly more grounded affect to human existence instead of magic powers. No one worth their salt in understanding scientific methodology or general evidence based arguments would say conclusively that it is impossible. What we know so far indicates that it is unlikely. Just like my pofdabapooda's are.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19 If are in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church (These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches) If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms or Wels Lutheran church. If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC. (Different from the Church of Scotland) If you are English I recommend the Free Church of England. (Different from the Church of England) Online you can look up church finders for each of the groups and it will show you locations .
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. - Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19 If are in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church (These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches) If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms or Wels Lutheran church. If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC. (Different from the Church of Scotland) If you are English I recommend the Free Church of England (Different from the Church of England) Online you can look up church finders for each of the groups and it will show you locations .
why does the bible have to cater to your exact wants of what it should be? is your argument seriously "it's not what i want it to be therefore it's wrong!" ?
@@norbertjendruschj9121I felt he failed to entertain when he said it's fine to kill kids if god asks. But his argument was silly and a low key entertaining: "because the kids will go to heaven straight away"
@@norbertjendruschj9121 Have you seen the scene I was referring to. ( I think it's more recent than anything in this video) The smile on WLC's face when he says those things, with the most matter of fact attitude. It's truly concerning. -If he wasn't an elite apologist- , he would probably need to be kept away from children.
@@oscargr_ Yes. WLC and I studied at the same university, Ludwig Maximilians University / Munich, Germany. That makes me feels especially tense about him, though I mastered in physics, not theology.
A good reminder of how silly apologetics is. Apologists sometimes have longer words, but so little reasoning or evidence to support their position. When one like this gets destroyed in debate apologists always complain we pick on easy targets, yet they can never agree who the sophisticated theists are once and for all.
This is classic Craig (the dinosaur liar) recycling the same lies he's used for decades & which he knows are false & unsustainable. Before addressing, let's end the god of Abraham (GOA) myth (you don't have to accept it, that's irrelevant it's just fact): The entire basis & reason for belief in the GOA is that it is going to provide you with eternal life after death in heaven. To be able to justify that claim, believers have to prove the GOA isn't, in even the most minuscule way, evil. If it is, it can't be claimed it is not a liar and you cannot trust its promises of heaven unless you're an idiot (that simple). As a side note: Understand, as it relates to humans and promises to humans, this must be mans definition of evil not some, non applicable, nebulous fantasy created by such as Craig in an attempt to obfuscate the GOA's way out of blame. There is evil so believers have to prove it doesn't come from the GOA or the GOA is innocent of it to satisfy the above. Evil comes from the GOA & the GOA is evil, that can be proven many ways (just ask) but the most obvious is believers must accept to dismiss this is the bible dictates there must be the existence of evil and via some scenario, man (innocent and without sin) is given free will to choose good or evil, defies god & is punished by god. That fundamental requirement of the GOA cannot be met. Simply put, in any scenario as above, god must create evil and therefore temptation & suffering. We have a law called: "entrapment". The principle of that is simple: If you wilfully tempt someone to commit a crime & they do, they are not guilty by virtue of your wilfull act of creating the temptation. Do you accept that to be justfiable or does man just have a higher moral standard than the GOA? As soon as god created evil to tempt man he branded himself as evil & denied itself of a right to punish. Now as believers in the GOA, you are going to say: "Well god gave man "free will"." Let me highlight to you where that obfuscation doesn't save the GOA from being evil: Simply this, if there is no evil "free will" to choose good or evil doesn't exist. So, once again, the GOA didn't "give man free will", the GOA created "free will" via an act of evil &, once again, god is self proclaimed evil without a right to punish. A last note: The GOA precludes itself from teaching about evil it therefore also precludes itself from warning about evil & the simple observation of the GOA offering a "free will" choice of good or evil without explanation or warning what they are is, again clearly & undeniably, evil. Why? Because the person choosing has no basis on which to make the choice because the GOA has denied them that ability. (Note: "Die" is a punishment for evil & therefore must be evil itself. As the GOA cannot offer any advice on evil, it cannot explain die, punishment, temptation, lies, deception and etc.......... Figure it out what that means.) Let's summarise: By creating evil to entrap man into choosing evil, the GOA removed any justifiable right it could possibly claim for punishing man. There is no escape clause for god. AND BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION AND SCRIPTURES, THE GOA IS FALSE BECAUSE IT IS EVIL AND THEREFORE CAN'T EXIST. (Now start inventing unsustainable lies.) This is a mere sample of an overwhelming multiplicity of proof the GOA is fake (but you only need one). 1. KALAM's Cosmological Argument (causality = everything must have a cause & god is the uncaused cause. [obviously Dumb I know]) As Craig has acknowledged on his own site (over a decade ago) the natural occurrence of a universe occurs at a quantum (sub-atomic) level & the study of quantum mechanics has revealed, beyond dispute, sub-atomic particles do not follow the laws of the universe which includes causality. Sure Craig did his usual and tried to obfuscate his way out of it by attempting to display an understanding of the subject (at a level obviously far beyond his reach) by picking through books of famous scientists & selecting the bits he liked & ignoring refutations in the same book by the same author. But he failed miserably. In short, the study of quantum mechanics has thoroughly and totally destroyed the Kalam's concept & relegated it to obscurity. 2. It is observed the total of +ve and -ve energy in the universe = 0. Energy has no mass & can exist outside spacetime. Quantum mechanics has proved mass comes into & out of existence constantly without a cause on a sub-atomic level. Once again Craig has tried to argue, with his negligible understanding of quantum mechanics, that doesn't happen & is false. Thanks for the laughs Craig but stick to theology & stop trying to equate quantum mechanics with your bank book. A universe from nothing is possible, you were wrong, get a life & move on. 3. "God is a mathematician". Everyone should have been laughing at this stupid Craig error (stay away from guns & sharp objects). First let's note: Whether a god exists or not mathematics would take the exact same form as it does, be used in the same manner & by the same people. Fact. Now, the laughter: Over a thousand years before the GOA was invented, the Egyptians had the numerical concept of nothing. But Ha, ha, ha, it was an Indian Hindu who invented "0" and without "0" mathematics of today would not exist, period. So what have we learned? Undeniably, if "god is a mathematician" that god is clearly the Hindu god Shiva. Feel free to point out any historically sustainable error in that observation. (Not good for Craig's credibility, proving Shiva!) 4. "The fine tuning of the universe" argument. Again Craig knows this has been defeated more times than he can count including on his own site. It's dead, redundant. Here's why: a. The most obvious is simply this: A god by definition would be omnipotent. It wouldn't use "fine tuning" as it has no need for it: "Moon orbit the earth, earth orbit the sun, sun orbit the galaxy." The end. Universal & life complexity is one of the the strongest indicators there's no god. b. Scientists have realised in recent years that we cannot claim a carbon based universe is the only universe possible, in fact there could be hundreds of different universes possible e.g. silicone based. Bye, bye "fine tuning". c. Quantum mechanics & "a universe from nothing". What happens if there's a "Big Bang" and it fails to create a stable universe? Energy can neither be created or destroyed. So what happens? Another "Big Bang". And if that fails?..... Another "Big Bang". Get the gist? A stable natural universe is not merely not impossible, it is inevitable (especially where time is not a factor)..... No god required. Bye, bye "fine tuning".
Entrapment law? If you properly studied the Bible you would’nt be saying that. Don’t you think its just right to not comment so negatively on something you haven’t properly studied? Fun fact: Do you know that the Bible has all of its prophecies fulfilled down to the letter? Including the drying of Euphrates river. It has 2500 of them, less than 500 are remaining that are still adressed for the future. I hope you wouldn’t be hardened enough to say “it was written in the bible so they made it happen”.
You mentioned that God created evil and gave us no way out. Assuming that God did create evil, how do you explain that the gospel story is not the way out?
@@astrawboiii1853 First of all you don't have a clue what I've studied (How many paragraphs is the first sin story again? There's nothing to study). You believe entrapment law wouldn't apply to the Adam and Eve first sin scenario? I'd like to see you prove it. (Hint you can study the bible until you die and you still won't come close to proving it because it is the only logical conclusion you can draw from Genesis). Did you know theists have bee trying to sell the prophecy concept for decades and have constantly failed due to the nebulous nature of their interpretation of the prophesies against the facts of the events. I am yet to have one prophecy actually proved. If you were intelligent enough you would realise that you can observe your surroundings and politics and make prophecies yourself that are likely to come true, but they're not actual prophecies, just a guess. You need to keep comments like that for theists who will believe you. Did you know many prophecies in the bible were written after the event e.g. the fall of the walls of Jericho?
If the universe followed other mathematical models, we would use these other models. There is no surprise that our models work. His financial argument is wrong: money is created out of nothing. Anyone who needs money has to borrow it from a central bank. The amount borrowed is exactly the amount he has to pay back to the central bank (plus interest). The sum of his assets and his debts is 0. The observation that every effect has a cause does not mean that everything must have a cause. This assumption leads to an infinite regress. God would also have to have a cause. There would have to be a creator of the creator and a creator of the creator of the creator … It is not surprising that we live in this world and observe it. If we did not exist, we would not observe it. The probability of our world is 1, because it exists. It is like drawing the ace of spades. Before drawing, the probability is 1:52. Once it has been drawn, the probability of being drawn is 1. The argument is abysmal. He gave not s single evidence for a god, and especially his God.
The fundamental building block of the universe is an essence. The essence is what we see. An essence isnt bound by logic. Its existence and anti existence essences. Creating random particles and life forms from a logical rule (physical limitations and prohibitations) but not what comes into the vacuume but by chance. This universe might be god but that is far fetched.
The story of Jesus is an invented fiction. Can you name a single eyewitness (outside the bible) who mentions one word about Jesus in any of his writings? (there were several historians and writers living contemporaneously, for example: Philo)
What evidence can you produce to back up your claim that Jesus is an invented fiction? Your expectation is unrealistic considering Philo was from Alexandria and a Jewish Philosopher at that. Why would he have written about a peasant - preacher in Galilee that very likely no one would have heard of apart from other peasants in Judea? It would have taken a lot longer for information to spread in the ancient world and therefore Philo would have been oblivious to Jesus' ministry and life as it was at the cusp of Christianity spreading. The only figures from the ancient world who will have had biographies written about themselves were top elites. Furthermore , say that he did hear claims of Jesus from Jewish zealots (very first Christians) - as a known asritriocratic philosopher I doubt he'd have paid Jesus any mind let alone write about him. Contemporaneous writers would've viewed early Christianity as a type of Judaism and wouldn't have given much credence to Jesus in their writings. I'd be more accepting of your claim if an Historian focusing on Galilean figures between 0AD - 33AD omitted Jesus in their writings. I in fact find it more amazing that Jesus is mentioned in the works of Flavius Josephus and Tacticus at all. Finally, even skeptical scholars of the Gospels accept that Jesus existed, through their textual critique of the Gospels themselves - particularly Bart Ehrman. The Gospels themselves are textually reliable eyewitness accounts which affirm Jesus' existence from individuals who either knew Jesus as a lot of scholars agree.
@@TheProblematic1 There's not a single mention of Jesus in the historical record until Tacitus in 116AD, and even that is just a statement about christians being scoundrels. AND the earliest manuscript for it is from Medieval times.... you need to stop lying, there are NO original manuscripts from Tacitus.
@@DocReasonablevery weird that my original refutation has been deleted.. (I certainly can't see it on my side) but if the above is your expectation on if figures actually lived then you'd be denying a lot of historic figure's existing. I could equally say - name me a single eye witness account outside of Socrates students who mentions one word about Socrates and any of his writings... Then I can just as equally argue well it was after Socrates death so it doesn't matter he never existed..
@@TheProblematic1 A man as remarkable as Jesus would have been noticed in his time. According to the Bible, Jesus was very famous and well-known across the Levant: "And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom among the people. His fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him those oppressed by demons,and he healed them. And great crowds followed him from Jerusalem and Judea, and from beyond the Jordan" Matt: 4:23 - 25 If the Gospels are even partly true then Jesus was famous throughout the Holy Lands, lecturing, feeding and healing multitudes and would most certainly have been mentioned by the scribes and officials who witnessed him in those amazing travels. And yet.... NOT A WORD WRITTEN ABOUT HIM DURING HIS 'LIFETIME'.
Is it "god" or logico physical necessity tho? Are they identical? If so how so? What is "god" above and beyond this (logico physical necessity) and how do we know?
Wow, looks like when it comes to God the average question of the most brilliant scientists in the world is akin to that of a first-year philosophy student. Just saying, the questions were pretty basic.
