William Lane Craig Retrospective V: God and Abstract Objects | Closer To Truth Chats
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ค. 2022
- Analytic philosopher and Christian apologist William Lane Craig talks about God’s absolute sovereignty, self-sufficiency, and how Abstract Objects - forms, numbers, logic - threaten an autonomous God. Craig has authored or edited over thirty books, including God Over All: Divine Aseity and the Challenge of Platonism, and God and Abstract Objects: The Coherence of Theism: Aseity.
Craig's latest book, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration, is available for purchase now: bookshop.org/books/in-quest-o...
William Lane Craig is an analytic philosopher and Christian theologian. He is known for his work in the philosophy of religion, philosophy of time, and the defense of Christian theism.
Register for free at closertotruth.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and produced and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
I am really really enjoying a new interview with WLC each time I open TH-cam. Thanks Closer to Truth
This made me think, is 1+1 the same as red + blue?
Thanks for having him on your program
Great guest!
Nice. I appreciate that Craig is given a respectable forum and treated respectfully to talk about his philosophical work (even if much of it is disagreeable) and method.
Great! Showing us how to have fun with our minds
Brilliant discussion.
Great
I actually find a lot of comfort that abstract objects exist, or probably exist because they are useful. It's the only bit of evidence, that I can conceive of, that God might be conscious like I am (as opposed to being materialistically deterministic). The relationship between math/forms/logic etc. and consciousness is seldom discussed, but they should be discussed together, because both seem like descriptions of reality. Further, it seems inescapable to me (as a kind of opinion I can't escape from) that math/forms/logic is simply a species of consciousness (a consciousness of our consciousness?) that captures the validity (and generalizes) what we are, in fact, conscious of. So if my consciousness depends on these abstract notions, why can't God's? If man is in the image of God (as in Judaic/Christian religions), what can this possibly mean other than "conscious of the same reality", even if God is the source of said reality.
Exactly what I was thinking. If these things exist in the mind of God and we are made in Gods image why shouldn’t we have access to them?
Genial and incisive…. Wonderful chat between two men on honest quests for truth.
You are joking, aren't you Sam?
I'm wondering what such Platonic abstract objects are according to a materialist?
true gentlemen..
I give WLC much credit for spending a lifetime defending the indefensible without losing any enthusiasm.
@@Corinthians-mg7df , and your proof for a god represented in Corinthians? The debate over god’s existence or non- existence is moot and irrelevant. Of course god could end this debate easily but for some reason refuses to.
@@Corinthians-mg7df , you literally make no sense. God is not necessary for my existence or anything in my life. No scientist or theologian or philosopher, and certainly not the authors of the fictions in the Bible, can prove or disprove the existence of god or the ultimate origin of our universe, and we have to accept those limits to human knowledge. The good news is it doesn’t matter, and there is still work to do a purpose in our lives without obsessing over whether or not god exists. Understand?
📢I guess the best abstract we got from the God is consciousness and that is the only property giving us hope to be a part or belonging with the creator itself and probably that would be the key to solve many more puzzles in the times to come to get more CLOSER TO TRUTH 🧐
I feel bad, but I actually took a screenshot of that chart.
Lol, same honestly.
i will choose Team Creator.
I don’t chose my beliefs . I don’t even think they possible .
It’s not a football team .
Is a concrete mental object a more physical existence?
Does God have a form of physical existence?
Craig edited, with Moreland, a fantastic book called "Naturalism: A Critical Analysis" by Routledge. It has articles talking about the distinction of various forms of naturalism, such as ontological and methodological, its degrees, abstract objects and property, cosmology, and lots of great information understanding what naturalism entails.
@Jerry Polverino Well the book does go into that question whether nature is logically a closed system. So anything that is supernatural would result in nature being an open-system, that is, there could be relations or substances outside of the known universe that could intervene or would have import and not necessarily be material.
@Jerry Polverino or respond to any kind of prayer. Ever.
Craig and the Religious Right are waging a war against nature, and with it against sciene, education and the very notion that such a thing as truth exists, other than which side you're on. They want you to believe the entire universe is an authoritarian regime, and they are its self-appointed enforcers here on Earth.
@@vitus.verdegast I am aware of Craig and his colleagues to be arguing against a form of Naturalism. And I am in the Naturalist camp, but I appreciate the effort made into that book to gather arguments in favor and against it. For that reason, it's good to see if one can identify any kind of "God of the gaps" in their arguments should specific details arise.
