Bill has no interest in exchanging ideas. His audience isn’t us. Apologists understand their arguments have boxed them in and have, for centuries, built a library of a pretty predictable ways to rationalize their way out of that box. Craig’s niche is quasi philosophy/theology, and now, evidently physic. But his greatest ability, like apologists since Tertullian and Eusebius, is his facility with language. The boy knows how to parse and construct his arguments to reassure his audience that he’s got this, not to worry.
He's admitted as much, if only tacitly. He espouses Martin Luther's view that the task of reason is to marshal arguments in favour of faith and to counter any arguments against it. Reason is *not* the basis of the Christian’s faith. The basis of the Christian’s faith is the "internal testimony of the Holy Spirit" in her heart (Craig frequently uses this language). Evidence and argument cannot be permitted to undermine that faith. One's commitment to faith is utterly immutable, and to depart from it is sinful. It follows from this that although Craig appears to exchange ideas with his interlocutors, ideas that threaten his faith aren't seriously entertained. Indeed, on his view, if he were to take them seriously, he would be committing a sin.
I'm a mathematician, so I've poked into a few things from Craig directly related to math, but not too much. His analytic style of philosophy, though superficially mathematical, does not appeal to me at all. He debated Graham Oppy about whether belief in God can be bolstered by mathematics (or some such thing). It's been a while, but I actually remember Oppy making a poor showing. If I recall, Oppy used the example of a falling stone being modeled mathematically by a parabola, but pointed out that the parabola intersects the ground twice, making a "wrong prediction". I thought it was a rather idiotic point, and to his credit, Craig didn't make equally silly points. Overall, Oppy didn't seem to have a good sense of what it's like to do mathematics. Craig, surprisingly, did. I don't know anything about his background, but I suspect he studied math at some point in his life. On the other hand, Craig seems to have much more confidence in reason than I do. For instance, he apparently spent more than 10 years of his life on "divine aseity", because he was threatened by the fact that mathematical objects seemed to share many of the same features as God: they are eternal, unchanging, necessary, self evident, etc. This, he thought was a challenge to God's sovereignty. (There seems to be more than a little Calvinist and Platonic mumbo-jumbo in his thinking.) His ultimate conclusion is that mathematical objects are, in some sense, not "real". None of this resonates with me in the least. In my view, the human mind is nothing more than an upgraded monkey brain. What it thinks is compelling or not compelling, has at best a tenuous connection to ultimate truths, and is likely completely unreliable.
@@rockysmitt If you think of the brain--and thus its reason--as likely unreliable (I assume because it is an evolved thing), then what do you think about Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN)? I Would love to know! I think Plantinga's EAAN get's a lot right, and that naturalists should almost completely agree with it, but something about the full conclusion doesn't work for me.
I'm a theist and a bit of a 'Craigian' in so far as I think my position is reasonable. I also enjoy a podcast like this that sets out to counter or at least offer criticism.
@@dbell92 If you are asking whether I think a purely materialistic philosophy is incoherent, then, yes, I think that's obvious. I think I independently came to a similar conclusion as Plantinga when I was in, if I remember, 7th grade, and I've never seen a reason to change this view. In fact, I don't think you can even make sense of science. By the physicist's own reckoning. we have the measurement problem, which points to the problem that if humans are part of the physical world they are supposedly studying, you need at least the most rudimentary philosophy to make sense of what it even means to do an experiment. All of the supposed "interpretations" of quantum mechanics are inadequate, and most are downright silly. In fact, I think it's fairly easy to see that you could construct a model of a universe containing "beings" that in some sense think they are doing experiments, think they are reasoning about the world, but who are deterministically fated to come to the wrong conclusion about everything. Not only is this possible, I think it's in some sense the almost certain outcome in a purely materialistic universe. You also have independent problems with making sense of probability. And problems with what is meant by causation. And problems with what we mean by a model of nature. And what we mean by mathematical entities and how they relate to physical reality. Et cetera, et cetera. When you combine these problems with the fact that modern cosmology is mostly pseudoscience, I have a hard time seeing this line of argumentation as much more than pure nonsense.We humans are doomed to keep wondering about such things, because we are instinctively curious creatures, but we're not equipped to reason out anything useful. I think a purely materialistic view of the universe is essentially the oldest philosophy attempted, certainly in the Greek tradition, but probably in every philosophical tradition, because it's so obvious and simplistic. I suspect that among the most elementary constituents of human thought are the recognition of the divide between animate and inanimate, along with the analytic idea of breaking things into their simplest pieces. One way to try to use these simplest aspects of human thinking, is to suppose that all inanimate things are built of the same simplest constituents, and animate things are built from inanimate. It's too bad this simple idea doesn't seem to work; I actually wish it did. Starting with the earliest attempts at natural philosophy, people try to stick these two elementary ideas together in other, mostly obvious ways, but immediately fail every time. The "tension" between animate and inanimate, and the continual failure to find a way of reconstructing reality from atomic pieces, is, basically, the story of philosophy.
Can you imagine some guy from a completely unrelated field just sweeping massive amount intellectual work off the table and claiming he has it all settled in a context outside religion? Like a sociologist telling mathematecians that most of their ideas are implausible and are basically wrong. The kind of deluded arrogance this would take... But as an added bonus, here it involves one of the fields of study that also famously doesnt adhere to certain intellectual virtues. Just incredible. I applaud your patience in dealing with this. Its not glamorous work having to explain that some tourist doesnt understand the absolute boudaries of modern theoretical physics but i guess someone occasionally has to do the legwork. If wlc has physics so well understood and apparently the additional benefit of divine insight could he please contribute anything to the actual field - just one measly physics paper for the unenlightened.
Craig is not a guy from a completely unrelated field: he edited a book with phyicists on the subject. If anything, he's more related to physics than the three in the videos. ^_^
@@WolfLeib Craig wrote philosophical arguments in this book you mentioned, the physics in the book was written by the... wait for it.... physicists... The idea that because he collaborated with physicists that means he knows physics is like saying that because I slept with a stripper that means I can dance...
@@WolfLeib I’m one of the guys in the video. I have an undergraduate degree in physics and a PhD, with a specialization in philosophy of physics. Sean Carroll and Robin Collins were external members of my dissertation committee. I have also published an article related to the beginning of the universe in a theoretical physics journal. I think I have ample credentials. Meanwhile, Phil has co-authored a book with a physicist that is being published by Oxford University Press.
@@generichuman_ >> The idea that because he collaborated with physicists that means he knows physics i If there's one single thing true in the bible then the entire thing is reliable
At 1:16:00, and well before then, I honestly think Craig has to respond in a compelling way to these criticisms because the way he is cherrypicking scientists, especially on the BGV theorem, and ignoring the hundreds of counterarguments, at some point you can no longer chalk it up to bias, it starts to sound like willful deception
That was beautifully articulated. I really appreciated the respect you showed to Dr. Craig at the end of the video, while still addressing the points where he might not be entirely accurate with clarity and precision.
Craig has no business claiming that the universe began to exist under the Hartle-Hawking model. He can claim that time is past finite, but under his definition of “began to exist,” time must be A-theoretic. The Hartle-Hawking model is very much premised on a rejection of presentist notions of time, and is more closely aligned with the B-theory. So on Craig’s can only say the universe began to exist under the Hartle-Hawking model if he makes substantial revisions to the model. But then he’s not talking about out the Hartle-Hawking model - he’s just talking about some imaginary model he invented
And you wish you could give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's just accidentally mischaracterizing physics and cosmology, but... his mistakes have been explained to him so many times that it's hard to see his errors as anything other than deliberate.
I would love to see short video compilation of quotes or interview clips from leading physicists arguing contrary views to Craig’s. It would be a great resource to point people to when dealing with the kalam
Have you taken a look at Skydive Phil's documentaries? He has a two part documentary where he interviewed top physicists and philosophers on these topics. (Full disclosure: I was an advisor for both films.)
@ I have actually, yes. Really enjoy the content from you all. I used to follow William Lane Craig and loved his content. The information you guys put out definitely contributed to that dying It was actually because of those interview clips in the longer videos that I thought about the benefit of a shorter one. Someone may be more likely to watch a 5 min compilation than go to a certain point in a longer video to watch. Just had to shoehorn into a recent video from you both dealing with this topic so posted here where more likely to be seen by you ;-)
As per usual, Craig just kind of smarmily condescends to selected clips from a video he didn't watch and acts like the people who disagree with him are just too dumb to see that he's right.
Regarding BGV theorem, in his book Many Worlds in One, Vilenkin writes: “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” (176)
i love how WLC always points to his writings as necessary reading and complains when someone doesn't directly address them, but he is seldom up to date as to what his opponents have to say
In his defense, he’s never really replied in depth to TH-camrs, and on top of that he is really busy which might have to do with why he’s not replying with much depth and substance to Joe. Unfortunately I see a lot of people in these comments sections character assassinating the other side and seeming to have their minds already made up on these issues that I sort of find it hopeless to engage much. What will replying to people on TH-cam do? Everyone is in an echo chamber on their respective sides in these conversations.
Your responses to people like Craig and Trent Horn always seem effortless, well researched, and decisive. On the contrary, theistic responses to you seem exceptionally strained and poorly thought through.
Ugh... That would be a practice in patience and futility. It is like debating ham. I know debates are more for the viewers, but some things are just not bearable, even if worth it. Believers can get wiped up with logic, facts, and truth and will say that it is part of God's plan for them to continue to believe, ignoring that if it is part of God's plan -it is also God's plan for nonbelievers to have the tools to dispute their unfounded claims of belief on the basis of facts, logic, and reason and therefore, is not a very good deity. For being all powerful and all knowing, he sure is... Impotent if he has to rely on humans to write books for him prove his existence.
@@Cre8DHDivity, some years ago when I was a young teenager I started to study the literature on the existence of God. Even with all my bias in favor of the existence of God, I still saw how weak Craig's arguments are and how absurd it was that all the arguments (except the ontological and moral, which are really weak) Craig was presenting were arguments based on the supposed cutting edge of physics. Like such a good and knowledgeable God couldn't give us more clear evidence of his existence. Imagine being born 200 years ago and having 0 arguments for the existence of God. Same thing with the arguments in favor of Christianity. Debating Craig is, as you say, like debating Ken Ham. He's in a position where he'll never change his mind and will just keep repeating the same "arguments" over and over.
Did Vilenkin even mean that the universe (as in totality of everything) came from literally nothing? This is a quote from him and it doesn't seem to say that: 'I say “nothing” in quotations because the nothing that we were referring to here is the absence of matter, space and time. That is as close to nothing as you can get, but what is still required here is the laws of physics. So the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing.' This is from an article on tufts university's site: 'What Happened Before the Big Bang? Cosmologist Alex Vilenkin does the math to show that the universe indeed had a starting point' . Was this said later?
Even as a theist I treat William Lane Craig like he has the philosophical cheese touch. Stay as far away as possible! Debates like these are just like playing whack-a-mole. Even if you whack WLC with half a dozen good objections he will spring back up saying the same damn thing over and over again.
Time exists only within the universe. The universe as a whole, from beginning to end, exists outside of time. According to Doctor Craig, something that exists outside of time can just happen to exist and needs no explanation for any of its properties. Problem solved.
Joe: This is precisely why there's still active live debate... concerning which model is correct. WLC: The premise (the universe began to exist) does not require one to prove that a particular model is correct. Joe: I didn't say that in order to prove the universe began to exist, we had to prove a particular model to be correct. So how does WLC misunderstand you?