Magnifique. Blaise Pascal, the father of probability theory, came to this mathematical conclusion of a Creator 4, centuries ago. And abandoned the secular world😂
@js1817 It's been done to death by more important people than I over the last 400 or so years but, among other things, the wager assumes: - the existence of the Christian god - the existence of eternal paradise and eternal torture - that god accepts or is otherwise bound by the terms of the wager - that people who lack theistic belief can simply choose to believe in Pascal's god - that forced belief for the sake of pragmatism is the same as genuine religious fervor ...and there's more, but you should probably just go read primary literature on the topic.
@shassett79 If you have the good pleasure to read Pensees you will find that Pascal was much much more than just a genius. He had the most breathtaking insights into the unknowingness of creation and the infinite. As a 65 yr old biologist I have had the good pleasure of witnessing the explosion of measurements and thus further understanding of the infinite complexity and yet ordered existence of life, and the odds of that occurring, on our mother earth, in a universe otherwise devoid of life, for all intent and purpose to us. Pascal was pilloried by the secular world after his conversion. But he was far seeing in Pensees!
@@notavailable4891Craig basically killed his own credibility with that statement, so I'm not sure why it would surprise you to find it's well known among his detractors.
@@notavailable4891 I didn’t just watch it, it’s been a few months. Perhaps you should be questioning why a philosopher would say such a stupid thing and not why people are repeating it
34:00. "Why would a universe ot the universe have consistencies/laws/tendencies." And given the evolution theory leading to brains. Scarce as high intelligensen is in the universe (no fine tuning). Why could we not develop mathematical language? There is false math and correct math. The relation argument is right. Although realism and theism might be richer in provning mental well being.
An actual cosmologist (Sean Carroll) has debated him and told him multiple times that we simply DO NOT KNOW IF THE UNIVERSE HAD A BEGINNING! The standard model is based on general relativity, which we know is not complete, because its mathematics breaks down at the singularity! To have the nerve to keep talking about the issue with some supposed authority, while the actual experts have corrected you -obviously in vain- is really ridiculous!
If you claim that there’s no evidence for a beginning, you argue against yourself. If there’s no proof of beginning vs multi verse theories, then atheists can make no claim that science proves it happened on its own. So you have no proof of universe creating itself or being eternal, no science proving non life can turn into life, no proof macro evolution happens…..but you claim science disproves God???
@@XxLockdownxX28I think you're spiraling a bit and confusing which party is making the truth claim? I'll happily admit that we don't understand "the early universe," but asserting that our ignorance means a specific god did it- whether you apply an academic veneer of metaphysical reasoning to that proposition or not- is fallacious.
@markjones3517 where did the claim "science disproves god"? We don't know what there was before the big bang but, there was something rather than nothing. Admitting that we don't know is an honest answer.
Sean Carroll's argument is that basically we should ignore the obvious fact that as you rewind time everything seems to come to a beginning and instead trust that some speculative model will give us what may be a possibility for a beginning less universe. I know he tried to present an alternative but that alternative along with every other alternative just doesn't work.
@@notavailable4891 No, he has said in other occasions as well that we simply do not know if the universe had a beginning; it may very well had one. But his whole point is that you shouldn't develop arguments on the basis that it definetely had a beginning.
Even the best evidence and arguments will never constitute or rise to a standard of proof of Gods existence. It's not supposed to. Faith is crucial to Gods plan here. To not know to a degree of certainty that God exists, and yet still act in goodness, even when its detrimental to your self, is the only way to procure authentic devotees in a kingdom everlasting. Purposed as the answer to the fall of mankind as a workaround the problem of evil in sentience and duality in creation.
And that's inherently creepy for someone to think something exists and function as if it does when there is no proof of it. The absolutism of faith and belief is what I am not okay with. I'm fine with hope. I hope there is an afterlife despite all current evidence pointing to it's massive non-likelihood, but I don't believe in anything. Nor orient my life around something so fundamentally impactful that would change how I think about life and it's value. I find religions, especially ones pertaining to be about afterlife to be death cults. I don't really distinguish between that and say Heaven's Gate. The only difference is that one admonishes going before through intentional means rather than natural course of say disease or accident. But they both think the same thing. That life will be better once you're dead, which is a oxymoron. " yet still act in goodness, even when its detrimental to your self" That's a great example right there of how that's actually not good given the context of your comment. Hurting yourself for the chance of succeeding in an afterlife isn't a motivation of being a good person. It's a person who fears lack of reward that they covet above all. Double so for people who do good in order to avoid hell. That's not a good person, that's a person ruled by fear of punishment. It's like obedience in abused children by parents who will hit them is thought of as actual respect. It's not, it's coercion through violence or threat of it. I do good things because my brain has evolved mechanisms of reward systems that give quid pro quo to all parties (empathy is the name for it) not because I fear not having a neato afterlife. Both you and I don't do something with out reward, but my reward (and anyone who does this, religious or not, we all have brains) is based on feeling good for doing a good thing. It's still selfish, but it's mutual between all parties. Everyone gets to benefit and everyone works with the same thing. Unless you have a disorder that actually limits your capability for empathy (specifically emotional which is the connection, where as cognitive is reading a persons emotional state) such as psychopathy, then you're working with the same thing. Note: Autism struggles with cognitive empathy. Psychopathy and autism are basically opposites, but with out closer scrutiny can at first appear similar. The difference is the autist if they struggle with cognitive can't read emotions well and can seem like they don't care. The psychopath usually reads it fine, but doesn't have much or any emotional empathy to be able to care. A lot of people aren't educated on this and empathy is an umbrella term for all types it comes in. Most people when using it however mean emotional or also called affective empathy.
Hitchens replied best to Craig when debating. So I’d ask Craig, whose God? Mormon, Islam, etc. So convenient you just happen to have been raised Christian. Like to see Craig debate Rabbi Tovia Singer.
Use this for ammo! “If you’re a Christian, that only means that you condone pedophilia by default. Numbers 31:17-18 Otherwise ditch the Bible and save yourself.”
There's archeological evidence to support Christianity from ancient discoveries to biblical events being confirmed. Also he's an incredibly intelligent man. His IQ is 159! That's one hundred times your IQ!
Using Philo of Alexandria and Plato to attempt to reinforce your theological position appears hopeful at best! These are arguments the pre-existed before our current scientific and cosmological understanding and have no grounding in evidence. Adding a supernatural element to an argument that works perfectly well without it's addition is just wishful thinking.
The biggest proof of God's existence that we have is that of suffering. If there is noone overwatching us and we are not answerable to anyone except maybe dumb courts of this world for our actions and deeds, then why can't materialists somehow(just somehow)keep themselves happy and have to face terrible consequences according to the merit of their own work in this life itself and thereafter?
@@mehdimehdikhani5899 No you shouldn't do so. You should immediately consult a mental health professional. Sitting probably thousand miles away from you, just reading what you wrote I can tell for sure that you are in crisis. The new trend that we should openly talk about mental illness isn't going to save anyone. Instead of trying to resolve the crisis in my mind if I console myself by thinking that there are so many like me, it's just deluding yourself and avoiding the real problem. Sooner or later the problem is going to catch up with you and all tactics to avoid finding the solution to the problem will just torment you more.
Talk is cheap. There are plenty of arguments for gods but absolutely no evidence, someone told you there was a god and you took their word for it, it's why all religions are called 'faiths', the more gullible you are the more you are convinced there is a god.
Dr. Craig and all True Christians have absolute proof. It is only those who put their complete trust and confidence in what God says in His Word, the Bible, who have this assurance. So unless you have this confidence, you cannot have proof.
@@robertrlkatz6890 So you have absolute proof? then you will never again need to say you take it on 'faith'. My heart goes out to you Robert, it really does.
It's a good time to remember that what really got William Lane Craig into Christianity was the beautiful smile of a Christian girl at his school, "Sandy". That and no other is the real reason. A teenager's existential angst and psychological need to be loved did the rest. "When I first heard the message of the Gospel as a non-Christian high school student, that my sins could be forgiven by God, that God *loved me, he loved Bill Craig,* and that I could come to know him and experience *eternal life* with God, I thought to myself (and I'm not kidding) I thought if there is just one chance in a million that this is true it's worth believing. So my attitude toward this is just the opposite of Kyle's. *Far from raising the bar or the epistemic standard that Christianity must meet to be believed, I lower it."* - William Lane Craig The rest, the theological arguments and the attempt to give a scientific tone to his diatribes, are merely rationalizations with which he has been doubling down ever since.
@@AnthropomorphicTrilobite The point is, in his video he gives arguments. You can't just dismiss them because you psychoanalyzed him. You are basically attacking the man, but the idea behind arguments is that the person making them doesn't matter, so talking about him is a sideshow.
@@notavailable4891 Oh, really? Can you tell me what specific argument I am saying is false by appealing to psychoanalysis? Can you tell me what specific argument I am saying is false by appealing to its origins? Be specific. But you can't, because deep down you know that your comment is nothing more than a defense mechanism, whether you admit it or not. Let's hear Craig's words one more time since he is speaking from the bottom of his heart... "When I first heard the message of the Gospel as a non-Christian high school student, that my sins could be forgiven by God, that God *loved me, he loved Bill Craig,* and that I could come to know him and experience *eternal life* with God, I thought to myself (and I'm not kidding) I thought if there is just one chance in a million that this is true it's worth believing. So my attitude toward this is just the opposite of Kyle's. *Far from raising the bar or the epistemic standard that Christianity must meet to be believed, I lower it."* - William Lane Craig Oh boy, you should have seen the smile on that Christian girl's face at his high school, Sandy Tiffan Ackerman... she "always seemed so happy it just makes you sick!".
@@vejeke I don't care if William Lane Craig ran naked through the streets screaming about being attacked by bats. Either his arguments are correct or they aren't he really isn't relevant, anything he said isn't relevant to the truth of his arguments, his motivations aren't relevant to the truth of his arguments. This just smacks of a cheap character attack because he is good at what he does and his arguments still haven't been refuted after decades of highly motivated counter arguments.
@@SteelMan_of_God Logical fallacy. Unsubstantiated claims. Appeal to authority. Speculation. False premises. That’s just a preamble; happy to cite more (Genius…)
@@MisterDoctorE if you can watch a video like this and come to that conclusion, you simply are not an intellectual thinker, and that's okay. Keep searching.
@@crashtestdummy2337 I saw no evidence at all, nothing. Through history there has been no evidence for god(s) at all. Hence I see no valid reasoning for believing in god(s). When we look at the universe it is simply too big for "our" god(s) we created in our image(Mostly). WLC has never provided any evidence, just some laughable wordsalad
Why? That's my question. Why do you need to explain? Why do you need to prove, convince, influence? Why do you need to defend anything? Since when faith requires defense? To what means? I'm repeating my faith theorem: More you convinced God is good and merciful less wether you believe in Him matters. With assumption that there is no person on this planet to demonstrate God's active involvement in human lives. As if there would be one would be morally highly questionable. That leads to explanation of my original question: why? The question of wether God exists is completely irrelevant to individual human life.
More like "copium for the subset of presumably very clever Livermore staff who choose to attend religious events." Intelligence and theism aren't mutually exclusive; smart people can compartmentalize empiricism and self-delusion in the same brain! And, the smarter they are, the smarter-sounding their preferred apologist needs to sound...
@@shassett79 as someone who grew up in the baptist church, the ideas these guys string together do trickle down into the church body. Intelligent design/kalam/evolutionary creationism is worked out systematically by the apologists, whose ideas are then passed on by theologians, preachers, then true believers. Not that it takes much, they just need to hear someone they perceive as smart to tell them that they were right all along
What, in your opinion, can be considered proper evidence for the existence of God? Moreover, what leads you to consider Craig’s points as not forms of evidence?
@@iam604 If you aren't going to engage the arguments and you're just going to say "there's no evidence" then clearly it's your actual heart for God and not the evidence that is the problem.
@@TheSpacePlaceYT What particular argument did you have in mind for me to engage? As of right now, none of his arguments have yielded a Nobel Peace Prize for proving his god exists. But please feel free to ask anyway.
I'll save you some time. He presents no evidence whatsoever. It's a full hour of a guy using a god as an explanation for things we don't yet understand, while insisting he just can't believe things could be the way they actually are without "divine intervention". Zero evidence. What's most striking is that none of the arguments he uses are even what led him to believe in a god in the first place.
What kind of evidence do you need? How many years must pass before science proves something before we begin to belive in a cause? Is chance or something from nothing more reasonable than a creator?
@@lapapaintelectual8718 Evidence-actual evidence-not just a guy using a god to explain the things we don't understand. And honesty-like the guy admitting he wasn't convinced by any of that and then explaining the real reasons he ended up believing in the existence of that god. The 'something from nothing' idea is a well-known psychological defense mechanism called projection. Theists are usually the ones who believe their gods (creator gods) literally created the universe out of nothing, which is why they project that belief onto those who don't believe in their creator gods.