To throw out "naturalism" is the same as throwing out reality and giving oneself over to magical thinking, as if there is no real difference between truth and falsehood. Cult leaders and fascists hate nature, truth and scientific knowledge based on physical evidence because all they care about is what side you're on.
They have to solve the problem of contiguous things.
Hypothetically, if a creator of the entire universe/cosmos is real, that being would have necessarily created everything in and around that universe and beyond including logic and mathematics as well as our human intellectual ability to use them in order to understand, discern and create in this environment.
God and abstract objects, excellent program with deep understanding that places you in the left or right hand of God. I am a child of light making them real and of God's creation that of geometry. I am on that path of light. 🌬️🎇📏📐⚖️🕐🔥🌼
I'm a university math professor who is also a Christian and studied philosophy as an undergraduate. Roughly speaking, I would say that mathematics is part of the being of God. It is neither part of Creation nor God's thoughts, but part of God's "structure" as an entity. Here is a simple argument that I think will convince any Christian: The Holy Trinity. It is part of God's structure/mode of existence/nature (not created and not merely a thought) and it is essential that it is "three-in-one", not just "one". Therefore, the number three has existed eternelly in and by the Trinity. I would be very curious to hear a counter-argument to this from a Christian who believes in the Trinity.
Your ability as a mathematician is vastly ahead of mine that never got past bachelor's degree level. But why just assert stuff because it makes you feel good?
@@midlander4Who is asserting things because it makes them feel good? This interview shows that Craig is is clearly doing it, having chosen his favorite view like people choose their favorite dish from a dinner menu. Almost no substantial argument was given. My view is based on a lifetime of working with mathematical objects and relations and actually discovering new math. Yes, discovering, not inventing, as the vast majority of mathematicians will tell you. It's primarily philosophers who have invested too much in their respective ontological commitments, and who have no direct experience of discovering new math, who hold anti-realist views. And the case for conceptualism rather than platonism is probably based on some specific religious dogmas about the nature of God. I gave a concrete simple argument for mathematical platonism based on the Trinity.
Could abstract objects be part of God?
Just one question? God, will you end human suffering?
No! I only give you the ability to do it yourself😉
By the way, we are abstract objects too - colonies of cells.
The unity lies in the awareness.
@@yourkingdomcomeyourwillbedone photon is aware - responds to observation ;)
If number is a threat to God, then Craig is going to have problems when he affirms that God is one.
@Jerry Polverino Science, critical thinking, logic, and deductive reasoning all depend on the universe being intelligible, of having something about the universe in which we live that can be understood and grasped by reason. By this very nature, this suggests that there is an intellect that provides that intelligible character to all things that exist. So in other words, for all of those wonderful tools of investigation you outlined above, Deity is required, and isn't an extraneous explanation.
Ok. Can I ask you a question? Well, a further question than that one.
For a materialist like you, what is the principle of individuation? What is it that makes a thing "one", a unit, such that you can investigate it and come to understand it?
I don’t think Craig is saying that numbers have no meaning, but that numbers are not objects. For example (if I understand him), if there are two balls in the room, is there also the number 2? So now there’s three objects in the room?
I think Thomists, which Craig is not, don’t run into the God vs abstract object problem.
We are studying the abstract dimension
The fog lifted to revel the mist
Objects are abstract till they are used then they are concrete
This universe is unique,,, it is a view of the mechanics
I agree
If we are studying objects in the abstract in a void
then
Outside of the void the objects are real
We know that atoms stack to make objects
This is the processor
11 dimensions have different viewing platforms of the same things
All of those arguments exist because from those points they are true
But
When all the threads come together they become more erroneous
And
Collapse
Are you ok buddy?
Just keep in mind this guy's book on the topic is over $100. Maybe make it more accessible. Even Kindle is wildly expensive
Doesn't the entire answer to the question of "do abstract objects exist?" come down to defining existence? How one defines existence will then answer the question.
"..bootstrap problem.." as in pick yourself up by your bootstraps? As a physics student this reminds me of the Marvel Comics character Thor. Thor can swing his Hammer so hard that he can impart enough momentum to fly. According to physics and "conservation of energy" and momentum this is not completely, possible. You can, in a limited way, move yourself by holding a massive object and swinging it past your center of gravity. This is not the same as what Thor is doing.
In order to move yourself by swinging and pelting an object you are holding on to you would have to have control of a Higgs boson. Through the boson you could manipulate the mass of the object you're holding onto. So at the moment you impart a direction to the hammer the hammer increases its mass in an accelerating, not constant, manner.