(I think) They are saying that the way WLC comes to the fact that beginningless universes are impossible is because each individual beginningless model is improbable. But each individual models with a beginning are also improbable. But for WLC that doesnt mean its impossible for the universe to have a beginning. Which doesnt seem consistent
@@zoranz7147 WLC would never say "because improbable therefore impossible" i.e. "because models without a beginning are probably false therefore it is impossible that the universe did not have a beginning". His point is that the scientific evidence tilts heavily in favor of a universe with a beginning and Joe objects to that. But the reason Joe gives for his objection is that "there's still debate as to which model is correct". WLC zooms in on that and responds that the premise (the universe began to exist) does not rely on a particular model being correct. And Joe cries "he misunderstood me!".
@@zoranz7147actually, Craig doesn’t merely say “beginning-less models are improbable.” If so, you’d be right. Craig instead argues that such models *also* face problems that finite-universe models don’t. That said, I don’t agree with him
@sedmercado24 But the point is, craig uses the exact same methodology in order to make his claim that the evidence favors models with a beginning, which is flawed. Craig does not provide a good enough reason to believe this is the case.
@@jacob18310 I think that was Alan Guth. The confusion comes from later comments made by Vilenkin, which WLC misrepresented. Phil got clarification personally from Vilenkin, but it isn't on the record, as far as I know. It would be helpful if Vilenkin put the issue to rest, but I think he's averse to pubic controversy in academia.
One thing I've always found peculiar about these types of theistic arguments (as well as the responses to them) is that they rely on an unstated assumption; namely, that our cognitive apparatus provides us with all the tools we need to make sense of our universe. Craig assumes that if the way in which we conceptualize these sorts of problems leaves us without any naturalistic explanation as to the origin of the universe, then it must have had some supernatural origin. But why think that those are the only two available options? Why could it not be the case that the universe _had_ a natural cause, but that it happens to be one that creatures like us are simply unable to comprehend? Just as there are concepts humans understand that other intelligent creatures we share the planet with cannot, why could it not be the case that there are some concepts that even humans cannot comprehend? To be clear: what I'm suggesting here is not just that we're not 'clever enough' to understand the universe, but that objective reality itself is not accessible to human understanding.
@@perorenchino2036 In the comments section of an essay that I recently published in Aeon magazine, someone posted an excerpt from the Nasadiya Sukta. I really liked it! I would love to learn more about Indian religion/philosophy. (It would also be a great way to diversity the references I include in my publications.)
@@daniellinford9643 Indian philosophies aren't that well known in the west and are very much under appreciated both in india and broader world. So lack of research publication about them is also a major problem.Only two schools that i have encountred in journals are achintya vedaved and vedanta.
@wardandrew23412 When you say objective reality cannot be understood by humans are you not saying that a part of reality is incomprehensible because of its size. I’m just trying to clarify because i would like to know your take on my thoughts. It is not logical for us to go back in time to observe the processes that led to its creation. But unless we are willing to say that some natural law is illogical so as to be incomprehensible, which i would say is just not possible because anything that is illogical does not exist. Then would it not be more accurate to say that the universe can be understood by the human mind even though to fully understand the laws of nature would require a vast amount of computation that might not be able to be achieved during the lifetime of human existence. One could then say that this would still mean that humans are incapable of understanding given the possible demise of humanity before having a complete understanding. But my point is that it is not because the universe is illogical and so therefore cannot be understood in that sense.
25:42 - No one tell Craig about imaginary electrical power. Power plants are specifically designed to minimize their output of imaginary power. From a physics standpoint, imaginary numbers are real, as, I assume, is imaginary time.
56:11 Wouldn't this also rule out a sustainer God, who constantly causes the universe to keep on existing, if God became temporal with the beginning of time? Or is God both then, being temporal and non-temporal?
Craig’s lack of engagement with substantive criticisms of his work, somewhat hurts his cause. Most Christians, who stumble onto his work and are mildly interested in philosophical inquiry, will be satisfied by what he has to say. However, for those Christians who follow through, and look to see if there are any worthwhile responses to his views, may find themselves disillusioned, disappointed, and their faith weakened as a result.
About the probability of different Cosmological models... Graig does the same primary school statistics as he does with "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" Craig: "Not at all. The chance of winning the lottery are very very low, but someone wins the lottery every week" Here he does: "you either win or you don't win.. its 50/50"
There are no true atheists. Atheist claim they do not believe in God because there’s no proof or evidence for God. There’s no proof or evidence for love, justice, fairness, equality, purpose. Yet, atheist often live by ideals that don’t exist, and more often than not, have an hierarchy of ideals as if love is better than hate. Or happiness is superior to pain. They cannot objectively prove any of these claims, yet they believe them. Atheism is logically inconsistent with itself unless you are a moral nihilist.
I find the dismissal of the new atheists again disheartening (and isn't it getting old?) the vast, vast majority of people are not ever going to engage with your work, no matter how sophisticated it is. For a lot of people, it was their stridency which helped break the spell of often traumatic religious experience and enabled people to release themselves from the grip of religion. It's all very well to mock them, Jo, but not everyone has your life experience nor your capacity for philosophy.
I think Joe and Hitches audiences are completely different. Hitchens got down in the mud and wrestled with the pigs and he was damn good at it. Beat them at their own game, throw poo better and right back at them. Joe I think has basically no use of that and doesn't care if we'd rather be entertained by him throwing some poo back.
In regards to Joe’s question to the audience: yes, if I knew nothing else and only listened to Craig’s podcast, I would leave with the impression that there aren’t any cosmologists working on beginningless models, and I’d think that every working scientist agrees that eternal universes are impossible and that there is no active discussion on past eternal models. Craig can claim this was not his intention, but he cannot claim, as a sociological fact, that the content he puts out leads his readers to adopt this false conclusion. Now, he is free to argue that every physics department on Earth is wasting its time and grant money, but he is not free to claim that he is not misrepresenting the current state of consensus.
Sure, why not? Atheism (at least the way I would describe it) just rejects the idea of this extremely powerful intelligent life form called god. That says nothing about how long anybody's consciousness could possibly remain. Now, to be clear. If I had to bet, I would _assume_ that every consciousness eventually ends. But it's not _impossible_ in principle to have an eternally lasting consciousness.
Atheism is a view on one topic: God's existence. Someone can think that there are no gods, yet also think that we have eternal life. In fact, I can think of one example from the history of philosophy who held a view like that, John McTaggart, who held that what really exists is a community of eternal, acausal, timeless spirits united in love. That probably sounds New Agey, but McTaggart lived long before the New Agers and was influenced more so by Leibniz and Hegel.
@@efi3825 many, actually. The long story short of it is that there's several phenomena that are utterly irreconcilable with any model that doesn't identify the brain as what makes conscience happen. One couple of such examples are the split brain condition and category specific deficits. But when you think enough about it it doesn't make any sense even that coffee can make you nervous if we are to assume that nervousness (a state of mind) is not a physical but only an immaterial state. Then there's things such as the way memories are formed, how perception works etc, things for which we have a mechanical explanation in terms of neuron interaction and behaviour, that make no sense as a "coincidence" (which they would be if it were actually the case that mental phenomena are actually non-physical). It's as if you had a "possessed" rock that just by mere coincidence had all the hardware and software necessary to carry out the cognitive labor attributed to the rock but actually done by the spirit possessing it. In other words, after studying the matter, any spiritual view just looks like someone thinking that gremlins make seasons happen. I'm not saying that nobody that put in the hours will disabuse themselves from such silly notions, but only because I know how hard it is to dismiss one's own religion.
Not only is it illogical to say that a perfect eternal spaceless being started time and space, it’s illogical to propose that a perfect eternal spaceless being would act at all. Action comes out of necessity, necessity comes out of imperfection (temporal/spacial needs). God is supposedly eternally perfect. To move from perfection to imperfection is a logical fallacy. God can’t commit logical fallacies.
Wouldn't the better question about the universe be "why is the universe not locally real?" The universe (and nothing in it) doesn't exist until it needs to, so why does debating the beginning have anything to do with the Theism-Atheism conversation?
So here is a charitable interpretation of Craig, as I've understood him when he is less sloppy: The BGV theorem does not prove the universe has a beginning. But it is "part" of a scientific case for it (bayesian evidence). It showed that inflation also cannot work without a beginning. Now there are exceptions to the BGV, but like Vilenkin says, these exceptions seem to be even less plausible than a standard big bang with a beginning, by introducing more speculative and exotic physics. So a plausible model should be simple, explain all the physical data, not use outlandish theoretical physics and should make predictions. Making models is cheap, but models which fit all the above are rare. I'm not trying to be an expert here so I will defer to CBS spacetime on the same topic, and he is a cosmologist - th-cam.com/video/HRqBGnSxzyI/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Lp_qZ_ew2AqaAVcFth-cam.com/video/HRqBGnSxzyI/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Lp_qZ_ew2AqaAVcF He also points out attempts to get around the BGV all have less plausible moves (something about density fluctuations, I don't pretend to understand that). **Quote from him "the current answer to the question (of whether the universe has a beginning) - is probably yes".** This is a qualified statement because he did explicitly say we don't know that because of quantum gravity. But then why does he say both at the same time? It seems to me, the most charitable way of interpreting this, is that if we were to stack all the evidence we have on cosmology, theoretical, models, principles, physical evidence, it favours beginnings over non-beginnings with uncertainty. Now pointing out that there are people who disagree with this is good to lower our confidence, but all high-level physics and/or philosophy are bound to have disagreements. The question is how plausible and shared the disagreements are. Also I would like to see Phil's recording with Vilenkin. I had personally sent an email a few years back to him and he it's his opinion that the universe had a beginning. He also has a sleight of hand in splicing Vilenkin's views on the same on his debunking video. Vilenkin (like all old people) say the same script in all interviews. In Vilenkin's interview with Kuhn, he also does say "the BGV does not prove the universe has a beginning, just inflation". But he immediately follows up with saying he finds a prior contracting phase to be implausible given the data, and as such is impossible anyway. So Vilenkin statement summary is this - BGV doesn't prove the universe had a beginning, but in the bigger picture it does. This might be hyperbolic on his part but it's still a qualified opinion.
Right. Inflation concerns, by putting constraints on beginless universe model, is evidence for a beginning. Sure, you can construct, in a speculative sense, a beginless model, but absent of experimental measures, there is an asymetry. There is always underdetermination of evidence, but that does not amounts to much if we are talking about probabilistic judgment.
Note how you are bending over backwards to explain away Craig's mistakes - to the point of not even acknowledging he has really made any - while calling Joe disingenuous for daring to respond to Craig's *actual response to Joe*, and accusing Phil of dishonesty - all while admitting you are no expert. You'd like to see Phil's recording with Vilenkin? Why? Do you not trust Phil? And yet you clearly trust Craig to the point that you handwave any criticism of him away with the 'he's just old and doesn't really study this anymore'. Craig is old - but unless you want to claim he's senile, your ageism defence isn't really going to cut it. There is an hour and a half of forensic critique in this video from three brilliant minds who are very familiar with the philosophy and physics - who have actually interacted with not only the scholars Craig cites (the one scholar, I should say), but a wide range of scholars - experts in the field. Can you not see that while Craig is cherry picking aspects of the work of one person (and misrepresenting it), Joe, Dan and Phil are appealing to the whole of Academia. If you had two essays in front of you, one with a bibliography referencing one chapter of one book, and the other with a bibliography referencing a whole library - which one would you assume, a priori, was trying to sell a specific, idiosyncratic, biased view, and which one would you assume was trying to give you the whole unbiased picture?