@lapapaintelectual8718 Evidence-actual evidence-not just a guy using a god to explain the things we don't understand. And honesty-like the guy admitting he wasn't convinced by any of that and then explaining the real reasons he ended up believing in the existence of that god.
@@vejeke But what kind of evidence would be reliable? What do you mean by current evidence? It seems reasonable to me to think of a Creator with the arguments presented. The hypotheses (before concluding something) suggested by science on issues such as the origin of life are not very convincing either: it is chance, spontaneity or multiverses generally.
@lapapaintelectual8718 The arguments presented boil down to 'we don't know X, therefore it's reasonable to think a god did it,' and there's always a component of dishonesty, since none of those are what actually convinced him. Leaving aside the use of something that we don't have evidence even exists as a candidate explanation for things we don't currently understand....
You are allowed to do anything that doesn't hurt other people. Hating Satan may or may not. If I were your relative or your friend, for instance, then the fact that my Satan hating relative/friend has lost his mind would hurt me though. Don't do bullshit like that. Try to be an adult. ;-)
Information doesn't create the cosmos. Information waves are the fabric of the cosmos. And, as demonstrated with the famous double slit experiment, a conscious observer converts those information waves of potentiality / probability into "particle", "matter", or "cosmos". The Prime Observer creates the Cosmos.
If we allow in our premise, the existence of an uncaused intelligent entity, why are we ruling out the possibility of an uncaused fundamental force that could also serve as the constituent for the universe? In other words, why do we assign hypothetical properties to God, but reject the universe itself having those same properties?
That's a no. This is because the entire universe, including fundamental forces, are contingent. That is, they do not necessarily have to exist - they could just as well have not existed. They could have taken other forms, etc. God is the one necessary being, and the only explanation for all contingent beings. I think we are a thought in his mind.
@edzion6433 I’m not talking about the known forces. I’m talking about some undiscovered concept that could possess the same properties we invent for god. And these known forces are absolutely necessary, especially for life. The argument at best suggests some uncaused concept is responsible for the universe in terms of cause. But nothing in the argument points to god.
@@guitart4909 I think you've misunderstood me. The name of the concept that is necessary and from which all contingent things arise from *is* God. The uncaused cause, or unmoved mover, is literally God. Once you start from the fact that there's a necessary being from which all things are contingent, then you can arrive at God by knowing that this necessary being must have will: note that he created the Universe, which is a contingent complex structure. He also constructed the universe at a particular time - that means God *chose* to create the Universe, implying some type of person-hood since He (or the concept) made a choice. A concept that is simply abstract is not capable of making a choice. Nor is a physical law capable of making a choice.
@@guitart4909 You are the only damn person that actually engages with the arguments in this comment section. Thank God. Anyways, God is necessary simply by definition in classical theism, so this is already GRANTED. The question is "Can we prove that God is the cause?" The answer is yes. The cause must be immaterial yet not contingent. The cause must have agency given that the universe is contingent, and the cause must have sufficient power in order to do so. Consequently, God exists.
Any scientific cosmology theory is limited by what a scientific theory has to be. It has to exist with a givien theoretical form. This form thus implies that the theory is condemned to posit this form as the beginning of the Universe. So the idea of a beginning is inherently in the concept of a theory of cosmology. It is not a special feathure of a particular theory, nor an empirical discovery but an a priori or scientific cosmology. The only way to make eliminate this limit is to dissolve any hard limit in the past and to have a smooth path of creation from almost nothing to our our current best theory of cosmology. Then God would be manifested not in a brutal creation edge but would be in from the beginning and would remain within in the same way it has been all along.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 he knows plenty. Atheists generally encounter him singularly on Kalam, but he does other things. This is just his most visible work/grift
@@philswaim392 I once saw Craig in a discussion with Sean Carroll. Craig is good at looking knowlegdeable but if you scratch the surface, there isen´t so much real understanding.
3:30 Introduction
5:33 Six ways in which science and theology are relevant to each other
6:55 A book recommendation for deeper study of the arguments in this presentation
7:40 Argument 1: Kalam cosmological argument
20:30 Argument 2: The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics
37:55 Argument 3: The fine-tuning of the universe for life
46:40 Conclusion
47:30 Q&A
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
If are in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church
(These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches)
If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms or Wels Lutheran church.
If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC.
(Different from the Church of Scotland)
If you are English I recommend the Free Church of England.
(Different from the Church of England)
Online you can look up church finders for each of the groups and it will show you locations .
Bless you
♦"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
♦"Only fools revere the myths just bc a book claims itself to be the holy truth."
♦"The delusional religious fools are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt."
♦"The religious believe by the millions what lunatics could believe on their own."
♦"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
♦"It's difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."
@@AtamMardes @AtamMardes 1. All you've done is quote quips from Voltaire.
2. However you don't make a case or provide any kind of reason or evidence for anyone to believe (say) Christianity is false, while atheism is true.
3. Is there even a *positive* case for why you believe atheism is true? Most of what I've seen for atheism is negative. Such as atheism is the lack of belief in gods, atheism doesn't believe in fairies in the garden, like trying to find a teapot orbiting the sun, etc. But is there no positive case for atheism?
4. It seems atheism must prove a universal negative which is a very high bar to scale! Agnosticism seems more reasonable than atheism for the intellectually honest.
5. William Lane Craig makes a reasonable case for theism.
@@philtheo
The human brain (educated or not) is very susceptible to pareidolia, apophenia, hallucinations, superstitions and gullibility; That's why religion has managed to fool so many people.
I do like William Lane Craig. He shows you can be a university educated professional and also believe in the Christian faith 🧑🎓👨🏫🧑⚕️
Yeah, if you study theology. Or as I prefer to call it: Organized superstition.
@norbertjendruschj9121 Call it what you like mate, but it makes no difference that William would go to town on you in a debate 😉
@@ianwatson194
The way Craig "wins" debates is the same Trump wins debates: Lying, interrupting, ignoring counterarguments.The man is totally thick and the worst philosopher I ever listened to.
Just watch his debate with Sean Carroll.
@JoaoHenrique-yo1lo
I know enough to tell a man, whose argumentation is based on wishful thinking, from a meaningful debater. If you fall for WLC, you can´t tell the difference.
@JoaoHenrique-yo1lo I agree with you with one exception. I think Craig is a lousy apologist. His "arguments" are ridiculous.
"I don't have a problem with ignorance. We are all ignorant about a variety of subjects we are not currently aware of. The real problem is when that ignorance is wilful, intentional and used as a weapon against anyone who disagrees with you, or anyone who has the nerve to present facts you don't want to accept."
- anyone who actually cares about verifiable reality
Love Dr. Craig ♥
Dr. Craig spitting straight fire, as always.
Sure, as always... 😂
"When I first heard the message of the Gospel as a non-Christian high school student, that my sins could be forgiven by God, that God *loved me, he loved Bill Craig,* and that I could come to know him and experience *eternal life* with God, I thought to myself (and I'm not kidding) I thought if there is just one chance in a million that this is true it's worth believing. So my attitude toward this is just the opposite of Kyle's. *Far from raising the bar or the epistemic standard that Christianity must meet to be believed, I lower it."* - William Lane Craig
@@vejeke Dr Craig has responded to this, but I'm not sure you care
@@steved5960 I listened to his response and the subsequent nuancing of that response and the conversation about his nuanced response, and Kyle and him talking, and Kyle talking to others, and Kyle's opinion about his response, etc. So how sure are you now?
It's a good time to remember that what really got William Lane Craig into Christianity was the beautiful smile of a Christian girl at his school, "Sandy". That and no other is the real reason. A teenager's existential angst and psychological need to be loved did the rest...
The rest, the theological arguments and the attempt to give a scientific tone to his diatribes, are merely rationalizations with which he has been doubling down ever since.
So let me quote his own words one more time, I know you like them, and he could not have been clearer.
"When I first heard the message of the Gospel as a non-Christian high school student, that my sins could be forgiven by God, that God *loved me, he loved Bill Craig,* and that I could come to know him and experience *eternal life* with God, I thought to myself (and I'm not kidding) I thought if there is just one chance in a million that this is true it's worth believing. So my attitude toward this is just the opposite of Kyle's. *Far from raising the bar or the epistemic standard that Christianity must meet to be believed, I lower it."* - William Lane Craig
I recommend you a video recap of Low Bar Bill's confession called: "Christian Philosopher Fails to Fix the Internet he Broke! (William Lane Craig response)"
@@vejeke of course, even granting everything you said, not a single sentence in your comments even attempts to *engage* the arguments. If you feel it unnecessary, then there’s no point in anyone engaging you any further.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns I understand that you don't like what I say and you want me to shut up, but it's not in your power. The point I'm making is for me to decide, not you. None of the other comments in this thread engaged with Craig's straw man, not even your irrelevant tantrum did. So if you don't mind, I'm going to keep quoting Craig's own words while you decide to ignore what I say, change the subject and pretend there's no point in engaging me any further.
"When I first heard the message of the Gospel as a non-Christian high school student, that my sins could be forgiven by God, that God *loved me, he loved Bill Craig,* and that I could come to know him and experience *eternal life* with God, I thought to myself (and I'm not kidding) I thought if there is just one chance in a million that this is true it's worth believing. So my attitude toward this is just the opposite of Kyle's. *Far from raising the bar or the epistemic standard that Christianity must meet to be believed, I lower it."* - William Lane Craig A.K.A. Low Bar Bill.
I disagree with Craig’s faith, but it’s always great to hear him speak. And I’m glad he’s still alive!
he's such a cool dude
WL Craig is an absolute treasure, a great gift of God to the world.
Grow up
@@stephenconnolly3018That’s rich! In this world, some people happen to believe there’s a higher power, and I just so happen to be one of them. If you don’t like it, turn the other cheek. I’m not forcing you to glorify my God, just like how nobody is forcing me to glorify theirs, or in your case, not glorifying your lack of one. Grow a backbone, and/or go to some atheist channel where the content/comments don’t offend you.
Yes, Craig is such a great gift, doing great work. He’s been gifted with a great mind, and is using it in great ways to serve humanity. Those who don’t agree are free to disagree and move on. I think it’s their loss.
@@paulnash6944 The problem is there isn't any god. It's just a concept.
@@Paul_G73nope
Many kudos to DOE. I worked for the DOJ for 25 years before retiring. While they allowed Muslim and other scholars to speak to employees, usually under the auspices of heritage months, we never heard from Christian scholars. Most of the speakers were great, so I am not disparaging them. DOJ would never support posting the speaker regardless of background. I am doubtful they would allow employee groups to host something like this at all. This was awesome, and I am grateful the DOE and Lawrence Livermore encourages this type of productive discussion, especially as we continue to consider the essence of the Big Bang, the problems with Neo Darwinism, and the shutdown of these discussions in most of the academy. BRAVO!
Great answers at the Q&A! Dr. Craig answered flawlessly the logical problem of Evil!
> Craig answered flawlessly the logical problem of Evil!
_[citation needed]_
Wasn't his answer basically 'oh, it's all part of God's grand design and because of butterfly effect you can't actually calculate the moral worth of suffering today because of downstream effects, in fact you can't judge God at all, so all my opponents haven't thought this through or are emotional and I win 😎'
These are the same people who mock atheists for having standards on whether the resurrection happened 😂
@@ryanmitchell5614That’s not at all the case. Please provide a specific quote or quotes that support your claim.
Rubbish mis quoting out mode philosopher is far from a well thought out coherent argument. There was only rhetoric and stale dogma, it may work on the sheep. Grow up your child like believes should have died along with other myths like father Christmas or do you still believe in him?.
@@stephenconnolly3018 For example?
Atheism is a superstition by the way.
I have listened to many of WLCs videos.This is one of the best deliveries I have heard.Very structured point by point.Great for the mind.
1. Infinite Regress Problem: If you trace back the cause of everything that exists, you eventually reach a point where you need a first cause or an origin. This is because an infinite chain of causes without a starting point is difficult to conceptualize logically.
2. First Cause Necessity: To avoid an infinite regress, there must be an initial cause or a creator that set everything into motion. This cause is often identified as God.
3. Conditions for Existence: Even if one posits that our universe was created by a highly intelligent being, a quantum state, or some other entity, the question remains: what created the conditions for that being or state to exist? This line of questioning ultimately leads to a need for a fundamental origin.
4. Simulation Hypothesis: If the universe is a simulation, then the simulation must have been created by some entity. The existence of such an entity would still require an explanation, which leads back to the need for a first cause.
5. Endless Causation: Even if something else caused our universe, such as a quantum state or another dimension, something must have caused that initial cause as well. This continuous need for a cause suggests that there must be an ultimate, uncaused cause to stop the infinite regress.