The primary assumption is plainly flawed!
I said before, science is being described and recorded using Art which is language which is prone to being Interpreted differently by different people. Religious belief is in one sense also a form of Art. When science is being explained using religious thinking, it no longer is science. This Lawrence does not seem to realise this.
Do abstract objects have a form of physical existence?
Abstractions exist as thought in the mind which is a physical process involving patterns of electrochemical stimulation that activate groups of brain cells. There are no abstractions without functioning brain tissue.
@@Corinthians-mg7df You are confusing the word "physical" with the word "material" because you are hung up on a false Medieval theological dichotomy between "matter " and "spirit" or "natural" vs. "supernatural." Matter is made of energy, it has no inherent substance, it consists of field states that we describe with mathematics which are abstract but very accurate at predicting the behavior of physical things. At the quantum scale, smaller than the atom, time space, movement and even the difference between existence and non-existence are abstractions where the laws of nature that we take for granted at the our everyday human level don't apply. There are no "things," only thoughts. Everything is a manifestation of consciousness, but not that of some high mucky-muck god imposing them on the universe from above, what you see is your own consciousness, it comes from within, it is something we all share, it is who you really are. Reality and experience are two sides of the same coin. Creationism is an attempt to impose a Medieval hierarchy on society with earthly religious authorities enforcing divine edicts from the top down. Real reality percolates upward from the tiniest scales where random events dominate to determine the pattern of larger structures like galaxies and whatever larger structures our universe is part of. We always perceive ourselves in the middle, between the smallest unobservable regions and the largest unknowable expanses. Fundamentalist religion is just a set of drams that act as psychological calming mechanisms for anxious people, it has no power to describe reality in its most basic terms.
@@Corinthians-mg7df Science changes because it continues to learn more all the time-- that's not a sign that it is less credible than religions that cling to the same old misconceptions and never make new discoveries.
High level of discourse from top rated minds on exotic questions. Really interesting!
"Top rated"... by desperate apologists 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
We are in a virtual reality of nothing ..... the real state is closed
The best argument against Theism in general is the "god of the gaps". Even if science can't explain everything, enough is enough. For now, problems that exist for theoretical physics are all but contingent upon the ability of experimental physicists to find data that support or deny existing theories. The same goes for the understanding of existing data, the math, and the philosophy that jointly define physical theories.
This holds because Substance Dualism cannot account for causation between substantially distinct realms. That is, there is no physical way to describe a bridge between a genuinely different type of reality which is by essence not just another expression of an already existing reality. This assumes physical causal closure. Physical causal closure is consistent with an eternal reality of which there is no "universal set" and in which at each time interval, there is a finite, but unbounded number of intervals in its neighborhood. I mean 'neighborhood' roughly in the topological sense. Further, if there were another "heavenly" type of reality, then if it were perfect, it would have causal closure. That is, consistency is a perfection, and internal consistency requires causal closure. No consistent causal system can have that A causes B, and A happens, but B doesn't. So, for any causal relation in a perfect abstract/heavenly type of reality, that relation has an abstract/heavenly effect. Equivalently, no abstract cause can have a non-abstract effect in a perfect setting. As an aside, religion often assumes a perfect setting for the abstract/heavenly. So, a purely abstract/heavenly reality cannot interact with the natural world without assuming an omni-whatever god. That's begging the question. In general if you're an idealist that doesn't believe in causal closure, I'm not sure how you can believe there's just one type of reality. At least there would have to be another, but if closure were to fail both repeatedly and differently, then it seems there could be a multiplicity of types of reality. And, I'm not sure how an idealist could explain the perfection of an abstract type of reality without god.
I'm not merely a process ontologist, but I have it in my toolkit. Reality is dual, but not substantially. Concretes are derivate of processes per physics, but they're still concretes. A chair is a chair even if it's also entirely composed of atomic nuclei vibrating and electrons popping in and out of (currently) observable existence all around those nuclei. An apple is an apple even if it's composed of just infinitesimal vibrating strings. But, we cannot be blind materialists that fail to consider that there is a genuine ontic difference between processes of concretes and concretes themselves. Though, we can still be physicalists/naturalists.
Processes and concretes are not of distinct ontological arenas, but their roles in the same arena are distinct. A chair is not identical to someone stacking it on top of a table, obviously. Less obviously, stacking and chairs are really different ways of the same type of being, as opposed to distinct types of being. As for advances in physics, I think it goes without saying that most of it will be in understanding processes of concretes and the relations between them, as opposed to concretes themselves. Nevertheless, we still have much to learn about good old matter.