@@bengreen171 I consider Phil to be a polemic, and he's clearly not a cosmologist. As I said, I would just like to hear the recording in full about Vilenkin because I have talked to Vilenkin myself about this. None of them have relevant expertise, not more than Craig. The closest to a cosmology expert is Dan who is still a phil grad. As far as credentials go, they're all equal. They're all probably more knowledgeable than Craig, but doesn't mean a whole lot Also, why are you obsessed with me? I literally just said that Craig is sloppy. I am not "defending" Craig anymore than I am criticising him. The rest of your reply is unrelated to this comment.
@@qazrockz Obsessed with you? Because I responded to a couple of your comments here? To prove how not obsessed with you I am, I'm not going to respond to anything you said here. It's clearly not worth my while.
Craig is no different than any other contemporary apologist: a pompous,unwarrantedly arrogant liar that simply cannot complete a sentence w/out misquoting, cherry picking, intentionally misrepresenting or outright lying… for jesus.
Guys! quick question: can free will be a possibility if only the physical realm exists? I would think not, because if it is only the physical that exists, and physical entities are bound to obey physical laws, then everything that happens is due to cause and effect (kinda like dominos, iykyk)
I have been listening back and forth on Joe and WLC responses and must say I am actually disappointed that Joe would resort to this kind of labeling “misuse of science”. It and other comments are dangerously close to ad hominem especially one of his remarks regarding Christian apologists Although I suppose the title he uses will garner at lot more interest. I had expected better of him
My disappointment with Joe as well. This is the "Majesty of Reason". I thought this community was built foundationally to be away from such inflammatory titles. Joe is consistently playing into the handbook of "debunk bro" culture and feeding into internet culture wars. I believe Joe is unaware on how his videos impact the larger discourse, he is someone who is respected by both sides and as such has more dialectic responsibility here. Let's say Craig is wrong. Craig is allowed to be wrong on a subject which frankly no one, by their own admission, has the right answer to. You can see tons of cosmologists saying publicly that the big bang or physics says the universe probably had a beginning. Craig's faults here is more along the lines of being overconfident in his views than outright misrepresentation.
In the deep recesses of the internet, we know the truth. But in the broad daylight where Craig will preach resolutely to his audiences, everything seems fine.
47:28 WLC is not saying that science rules out a beggingless universe. He is saying that there is no science and no reality that supports or can support a beginningless universe.
Dan kept mentioning scientific theories, but the scientific method was not performed in order to come to any of these theories therefore making them pseudoscientific theories by definition.
The prima facie issue with your arguments is you are switching between philosophical analysis using speculative models and empirical scientific realities. These are two different frameworks that try to explain reality using different axioms. Each can learn from the other but switching when convenient is not being genuine in seeking the truth. Most scientists and philosophers do switch between these when it helps them. Mostly to try to explain their own biases, prejudices or ideologies. They make models to for the same reason. Science relies entirely on quantifiable aspects of reality while philosophy analyses and reasons all imaginable aspects of reality as we experience it. Scientists can propose and speculate beyond empirical and quantifiable universe. But those theories cannot be proven if there is no "information" that can be quantified to prove them. For example, anything outside 'space and time (that came to existence with big bang)', can only be speculated unless there is information traveling in some form from beyond space and time, to space and time as we know it. As of now there is no information that comes from beyond space and time. So, in effective any theory proposed as scientific is speculative and not empirical science. For example, if there is a multiverse, how many of them are there. There can be one or an infinite number of multiverses. Now these are not quantifiable due to lack of any information transfer from external multiverses to this universe. Also, from a philosophical point of view anything beyond space and time is purely speculative and wishful thinking. This is because all that one can reason about is dependent of space and time. That is human reason and imagination itself is dependent of space and time. Otherwise, humans will be able to describe something beyond space and time. All that is explained about things beyond space and time is just a projection of what they have experienced in space and time. Multiverse (draw a picture) for example can only be explained as another space and time in the same form as the space and time of this universe. Like (for example) this universe as bubble in another space and time. Which means now you have to explain how this encompassing space and time came into existence from another singularity plus the constants(fine-tuning) that guided it. In short anything beyond space and time is wishful thinking unless information travels from what is beyond. This is pure information theory. Something can be imagined, or even mathematically modeled does not mean that it exists and is true. You can do a perfect mathematical model of a Unicorn, that does not mean it exits. Also, Math being the best modeling language as we know it has its limits as shown by Kurt Godel. It is neither complete not decidable. Any mathematical system/framework that tries to explain reality will have statements that are true but cannot be proven in the same framework. Which means that no human framework can explain reality completely without making true statements that cannot be proven. The very existence of paradoxes in human models (language, reason, math) shows human limitations in understanding reality.
Watching this makes it fairly clear that Bill Craig is as much a tourist in these spaces as Terence Howard. But having read a travel pamphlet, he brashly asserts, "don't worry, I've got this," and tries to order at the restaurant in the local dialect. To everyone's chagrin, he classlessly insults the waitstaff's lineage, mocks his host country, and boorishly flails while attempting local customs. In short, Bill Craig travels to a field that is not his own and dallies while pronouncing himself an expert. He is a blowhard and a fool. A dilettante of the most rank order. His boorish behavior ought to simply be ignored, but draws so much attention that it can not be politely disregarded, but instead must be addressed, if only to minimize the chances that others will repeat his crass behaviors.
I get the feeling that craig knows very well that his argument is worthless but he has too much if his past (and current income) invested in it to take a step in a reasonable direction
Sorry, but the whole section about thermodynamics and entropy was pretty unconvincing. - So, these two people Ice and Crockey (I couldn't really hear their names, sorry) realized that if a function is increasing, it didn't necessarily begin to increase? Sure, but that's not much of a realization so far. How does that apply to the entropy of the universe specifically? Yes, there are models for this, but you can make up a model for pretty much anything. Is there any kind of observation that supports one of these models over another? - "If you just constrain the state of the universe to being one in which it allows for the existence of creatures like ourselves, then the physical state that you expect the universe to be in that's most probable is not the kind of state that we see in the universe today." Alright cool, so you flatout say that a universe with us in it is not the most probable? Maybe even highly im-probable? You know, I think the theistic explaination is pretty lazy and unconvincing in its own right, but you just make an even worse case for any atheistic explaination. And to Phil Halper: I think that replies to replies to replies are tedious and time- consuming. So, no need to feel like winning if Craig doesn't reply to your reply of a reply. I mean, I'm happy if Craig doesn't reply to anything at all, but you know.
I think you've misunderstood what I was saying in that section. That's probably my fault. So, allow me to clear up a few things. First, it's not two people. It's one -- Caspar Isenkrahe. He was responding to the 19th century version of the argument, where the claim went that because the universe's entropy is increasing today, the universe must have begun at some point in the past. Isenkrahe's point was that this isn't necessarily so. The universe's entropy could have been increasing over an infinitely long past. Do we have evidence that the entropy of the universe has been increasing over an infinitely long past? No, but, equally, we don't have evidence that it wasn't. My point -- and Isenkrahe's -- isn't that the entropy couldn't have begun to increase at some point in the past. The view I've defended ad nauseam is that we do not know whether the universe began. Second, you've misunderstood the point that I was making concerning the fine-tuning of the universe's entropy. It's true that the low entropy required for life is unexpected. However, suppose that you posit some hypothesis -- like theism -- that perhaps does predict the existence of life. In that case, you expect to see a low entropy region. But what you don't expect is low entropy outside that region. Here's the point: the universe's entropy is far lower than is expected only given the constraint that life exists. That is, unless the theist wants to tell us more about God's motivations, what we observe concerning the universe's entropy is not at all what theism predicts. Do I have an alternative atheistic explanation that I think is true? No, not at all. Again, my view -- the one I've defended in publications, in my dissertation, and in TH-cam videos -- is that we don't know whether the universe began or, if it did, how it began. My view is that Craig's attempt to solve that mystery does not succeed.
@@daniellinford9643I respect the hell out of your continued dedication to answering questions to you on these videos. Your responses take invaluable time and are a kind donation to non-experts (like WLC! LoL, too bad he won't listen). Thank you and much respect.
So when Phil uses "I sat in his office" argument multiple times, he is allowed to, but when Craig does it you make an episode with Malpass called "Citation needed"?
@@ILoveLuhaidan in Phil’s case, Phil actually played the recordings, in our previous episode, of sitting in Vilenkin’s office and Vilenkin saying the BGV theorem doesn’t show the universe began to exist. So we actually have the citation, and even played it for the audience. As for the citation needed episode, (1) I didn’t title that, and (2) that citation needed comment wasn’t even directed to Craig, it was directed to Turek. There is no double standard here in the slightest.
@@MajestyofReason Phil is playing fast and loose with Vilenkin's words to a lesser extent than Craig is. Vilenkin aboslutely does think the universe began to exist and that the BGV theorem is part of that case. He agrees with Craig here. What my understanding of the (10 second) recording Phil played is - Vilenkin is talking of the truism of proof in physics. He doesn't think the BGV theorem is "proof" because "proofs" like that are rare. Quote from Vilenkin about this same thing when Craig and Krauss clashed - "My letter was in response to Lawrence’s email asking whether or not I thought the BGV theorem *definitively* rules out a universe with no beginning. The gist of my answer was that there is no such thing as "definitive ruling out" in science. I would say the theorem makes a plausible case that there was a beginning. But there are always caveats." Vilenkin also makes similar points here in Closer to Truth th-cam.com/video/DYf8-jOUUwY/w-d-xo.html and his lecture here th-cam.com/video/NXCQelhKJ7A/w-d-xo.html. He thinks the theorem "definitevely" rules out inflation being beginingless, and is part of a case that the universe did have a beginning, and he addresses the exceptions to the BGV therein. Matt Dowd, another cosmologist in PBS spacetime, make similar comments. While I am not an expert (in fact none of you are cosmologists either), I take concern with you implying Craig misrepresents Vilenkin's views or his work, when Vilenkin himself explicitly says this - "I think you represented what I wrote about the BGV theorem in my papers and to you personally very accurately. This is not to say that you represented my views as to what this implies regarding the existence of God. Which is OK, since I have no special expertise to issue such judgements." Now Craig might be wrong because he takes Vilenkin as an authority on cosmology here, but to say or imply Craig is being dishonest here is false. www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/honesty-transparency-full-disclosure-and-the-borde-guth-vilenkin-theorem
Now I've heard model thrown around a bunch of times. The difference in a model and a scientific model, is that a scientific model must get its information from scientific experimentation done through the scientific method, empirical data. Without drawing information from science in this way, and without being able to predict and explain natural phenomena, it can't be a scientific model. You can make a model from pure assumptions and speculation but what use would that have in the real world? It would be purely fictional.
If you talk to him again you should ask him if he's a flat earther. (I'm serious). A lot of these guys like him believe it but are embarrased to admit it. Ran into one the other day. Looked like a completely normal and respectable fellow, wearing a suit and tie.