In summary: If you trace the cause of everything back far enough, you eventually need a first cause or origin to avoid an infinite regress. This necessity for a first cause suggests that belief in an ultimate creator, often conceptualized as God, is rational, as it provides a logical endpoint to the chain of causation.
1)we dont know if the universe is infinite or had a start,
2)if you trace back the cause of everything that exists we dont know where we end up cause we dont know what happened in the beginning. We can follow a rough chain of evolution for most living things but at some point we just dont know. Saying because we know that everything had a beggining or a cause in the time we know,means that everything also had an origin/cause/beggining is not correct
3)if one says any of these things, they are just a hypothesis, theres no evidence for them right now. The answer here is i dont know. It is wrong to say : who created these conditions?we dont know. therefore god. Anytime you say i dont know, you remain with that answer
4)Simulation hypothesis is fun to think about but also no evidence for it
5)Even if something else caused our universe , which we dont know if it did, you eventually need a first cause , which we also dont know. See how many times all these questions include we dont know.
In summary, i disagree with the premise that everything needs a first cause, we know that for a certain time in human history we can trace SOME things that have a cause, but we just dont know when we go far enough back in time. There is no necessity to believe in a first cause because theres no evidence there was one if that cause needed smth intelligent or not. Therefore, the most logical position here is i dont know.
As you seem to think you have proven god, can you please be a bit more precise and share with us the knowledge which of the countless gods is the true one and who you derive at your conclusion.
Then how did the creator come to be?
It's considered rational to think that the big bang set everything into motion, but then people argue about who created the big bang. They settle on a conscious fully formed, fully aware being of some description, but never question how they came to be either. They just say "It always was".
Yet, energy existing doesn't get the same pass. That had to come from something.
The chicken had to come before the egg (don't question where the chicken came from, they just were)
Vs
The chicken evolved from another iteration of something similar to a chicken and that also evolved from something similar till they all became separate classes in the animal kingdom.
What really came first was microbes which could be considered closer to a chick in gestation, but with out the protection of the egg as the egg development came later when the chicken actually evolved and eventually used the egg to protect future offspring. And all of that was possible due to energy getting complex into matter that eventually mutated into life at all as a way to perpetuate existing and existence itself doesn't exist because it wants to, but because it does. Much like a chemical reaction doesn't decide to be volatile or be set off by certain things, but it just does, like math. And math was just a clever way we found to be able to explain all the complex phenomena we became conscious enough to observe.
I think people just want to think everything has purpose or meaning or intent and especially is simple. When I don't think most things do and most of the universe seems to suggest that it's not conscious thought or motive. And we find that scary, because it's not what we are or at least what we think we are and we don't like complex answers because we live a finite amount of time and don't have time for them.
Your first cause being god is nothing more than special pleading.
Something seems tp not need a cause. You assume its god. you assume a god exists but you have no evidence for one.
I assume the universe is the first cause. We do not have to assume the universe exists.
Occam's razor applies.
Always love to see the argument from the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics roll out.
How does that prove any god whatsoever?
Much as I love Dr. Craig, and think many of his arguments are great, I don't get the argument from mathematics at all. It seems related to arguments from laws of nature (which I think are very good) and fine-tuning arguments (also good). But, this particular argument just seems incoherent to me.
@@HainishMentat the scholastic and Feser style versions are better
Why would we not expect the logic of quantity and pattern to apply to quantitative and patterned things, like the things of the cosmos? It's literally impossible for math not to apply because math can describe anything. Why should we be surprised to find a mathematical universe? As opposed to what? We cannot create models or theories beyond what we can understand, obviously. It's just a god of the gaps from personal incredulity, like most theistic arguments.
@@11kravitznSame, I don’t get it, but the expert themselves says that it is weird and a miracle
Let's goooooooo!!!
New research confirms that there is a negative relationship between religiosity and intelligence. The findings have been published in the scientific journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. (6-8% lower than non believers the research is the combined findings of 83 studies)
“Religiosity is a pervasive phenomenon. Its influence can be felt in all spheres of life. However, a sizeable portion of the population defines itself as atheist. Why do some people decide not to be religious? I thought it was an important and fascinating question,” said study author Miron Zuckerman of the University of Rochester.
Brilliant, Dr. Craig!
New research confirms that there is a negative relationship between religiosity and intelligence. The findings have been published in the scientific journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. (6-8% lower than non believers the research is the combined findings of 83 studies)
“Religiosity is a pervasive phenomenon. Its influence can be felt in all spheres of life. However, a sizeable portion of the population defines itself as atheist. Why do some people decide not to be religious? I thought it was an important and fascinating question,” said study author Miron Zuckerman of the University of Rochester.
@@stephenconnolly3018 Apparently Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton were theists. This apparently means they are stupid :D
@@TheSpacePlaceYTlol
Thank you Dr. Craig for your well reasoned and respectful presentation arguing for the Uncreated Creator as the cause…the origin of the manifest universe.
Where did you see an origin of the universe? In the bible or in the actual universe? ;-)
It was respectful, and poorly reasoned and incorrect.
Consciousness and personality.
Thank you Dr Craig , may the lord continue to use your wonderful brain to reach those in the dark! Many are searching, and I know you are reaching many! I pray for you and your family forever and ever amen!
So the Lord needs to use a man for something again? Wow…what a very useless god if it can’t do things for itself.
You mad bro
@@jamesfreeman2253 Not at all…I’m free though
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
If are in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church
(These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches)
If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms or Wels Lutheran church.
If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC.
(Different from the Church of Scotland)
If you are English I recommend the Free Church of England.
(Different from the Church of England)
Online you can look up church finders for each of the groups and it will show you locations .
@@iam604🐪
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:01 🎙️ Introduction to event and speaker Dr. William Lane Craig.
02:21 📚 Dr. Craig's background and purpose of the lecture.
03:15 🕒 Limited time for evidence of God's existence; aim is to spark conversation.
06:13 🌌 Presentation of three arguments with scientific support for theological implications.
10:49 🌠 Kalam Cosmological Argument: Universe's beginning supported by scientific and theoretical evidence.
20:09 📐 Mathematics' remarkable applicability in describing natural phenomena.
26:14 🧙♂️ Theistic explanation for mathematics' effectiveness in explaining the physical world.
34:34 📜 Theistic anti-realists explain mathematics' applicability to the physical world as God's mental model.
38:14 🎯 Fine-tuning of fundamental constants for life's existence challenges natural explanations.
41:23 🎲 Physical necessity and chance are implausible explanations for fine-tuning.
43:10 🔍 Observer self-selection and Boltzmann brain problem challenge the multiverse explanation.
46:50 🌟 Science provides evidence for theological conclusions; dialogue between science and theology is thriving.
48:08 ⛪️ Miracles, like Jesus' resurrection, can be reconciled with scientific understanding.
52:16 🤔 The problem of human suffering involves both intellectual and emotional challenges.
56:38 🌄 Doubt and uncertainty coexist with faith; faith involves trust based on good reasons.
Love William Craig, such an inspiration and original thinker. I hope he’s doing well, I see his eyebrows have gotten grayer 😅
#Aging
Bro i love this
Dr bill Craig should teach how to research, think critically, write, memorise the material and present to an audience and also to debate
He admittedly lowers his epistemically bar based on wanting things to be true. This is not a good quality of a researcher
"Think critically" 😂
"The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart and that this gives me a self authenticating means of knowing that Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence and therefore if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity I don't think that that controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit." - William Lane Craig
@@vejeke
Self authentic witness is also based on some kind of experience and if one experience something then this is rationally acceptable. Because God doesn't need to give empirical evidences that can only be known in some kind of laboratory but he can give signs inside a person. So I find nothing wrong with what wlc said. It is still rationally acceptable.
@@munafghori4052 Of course, there is nothing wrong with putting confirmation bias and self-deception before evidence. That's why Muhammad was fully justified in believing that he actually spoke to angel in a cave.
It's a good time to remember that what really got William Lane Craig into Christianity was the beautiful smile of a Christian girl at his school, "Sandy". That and no other is the real reason. A teenager's existential angst and psychological need to be loved did the rest.
"When I first heard the message of the Gospel as a non-Christian high school student, that my sins could be forgiven by God, that God *loved me, he loved Bill Craig,* and that I could come to know him and experience *eternal life* with God, I thought to myself (and I'm not kidding) I thought if there is just one chance in a million that this is true it's worth believing. So my attitude toward this is just the opposite of Kyle's. *Far from raising the bar or the epistemic standard that Christianity must meet to be believed, I lower it."* - William Lane Craig
The rest, the theological arguments and the attempt to give a scientific tone to his diatribes, are merely rationalizations with which he has been doubling down ever since.
@@vejeke
If you want to call a persons experiences as confirmation bias then I cannot argue more because you made up your mind. For you to believe need a witness of holy feelings and if I show you a way then I don't know whether you would do it or not but you will not believe until you experience it. For if I show you evidences then ofcourse you would verify it but I don't know whether you are open to spiritual feelings. But as a Muslim I can only tell you that do two things. one is seek forgiveness from God 100 times daily in morning and evenings. And second pray to God for guidance. Hope he will help you and give you better evidences.
Second you say Dr Craig gave theological claim with scientific evidences. I think he didnt do any thing wrong in that. If you had scientific evidence for non existence of God then you will provide it. There is nothing wrong to give scientific evidences for philosophical arguments. Actually those arguments are not theological. They are philosophical. None of the conclusion and premises are theological. It is in the end that dr criag tries to show that these philosophical arguments back by science leads to theological beliefs. This is what he is doing. I don't think this is wrong. But there is nothing wrong if scientific evidences exist in support of religious claims. You just blindly deny theology and religion.
Living in a world where everyone denies the existence of God, it is a relief to hear a such a brilliant mind like this man. God bless Dr. Craig. 🙏
Craig, the Dr. of wishful thinking.
Great video!
New research confirms that there is a negative relationship between religiosity and intelligence. The findings have been published in the scientific journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. (6-8% lower than non believers the research is the combined findings of 83 studies)
“Religiosity is a pervasive phenomenon. Its influence can be felt in all spheres of life. However, a sizeable portion of the population defines itself as atheist. Why do some people decide not to be religious? I thought it was an important and fascinating question,” said study author Miron Zuckerman of the University of Rochester.
@@stephenconnolly3018 "i am very smart THEREFORE I AM RIGHT!
00:00 None.
Case closed. Bye.
Excellent arguments for God!
Talk is cheap. There are plenty of arguments for gods but absolutely no evidence, someone told you there is a god and you took their word for it, it's why all religions are called 'faiths', the more gullible you the more you are convinced there is a god.
@@Shytot-1you must have more faith then us since the we came out of nothing and their was no force behind the nothing that exploded us into existence.
Your faith is the strongest.
@@edwardb911Yes, seeing things as they are does not work for everyone, some people need to see things as they would like them to be, for a lot of people reality sucks, so they either make something up for themselves or they latch onto something someone else made up.
I take it you prefer the latter. It's OK as long as it doesn't affect anyone else but religious people are not happy just minding their own business, they have to try and contaminate everyone else and make them as damaged as they are.
@@Shytot-1we are damaged? 😂
@@Viiola24 Yes of course you are, why else would you believe the crazy things you believe?
Low Bar Bill ❤❤❤❤❤❤
8:08 it is pronounced Ghazali not Khazali.
The boundary that all space time rewinds back to is an x, y axis,, the matrix of the physical world, the Cross. The zero point extends out in all directions; God divides himself into everything, transferring energy outward. Bless it!!
Awesome video
What evidence do we have for God's existence: The resurrection of Yeshua Nazarene, the gift of his Spirit and new life thereby, the energy of the apostles and the spread of the church against the might of Rome.
Dr Craig--someone who has no real academic connection to science, treats theology as science when it is actually mythology and has been trying to manufacture evidence for God ever since becoming an apologist.
It that’s his job-mesmerizing Christians into believing in a magic genie and to stop asking questions.
I'd say this is just evidence of the larger issues with metaphysics and the temptation to logically "prove" things in a mental a universe of one's own creation. Personally, I think it's interesting and useful to dig into metaphysical questions (e.g. "what is truth?") but it seems to me that the wheels come off when someone like Craig tries to reason the Christian god into existence.
@@shassett79 Yes exactly-he is a minimalist on evidence and likes to mesmerize people with magical dissertations because he knows that should work well with most Christians since they take the lazy way out and do not care to learn about the realities in the world.
@@shassett79 science can tell us "how" the universe operates and with scientific knowledge we have further better our lives, divers inventions are here as evidence of these facts.