@@Corinthians-mg7df no one ever said our knowledge has to be complete. I’ll choose consistency over completeness.
William Lane Craig's version of God is just a psychological coping mechanism, it reflects Craig's own emotional yearning for a parental figure. Craig feels like a small, sensitive being plunked down in the middle of a vast uncaring universe and he wants a powerful patriarch to help him defeat his enemies. This god, modeled after ancient tribal chieftains, is always silent, which is very convenient for his self-appointed spokesmen here on Earth. Science has shown the we are an integral part of the world, not alien to it. We were not placed in the universe, we grow out of it.
@@Corinthians-mg7df Intelligence is strictly an animal trait, it doesn't exist in disembodied form like a ghost. It emerges through biological functions and cannot precede or cause them. Humans like to project their own personal characteristics onto their gods, such as intelligence, will, wrath, long white beards, etc. but God is not a personal entity, he is a symbolic character in the dramas we create about our own desires and fears. Spinoza and Einstein used the word "God" in the sense of Nature, Cosmos or Reality, not as an invisible Daddy in the Sky from whom we lowly mortals must beg forgiveness. No one knows what the universe emerges from, but any consciousness ýou see in it is a reflection of your own. It is not set up like a kingdom or a family nor is it ruled from the top down by a tribal patriarch. God is always silent, which is very convenient for his self-appointed spokesmen here on Earth who set themselves up as the enforcers of his "Divine Will" in the games of dominance and submission that primates habitually play with one another. The claim that God is real as opposed to being unreal presupposes that Reality is a more profound principle than God, since he is subject to it.
@@Corinthians-mg7df Neuroscience shows that intelligence is a physical process like digestion and reproduction. Just as there is no seeing without eyes and no walking without legs, there is no thinking without brains, neurons, nervous systems, the bodily functions that support them, the species that give birth to them, the evolutionary process that develops them, the environment from which they grow, and the Earth, sun and energy from which biology derives. Intelligence doesn't even work the way you think it does. Our computers for example were not designed from scratch but incrementally over many generations, they can be traced back to the abacus and even earlier, with no single individual knowing where his ad hoc problem solving would eventually lead. Cities grow the same way-- they are not planned by a single architect, they grow organically, constructed element by element by groups with immediate goals but no ultimate result in mind, only ongoing adaptation. Intelligence hardly affects any action in the wider universe, it only seems important to you because it is at the center of your experience. Reality consists of physical interactions, but these are perceived and defined by consciousness-- when you look at the world, the intelligence you see is your own. Spirits, phantoms, deities, devils and other invisible personalities of legend affect nothing outside the human imagination-- they are merely reflections of yourself.
@@Corinthians-mg7df Saying that "God by definition possesses intelligence" is only YOUR definition. Different people mean different things when they use the word "God," most of which are more profound than the anthropomorphic idol of Evangelical fundamentalism.
@@Corinthians-mg7df The bible was written by men over several centuries, collected and edited and interpreted by men of later eras. It reflects the various authors' concerns, grudges, desires and fears, it wasn't dictated to them from On High by mental telepathy. Like most ancient literature it is bombastic, ambiguous, poetic, metaphorical and phantasmagorigal, which is very convenient for the holy men who take it upon themselves to tell the test of us what the "Word of God" is supposed to mean.
@@Corinthians-mg7df Yes, I know the fantasy about God writing the Bible like a puppeteer working marionettes, you're repeating it in an effort to convince yourself of what you wish to be true. I might ask you why God would choose to communicate thtough a book if he could put thoughts directly into people's heads, but no one can reason you out of something you weren't reasoned into. Religious fundamentalism is addictive to some people because it is engineered to take advantage of your most infantile yearnings for parental love. What other absurdities do you believe? Faith healing? Demonic possession? The Rapture? Trump won the election? Losing touch with reality may feel good but it's a bad habit to get into. It attracts con-artists and fascist leaders who exploit your gullibility, and makes it easier for you to persecute others without conscience. Where fundamentslists take over democracy fades and totalitarianism dominates, since according to them the whole universe is ruled by an invisible dictator with a priestly class acting as his spokesmen/enforcers here on Earth.
NTS 10
God created the abstract universe to accommodate itself and allow leer creatures such as humans to indirectly access some of His properties by abstraction since they can’t be understood or acesses directly.
If god made us in his image then he is human
Why not do extended chats with people like David Bentley Hart or Feser (on theism), Dean Radin and or Braude (on parapsych), and Graham Oppy(in atheism)?