Here's the most important question about the thermodynamics answers you all gave: If a scientist can't find evidence through experimentation and the scientific method, is anything outside of that, speculation? We've never observed the 2lot not to happen, ever, that's why it's natural law. Of course people can speculate that it could have been different but that would be an appeal to possibility fallacy at the least.
Speculation is not truth. Go by what data we have. We see entropy. Who cares if we can imagine outer limits of this empirical perception. The methodology to arrive at truth is most probable sticking close to the empirical data. Prognosticate from the data, not speculation. If you want to speculate, invest in the stock market.
Something that is always left out of these discussions is the Block Universe. Some excellent arguments can be made to show that relativity theory + some basic philosophical axioms imply the Block Universe for any relativistic Universe. If we have a Block Universe, the claim that the past finitude of such physical set of things implies a beginning of it is unjustified. Sure, a Block Universe could have had a beginning, but we have no reason to claim that. Craig acknowledges this, yet brushes it off. At most he makes real shitty objections to the Block Universe (like postulating a preferred frame of reference). And no ever brings this to any of the debates he's had nor as an objection to his Kalam argument. Missed opportunity I say. Otherwise excellent job in refuting Craig's arguments.
You may be interested to know that I've published a peer reviewed article, in the European Journal for Philosophy of Science, that does actually deal with Craig's metaphysics of time. See my 2021 article entitled 'Neo-Lorentzian Relativity and the Beginning of the Universe'.
The block universe falls into McTaggart's paradox. Craig has already commented on this in his "the tense theory of time". The core of the paradox is that any attempt to mix B-theory with A-theory will be contradictory. The only possible options are pure B-theory or pure A-theory (presentism).
Even the title is an assumption. It’s an assumption that the Universe (all that is was and will be) began. The alternative is that it came from nothing .. no less crazy or likely/unlikely. I’m backing a cyclical universe and implicit Infinity and eternity Something from nothing is magic 🎩 🐇 .. I would have thought a scientist who is also a materialist would want to avoid THAT spin on .. “God of the gaps”
I know that Phil will not like me saying this but i truly believe that wlc is purposely dishonest because he has invested too much into this. Just even being honest and admit anything might be dangerous for his status and income. So he rather Trump or be honest.
There is nothing wrong with the Kalam, all you need is proof...and no one has any proof of anything. So you argue what the words mean. Better to consider Craig's claim that "Without god, the universe is pointless." The question in response in the spirit of the above is quite profound...but no one here will ever get it. As for the actual state of understanding remains the same as it always has been..."We have no fxxking idea." and probably never will.
Seems like pointless papers and arguments rooted in speculation that adds nothing to tangible to knowledge. There has to be more to life that baiting Craig into a philosophical rabbit hole of conjecture while being giddily proud to do so.
The old God, wholly 'spirit', wholly the high-priest, wholly perfect, is promenading his garden: he is bored and trying to kill time. Against boredom even gods struggle in vain. What does he do? He creates man-man is entertaining.... But then he notices that man is also bored. - Friedrich Nietzsche, 'The Anti-Christ', 1888. He must have been so disappointed creating Man to kill boredom then having to listen to these videos talking about Him.
All Craig ever does is cherry-pick and misrepresent. His overconfident pronouncements on which physics or cosmology are probable are ridiculous. It's all grifting for Jesus (and a paycheck).
Aren’t we all? It seems that most people in this comment section are ideologically engaged which is why we’re all on MR’s channel in the first place. Saying we aren’t is like denying having any bias.
The point WLC is that each possible general model that for a beginningless universe is untenable in reality, which rules out a beginningless universe. The models of a universe that began to exist are all metaphysically possible in reality, even though they lack full explanatory power. A universe that began is the only plausible explanation in reality.
Yes, that is his claim, but it is not a legitimate, valid one. The fact that no current beginningless model is tenable does not rule out beginningless models in general because our current list of models is not necessarily exhaustive, there could be plausible beginningless models which WLC does not seem to consider.
While Craig’s arguments for the timeless cause having to be immaterial is bad, his argument for why the timeless cause has to be personal is better I think (don’t think it succeeds though). And if the opponent doesn’t believe in a timeless material personal being as the cause then showing that the timeless cause must be personal would be enough. Have you responded to his argument that the cause must be personal somewhere?
@@z388z good question! I think Dan and I discuss his reasons in our video “No, science doesn’t show the universe began to exist”. I also think I briefly cover this in my video “from Kalam to God?”
@@Boundless_Border From what I remember it went something like this. If a timeless impersonal object/entity always had the casual powers to bring the universe into being then the universe should have always existed but the universe has not always existed, it came into being a finite time ago. Therefore, to explain how a finite effect can come from a timeless cause it has to be personal (in the sense of having free will). The most common objection (I think) is to argue that the cause only has to be indeterministic to create a finite effect from a timeless cause.
@z388z Yep. That's the one. Although, I thought there were more moving parts, but that could've been for a different trait. Prior to even considering indeterministic behaviors or superposition. I think the first issue is developing a coherent understanding of the relationship between timeless entities and temporal entities. Not to mention the behaviors of a timeless entity themselves. For instance, the conception that a timeless entity would've resulted in the temporal entity being infinitely long ago instead of some finite number of years ago (from our moment in time) rests upon temporal notions that simply don't apply. Foundationally speaking, you are measuring the atemporal existence with time. Should it be entirely deterministic, one would consider that the origin of the universe is fixed, but it doesn't follow that it was infinitely long ago. In fact, from any particular point, it seems it has to be some finite time ago. Presuming, of course, there is an origin. I think some of the issue is that we have a hard time grasping atemporal existence. For instance, we are intuitively opposed to the idea that states can vary and still be atemporal. Yet this is a requirement for a god to choose in a libertarian free will manner. As one must independently have the state of "select a time" and the state of "not select the time." And of course, factoring in the notion that states can vary without time. The timeless impersonal entity could've varied in casual ability to bring about this instantiation of the universe. Sorry this is long. But overall the argument seems extremely poor to me as it conflicts with itself (that the impersonal cause must not have varied states while the personal cause can) and flawed notions like measuring something atemporal with time.
@ I 100% didn’t but actual infinities substantisting into our reality is very prima facie ridiculous. You got any citations that pruss said actual infinities can exist?
A monotonic function is just a general description of a possibility. It does not describe anything concrete. To describe any concrete process, you have to have a starting value (initial value) that initiates this process. So, the example of the monotonic function doesn't work. The universe isn't like that. You can also argue that entropy doesn't have to increase, but what matters is that whether there's an increase or a decrease, we have a change, which refutes any argument about the universe being eternal, for that would require the universe being changeless at some point prior. The law of inertia then implies that there must be an energy input which perturbed the universe to start the change. That energy couldn't come from the universe itself by the inertia principle. So, the universe isn't the source of everything - at least it cannot be the source of that initial perturbation that started the change in the universe. Accordingly, the change we see in the universe suggests that the universe didn't precede everything, so it can't be eternal.
How about you bring your atheist astrophysicist with their naturalist presumptions and debate with the Christian astrophysicists with their theistic presuppositions which are actually provide a broader perspective on possible “best explanations”. And note that there are are many of the latter and I am happy to connect you to them.
@ILoveLuhaidan I'm talking about WLC he is a philosopher why is he talking about thermodynamics it's only in religion that you see that a non expert allowing himself to talk about a subject and explaining how it works...
@@peaceandfood7952 yea, and Joe uses evolution to argue for atheism. What is the difference? Craig defers to experts when is stuck, I am sure Joe does too
@@ILoveLuhaidan what I see is WLC always on his own acting like he knows it all, saying that the killing of the infants and kids in 1 Samuel 15:3 is the best thing that could have happened to them and Joe bringing experts to his channel to cover a topic where he is not an expert...
@@lucasiano Right, I forgot. But still, he would not consider himself a biologist would he? saying everybody should stick strictly to what they have specialized in is silly. You can have knowledge without a degree
"You don't get to refute a parody argument by claiming it has a bad methodology."
Lol!
Bill has no interest in exchanging ideas. His audience isn’t us. Apologists understand their arguments have boxed them in and have, for centuries, built a library of a pretty predictable ways to rationalize their way out of that box. Craig’s niche is quasi philosophy/theology, and now, evidently physic. But his greatest ability, like apologists since Tertullian and Eusebius, is his facility with language. The boy knows how to parse and construct his arguments to reassure his audience that he’s got this, not to worry.
He's admitted as much, if only tacitly. He espouses Martin Luther's view that the task of reason is to marshal arguments in favour of faith and to counter any arguments against it. Reason is *not* the basis of the Christian’s faith. The basis of the Christian’s faith is the "internal testimony of the Holy Spirit" in her heart (Craig frequently uses this language). Evidence and argument cannot be permitted to undermine that faith. One's commitment to faith is utterly immutable, and to depart from it is sinful. It follows from this that although Craig appears to exchange ideas with his interlocutors, ideas that threaten his faith aren't seriously entertained. Indeed, on his view, if he were to take them seriously, he would be committing a sin.
I'm a mathematician, so I've poked into a few things from Craig directly related to math, but not too much. His analytic style of philosophy, though superficially mathematical, does not appeal to me at all.
He debated Graham Oppy about whether belief in God can be bolstered by mathematics (or some such thing). It's been a while, but I actually remember Oppy making a poor showing. If I recall, Oppy used the example of a falling stone being modeled mathematically by a parabola, but pointed out that the parabola intersects the ground twice, making a "wrong prediction". I thought it was a rather idiotic point, and to his credit, Craig didn't make equally silly points. Overall, Oppy didn't seem to have a good sense of what it's like to do mathematics. Craig, surprisingly, did. I don't know anything about his background, but I suspect he studied math at some point in his life.
On the other hand, Craig seems to have much more confidence in reason than I do. For instance, he apparently spent more than 10 years of his life on "divine aseity", because he was threatened by the fact that mathematical objects seemed to share many of the same features as God: they are eternal, unchanging, necessary, self evident, etc. This, he thought was a challenge to God's sovereignty. (There seems to be more than a little Calvinist and Platonic mumbo-jumbo in his thinking.) His ultimate conclusion is that mathematical objects are, in some sense, not "real". None of this resonates with me in the least.
In my view, the human mind is nothing more than an upgraded monkey brain. What it thinks is compelling or not compelling, has at best a tenuous connection to ultimate truths, and is likely completely unreliable.
@@rockysmitt If you think of the brain--and thus its reason--as likely unreliable (I assume because it is an evolved thing), then what do you think about Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN)? I Would love to know!
I think Plantinga's EAAN get's a lot right, and that naturalists should almost completely agree with it, but something about the full conclusion doesn't work for me.
I'm a theist and a bit of a 'Craigian' in so far as I think my position is reasonable. I also enjoy a podcast like this that sets out to counter or at least offer criticism.
@@dbell92 If you are asking whether I think a purely materialistic philosophy is incoherent, then, yes, I think that's obvious. I think I independently came to a similar conclusion as Plantinga when I was in, if I remember, 7th grade, and I've never seen a reason to change this view. In fact, I don't think you can even make sense of science. By the physicist's own reckoning. we have the measurement problem, which points to the problem that if humans are part of the physical world they are supposedly studying, you need at least the most rudimentary philosophy to make sense of what it even means to do an experiment. All of the supposed "interpretations" of quantum mechanics are inadequate, and most are downright silly. In fact, I think it's fairly easy to see that you could construct a model of a universe containing "beings" that in some sense think they are doing experiments, think they are reasoning about the world, but who are deterministically fated to come to the wrong conclusion about everything. Not only is this possible, I think it's in some sense the almost certain outcome in a purely materialistic universe.