To think that this is all the human society needs is a very shallow way of reasoning, science can answer the "how" question but can't answer "why" the universe is, the quest for meaning is our truest need, I applaud science but I believe religion with strong emphasis on Christianity is the closest to giving us Meaning.
Yess, I came by random events and evolution brought me to this point of my existence, but why are my here in the first place, what do I live for.
If I am living to die with no purpose why don't I then live the way I so please, what is the moral restrain holding me from raping a 5 year old.
The Bible answers the question of meaning, this is humanity's greatest need.
@danielajah5262 It's fine if you personally need to know "the meaning of life," or whatever, and I'll grant that science can't provide it for you.
That said, it always sends a shiver down my spine when a theist proposes that they might just as well be raping and murdering people if not for whichever meaning or moral authority they've found in religion...
@@shassett79 oh not in any way, we all know that man is inherently deprived, if not we won't be hearing of street shootings every now and then, my point here is this, we can not have a standard for morality if there is no universal moral law giver that is consistent in every part of the world.
If we live the issue of morality to be relative saying do what makes you happy, what if killing makes me happy.
The issue of ethics and morality can not be relative, now I have heard of an era in a particular African state where twins were considered demonic and so killed, this practice was widely accepted by the community as morally justified, but is this so for every other community?
Ethics and morality will always draw us back for a universal law giver. He is the restrain not because I'm saying this, but because it is an obvious fact.
Jesus has been a great why for Craig to make a good living.
It is not a sin to be rich but it is a sin to be greedy.
Science and theology are two different ways that brains can think. Science is about breaking beliefs so that knowledge can evolve. Theology is about maintaining beliefs for a sense of purpose and reward.
Both of your definitions are utterly wrong.
@@OC3707 please elaborate as to how so from your perspective
@Turtle1967A I don't know if you care but Area 51 Scientist Boyd Bushman Lead Scientist of Lockheed Martin has proof of ours souls... It's amazing our Government🇺🇲 knows Jesus Exists
@@kaecake9575I believe he is dead. It's great if you have proof when you are dead.
@@David_four_twenty
Beautiful words, thanks. You should have included that theology is meant to stifle thought.
louder videos please the ads are 2x the volume
The answer to everything is an imagined god who can do anything.
Not imagined
Think you'll find that's G
New research confirms that there is a negative relationship between religiosity and intelligence. The findings have been published in the scientific journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. (6-8% lower than non believers the research is the combined findings of 83 studies)
“Religiosity is a pervasive phenomenon. Its influence can be felt in all spheres of life. However, a sizeable portion of the population defines itself as atheist. Why do some people decide not to be religious? I thought it was an important and fascinating question,” said study author Miron Zuckerman of the University of Rochester.
@@stephenconnolly3018 ok if you're so smart then explain how a man came back from the dead and pushed a bolder out of the way, which was recorded weeks after the event. How do you bring other people back to life. Boy atheists are so smart, for example the French revolution, the Russian revolution, Spanish Republicans, hitler.
@@stephenconnolly3018 'Intelligence' doesn't equate to spiritual insight and wisdom, however...Nice try though...The Gospel of Christ is open to rich or poor, old or young, educated or undereducated...If people choose to reject it because they think they're too 'intelligent'/'educated', that is up to them...
Whether you agree with him or not i think hes one of the greatest Theist debaters since there has been film recordings. Razor sharp mind and such command of language
Also known as Low Bar Bill.
After Dr.Craig admitted that he took up Christianity on the basis of Pascal's Wager I can't take him seriously, he's clearly in it for the money only.
I think your conclusions are highly presumptuous to feel that he is in it for Money.
Ridiculous comment
For me it was him presenting 'one in a million chance' as a rational standard for believing, from the same guy that loves presenting probabilistic arguments for god.
@@Julian0101you missed it!! With such great probability of everything lining up almost perfect, the perfect distance from the sun, the tides from the moon creating life sustaining waves in the ocean, the sun at the right distance and providing nutrients for life on earth, instructions in dna, suggest a brilliant mind behind the creation of
@@christ_is_coming_back9118 See, the fact that all those things keep shifting, and thus are not perfect, is evidence your mind thing was not involved at all.
Good on you for figuring out why that argument fails so bad.
Very interesting lecture! My thanks to the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory people who organized the event!
I think that the argument about math and natural laws to be somewhat inverted and misplaced - it should actually be in the first point on theology creating a mental framework that supports the development of science.
The Christian God is Platonic - ideal and good. It was this platonic characterist that led early scientists to look for the simpler and most elegant mathematical description: Galileo, I'm sure, did not find the square law of falling bodies from his experiments - he found that results were around the power of 2 but since Nature was created by God, then it could only be the power of 2. The platonic framework and the works of Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
Augustine wrote that God composed two books being one written by his own hands and the other by men He inspired. Since the second had been written by humans, in case of conflict the first one should be considered as the correct one. The first is Nature and the second is the Bible.
Thomas Aquinas wrote around the 14th or 15th century about the limits of God's power: 1) God can't create a copy of Himself; 2)God can't sin; and 3) God can't make a [eucledian] triangle with the sum of the internal angles different thatn 180 degrees.
In my opinion the invertion comes out of the fact that math came first and was very successful early on - that resulted in the predilection of science for Laws of Nature that could be elegantly described by mathematics. That predilection created a view that's widely held nowadays - that all we need to predict the future is a sufficient large and precise set on inputs while the fact is even a simple double pendulum (depending on the state space it's moving through) is impossible to predict. Early scientists did not have computers and the calculations necessary to even see the double pendulum problem were unfeasible and that led them to ignore the problems that could not be easily tackled through mathematics. Nowadays, given the successes of the sicence and techology partnership, that mindset - simple mechanicism and the unlimited power of mathematics - has become widely accepted as a universal truth. The problem is that that mindset is wrong - and people can't wrapt their minds around the complexity and seriousness of problems like climate change.
I’ve never understood the suffering bit. To put it simply, first of all human suffering is not a moral evil, and your distaste of it does not indicate anything significant besides that suffering is suffering. I fail to see why a man should not suffer. I’m rather reluctant to desire a heaven that would include no suffering. Not for the ups and downs but simply because I think human life is incomplete without suffering. And the degree of suffering must be beyond all imaginable reason. Why? Else it would not be real suffering. If you could really say to yourself “Thus suffering is reasonable and serves a purpose” you wouldn’t really be suffering in the true sense. You’d have purpose to console you. You’d be missing out on that perfect suffering without any conceivable purpose, that pinnacle of suffering which is so necessary to bring out the best qualities in man. That is to say, unless suffering can and frequently does exceed what is necessary to any conceivable purpose, it cannot serve any purpose. The purpose of suffering requires that it seem arbitrary and excessive
Well I believe heaven is so great we can’t even comprehend it. It’s more real than our realm. Dopamine and reward sensors do not exist in heaven so why would there be a need for suffering?
"first of all human suffering is not a moral evil"
Suffering is actually the only evil there is.
I’m not sure where your moral assumptions are being derived? How is human suffering not evil? If that is the case you would be arguing there is no good and evil?
Simple Fact: Nature is Red in Tooth and Claw !
The purpose is to forge your soul in the fires of God. It is painful, but it prepares you for what's next. That's what I believe.
What was the light that God created in the beginning? The Sun and Moon and Stars did not come until later so I wonder what kind of light was created when God said ‘let there be light’?
Previous ancient text preqch that light is conciousness, god and the fundamentals of everything.
@@SaerdnaOoOoo Case closed so. 👩⚖
@@cirilloucazzu4457 I know it's bad. And yes, cirkular.
@@cirilloucazzu4457 I am an atheist. I just cited an argument that a muslim might make. Don't know why. But, yes. I think religion is made from charlatons and or superstitious people.
Nothing so far, even less after enduring but the introduction.
What?
I think people over estimate consciousness in it's complexity. I think it's the process of a species that developed to be complex enough because there was enough energy dispersion in the big bang to cause that to happen. It is beneficial for a life to become self-aware to a higher degree as it allows for more knowledge and furthers it's evolution. It's not magic. But that doesn't make it any less fascinating to understand and I think people feel like when something is explained, it takes the "mystery" out and they feel it doesn't mean anything anymore. I find that baffling. Knowing how something works doesn't make it any less cool.
I think the fundamental scientific arguing of proof of faith is inherently misunderstanding of what probability actually means.
Conditions for life were one in a billion or whatever the number is. That doesn't mean impossible. In fact, i means, given enough time with the right conditions, the improbable WILL happen. Life is inevitable as improbable as it's calculated to be. If conditions are present for long enough, every probability will eventually happen, no matter how infinitesimal the chances.
To put it a really simple way. Roll a 20 sided dice. Get 20 five times in a row.
You have the same probability every roll to get it, but getting it at all and getting it consecutively is a far lower probability. Get a few thousand or more people to all do this. Someone will get it. Even though the probability is low, enough time and iterations means that someone will succeed in something that seems incredibly improbable. Because that's how probability actually works. Enough time and chance and it will happen.
Existence is the same. We are inevitable because conditions existed to foster the probability to exist at all. And everything is cause and effect. Nothing happens with out other things.
The one thing we don't know is also likely a limitation of the fact that we don't understand infinity or nothing as a concept. We get it abstractly, but our brains due to being things that have an expiration date likely do not.
Most egregiously what I don't understand is, if there is a creator and there is some missing information that could prove that, why would it at all revolve around us when we know the universe is massive? it seems so ego-centric.
I want a movie where the major Abrahamic god is real, but they don't care at all specifically about humans. We're just part of a greater equation of blue and orange morality. We were told or just outright assumed that said creator said we're special because we want to feel special as a survival mechanism. After all, we're terrified of death, as any creature is that's alive. So we came up with an explanation after finding proof that there is a creator because we don't want to die. And an afterlife is basically you don't really die. But this god doesn't even have time for us. We're such a blip and they have far far bigger things to be concerned about. It would be such a subversion to the self-circling idea our religions today have.
I think religion is basically the desire to still be parented, to be cared for, to feel like you matter and that's a perfectly reasonable thing to want as a species so aware of it's own expiration date. But to assume that a literal other being that isn't our own kind, be they magical, metaphysical or alien is ALL about us? Not to mention the billions of other living creatures on this planet, but who cares about them, right? That's the weirdest part of it all for me. I prefer the religions and ideas of the ancient world where they all said Gods are also kind of jerks and don't necessarily think we're the be all end all. That makes much more sense if there was another being that had the means to create life on a planet.
In short, no, I don't think that misunderstanding of probability in all proves the existence of a creator. In fact, if anything, it indicates the exact opposite.
Saying the atheist has the burden of proof and must show that god doesn't have good reason for suffering is outrageous, the burden of proof is very much on you to show that he does. I'd give the example of infant mortality and how awfully diseases affect children under 5.
@@squirelnest103 Exactly, why should atheists have to defend their worldview, it's sooooo unfair!!
One observation about the bible quotation Prof. Craig mentioned at the end: it was a woman asking to cure her daughter¹ and Jesus replies "you have great faith!".
Matthew 15:21-28
New International Version
The Faith of a Canaanite Woman
21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”
23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.
(1) Until just now I used to misquote the passage: I used to say son intead of daughter.
"What evidence do we have for God's existence?" none whatsoever. Shall we make something up or have you already done that? Who needs to believe in gods? gullible frightened people.
Sure bro, It takes really Brave people to march to hell...
The most powerful evidence for God are direct and indirect signs of the divine.
As per: "[John 14:16]; And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, who will never leave you" ; we have a continuous flow of the signs and fulfillment of the promise. It started with the first apostles :
John 14:16
Matthew 10:7-15
John 4:48
Acts 5:12-16
Acts 8:5-8
John 14:21
and last till today:
#1 Apparitions of the Virgin Mary : eg. Our Lady of Guadalupe , Fatima etc.
#2 Eucharistic Miracles " eg. Sokolka (Poland) etc
#3 Healing miracles: examples fr. Pio, br. Andre (from Montreal)
#4 Exorcisms : Look Up fr. Amorth, Fr. Gary Thomas, Fr. Vince Lampert
#5 Stigmata ; eg. fr.Pio , Teresa Neuman, currently : Ghiselle from Trevignano Romano
#6 Just awesome Nature miracles : eg. The Basilica of Our Lady of Good Health in Velankanni, India during Tsunami 2004
And the rest is just a side show speculation and philosophical entertainment, where one may loose himself completely and forget about the reality check.
@@Matt6X So your only evidence are the words of a storybook written by unknown men? That’s called HEARSAY! Not evidence.
@@iam604 You are so right. For example: the St-Joseph oratory in Montreal is really not there ... The 250k HEALING miracles recorded in the archives , thousands of them witnessed by the medical professionals are just stories for babies ... and so on , so on. Take another pill my friend .. or start to seriously looking at the commonly available evidence, the kind of evidence that is acceptable by any court of justice.