How about Demis Hassabis and Oriol Vinyals. GATO (meow) DeepMind.
@@B.S...why not
@@B.S...eat more 🍕
Abrahamic religions have never been the one true pillar of belief around which others perspectives are to either accepted or measured against.
Your a dharma nation guy aren’t you…😒
Wow, such subtile considerations! I tend to think of God as a superhuman intelligence, capable of ensuring general outcomes (the important details) and capable of "correcting" things. And I was never troubled by the question of whether or not He created the "abstract forms", and I suppose I'm perfectly happy either way.
I mean, I suppose He may have imagined them into existence, and they then became "real" (in the "Platonic sense"), and that seems to be sensible enough to me. On the other hand, I am not particularly "hung up" on the "creator issue", and like some Christians, would be perfectly happy to place myself permanently beneath Christ, whether He be God or not. Personally, I can't get a solid grasp on the nature of God, and so, all powerfull or not, I have dedicated myself to the "loving, merciful and compassionate forces". And, well, I don't really bother myself with the whole "ultimate creator" issue. I need to gravitate towards something closer to my level.
As for the reality of mathematical entities, (I have some familiarity, having obtained a Masters Degree in Mathematical Logic),
1) Certainly, it's true that in Mathematical Logic (and logic based formal systems) Axioms are taken as "hypothetical premises" whose logical consequences are to be explored, without any inherent assertion that the axioms are true, a famous example being Euclid's 5th (I believe) postulate in Euclidian geometry, that lines are parallel if and only if they never intersect, and how dropping or modifying this axiom (or postulate) gives rise to "Non-Euclidean geometry", or how the "axiom of choice" in "ZFC" is consistent with the ZF axiomatic set theory, without "choice".
A famous 20th century logician, Kurt Godel demonstrated, essentially, that any formal logic system with the expressive power of at least the arithmetic of the natural (whole) numbers, can not prove / demonstrate its own consistency. And as my (Masters thesis) supervisor remarked to me, no one knows if arithmetic and the natural (whole) numbers are actually consistent, and conceivably, they might not be. But as far as we can tell, the idea of the (infinite set of) natural numbers is consistent, and in, I guess a fairly transparent sense, at least for small whole numbers, each cardinality is very much like a Platonic form.
But I wanted to point out that some mathematical entities seem much more "ontologically solid". For example, the "real numbers" seem to be good candidates for "hypothetical" enties or a (apoarently consistent) "mathematical fiction". But certain real numbers, such as the "golden ratio", or the ratio of the circumference of a (or rather, any!) circle to its diameter, (pi), seem much more ontologically, or at least, "Platonically" sturdy.
Or what about something like a recognizable algorithm, such as Euclid's algorithm (Euclid again, lol), for computing the greatest common divisor of two whole numbers. It certainly seems convenient that we can, say, perhaps recognize some piece of computer code as implementing such a recognizable algorithm. And it does seem awkward, to me at least, to suppose such things as algorithms don't actually exist.
I mean sure, it's only "instances" of the algorithm that exist, usually along with "other information", the computer language in which it was implemented, or the type set font, or hand writing, in which it was printed out. And at least somewhat similarly sure, presumably no (perfect) circles exist in physical reality, and no particular chair, in itself, can be regarded as capturing the essence of "chairness". We can say that things like chairs are, in reality, somewhat fuzzy assemblages of moving atoms, or vibrations, and they are only gestalts, things we recognize in our fictional internal understanding and modelling of the real world.
And yet of course, it seems of somewhat dubious utility to say that things like chairs or tables, for another example, do not really exist.
Yes, they exist in a metaphorical sense. But it also seems practical at least, to admit their existence in a practical sense. And for me, 😃, when I once experienced a psychological reality the sort of which I was previously unfamiliar with, (it was a kind of religious or mystical experience) I asked myself, "is this real?". And I answered my own question with, "For me, this is as real as the kitchen table."
Oh, yeah, that was a probably pointless aside, I wanted to mention only because I'm somewhat egotistical and wanted to tell the story of how I once "measured realness" to that of a kitchen table.
Anyway, I'll shut up now. My main poinr was, (I think) only that while the "real" or "imaginary" numbers might seem like "convenient fictions", things like chairs and algorithms seem too convenient to, at least practically speaking, regard as mere fictions (in the case of chairs, presumably because we know "something" is there, however badly it might actually correspond to our perception or conception, while in the case of algorithms, recipies, songs, or symphonic compositions etc. we have become familiar with the utility of being able to remember and recognize such patterns, and it is from this, that their mental or psychological reality stems).