You also have independent problems with making sense of probability. And problems with what is meant by causation. And problems with what we mean by a model of nature. And what we mean by mathematical entities and how they relate to physical reality. Et cetera, et cetera. When you combine these problems with the fact that modern cosmology is mostly pseudoscience, I have a hard time seeing this line of argumentation as much more than pure nonsense.We humans are doomed to keep wondering about such things, because we are instinctively curious creatures, but we're not equipped to reason out anything useful.
I think a purely materialistic view of the universe is essentially the oldest philosophy attempted, certainly in the Greek tradition, but probably in every philosophical tradition, because it's so obvious and simplistic. I suspect that among the most elementary constituents of human thought are the recognition of the divide between animate and inanimate, along with the analytic idea of breaking things into their simplest pieces. One way to try to use these simplest aspects of human thinking, is to suppose that all inanimate things are built of the same simplest constituents, and animate things are built from inanimate. It's too bad this simple idea doesn't seem to work; I actually wish it did.
Starting with the earliest attempts at natural philosophy, people try to stick these two elementary ideas together in other, mostly obvious ways, but immediately fail every time. The "tension" between animate and inanimate, and the continual failure to find a way of reconstructing reality from atomic pieces, is, basically, the story of philosophy.
Can you imagine some guy from a completely unrelated field just sweeping massive amount intellectual work off the table and claiming he has it all settled in a context outside religion? Like a sociologist telling mathematecians that most of their ideas are implausible and are basically wrong. The kind of deluded arrogance this would take... But as an added bonus, here it involves one of the fields of study that also famously doesnt adhere to certain intellectual virtues. Just incredible.
I applaud your patience in dealing with this. Its not glamorous work having to explain that some tourist doesnt understand the absolute boudaries of modern theoretical physics but i guess someone occasionally has to do the legwork. If wlc has physics so well understood and apparently the additional benefit of divine insight could he please contribute anything to the actual field - just one measly physics paper for the unenlightened.
Craig is not a guy from a completely unrelated field: he edited a book with phyicists on the subject. If anything, he's more related to physics than the three in the videos. ^_^
@@WolfLeib 🤣🤣🤣🤣 seriously! So know when you're a doctor in philosophy it's a double diploma 🤣🤣🤣
@@WolfLeib Craig wrote philosophical arguments in this book you mentioned, the physics in the book was written by the... wait for it.... physicists... The idea that because he collaborated with physicists that means he knows physics is like saying that because I slept with a stripper that means I can dance...
@@WolfLeib I’m one of the guys in the video. I have an undergraduate degree in physics and a PhD, with a specialization in philosophy of physics. Sean Carroll and Robin Collins were external members of my dissertation committee. I have also published an article related to the beginning of the universe in a theoretical physics journal. I think I have ample credentials.
Meanwhile, Phil has co-authored a book with a physicist that is being published by Oxford University Press.
@@generichuman_ >> The idea that because he collaborated with physicists that means he knows physics i
If there's one single thing true in the bible then the entire thing is reliable
At 1:16:00, and well before then, I honestly think Craig has to respond in a compelling way to these criticisms because the way he is cherrypicking scientists, especially on the BGV theorem, and ignoring the hundreds of counterarguments, at some point you can no longer chalk it up to bias, it starts to sound like willful deception
Wow, ya think?
He's been doing this for years, despite being questioned on it repeatedly. Willful deception feels generous at this point.
We’re LONG past the “seems like” willful deception.
Can we have a one-on-one debate between the MR and WLC, please?
I hope so. But it will never happen
Craig knows that he would lose
Craig really irritates me these days
WLC is out of MR’s league. MR should wait until he gets his PhD before he debates someone of Craig’s caliber.
@@sir_elite0383Craig isn’t making himself look good. Elitism is a bad look. Also, Craig makes errors in so many areas that my head spins
That was beautifully articulated. I really appreciated the respect you showed to Dr. Craig at the end of the video, while still addressing the points where he might not be entirely accurate with clarity and precision.
Craig has no business claiming that the universe began to exist under the Hartle-Hawking model. He can claim that time is past finite, but under his definition of “began to exist,” time must be A-theoretic. The Hartle-Hawking model is very much premised on a rejection of presentist notions of time, and is more closely aligned with the B-theory. So on Craig’s can only say the universe began to exist under the Hartle-Hawking model if he makes substantial revisions to the model. But then he’s not talking about out the Hartle-Hawking model - he’s just talking about some imaginary model he invented
And you wish you could give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's just accidentally mischaracterizing physics and cosmology, but... his mistakes have been explained to him so many times that it's hard to see his errors as anything other than deliberate.
"Beginning to exist" according to Kalam is a completely non-physical, willful act, by definition goes against physics, WLC has 0 models backing him
I would love to see short video compilation of quotes or interview clips from leading physicists arguing contrary views to Craig’s. It would be a great resource to point people to when dealing with the kalam
Have you taken a look at Skydive Phil's documentaries? He has a two part documentary where he interviewed top physicists and philosophers on these topics. (Full disclosure: I was an advisor for both films.)
@ I have actually, yes. Really enjoy the content from you all. I used to follow William Lane Craig and loved his content. The information you guys put out definitely contributed to that dying
It was actually because of those interview clips in the longer videos that I thought about the benefit of a shorter one. Someone may be more likely to watch a 5 min compilation than go to a certain point in a longer video to watch.
Just had to shoehorn into a recent video from you both dealing with this topic so posted here where more likely to be seen by you ;-)
As per usual, Craig just kind of smarmily condescends to selected clips from a video he didn't watch and acts like the people who disagree with him are just too dumb to see that he's right.
Lmfao, indeed. It just shows he's afraid of the objections so he just choses to omit them.
Regarding BGV theorem, in his book Many Worlds in One, Vilenkin writes:
“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” (176)
i love how WLC always points to his writings as necessary reading and complains when someone doesn't directly address them, but he is seldom up to date as to what his opponents have to say
@@cunjoz YEP.
THIS
In his defense, he’s never really replied in depth to TH-camrs, and on top of that he is really busy which might have to do with why he’s not replying with much depth and substance to Joe. Unfortunately I see a lot of people in these comments sections character assassinating the other side and seeming to have their minds already made up on these issues that I sort of find it hopeless to engage much. What will replying to people on TH-cam do? Everyone is in an echo chamber on their respective sides in these conversations.
Your responses to people like Craig and Trent Horn always seem effortless, well researched, and decisive. On the contrary, theistic responses to you seem exceptionally strained and poorly thought through.
As expected
and for good reason.
Yep.
& this difference isn't even a skill issue, just different incentives
It is hard to pretend you stand on level ground when your head is in the clouds and you can't see your own steps.
If you get a debate with Craig that would be awesome
I'd buy a ticket.
Life is too short to waste time on Craig.
@@sayrebonifield4663 To se Craig destroyed, it is never to short.
Ugh... That would be a practice in patience and futility. It is like debating ham. I know debates are more for the viewers, but some things are just not bearable, even if worth it.
Believers can get wiped up with logic, facts, and truth and will say that it is part of God's plan for them to continue to believe, ignoring that if it is part of God's plan -it is also God's plan for nonbelievers to have the tools to dispute their unfounded claims of belief on the basis of facts, logic, and reason and therefore, is not a very good deity.
For being all powerful and all knowing, he sure is... Impotent if he has to rely on humans to write books for him prove his existence.
@@Cre8DHDivity, some years ago when I was a young teenager I started to study the literature on the existence of God. Even with all my bias in favor of the existence of God, I still saw how weak Craig's arguments are and how absurd it was that all the arguments (except the ontological and moral, which are really weak) Craig was presenting were arguments based on the supposed cutting edge of physics. Like such a good and knowledgeable God couldn't give us more clear evidence of his existence. Imagine being born 200 years ago and having 0 arguments for the existence of God. Same thing with the arguments in favor of Christianity. Debating Craig is, as you say, like debating Ken Ham. He's in a position where he'll never change his mind and will just keep repeating the same "arguments" over and over.
Did Vilenkin even mean that the universe (as in totality of everything) came from literally nothing? This is a quote from him and it doesn't seem to say that:
'I say “nothing” in quotations because the nothing that we were referring to here is the absence of matter, space and time. That is as close to nothing as you can get, but what is still required here is the laws of physics. So the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing.'
This is from an article on tufts university's site: 'What Happened Before the Big Bang? Cosmologist Alex Vilenkin does the math to show that the universe indeed had a starting point' .
Was this said later?
Even as a theist I treat William Lane Craig like he has the philosophical cheese touch. Stay as far away as possible! Debates like these are just like playing whack-a-mole. Even if you whack WLC with half a dozen good objections he will spring back up saying the same damn thing over and over again.
Time exists only within the universe. The universe as a whole, from beginning to end, exists outside of time. According to Doctor Craig, something that exists outside of time can just happen to exist and needs no explanation for any of its properties. Problem solved.
Joe: This is precisely why there's still active live debate... concerning which model is correct.
WLC: The premise (the universe began to exist) does not require one to prove that a particular model is correct.
Joe: I didn't say that in order to prove the universe began to exist, we had to prove a particular model to be correct.
So how does WLC misunderstand you?
(I think) They are saying that the way WLC comes to the fact that beginningless universes are impossible is because each individual beginningless model is improbable. But each individual models with a beginning are also improbable. But for WLC that doesnt mean its impossible for the universe to have a beginning. Which doesnt seem consistent
@@zoranz7147 WLC would never say "because improbable therefore impossible" i.e. "because models without a beginning are probably false therefore it is impossible that the universe did not have a beginning". His point is that the scientific evidence tilts heavily in favor of a universe with a beginning and Joe objects to that. But the reason Joe gives for his objection is that "there's still debate as to which model is correct". WLC zooms in on that and responds that the premise (the universe began to exist) does not rely on a particular model being correct. And Joe cries "he misunderstood me!".
@@zoranz7147actually, Craig doesn’t merely say “beginning-less models are improbable.” If so, you’d be right. Craig instead argues that such models *also* face problems that finite-universe models don’t.
That said, I don’t agree with him
@sedmercado24 But the point is, craig uses the exact same methodology in order to make his claim that the evidence favors models with a beginning, which is flawed. Craig does not provide a good enough reason to believe this is the case.
@ can you give us empirical evidence that favors a model with a beginning?
Love your vids! I would like to request another video going in depth on arguments from evil if that would be an interesting topic for you.
Someone, please get Alexander Vilenkin on the record refuting WLC's assertion.
I may be misremembering, but didn’t Sean Carrol actually feature Vilenkin in his debate with WLC (refuting his repeated assertion)?
@@jacob18310 Yes he did.
@@Wmeester1971 No, he did not.
@@WolfLeib I just checked... it was Alan Guth.. so I stand corrected. But both are experts on the BGV theorum.
@@jacob18310 I think that was Alan Guth. The confusion comes from later comments made by Vilenkin, which WLC misrepresented. Phil got clarification personally from Vilenkin, but it isn't on the record, as far as I know. It would be helpful if Vilenkin put the issue to rest, but I think he's averse to pubic controversy in academia.
Almost an hour and a half? Joe, you spoil us.