@@Matt6X I have never seen a medical miracle. I have seen misdiagnosed medical conditions, though. :-)
@@Matt6X I know I’m right and your failed deflection to believed healing miracles has NOTHING to do WITH THE STORY BOOK! I’m still waiting for a theist to win the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE for finally proving a god exists…oh wait a minute…according to you there is evidence? Where are the medical journals of these believed 250k healing miracles located at as well as who are those alleged “medical professionals” you speak of?
Simply saying something does make it true little Timmy and grown ups require actual evidence of a claim while children will simply believe older people like you do.
Nothing.
Just saved you an hour.
You're welcome.
Eloquently presented sophistry is still sophistry.
29:30 circular argument. "The universe wouldnt be fine tuned if it wasnt fine tuned."
If God existed it should be obvious. Obviously it is not!
We're alive. That's enough
Cheap shot from a weak mind. Thinking is difficult for a weak minds that’s why weak minds only try to judge to build themselves up but only make fools of themselves.
@@LongRidgeFarmer bro?
@@generalsheperd5864 We are alive through evolution.
@@Paul_G73 which was caused by God
We do not have evidence that proves without a reasonable doubt gods existence doesn’t take an hour.
you misunderstand the meaning of evidence
There are no parameters for God to exist and there for it is non-testable and unverifiable. There are no physical or theoretical parameters to measure god. There is no energy signature, agreed upon visual, impact or anything else. It's as wild as me saying pofdabapoodas are creatures on the microscopic level that control all the atoms in our body and influence our mood.
You can't prove I'm wrong because I'm giving you nothing to work with except the concept that you can't see what I claim which only defends for a moment my idea in the first place.
Proof of evidence is always in the one who claims. I would need to show you evidence of pofdabapooda's under a microscope and conclusively in an experiment and testing prove that due to micro-electron waves they give off based on their own survival status when they fight with other bacteria/viruses in our body so they can inhabit our system safely, that they send signals to our atoms which cause us to do different things and explains why we have mood swings. They evolved with us and in some they're more concentrated than others which is why some people have mood swings. Resolving the issue of pofdabapooda's is with medication that helps their environment flourish so that they are at a better rested state and less agitated as they also offer a benefit to us as a symbiotic species and they've learned to mimic protein signatures similar to our antibodies so that our immune system doesn't attack them, which is why we didn't know about them for so long.
No one does this with a god or really a lot of things that they think are true. Common advice and knowledge also doesn't get this level of scrutiny and this was a purposefully silly nonsense made up thing to prove a point. I basically said a silly word for midichlorians with a slightly more grounded affect to human existence instead of magic powers.
No one worth their salt in understanding scientific methodology or general evidence based arguments would say conclusively that it is impossible.
What we know so far indicates that it is unlikely. Just like my pofdabapooda's are.
"What evidence do we have for God's existence?" Jesus
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
If are in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church
(These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches)
If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms or Wels Lutheran church.
If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC.
(Different from the Church of Scotland)
If you are English I recommend the Free Church of England.
(Different from the Church of England)
Online you can look up church finders for each of the groups and it will show you locations .
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. - Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
If are in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church
(These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches)
If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms or Wels Lutheran church.
If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC.
(Different from the Church of Scotland)
If you are English I recommend the Free Church of England
(Different from the Church of England)
Online you can look up church finders for each of the groups and it will show you locations .
Jesus that's a ridiculous question
@@einwd He’s God the Son
@@boxingfan8274 yeah
Volume is too low, compared to other TH-cam videos.
Amazing!
If God created the world according to a certain blueprint which He had in mind why didn’t he include any of his equations in the Bible?
why does the bible have to cater to your exact wants of what it should be? is your argument seriously "it's not what i want it to be therefore it's wrong!" ?
Blueprints are made for those who want to create the same thing. A designer (Creator) does not use a blueprint.
William's every bad argument uninterrupted in just over an hour.
It sums up a profitable career in apologetic, masked as philosophy.
Our beloved Low Bar Bill never fails to entertain.
@@norbertjendruschj9121I felt he failed to entertain when he said it's fine to kill kids if god asks.
But his argument was silly and a low key entertaining: "because the kids will go to heaven straight away"
@@oscargr_ The poor Christian apologists are indeed hard pressed with this amoral kind of god.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 Have you seen the scene I was referring to. ( I think it's more recent than anything in this video)
The smile on WLC's face when he says those things, with the most matter of fact attitude. It's truly concerning.
-If he wasn't an elite apologist- , he would probably need to be kept away from children.
@@oscargr_
Yes. WLC and I studied at the same university, Ludwig Maximilians University / Munich, Germany. That makes me feels especially tense about him, though I mastered in physics, not theology.
I enjoy WLC's talks. 59:18 , what is up with his pant leg here?
He was doing his impression of Data from Star Trek; but only with one leg. Everyone knows he does this at the end of his lectures.
A good reminder of how silly apologetics is. Apologists sometimes have longer words, but so little reasoning or evidence to support their position. When one like this gets destroyed in debate apologists always complain we pick on easy targets, yet they can never agree who the sophisticated theists are once and for all.
Craig has plenty of evidence. You reject it because the conclusion is unacceptable.
@@terminat1 Great, let's hear it then. Best of luck to you.
@@Ozzyman200 You reject it out of hand, so there's no point.
@@terminat1 Brilliant. So someone asks you for evidence and you can't present any at all because er, 'there's no point'. Of course. Classic Craig.
@@Ozzyman200 Did you even watch the video? Or did you just want to post your comment and then argue for the sake of arguing?
I guess this stuff is impressive within religious bubbles, whilst it does not excite the rest of the world
This is classic Craig (the dinosaur liar) recycling the same lies he's used for decades & which he knows are false & unsustainable.
Before addressing, let's end the god of Abraham (GOA) myth (you don't have to accept it, that's irrelevant it's just fact):
The entire basis & reason for belief in the GOA is that it is going to provide you with eternal life after death in heaven.
To be able to justify that claim, believers have to prove the GOA isn't, in even the most minuscule way, evil. If it is, it can't be claimed it is not a liar and you cannot trust its promises of heaven unless you're an idiot (that simple).
As a side note: Understand, as it relates to humans and promises to humans, this must be mans definition of evil not some, non applicable, nebulous fantasy created by such as Craig in an attempt to obfuscate the GOA's way out of blame.
There is evil so believers have to prove it doesn't come from the GOA or the GOA is innocent of it to satisfy the above.
Evil comes from the GOA & the GOA is evil, that can be proven many ways (just ask) but the most obvious is believers must accept to dismiss this is the bible dictates there must be the existence of evil and via some scenario, man (innocent and without sin) is given free will to choose good or evil, defies god & is punished by god. That fundamental requirement of the GOA cannot be met.
Simply put, in any scenario as above, god must create evil and therefore temptation & suffering. We have a law called: "entrapment". The principle of that is simple: If you wilfully tempt someone to commit a crime & they do, they are not guilty by virtue of your wilfull act of creating the temptation. Do you accept that to be justfiable or does man just have a higher moral standard than the GOA? As soon as god created evil to tempt man he branded himself as evil & denied itself of a right to punish.
Now as believers in the GOA, you are going to say: "Well god gave man "free will"." Let me highlight to you where that obfuscation doesn't save the GOA from being evil: Simply this, if there is no evil "free will" to choose good or evil doesn't exist. So, once again, the GOA didn't "give man free will", the GOA created "free will" via an act of evil &, once again, god is self proclaimed evil without a right to punish.
A last note: The GOA precludes itself from teaching about evil it therefore also precludes itself from warning about evil & the simple observation of the GOA offering a "free will" choice of good or evil without explanation or warning what they are is, again clearly & undeniably, evil. Why? Because the person choosing has no basis on which to make the choice because the GOA has denied them that ability. (Note: "Die" is a punishment for evil & therefore must be evil itself. As the GOA cannot offer any advice on evil, it cannot explain die, punishment, temptation, lies, deception and etc.......... Figure it out what that means.)
Let's summarise: By creating evil to entrap man into choosing evil, the GOA removed any justifiable right it could possibly claim for punishing man. There is no escape clause for god. AND BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION AND SCRIPTURES, THE GOA IS FALSE BECAUSE IT IS EVIL AND THEREFORE CAN'T EXIST. (Now start inventing unsustainable lies.)
This is a mere sample of an overwhelming multiplicity of proof the GOA is fake (but you only need one).
1. KALAM's Cosmological Argument (causality = everything must have a cause & god is the uncaused cause. [obviously Dumb I know])
As Craig has acknowledged on his own site (over a decade ago) the natural occurrence of a universe occurs at a quantum (sub-atomic) level & the study of quantum mechanics has revealed, beyond dispute, sub-atomic particles do not follow the laws of the universe which includes causality.
Sure Craig did his usual and tried to obfuscate his way out of it by attempting to display an understanding of the subject (at a level obviously far beyond his reach) by picking through books of famous scientists & selecting the bits he liked & ignoring refutations in the same book by the same author. But he failed miserably.
In short, the study of quantum mechanics has thoroughly and totally destroyed the Kalam's concept & relegated it to obscurity.
2. It is observed the total of +ve and -ve energy in the universe = 0. Energy has no mass & can exist outside spacetime. Quantum mechanics has proved mass comes into & out of existence constantly without a cause on a sub-atomic level.
Once again Craig has tried to argue, with his negligible understanding of quantum mechanics, that doesn't happen & is false. Thanks for the laughs Craig but stick to theology & stop trying to equate quantum mechanics with your bank book. A universe from nothing is possible, you were wrong, get a life & move on.
3. "God is a mathematician". Everyone should have been laughing at this stupid Craig error (stay away from guns & sharp objects).
First let's note: Whether a god exists or not mathematics would take the exact same form as it does, be used in the same manner & by the same people. Fact.
Now, the laughter: Over a thousand years before the GOA was invented, the Egyptians had the numerical concept of nothing. But Ha, ha, ha, it was an Indian Hindu who invented "0" and without "0" mathematics of today would not exist, period. So what have we learned? Undeniably, if "god is a mathematician" that god is clearly the Hindu god Shiva. Feel free to point out any historically sustainable error in that observation. (Not good for Craig's credibility, proving Shiva!)
4. "The fine tuning of the universe" argument. Again Craig knows this has been defeated more times than he can count including on his own site. It's dead, redundant. Here's why:
a. The most obvious is simply this: A god by definition would be omnipotent. It wouldn't use "fine tuning" as it has no need for it: "Moon orbit the earth, earth orbit the sun, sun orbit the galaxy." The end. Universal & life complexity is one of the the strongest indicators there's no god.
b. Scientists have realised in recent years that we cannot claim a carbon based universe is the only universe possible, in fact there could be hundreds of different universes possible e.g. silicone based. Bye, bye "fine tuning".
c. Quantum mechanics & "a universe from nothing". What happens if there's a "Big Bang" and it fails to create a stable universe? Energy can neither be created or destroyed. So what happens? Another "Big Bang". And if that fails?..... Another "Big Bang". Get the gist? A stable natural universe is not merely not impossible, it is inevitable (especially where time is not a factor)..... No god required. Bye, bye "fine tuning".
Entrapment law? If you properly studied the Bible you would’nt be saying that. Don’t you think its just right to not comment so negatively on something you haven’t properly studied?
Fun fact: Do you know that the Bible has all of its prophecies fulfilled down to the letter? Including the drying of Euphrates river. It has 2500 of them, less than 500 are remaining that are still adressed for the future. I hope you wouldn’t be hardened enough to say “it was written in the bible so they made it happen”.
You mentioned that God created evil and gave us no way out. Assuming that God did create evil, how do you explain that the gospel story is not the way out?
Energy does not start from nothing; all things must have a beginning. Energy must have Space to work. With no Space, there is nothing.
@@astrawboiii1853 First of all you don't have a clue what I've studied (How many paragraphs is the first sin story again? There's nothing to study). You believe entrapment law wouldn't apply to the Adam and Eve first sin scenario? I'd like to see you prove it. (Hint you can study the bible until you die and you still won't come close to proving it because it is the only logical conclusion you can draw from Genesis).
Did you know theists have bee trying to sell the prophecy concept for decades and have constantly failed due to the nebulous nature of their interpretation of the prophesies against the facts of the events. I am yet to have one prophecy actually proved. If you were intelligent enough you would realise that you can observe your surroundings and politics and make prophecies yourself that are likely to come true, but they're not actual prophecies, just a guess. You need to keep comments like that for theists who will believe you. Did you know many prophecies in the bible were written after the event e.g. the fall of the walls of Jericho?
@@robertrlkatz6890 Did you make that up as you were writing it? You do realise, nothing you have said has been scientifically proved?