One thing I've always found peculiar about these types of theistic arguments (as well as the responses to them) is that they rely on an unstated assumption; namely, that our cognitive apparatus provides us with all the tools we need to make sense of our universe. Craig assumes that if the way in which we conceptualize these sorts of problems leaves us without any naturalistic explanation as to the origin of the universe, then it must have had some supernatural origin. But why think that those are the only two available options? Why could it not be the case that the universe _had_ a natural cause, but that it happens to be one that creatures like us are simply unable to comprehend? Just as there are concepts humans understand that other intelligent creatures we share the planet with cannot, why could it not be the case that there are some concepts that even humans cannot comprehend? To be clear: what I'm suggesting here is not just that we're not 'clever enough' to understand the universe, but that objective reality itself is not accessible to human understanding.
@@wardandrew23412 Personally, I suspect that something like that is true.
You have unlocked Indian religions.
@@perorenchino2036 In the comments section of an essay that I recently published in Aeon magazine, someone posted an excerpt from the Nasadiya Sukta. I really liked it! I would love to learn more about Indian religion/philosophy. (It would also be a great way to diversity the references I include in my publications.)
@@daniellinford9643 Indian philosophies aren't that well known in the west and are very much under appreciated both in india and broader world. So lack of research publication about them is also a major problem.Only two schools that i have encountred in journals are achintya vedaved and vedanta.
@wardandrew23412 When you say objective reality cannot be understood by humans are you not saying that a part of reality is incomprehensible because of its size. I’m just trying to clarify because i would like to know your take on my thoughts.
It is not logical for us to go back in time to observe the processes that led to its creation. But unless we are willing to say that some natural law is illogical so as to be incomprehensible, which i would say is just not possible because anything that is illogical does not exist. Then would it not be more accurate to say that the universe can be understood by the human mind even though to fully understand the laws of nature would require a vast amount of computation that might not be able to be achieved during the lifetime of human existence.
One could then say that this would still mean that humans are incapable of understanding given the possible demise of humanity before having a complete understanding. But my point is that it is not because the universe is illogical and so therefore cannot be understood in that sense.
Asymptotically Safe Gravity sounds like a song by Half Man Half Biscuit.
my problem with the kalam is how have they eliminated all possible natual beginnings
25:42 - No one tell Craig about imaginary electrical power. Power plants are specifically designed to minimize their output of imaginary power. From a physics standpoint, imaginary numbers are real, as, I assume, is imaginary time.
56:11 Wouldn't this also rule out a sustainer God, who constantly causes the universe to keep on existing, if God became temporal with the beginning of time? Or is God both then, being temporal and non-temporal?
Craig’s lack of engagement with substantive criticisms of his work, somewhat hurts his cause. Most Christians, who stumble onto his work and are mildly interested in philosophical inquiry, will be satisfied by what he has to say. However, for those Christians who follow through, and look to see if there are any worthwhile responses to his views, may find themselves disillusioned, disappointed, and their faith weakened as a result.
About the probability of different Cosmological models... Graig does the same primary school statistics as he does with "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence"
Craig: "Not at all. The chance of winning the lottery are very very low, but someone wins the lottery every week"
Here he does: "you either win or you don't win.. its 50/50"
hello joe do you consider making video about Maydole's modal perfection argument?
God damn, it is hard to take theist seriously when none of them can actually defend their arguments.
We do kiddo
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf Plz present it to us gramps
@@perorenchino2036There is nothing for him to present. Belief in theism is an intellectual weakness that will be hopefully eradicated someday.
There are no true atheists. Atheist claim they do not believe in God because there’s no proof or evidence for God.
There’s no proof or evidence for love, justice, fairness, equality, purpose.
Yet, atheist often live by ideals that don’t exist, and more often than not, have an hierarchy of ideals as if love is better than hate. Or happiness is superior to pain.
They cannot objectively prove any of these claims, yet they believe them. Atheism is logically inconsistent with itself unless you are a moral nihilist.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf, enlighten me. Studied everything there was to study in philosophy of religion and all I saw was flawed arguments.
I find the dismissal of the new atheists again disheartening (and isn't it getting old?) the vast, vast majority of people are not ever going to engage with your work, no matter how sophisticated it is. For a lot of people, it was their stridency which helped break the spell of often traumatic religious experience and enabled people to release themselves from the grip of religion. It's all very well to mock them, Jo, but not everyone has your life experience nor your capacity for philosophy.
I think Joe and Hitches audiences are completely different. Hitchens got down in the mud and wrestled with the pigs and he was damn good at it. Beat them at their own game, throw poo better and right back at them. Joe I think has basically no use of that and doesn't care if we'd rather be entertained by him throwing some poo back.
In regards to Joe’s question to the audience: yes, if I knew nothing else and only listened to Craig’s podcast, I would leave with the impression that there aren’t any cosmologists working on beginningless models, and I’d think that every working scientist agrees that eternal universes are impossible and that there is no active discussion on past eternal models. Craig can claim this was not his intention, but he cannot claim, as a sociological fact, that the content he puts out leads his readers to adopt this false conclusion. Now, he is free to argue that every physics department on Earth is wasting its time and grant money, but he is not free to claim that he is not misrepresenting the current state of consensus.
When it comes to philosophy of time, Dr. Ryan Mullins is SO much better than Dr. Craig. It’s not even close.
Is it possible to be atheist but still believe in eternal life (eternal consciousness)? Genuinely asking. If not, why not?
Sure, why not? Atheism (at least the way I would describe it) just rejects the idea of this extremely powerful intelligent life form called god. That says nothing about how long anybody's consciousness could possibly remain.
Now, to be clear. If I had to bet, I would _assume_ that every consciousness eventually ends. But it's not _impossible_ in principle to have an eternally lasting consciousness.
I myself believed that for years and only stopped due to study of neuroscience.
@@paskal007r And what result of neuroscience led you to believe that this is impossible even in principle?
Atheism is a view on one topic: God's existence. Someone can think that there are no gods, yet also think that we have eternal life. In fact, I can think of one example from the history of philosophy who held a view like that, John McTaggart, who held that what really exists is a community of eternal, acausal, timeless spirits united in love. That probably sounds New Agey, but McTaggart lived long before the New Agers and was influenced more so by Leibniz and Hegel.
@@efi3825 many, actually. The long story short of it is that there's several phenomena that are utterly irreconcilable with any model that doesn't identify the brain as what makes conscience happen. One couple of such examples are the split brain condition and category specific deficits. But when you think enough about it it doesn't make any sense even that coffee can make you nervous if we are to assume that nervousness (a state of mind) is not a physical but only an immaterial state. Then there's things such as the way memories are formed, how perception works etc, things for which we have a mechanical explanation in terms of neuron interaction and behaviour, that make no sense as a "coincidence" (which they would be if it were actually the case that mental phenomena are actually non-physical). It's as if you had a "possessed" rock that just by mere coincidence had all the hardware and software necessary to carry out the cognitive labor attributed to the rock but actually done by the spirit possessing it.
In other words, after studying the matter, any spiritual view just looks like someone thinking that gremlins make seasons happen. I'm not saying that nobody that put in the hours will disabuse themselves from such silly notions, but only because I know how hard it is to dismiss one's own religion.
Not only is it illogical to say that a perfect eternal spaceless being started time and space, it’s illogical to propose that a perfect eternal spaceless being would act at all. Action comes out of necessity, necessity comes out of imperfection (temporal/spacial needs). God is supposedly eternally perfect. To move from perfection to imperfection is a logical fallacy. God can’t commit logical fallacies.
Kalamity Again: Return of my Favorite Pun
This is edited/processed quite strangely. Quite weird cuts or perhaps lag on the video call side. Not sure what it is, is it only on my side?
Wouldn't the better question about the universe be "why is the universe not locally real?" The universe (and nothing in it) doesn't exist until it needs to, so why does debating the beginning have anything to do with the Theism-Atheism conversation?
So here is a charitable interpretation of Craig, as I've understood him when he is less sloppy:
The BGV theorem does not prove the universe has a beginning. But it is "part" of a scientific case for it (bayesian evidence). It showed that inflation also cannot work without a beginning. Now there are exceptions to the BGV, but like Vilenkin says, these exceptions seem to be even less plausible than a standard big bang with a beginning, by introducing more speculative and exotic physics. So a plausible model should be simple, explain all the physical data, not use outlandish theoretical physics and should make predictions. Making models is cheap, but models which fit all the above are rare.
I'm not trying to be an expert here so I will defer to CBS spacetime on the same topic, and he is a cosmologist - th-cam.com/video/HRqBGnSxzyI/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Lp_qZ_ew2AqaAVcFth-cam.com/video/HRqBGnSxzyI/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Lp_qZ_ew2AqaAVcF
He also points out attempts to get around the BGV all have less plausible moves (something about density fluctuations, I don't pretend to understand that). **Quote from him "the current answer to the question (of whether the universe has a beginning) - is probably yes".** This is a qualified statement because he did explicitly say we don't know that because of quantum gravity. But then why does he say both at the same time? It seems to me, the most charitable way of interpreting this, is that if we were to stack all the evidence we have on cosmology, theoretical, models, principles, physical evidence, it favours beginnings over non-beginnings with uncertainty.
Now pointing out that there are people who disagree with this is good to lower our confidence, but all high-level physics and/or philosophy are bound to have disagreements. The question is how plausible and shared the disagreements are.
Also I would like to see Phil's recording with Vilenkin. I had personally sent an email a few years back to him and he it's his opinion that the universe had a beginning. He also has a sleight of hand in splicing Vilenkin's views on the same on his debunking video. Vilenkin (like all old people) say the same script in all interviews. In Vilenkin's interview with Kuhn, he also does say "the BGV does not prove the universe has a beginning, just inflation". But he immediately follows up with saying he finds a prior contracting phase to be implausible given the data, and as such is impossible anyway. So Vilenkin statement summary is this - BGV doesn't prove the universe had a beginning, but in the bigger picture it does. This might be hyperbolic on his part but it's still a qualified opinion.
Right. Inflation concerns, by putting constraints on beginless universe model, is evidence for a beginning. Sure, you can construct, in a speculative sense, a beginless model, but absent of experimental measures, there is an asymetry. There is always underdetermination of evidence, but that does not amounts to much if we are talking about probabilistic judgment.
Note how you are bending over backwards to explain away Craig's mistakes - to the point of not even acknowledging he has really made any - while calling Joe disingenuous for daring to respond to Craig's *actual response to Joe*, and accusing Phil of dishonesty - all while admitting you are no expert.
You'd like to see Phil's recording with Vilenkin? Why? Do you not trust Phil?
And yet you clearly trust Craig to the point that you handwave any criticism of him away with the 'he's just old and doesn't really study this anymore'.
Craig is old - but unless you want to claim he's senile, your ageism defence isn't really going to cut it.
There is an hour and a half of forensic critique in this video from three brilliant minds who are very familiar with the philosophy and physics - who have actually interacted with not only the scholars Craig cites (the one scholar, I should say), but a wide range of scholars - experts in the field. Can you not see that while Craig is cherry picking aspects of the work of one person (and misrepresenting it), Joe, Dan and Phil are appealing to the whole of Academia.
If you had two essays in front of you, one with a bibliography referencing one chapter of one book, and the other with a bibliography referencing a whole library - which one would you assume, a priori, was trying to sell a specific, idiosyncratic, biased view, and which one would you assume was trying to give you the whole unbiased picture?
@@bengreen171 I consider Phil to be a polemic, and he's clearly not a cosmologist. As I said, I would just like to hear the recording in full about Vilenkin because I have talked to Vilenkin myself about this. None of them have relevant expertise, not more than Craig. The closest to a cosmology expert is Dan who is still a phil grad. As far as credentials go, they're all equal. They're all probably more knowledgeable than Craig, but doesn't mean a whole lot
Also, why are you obsessed with me? I literally just said that Craig is sloppy. I am not "defending" Craig anymore than I am criticising him. The rest of your reply is unrelated to this comment.
@@qazrockz
Obsessed with you?
Because I responded to a couple of your comments here?
To prove how not obsessed with you I am, I'm not going to respond to anything you said here. It's clearly not worth my while.
Craig is no different than any other contemporary apologist: a pompous,unwarrantedly arrogant liar that simply cannot complete a sentence w/out misquoting, cherry picking, intentionally misrepresenting or outright lying… for jesus.
Agreed, it is extremely frustrating. Hopefully philosophy one day will stop providing charity to theism.
Guys! quick question: can free will be a possibility if only the physical realm exists?
I would think not, because if it is only the physical that exists, and physical entities are bound to obey physical laws, then everything that happens is due to cause and effect (kinda like dominos, iykyk)
I have been listening back and forth on Joe and WLC responses and must say I am actually disappointed that Joe would resort to this kind of labeling “misuse of science”. It and other comments are dangerously close to ad hominem especially one of his remarks regarding Christian apologists Although I suppose the title he uses will garner at lot more interest. I had expected better of him
My disappointment with Joe as well. This is the "Majesty of Reason". I thought this community was built foundationally to be away from such inflammatory titles. Joe is consistently playing into the handbook of "debunk bro" culture and feeding into internet culture wars. I believe Joe is unaware on how his videos impact the larger discourse, he is someone who is respected by both sides and as such has more dialectic responsibility here.
Let's say Craig is wrong. Craig is allowed to be wrong on a subject which frankly no one, by their own admission, has the right answer to. You can see tons of cosmologists saying publicly that the big bang or physics says the universe probably had a beginning. Craig's faults here is more along the lines of being overconfident in his views than outright misrepresentation.
What is actually wrong with this approach?
In the deep recesses of the internet, we know the truth. But in the broad daylight where Craig will preach resolutely to his audiences, everything seems fine.
47:28
WLC is not saying that science rules out a beggingless universe.
He is saying that there is no science and no reality that supports or can support a beginningless universe.
why create any premise with an assertion about a beginning then?
Craig very explicitly says the evidence refutes a beginningless universe.
Dan kept mentioning scientific theories, but the scientific method was not performed in order to come to any of these theories therefore making them pseudoscientific theories by definition.
How exactly do you get infinite entropy? That would mean infinite energy forever, no? So there will always be new stars, planets, and so on.
Great video. If I wanted to shamelessly email my amateur philosopher thoughts on topics am I able to do that? A qna thing would be awesome
The prima facie issue with your arguments is you are switching between philosophical analysis using speculative models and empirical scientific realities. These are two different frameworks that try to explain reality using different axioms. Each can learn from the other but switching when convenient is not being genuine in seeking the truth. Most scientists and philosophers do switch between these when it helps them. Mostly to try to explain their own biases, prejudices or ideologies. They make models to for the same reason.
Science relies entirely on quantifiable aspects of reality while philosophy analyses and reasons all imaginable aspects of reality as we experience it. Scientists can propose and speculate beyond empirical and quantifiable universe. But those theories cannot be proven if there is no "information" that can be quantified to prove them. For example, anything outside 'space and time (that came to existence with big bang)', can only be speculated unless there is information traveling in some form from beyond space and time, to space and time as we know it. As of now there is no information that comes from beyond space and time. So, in effective any theory proposed as scientific is speculative and not empirical science.
For example, if there is a multiverse, how many of them are there. There can be one or an infinite number of multiverses. Now these are not quantifiable due to lack of any information transfer from external multiverses to this universe. Also, from a philosophical point of view anything beyond space and time is purely speculative and wishful thinking. This is because all that one can reason about is dependent of space and time. That is human reason and imagination itself is dependent of space and time. Otherwise, humans will be able to describe something beyond space and time. All that is explained about things beyond space and time is just a projection of what they have experienced in space and time. Multiverse (draw a picture) for example can only be explained as another space and time in the same form as the space and time of this universe. Like (for example) this universe as bubble in another space and time. Which means now you have to explain how this encompassing space and time came into existence from another singularity plus the constants(fine-tuning) that guided it. In short anything beyond space and time is wishful thinking unless information travels from what is beyond. This is pure information theory.
Something can be imagined, or even mathematically modeled does not mean that it exists and is true. You can do a perfect mathematical model of a Unicorn, that does not mean it exits. Also, Math being the best modeling language as we know it has its limits as shown by Kurt Godel. It is neither complete not decidable. Any mathematical system/framework that tries to explain reality will have statements that are true but cannot be proven in the same framework. Which means that no human framework can explain reality completely without making true statements that cannot be proven. The very existence of paradoxes in human models (language, reason, math) shows human limitations in understanding reality.
Watching this makes it fairly clear that Bill Craig is as much a tourist in these spaces as Terence Howard. But having read a travel pamphlet, he brashly asserts, "don't worry, I've got this," and tries to order at the restaurant in the local dialect. To everyone's chagrin, he classlessly insults the waitstaff's lineage, mocks his host country, and boorishly flails while attempting local customs.
In short, Bill Craig travels to a field that is not his own and dallies while pronouncing himself an expert. He is a blowhard and a fool. A dilettante of the most rank order. His boorish behavior ought to simply be ignored, but draws so much attention that it can not be politely disregarded, but instead must be addressed, if only to minimize the chances that others will repeat his crass behaviors.
Barbour and Carroll on Janus Points!
Its a good day to watch Joe, Phil, and Dan DESTROY WLC's arguments 😜
Oh, and #COYG
coyg
Nothing begins to exist, the Universe began to change
I get the feeling that craig knows very well that his argument is worthless but he has too much if his past (and current income) invested in it to take a step in a reasonable direction
Waiting to see someone consider how a non-local singularity for the beginning of the universe occurs every where and when 🙂
Funny to see this comment section turning into the same old garbage of every other ''atheist responds'' youtuber out there.
Early Christmas 🎅
Sorry, but the whole section about thermodynamics and entropy was pretty unconvincing.
- So, these two people Ice and Crockey (I couldn't really hear their names, sorry) realized that if a function is increasing, it didn't necessarily begin to increase? Sure, but that's not much of a realization so far. How does that apply to the entropy of the universe specifically? Yes, there are models for this, but you can make up a model for pretty much anything. Is there any kind of observation that supports one of these models over another?
- "If you just constrain the state of the universe to being one in which it allows for the existence of creatures like ourselves, then the physical state that you expect the universe to be in that's most probable is not the kind of state that we see in the universe today."
Alright cool, so you flatout say that a universe with us in it is not the most probable? Maybe even highly im-probable? You know, I think the theistic explaination is pretty lazy and unconvincing in its own right, but you just make an even worse case for any atheistic explaination.
And to Phil Halper: I think that replies to replies to replies are tedious and time- consuming. So, no need to feel like winning if Craig doesn't reply to your reply of a reply. I mean, I'm happy if Craig doesn't reply to anything at all, but you know.
I think you've misunderstood what I was saying in that section. That's probably my fault. So, allow me to clear up a few things.
First, it's not two people. It's one -- Caspar Isenkrahe. He was responding to the 19th century version of the argument, where the claim went that because the universe's entropy is increasing today, the universe must have begun at some point in the past. Isenkrahe's point was that this isn't necessarily so. The universe's entropy could have been increasing over an infinitely long past.
Do we have evidence that the entropy of the universe has been increasing over an infinitely long past? No, but, equally, we don't have evidence that it wasn't. My point -- and Isenkrahe's -- isn't that the entropy couldn't have begun to increase at some point in the past. The view I've defended ad nauseam is that we do not know whether the universe began.
Second, you've misunderstood the point that I was making concerning the fine-tuning of the universe's entropy. It's true that the low entropy required for life is unexpected. However, suppose that you posit some hypothesis -- like theism -- that perhaps does predict the existence of life. In that case, you expect to see a low entropy region. But what you don't expect is low entropy outside that region.
Here's the point: the universe's entropy is far lower than is expected only given the constraint that life exists. That is, unless the theist wants to tell us more about God's motivations, what we observe concerning the universe's entropy is not at all what theism predicts.
Do I have an alternative atheistic explanation that I think is true? No, not at all. Again, my view -- the one I've defended in publications, in my dissertation, and in TH-cam videos -- is that we don't know whether the universe began or, if it did, how it began. My view is that Craig's attempt to solve that mystery does not succeed.
@@daniellinford9643 Alright, thank you for taking the time to clear that up.
@@efi3825 Absolutely. I am sorry that I spoke unclearly during that portion of the video.
@@daniellinford9643I respect the hell out of your continued dedication to answering questions to you on these videos. Your responses take invaluable time and are a kind donation to non-experts (like WLC! LoL, too bad he won't listen).
Thank you and much respect.
@@danielkirienko1701 Thank you!
So when Phil uses "I sat in his office" argument multiple times, he is allowed to, but when Craig does it you make an episode with Malpass called "Citation needed"?
@@ILoveLuhaidan in Phil’s case, Phil actually played the recordings, in our previous episode, of sitting in Vilenkin’s office and Vilenkin saying the BGV theorem doesn’t show the universe began to exist. So we actually have the citation, and even played it for the audience. As for the citation needed episode, (1) I didn’t title that, and (2) that citation needed comment wasn’t even directed to Craig, it was directed to Turek. There is no double standard here in the slightest.
@@MajestyofReason Phil is playing fast and loose with Vilenkin's words to a lesser extent than Craig is. Vilenkin aboslutely does think the universe began to exist and that the BGV theorem is part of that case. He agrees with Craig here. What my understanding of the (10 second) recording Phil played is - Vilenkin is talking of the truism of proof in physics. He doesn't think the BGV theorem is "proof" because "proofs" like that are rare. Quote from Vilenkin about this same thing when Craig and Krauss clashed -
"My letter was in response to Lawrence’s email asking whether or not I thought the BGV theorem *definitively* rules out a universe with no beginning. The gist of my answer was that there is no such thing as "definitive ruling out" in science. I would say the theorem makes a plausible case that there was a beginning. But there are always caveats."
Vilenkin also makes similar points here in Closer to Truth th-cam.com/video/DYf8-jOUUwY/w-d-xo.html and his lecture here th-cam.com/video/NXCQelhKJ7A/w-d-xo.html. He thinks the theorem "definitevely" rules out inflation being beginingless, and is part of a case that the universe did have a beginning, and he addresses the exceptions to the BGV therein. Matt Dowd, another cosmologist in PBS spacetime, make similar comments.
While I am not an expert (in fact none of you are cosmologists either), I take concern with you implying Craig misrepresents Vilenkin's views or his work, when Vilenkin himself explicitly says this - "I think you represented what I wrote about the BGV theorem in my papers and to you personally very accurately. This is not to say that you represented my views as to what this implies regarding the existence of God. Which is OK, since I have no special expertise to issue such judgements." Now Craig might be wrong because he takes Vilenkin as an authority on cosmology here, but to say or imply Craig is being dishonest here is false. www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/honesty-transparency-full-disclosure-and-the-borde-guth-vilenkin-theorem
@ do you remember the approximate timestamp he played those recordings?