See Job 38.
I mean, it's cool that god actually showed up to talk to Job even if he was a total jerk about it.
Not convinced. No evidence. He clearly *wants* it to be true.
Define "evidence", and what sort of evidence would convince you?
@ evidence as in scientific evidence to support falsifiable claims. pretty straightfowrard.
@@mazspork969 Give me an example of some evidence that would convince you that God exists
@@rafaelb7920 Are you for real? Are you asking what god could do to convince people that he exists?
@@mazspork969 No, because He has already convinced me.
What I am asking is what would convince you.
If the universe followed other mathematical models, we would use these other models. There is no surprise that our models work.
His financial argument is wrong: money is created out of nothing. Anyone who needs money has to borrow it from a central bank. The amount borrowed is exactly the amount he has to pay back to the central bank (plus interest). The sum of his assets and his debts is 0.
The observation that every effect has a cause does not mean that everything must have a cause. This assumption leads to an infinite regress. God would also have to have a cause. There would have to be a creator of the creator and a creator of the creator of the creator …
It is not surprising that we live in this world and observe it. If we did not exist, we would not observe it. The probability of our world is 1, because it exists. It is like drawing the ace of spades. Before drawing, the probability is 1:52. Once it has been drawn, the probability of being drawn is 1.
The argument is abysmal.
He gave not s single evidence for a god, and especially his God.
The fundamental building block of the universe is an essence. The essence is what we see. An essence isnt bound by logic. Its existence and anti existence essences. Creating random particles and life forms from a logical rule (physical limitations and prohibitations) but not what comes into the vacuume but by chance. This universe might be god but that is far fetched.
The story of Jesus is an invented fiction. Can you name a single eyewitness (outside the bible) who mentions one word about Jesus in any of his writings?
(there were several historians and writers living contemporaneously, for example: Philo)
What evidence can you produce to back up your claim that Jesus is an invented fiction?
Your expectation is unrealistic considering Philo was from Alexandria and a Jewish Philosopher at that. Why would he have written about a peasant - preacher in Galilee that very likely no one would have heard of apart from other peasants in Judea? It would have taken a lot longer for information to spread in the ancient world and therefore Philo would have been oblivious to Jesus' ministry and life as it was at the cusp of Christianity spreading. The only figures from the ancient world who will have had biographies written about themselves were top elites. Furthermore , say that he did hear claims of Jesus from Jewish zealots (very first Christians) - as a known asritriocratic philosopher I doubt he'd have paid Jesus any mind let alone write about him. Contemporaneous writers would've viewed early Christianity as a type of Judaism and wouldn't have given much credence to Jesus in their writings. I'd be more accepting of your claim if an Historian focusing on Galilean figures between 0AD - 33AD omitted Jesus in their writings.
I in fact find it more amazing that Jesus is mentioned in the works of Flavius Josephus and Tacticus at all.
Finally, even skeptical scholars of the Gospels accept that Jesus existed, through their textual critique of the Gospels themselves - particularly Bart Ehrman. The Gospels themselves are textually reliable eyewitness accounts which affirm Jesus' existence from individuals who either knew Jesus as a lot of scholars agree.
@@TheProblematic1 There's not a single mention of Jesus in the historical record until Tacitus in 116AD, and even that is just a statement about christians being scoundrels. AND the earliest manuscript for it is from Medieval times.... you need to stop lying, there are NO original manuscripts from Tacitus.
@@DocReasonablevery weird that my original refutation has been deleted.. (I certainly can't see it on my side) but if the above is your expectation on if figures actually lived then you'd be denying a lot of historic figure's existing. I could equally say - name me a single eye witness account outside of Socrates students who mentions one word about Socrates and any of his writings... Then I can just as equally argue well it was after Socrates death so it doesn't matter he never existed..
@@TheProblematic1 A man as remarkable as Jesus would have been noticed in his time.
According to the Bible, Jesus was very famous and well-known across the Levant:
"And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom among the people. His fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him those oppressed by demons,and he healed them. And great crowds followed him from Jerusalem and Judea, and from beyond the Jordan" Matt: 4:23 - 25
If the Gospels are even partly true then Jesus was famous throughout the Holy Lands, lecturing, feeding and healing multitudes and would most certainly have been mentioned by the scribes and officials who witnessed him in those amazing travels. And yet.... NOT A WORD WRITTEN ABOUT HIM DURING HIS 'LIFETIME'.
Is it "god" or logico physical necessity tho?
Are they identical? If so how so? What is "god" above and beyond this (logico physical necessity) and how do we know?
Define and clarify logico physical necessity. Please and thank you. Meow.
Wow, looks like when it comes to God the average question of the most brilliant scientists in the world is akin to that of a first-year philosophy student. Just saying, the questions were pretty basic.
Not any actual evidence just waffle and premises a lot of them flawed where you insert god with a smile.
Thank you for saving me 47mins of my life that I would otherwise not get back.
This guy has wasted enough of My time.
Classic ad hominem attacks with zero refutation.
@Crazy88277 you would do well to watch and ponder. Just watch at 1.5x to save time.
@@Soaptoaster He's not called low bar Bill for nothing 😁
@truthgiver8286 as expected, zero addressing his points but rather personal attacks. Tells me all I need to know.
Uplifting indeed!
Magnifique. Blaise Pascal, the father of probability theory, came to this mathematical conclusion of a Creator 4, centuries ago. And abandoned the secular world😂
Pascal's Wager is probably one of the dumbest apologetic arguments ever devised 😂
No comma after "4".
@@shassett79 Why?
@js1817 It's been done to death by more important people than I over the last 400 or so years but, among other things, the wager assumes:
- the existence of the Christian god
- the existence of eternal paradise and eternal torture
- that god accepts or is otherwise bound by the terms of the wager
- that people who lack theistic belief can simply choose to believe in Pascal's god
- that forced belief for the sake of pragmatism is the same as genuine religious fervor
...and there's more, but you should probably just go read primary literature on the topic.
@shassett79 If you have the good pleasure to read Pensees you will find that Pascal was much much more than just a genius. He had the most breathtaking insights into the unknowingness of creation and the infinite. As a 65 yr old biologist I have had the good pleasure of witnessing the explosion of measurements and thus further understanding of the infinite complexity and yet ordered existence of life, and the odds of that occurring, on our mother earth, in a universe otherwise devoid of life, for all intent and purpose to us. Pascal was pilloried by the secular world after his conversion. But he was far seeing in Pensees!
i think there was a spelling error in "cosmlogical".
“I don’t raise the epistemic bar, I lower it!”
-William “Low Bar Bill” Craig
Did you read that quote on Reddit or something and thought it would be clever to just copy and paste it along with like 6 other people?
@@notavailable4891 no, I watched the interview he did on the Reasonable Faith podcast where he provided bad advice to a doubting Christian
You and 5 other people all watched that video and then just happened to come here to post the quote?
@@notavailable4891Craig basically killed his own credibility with that statement, so I'm not sure why it would surprise you to find it's well known among his detractors.
@@notavailable4891 I didn’t just watch it, it’s been a few months. Perhaps you should be questioning why a philosopher would say such a stupid thing and not why people are repeating it
34:00. "Why would a universe ot the universe have consistencies/laws/tendencies." And given the evolution theory leading to brains. Scarce as high intelligensen is in the universe (no fine tuning). Why could we not develop mathematical language? There is false math and correct math. The relation argument is right. Although realism and theism might be richer in provning mental well being.
An actual cosmologist (Sean Carroll) has debated him and told him multiple times that we simply DO NOT KNOW IF THE UNIVERSE HAD A BEGINNING! The standard model is based on general relativity, which we know is not complete, because its mathematics breaks down at the singularity! To have the nerve to keep talking about the issue with some supposed authority, while the actual experts have corrected you -obviously in vain- is really ridiculous!
If you claim that there’s no evidence for a beginning, you argue against yourself. If there’s no proof of beginning vs multi verse theories, then atheists can make no claim that science proves it happened on its own. So you have no proof of universe creating itself or being eternal, no science proving non life can turn into life, no proof macro evolution happens…..but you claim science disproves God???
@@XxLockdownxX28I think you're spiraling a bit and confusing which party is making the truth claim?
I'll happily admit that we don't understand "the early universe," but asserting that our ignorance means a specific god did it- whether you apply an academic veneer of metaphysical reasoning to that proposition or not- is fallacious.
@markjones3517 where did the claim "science disproves god"? We don't know what there was before the big bang but, there was something rather than nothing. Admitting that we don't know is an honest answer.
Sean Carroll's argument is that basically we should ignore the obvious fact that as you rewind time everything seems to come to a beginning and instead trust that some speculative model will give us what may be a possibility for a beginning less universe. I know he tried to present an alternative but that alternative along with every other alternative just doesn't work.
@@notavailable4891 No, he has said in other occasions as well that we simply do not know if the universe had a beginning; it may very well had one. But his whole point is that you shouldn't develop arguments on the basis that it definetely had a beginning.
Even the best evidence and arguments will never constitute or rise to a standard of proof of Gods existence. It's not supposed to. Faith is crucial to Gods plan here. To not know to a degree of certainty that God exists, and yet still act in goodness, even when its detrimental to your self, is the only way to procure authentic devotees in a kingdom everlasting. Purposed as the answer to the fall of mankind as a workaround the problem of evil in sentience and duality in creation.
And that's inherently creepy for someone to think something exists and function as if it does when there is no proof of it. The absolutism of faith and belief is what I am not okay with. I'm fine with hope. I hope there is an afterlife despite all current evidence pointing to it's massive non-likelihood, but I don't believe in anything. Nor orient my life around something so fundamentally impactful that would change how I think about life and it's value.
I find religions, especially ones pertaining to be about afterlife to be death cults. I don't really distinguish between that and say Heaven's Gate. The only difference is that one admonishes going before through intentional means rather than natural course of say disease or accident. But they both think the same thing. That life will be better once you're dead, which is a oxymoron.
" yet still act in goodness, even when its detrimental to your self" That's a great example right there of how that's actually not good given the context of your comment. Hurting yourself for the chance of succeeding in an afterlife isn't a motivation of being a good person. It's a person who fears lack of reward that they covet above all. Double so for people who do good in order to avoid hell. That's not a good person, that's a person ruled by fear of punishment. It's like obedience in abused children by parents who will hit them is thought of as actual respect. It's not, it's coercion through violence or threat of it.
I do good things because my brain has evolved mechanisms of reward systems that give quid pro quo to all parties (empathy is the name for it) not because I fear not having a neato afterlife. Both you and I don't do something with out reward, but my reward (and anyone who does this, religious or not, we all have brains) is based on feeling good for doing a good thing. It's still selfish, but it's mutual between all parties. Everyone gets to benefit and everyone works with the same thing. Unless you have a disorder that actually limits your capability for empathy (specifically emotional which is the connection, where as cognitive is reading a persons emotional state) such as psychopathy, then you're working with the same thing.
Note: Autism struggles with cognitive empathy. Psychopathy and autism are basically opposites, but with out closer scrutiny can at first appear similar. The difference is the autist if they struggle with cognitive can't read emotions well and can seem like they don't care. The psychopath usually reads it fine, but doesn't have much or any emotional empathy to be able to care. A lot of people aren't educated on this and empathy is an umbrella term for all types it comes in. Most people when using it however mean emotional or also called affective empathy.
Hitchens replied best to Craig when debating. So I’d ask Craig, whose God? Mormon, Islam, etc. So convenient you just happen to have been raised Christian. Like to see Craig debate Rabbi Tovia Singer.
Use this for ammo!
“If you’re a Christian, that only means that you condone pedophilia by default.
Numbers 31:17-18
Otherwise ditch the Bible and save yourself.”
@@AConcernedCitizen420Pedophiles got the death sentence under the law of Moses.
This isn't evidence for a particular God. It's evidence for God/a Creator God.
David Lee Roth turned Christian??
William Lane Craig:
The universe has a beginning!
I am extremely stupid!
Therefore it was created by an imaginary fairy!
.
There's archeological evidence to support Christianity from ancient discoveries to biblical events being confirmed. Also he's an incredibly intelligent man. His IQ is 159! That's one hundred times your IQ!
Using Philo of Alexandria and Plato to attempt to reinforce your theological position appears hopeful at best! These are arguments the pre-existed before our current scientific and cosmological understanding and have no grounding in evidence. Adding a supernatural element to an argument that works perfectly well without it's addition is just wishful thinking.
Could you help me understand how the big bang can happen without a pre-existing cause? And without assuming magic?
@@bboynewsboy991 Read Lawrence Krauss (Nobel Prize Winner) or Alexander Vilenkin, they'll explain it for you.
The biggest proof of God's existence that we have is that of suffering. If there is noone overwatching us and we are not answerable to anyone except maybe dumb courts of this world for our actions and deeds, then why can't materialists somehow(just somehow)keep themselves happy and have to face terrible consequences according to the merit of their own work in this life itself and thereafter?
What?
Let me delude myself to feel "happy"
@@mehdimehdikhani5899 No you shouldn't do so. You should immediately consult a mental health professional. Sitting probably thousand miles away from you, just reading what you wrote I can tell for sure that you are in crisis. The new trend that we should openly talk about mental illness isn't going to save anyone. Instead of trying to resolve the crisis in my mind if I console myself by thinking that there are so many like me, it's just deluding yourself and avoiding the real problem. Sooner or later the problem is going to catch up with you and all tactics to avoid finding the solution to the problem will just torment you more.
@@irish_deconstruction This is a well-known argument by Emanuel Kant, look up Critique of Practical Reason
you just said a bunch of words
Talk is cheap. There are plenty of arguments for gods but absolutely no evidence, someone told you there was a god and you took their word for it, it's why all religions are called 'faiths', the more gullible you are the more you are convinced there is a god.
Dr. Craig and all True Christians have absolute proof. It is only those who put their complete trust and confidence in what God says in His Word, the Bible, who have this assurance. So unless you have this confidence, you cannot have proof.
@@robertrlkatz6890 So you have absolute proof? then you will never again need to say you take it on 'faith'. My heart goes out to you Robert, it really does.
It's a good time to remember that what really got William Lane Craig into Christianity was the beautiful smile of a Christian girl at his school, "Sandy". That and no other is the real reason. A teenager's existential angst and psychological need to be loved did the rest.
"When I first heard the message of the Gospel as a non-Christian high school student, that my sins could be forgiven by God, that God *loved me, he loved Bill Craig,* and that I could come to know him and experience *eternal life* with God, I thought to myself (and I'm not kidding) I thought if there is just one chance in a million that this is true it's worth believing. So my attitude toward this is just the opposite of Kyle's. *Far from raising the bar or the epistemic standard that Christianity must meet to be believed, I lower it."* - William Lane Craig
The rest, the theological arguments and the attempt to give a scientific tone to his diatribes, are merely rationalizations with which he has been doubling down ever since.
Argument from psychoanalysis and genetic fallacy in one.
@@notavailable4891 He admitted it. That ain't a fallacy, chief.
@@AnthropomorphicTrilobite The point is, in his video he gives arguments. You can't just dismiss them because you psychoanalyzed him. You are basically attacking the man, but the idea behind arguments is that the person making them doesn't matter, so talking about him is a sideshow.
@@notavailable4891 Oh, really? Can you tell me what specific argument I am saying is false by appealing to psychoanalysis? Can you tell me what specific argument I am saying is false by appealing to its origins? Be specific.
But you can't, because deep down you know that your comment is nothing more than a defense mechanism, whether you admit it or not.
Let's hear Craig's words one more time since he is speaking from the bottom of his heart...
"When I first heard the message of the Gospel as a non-Christian high school student, that my sins could be forgiven by God, that God *loved me, he loved Bill Craig,* and that I could come to know him and experience *eternal life* with God, I thought to myself (and I'm not kidding) I thought if there is just one chance in a million that this is true it's worth believing. So my attitude toward this is just the opposite of Kyle's. *Far from raising the bar or the epistemic standard that Christianity must meet to be believed, I lower it."* - William Lane Craig
Oh boy, you should have seen the smile on that Christian girl's face at his high school, Sandy Tiffan Ackerman... she "always seemed so happy it just makes you sick!".
@@vejeke I don't care if William Lane Craig ran naked through the streets screaming about being attacked by bats. Either his arguments are correct or they aren't he really isn't relevant, anything he said isn't relevant to the truth of his arguments, his motivations aren't relevant to the truth of his arguments. This just smacks of a cheap character attack because he is good at what he does and his arguments still haven't been refuted after decades of highly motivated counter arguments.
You can always cancel creationists with just three little words...that they love to overuse.
I...think...that
As opposed to atheists "that...don't...think" ?? I think that you're on to something lol
@@este4955 your confusing personal thinking for critical thinking.
@@rickallen9167 You're confusing male with female lol
@@este4955 you're good with word soup, not so good with strong arguments...lol
We do not have the word think in our vocabulary when we talk about Creation, our word is I KNOW.
Such poor arguements.
Such poor spelling.
Why don’t you point out why they are bad then, genius? lol classic TH-cam comment..
Thinking is difficult for weak minds. That’s why weak minds try to judge. And make fools of themselves.
@@SteelMan_of_God Logical fallacy. Unsubstantiated claims. Appeal to authority. Speculation. False premises. That’s just a preamble; happy to cite more (Genius…)
@@cirilloucazzu4457 explain all of these points with time stamps please
Where ignorance is bliss religions thrive.
Cry😊
0, zero, nada... totally no evidence at all.
😂. Triggered atheist spotted!
@@crashtestdummy2337 Just stating facts, zero triggered.
@@MisterDoctorE if you can watch a video like this and come to that conclusion, you simply are not an intellectual thinker, and that's okay. Keep searching.
@@crashtestdummy2337 I saw no evidence at all, nothing. Through history there has been no evidence for god(s) at all. Hence I see no valid reasoning for believing in god(s). When we look at the universe it is simply too big for "our" god(s) we created in our image(Mostly). WLC has never provided any evidence, just some laughable wordsalad
Why?
That's my question.
Why do you need to explain? Why do you need to prove, convince, influence? Why do you need to defend anything? Since when faith requires defense?
To what means?
I'm repeating my faith theorem:
More you convinced God is good and merciful less wether you believe in Him matters.
With assumption that there is no person on this planet to demonstrate God's active involvement in human lives. As if there would be one would be morally highly questionable.
That leads to explanation of my original question: why?
The question of wether God exists is completely irrelevant to individual human life.
copium for the masses
By definition, this audience isn't 'the masses'.
More like "copium for the subset of presumably very clever Livermore staff who choose to attend religious events."
Intelligence and theism aren't mutually exclusive; smart people can compartmentalize empiricism and self-delusion in the same brain!
And, the smarter they are, the smarter-sounding their preferred apologist needs to sound...
@@shassett79 as someone who grew up in the baptist church, the ideas these guys string together do trickle down into the church body. Intelligent design/kalam/evolutionary creationism is worked out systematically by the apologists, whose ideas are then passed on by theologians, preachers, then true believers. Not that it takes much, they just need to hear someone they perceive as smart to tell them that they were right all along
Was that an hour of sarcasm with a straight face. Truly commendable. Bazingaaaaaaa
Evidence? We don't have any.
But if you're in the market for assertions and presuppositions... _come on down!!_
Absolutely no evidence
What, in your opinion, can be considered proper evidence for the existence of God? Moreover, what leads you to consider Craig’s points as not forms of evidence?
@@TheLOLSquad
Craig only gave opinions and fallacious theological arguments. How can this be evidence?
@TheLOLSquad extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence, philosophical arguments is hardly extraordinary
No evidence for God's existence
Craig gets better,bravo…
Better at fooling people but never proving his god exist.
@@iam604 If you aren't going to engage the arguments and you're just going to say "there's no evidence" then clearly it's your actual heart for God and not the evidence that is the problem.
@@TheSpacePlaceYT What particular argument did you have in mind for me to engage? As of right now, none of his arguments have yielded a Nobel Peace Prize for proving his god exists. But please feel free to ask anyway.
@@TheSpacePlaceYT That’s what I thought. CHECKMATE!
God would know what would convince me and he has failed until now
Did you have a heart attack? "Until now"- what does that mean?
I'll save you some time. He presents no evidence whatsoever. It's a full hour of a guy using a god as an explanation for things we don't yet understand, while insisting he just can't believe things could be the way they actually are without "divine intervention". Zero evidence. What's most striking is that none of the arguments he uses are even what led him to believe in a god in the first place.
What kind of evidence do you need?
How many years must pass before science proves something before we begin to belive in a cause?
Is chance or something from nothing more reasonable than a creator?
@@lapapaintelectual8718 Evidence-actual evidence-not just a guy using a god to explain the things we don't understand. And honesty-like the guy admitting he wasn't convinced by any of that and then explaining the real reasons he ended up believing in the existence of that god. The 'something from nothing' idea is a well-known psychological defense mechanism called projection. Theists are usually the ones who believe their gods (creator gods) literally created the universe out of nothing, which is why they project that belief onto those who don't believe in their creator gods.
@lapapaintelectual8718 Evidence-actual evidence-not just a guy using a god to explain the things we don't understand. And honesty-like the guy admitting he wasn't convinced by any of that and then explaining the real reasons he ended up believing in the existence of that god.
@@vejeke But what kind of evidence would be reliable? What do you mean by current evidence?
It seems reasonable to me to think of a Creator with the arguments presented. The hypotheses (before concluding something) suggested by science on issues such as the origin of life are not very convincing either: it is chance, spontaneity or multiverses generally.
@lapapaintelectual8718 The arguments presented boil down to 'we don't know X, therefore it's reasonable to think a god did it,' and there's always a component of dishonesty, since none of those are what actually convinced him. Leaving aside the use of something that we don't have evidence even exists as a candidate explanation for things we don't currently understand....
Am I allowed to hate Satan?
You are allowed to do anything that doesn't hurt other people. Hating Satan may or may not. If I were your relative or your friend, for instance, then the fact that my Satan hating relative/friend has lost his mind would hurt me though. Don't do bullshit like that. Try to be an adult. ;-)
Information doesn't create the cosmos. Information waves are the fabric of the cosmos. And, as demonstrated with the famous double slit experiment, a conscious observer converts those information waves of potentiality / probability into "particle", "matter", or "cosmos". The Prime Observer creates the Cosmos.
Dude, you need to update your argument, not even the DI uses anymore the double slit experiment as evidence of a concious agent
If we allow in our premise, the existence of an uncaused intelligent entity, why are we ruling out the possibility of an uncaused fundamental force that could also serve as the constituent for the universe? In other words, why do we assign hypothetical properties to God, but reject the universe itself having those same properties?
That's a no. This is because the entire universe, including fundamental forces, are contingent. That is, they do not necessarily have to exist - they could just as well have not existed. They could have taken other forms, etc. God is the one necessary being, and the only explanation for all contingent beings. I think we are a thought in his mind.
@edzion6433 I’m not talking about the known forces. I’m talking about some undiscovered concept that could possess the same properties we invent for god. And these known forces are absolutely necessary, especially for life. The argument at best suggests some uncaused concept is responsible for the universe in terms of cause. But nothing in the argument points to god.
@@guitart4909 I think you've misunderstood me. The name of the concept that is necessary and from which all contingent things arise from *is* God.
The uncaused cause, or unmoved mover, is literally God.
Once you start from the fact that there's a necessary being from which all things are contingent, then you can arrive at God by knowing that this necessary being must have will: note that he created the Universe, which is a contingent complex structure. He also constructed the universe at a particular time - that means God *chose* to create the Universe, implying some type of person-hood since He (or the concept) made a choice.
A concept that is simply abstract is not capable of making a choice. Nor is a physical law capable of making a choice.
@edzion6433 first we need to establish god as necessary. The kalam argument only establishes the necessity of an uncaused causer.
@@guitart4909 You are the only damn person that actually engages with the arguments in this comment section. Thank God. Anyways, God is necessary simply by definition in classical theism, so this is already GRANTED. The question is "Can we prove that God is the cause?" The answer is yes. The cause must be immaterial yet not contingent. The cause must have agency given that the universe is contingent, and the cause must have sufficient power in order to do so.
Consequently, God exists.
Listening to the obfuscating part re: suffering - gotta wonder why god hates amputees.
Any scientific cosmology theory is limited by what a scientific theory has to be. It has to exist with a givien theoretical form. This form thus implies that the theory is condemned to posit this form as the beginning of the Universe. So the idea of a beginning is inherently in the concept of a theory of cosmology. It is not a special feathure of a particular theory, nor an empirical discovery but an a priori or scientific cosmology. The only way to make eliminate this limit is to dissolve any hard limit in the past and to have a smooth path of creation from almost nothing to our our current best theory of cosmology. Then God would be manifested not in a brutal creation edge but would be in from the beginning and would remain within in the same way it has been all along.
Once again spewing his kalam as if it hasnt been thoroughly debunked. Such a dishonest and shameful apologist
The man must make a living. And he knows nothing besides the Kalam story.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 he knows plenty. Atheists generally encounter him singularly on Kalam, but he does other things. This is just his most visible work/grift
@@philswaim392 I once saw Craig in a discussion with Sean Carroll. Craig is good at looking knowlegdeable but if you scratch the surface, there isen´t so much real understanding.