@@ILoveLuhaidan 1:05:40 on the OG video
I could just listen to Joe all day tbh
Now I've heard model thrown around a bunch of times.
The difference in a model and a scientific model, is that a scientific model must get its information from scientific experimentation done through the scientific method, empirical data.
Without drawing information from science in this way, and without being able to predict and explain natural phenomena, it can't be a scientific model.
You can make a model from pure assumptions and speculation but what use would that have in the real world? It would be purely fictional.
If you talk to him again you should ask him if he's a flat earther. (I'm serious). A lot of these guys like him believe it but are embarrased to admit it. Ran into one the other day. Looked like a completely normal and respectable fellow, wearing a suit and tie.
Here's the most important question about the thermodynamics answers you all gave:
If a scientist can't find evidence through experimentation and the scientific method, is anything outside of that, speculation?
We've never observed the 2lot not to happen, ever, that's why it's natural law.
Of course people can speculate that it could have been different but that would be an appeal to possibility fallacy at the least.
Why not organize a debate between Craig and lindford on the beginning of the universe?
It is obvious that the universe does not exist.
Speculation is not truth. Go by what data we have. We see entropy. Who cares if we can imagine outer limits of this empirical perception. The methodology to arrive at truth is most probable sticking close to the empirical data. Prognosticate from the data, not speculation. If you want to speculate, invest in the stock market.
Something that is always left out of these discussions is the Block Universe. Some excellent arguments can be made to show that relativity theory + some basic philosophical axioms imply the Block Universe for any relativistic Universe. If we have a Block Universe, the claim that the past finitude of such physical set of things implies a beginning of it is unjustified. Sure, a Block Universe could have had a beginning, but we have no reason to claim that. Craig acknowledges this, yet brushes it off. At most he makes real shitty objections to the Block Universe (like postulating a preferred frame of reference). And no ever brings this to any of the debates he's had nor as an objection to his Kalam argument. Missed opportunity I say.
Otherwise excellent job in refuting Craig's arguments.
You may be interested to know that I've published a peer reviewed article, in the European Journal for Philosophy of Science, that does actually deal with Craig's metaphysics of time. See my 2021 article entitled 'Neo-Lorentzian Relativity and the Beginning of the Universe'.
@@daniellinford9643, will read. Thanks.
The block universe falls into McTaggart's paradox. Craig has already commented on this in his "the tense theory of time". The core of the paradox is that any attempt to mix B-theory with A-theory will be contradictory. The only possible options are pure B-theory or pure A-theory (presentism).
@@caiomateus4194 Pure B-theory is one version of the block theory. Did you mean growing block theory?
@daniellinford9643
Yes, I assumed he was referring to Tooley's growing block theory rather than four-dimensionalism.
Craig does not give one iota for the truth of the matter. It's all about affirming his belief.
the tone is off...
Even the title is an assumption. It’s an assumption that the Universe (all that is was and will be) began. The alternative is that it came from nothing .. no less crazy or likely/unlikely.
I’m backing a cyclical universe and implicit Infinity and eternity
Something from nothing is magic 🎩 🐇 .. I would have thought a scientist who is also a materialist would want to avoid THAT spin on .. “God of the gaps”
Has this guy touched the TAG? Been looking for something about it but haven’t heard a peep
IIRC, Craig doesn't think much of presuppositional apologetics?
Dan linford and Malpass have done a panel discussion almost a decade ago on these types of arguments
@@shassett79 talking about MoR
@@no3339 Oh, OK. Yeah I, too, would like to see Joe make a video about presuppositionalism, but he doesn't seem all that interested?
Kalam playlist!
I know that Phil will not like me saying this but i truly believe that wlc is purposely dishonest because he has invested too much into this. Just even being honest and admit anything might be dangerous for his status and income. So he rather Trump or be honest.
contingency is more convincing than cosmological
Craig, as a sophisticated philosopher, should be able to understand that that’s not what Joe was saying 😂
There is nothing wrong with the Kalam, all you need is proof...and no one has any proof of anything. So you argue what the words mean. Better to consider Craig's claim that "Without god, the universe is pointless." The question in response in the spirit of the above is quite profound...but no one here will ever get it. As for the actual state of understanding remains the same as it always
has been..."We have no fxxking idea." and probably never will.
Seems like pointless papers and arguments rooted in speculation that adds nothing to tangible to knowledge. There has to be more to life that baiting Craig into a philosophical rabbit hole of conjecture while being giddily proud to do so.
Yeah, it's another very disappointing quality of responses from WLC.
He seems to be disengaged with how the topic has developed these days.
The old God, wholly 'spirit', wholly the high-priest, wholly perfect, is promenading his garden: he is bored and trying to kill time. Against boredom even gods struggle in vain. What does he do? He creates man-man is entertaining.... But then he notices that man is also bored.
- Friedrich Nietzsche, 'The Anti-Christ', 1888.
He must have been so disappointed creating Man to kill boredom then having to listen to these videos talking about Him.
Excellent content, friend!
Bill has no problem believing in an eternal god but can't cope with a godless eternal space.
Phil is dead on. Craig has been a broken record for the last 20 years, despite changes in the relevant fields. Disappointing
All Craig ever does is cherry-pick and misrepresent. His overconfident pronouncements on which physics or cosmology are probable are ridiculous. It's all grifting for Jesus (and a paycheck).
Anything that is not timelike has no cause. e.g. lightlike pair production.
Ooh came for Craig, stayed for skydivephil
WLC will never admit he’s wrong. He’s 75 and has books/podcasts to sell.
Excessive preamble fellows. Zzzzz Zzxzz. Tuned out.
Supa cool dudes 😮
Craig's behavior becomes crystal clear when one realizes he is also (one might even say primarily) engaged in an ideological project.
Aren’t we all? It seems that most people in this comment section are ideologically engaged which is why we’re all on MR’s channel in the first place. Saying we aren’t is like denying having any bias.
The point WLC is that each possible general model that for a beginningless universe is untenable in reality, which rules out a beginningless universe.
The models of a universe that began to exist are all metaphysically possible in reality, even though they lack full explanatory power.
A universe that began is the only plausible explanation in reality.
Yes, that is his claim, but it is not a legitimate, valid one. The fact that no current beginningless model is tenable does not rule out beginningless models in general because our current list of models is not necessarily exhaustive, there could be plausible beginningless models which WLC does not seem to consider.
While Craig’s arguments for the timeless cause having to be immaterial is bad, his argument for why the timeless cause has to be personal is better I think (don’t think it succeeds though). And if the opponent doesn’t believe in a timeless material personal being as the cause then showing that the timeless cause must be personal would be enough.
Have you responded to his argument that the cause must be personal somewhere?
@@z388z good question! I think Dan and I discuss his reasons in our video “No, science doesn’t show the universe began to exist”. I also think I briefly cover this in my video “from Kalam to God?”
Yep, there's an earlier view with Joe and I where we covered that topic.
Can you refresh me on what the personal portion was? I remember it as one of the poorer justifications, but my memory could be failing me.
@@Boundless_Border From what I remember it went something like this.
If a timeless impersonal object/entity always had the casual powers to bring the universe into being then the universe should have always existed but the universe has not always existed, it came into being a finite time ago. Therefore, to explain how a finite effect can come from a timeless cause it has to be personal (in the sense of having free will).
The most common objection (I think) is to argue that the cause only has to be indeterministic to create a finite effect from a timeless cause.
@z388z
Yep. That's the one. Although, I thought there were more moving parts, but that could've been for a different trait.
Prior to even considering indeterministic behaviors or superposition. I think the first issue is developing a coherent understanding of the relationship between timeless entities and temporal entities. Not to mention the behaviors of a timeless entity themselves.
For instance, the conception that a timeless entity would've resulted in the temporal entity being infinitely long ago instead of some finite number of years ago (from our moment in time) rests upon temporal notions that simply don't apply. Foundationally speaking, you are measuring the atemporal existence with time.
Should it be entirely deterministic, one would consider that the origin of the universe is fixed, but it doesn't follow that it was infinitely long ago. In fact, from any particular point, it seems it has to be some finite time ago. Presuming, of course, there is an origin.
I think some of the issue is that we have a hard time grasping atemporal existence. For instance, we are intuitively opposed to the idea that states can vary and still be atemporal. Yet this is a requirement for a god to choose in a libertarian free will manner. As one must independently have the state of "select a time" and the state of "not select the time."
And of course, factoring in the notion that states can vary without time. The timeless impersonal entity could've varied in casual ability to bring about this instantiation of the universe.
Sorry this is long. But overall the argument seems extremely poor to me as it conflicts with itself (that the impersonal cause must not have varied states while the personal cause can) and flawed notions like measuring something atemporal with time.
Idk man... defending infinity is like the peak of the end of reason. There is no way Malpass is right about infinity.
@ I 100% didn’t but actual infinities substantisting into our reality is very prima facie ridiculous. You got any citations that pruss said actual infinities can exist?
@ people justifying actual infinities feels like maximum cope. I fully realize this is all incredulity that I’m saying.
Why? Why is it such a sin?
@@fellinuxvi3541 Idk just sounds so insane.
A monotonic function is just a general description of a possibility. It does not describe anything concrete. To describe any concrete process, you have to have a starting value (initial value) that initiates this process. So, the example of the monotonic function doesn't work. The universe isn't like that. You can also argue that entropy doesn't have to increase, but what matters is that whether there's an increase or a decrease, we have a change, which refutes any argument about the universe being eternal, for that would require the universe being changeless at some point prior. The law of inertia then implies that there must be an energy input which perturbed the universe to start the change. That energy couldn't come from the universe itself by the inertia principle. So, the universe isn't the source of everything - at least it cannot be the source of that initial perturbation that started the change in the universe. Accordingly, the change we see in the universe suggests that the universe didn't precede everything, so it can't be eternal.
First
William "I lowered the bar" Craig....the whining has been hack.
How about you bring your atheist astrophysicist with their naturalist presumptions and debate with the Christian astrophysicists with their theistic presuppositions which are actually provide a broader perspective on possible “best explanations”. And note that there are are many of the latter and I am happy to connect you to them.
Phil Halper -- who is in this video -- has had past conversations with Christian astrophysicists on the Unbelievable radio program.
@@daniellinford9643and?
How come a phylosopher talks about thermodynamics 🤔.
Joe talks about evolution
@ILoveLuhaidan I'm talking about WLC he is a philosopher why is he talking about thermodynamics it's only in religion that you see that a non expert allowing himself to talk about a subject and explaining how it works...
@@peaceandfood7952 yea, and Joe uses evolution to argue for atheism. What is the difference? Craig defers to experts when is stuck, I am sure Joe does too
@@ILoveLuhaidan what I see is WLC always on his own acting like he knows it all, saying that the killing of the infants and kids in 1 Samuel 15:3 is the best thing that could have happened to them and Joe bringing experts to his channel to cover a topic where he is not an expert...
@@lucasiano Right, I forgot. But still, he would not consider himself a biologist would he? saying everybody should stick strictly to what they have specialized in is silly. You can have knowledge without a degree
No u
1:13:02 🤣
👏🙂
No need for further debate with Craig. Hitchens handily showed him the door yrs ago.
This is your audience now Joe, LMFAO - thats what you get for making videos with RR.
I am so sick of Craigs continuous dishonesty.