Does the english alphabet exist? Do words or thoughts exist? Does something corresponding to "the pledge of allegiance" (or "the Lord's prayer" or "the hypocratic oath" ) exist? Can countries exist? Well, it all becomes a bit of a messy ontological stew to sort out, but I know that while it may be philosophically consistent to assert that all these things are simply hypothetical conveniences, or worse, philosophical absurdities, it is at least practically convenient to grant these things with the status of ontological "reality", however ephemeral and hard to pin down they may seem to be. All the best my fellow human beings ❤️
Potentialist?
Is it just me ,or does Craig look like Charles Xavier with hair? 🧐
Hardly surprising that someone whose reasoning starts with the premise of God's aseity will adopt a resolution to a problem that poses no threat to the notion of divine aseity ...
There is no threat to God's existence with Abstract Object.
All abstractions ... come from the Mind of an intelligence.
All abstractions ... possess INFORMATION ... that can only come from the Mind of an Intelligence.
Only an intelligence .... makes abstract & physical Functions ( constructs) ... which all had clear & obvious purpose, form properties & design ( ie INFORMATION).
Information & knowledge are abstract objects.
Only an intelligence ... makes Functions that possess INFORMATION.
Only an intelligence .. extracts INFORMATION from a Function made only by an intelligence.
The Function & Intelligence Categories, with causal links, proves the Universe & Life are Functions composed entirely of Functions ... and were made by a very powerful intelligence.
The Universe & Life ... are thermodynamic Systems with increasing entropy.
All thermodynamic Systems ... are FUNCTIONS ... and originate from the surrounding System(s) which must provide the matter, energy, space, time & Laws of Nature .... which are all Functions .... possessing INFORMATION.
Thoughts, beliefs, reasoning, creativity ... and the "aseity" ... are abstract objects(systems) ... with purpose & form .. and INFORMATION and only come from the Mind of an intelligence.
God did created Man in His likeness with a body & soul ... less than 6000 years ago. Abiogenesis, Evolution & a 13.7 billion year old Universe are complete BS.
Anything that has clear & obvious Function, form, purpose, properties & design ( ie INFORMATION) .... comes from the Mind of an Intelligence.
@@abelincoln8885 Honestly Abe, this is quite the pile of unsupported assertions.
@@bobs4429 Only an intelligence ( like Man) makes abstract & physical functions( constructs) is unsupported assertions? Get out of here with you nonsense.
A fully defined FUNCTION category identifies anything that is a function and can only be made by an intelligence.
A fully defined INTELLIGENCE category will identify ANYTHING ... other than Man .. that is an intelligence who can make abstract & physical Functions.
And with the CAUSAL LINK between an intelligence and Functions .. you have your proof which can not be refuted.
The Universe, Galaxy, Sun, Earth, Atmosphere, Air, water, Life ... are all FUNCTIONS ... with clear & obvious ... purpose, form, design, properties ( ie INFORMATION).
We know for a fact ... that only an INTELLIGENCE ... makes abstract or physical Functions.
Man clearly did not make the Universe or Man A very powerful INTELLIGENCE with a mind, free will, nature & able to created ... made Man ... be an INTELLIGENCE with a mind, free will, nature & able to created. Sound familiar? lol.
God was discrete machine - first quantum of energy. The most primitive being that together with his “children” constructed everything that surrounds us through global evolution.
Define “being”
@@tonyatkinson2210 thing that can move in one of 6 directions of space and can combine with other beings to behave as elementary particle.
@@matterasmachine So god is a being in space? Who created space, another god?
@@OsvaldoBayerista I don't care. What I describe gives predictions and can be checked in experiment. You can answer who created that being if you wish. But actually god does not need another god. By definition.
@@matterasmachine “by definition”
You have the most extravagant definitions for commonly defined words of anyone on the internet.
I doubt any sentence you write means anything like what you imagine .
Conceptualism isn’t the belief that abstract objects exist in the mind of god. I think that would be idealism or some form of that. Obviously an omnipotent being wouldn’t need to obey the rules of logic. Omniscience and omnibenevolence both require truth for knowledge and virtue. God would destroy logic by making all propositions true. There are infinite false propositions, and omnipotence can make them all true. Logic doesn’t deal with things that aren’t reasonable. Ultimate power isn’t a reasonable property, like the impossible.
I don’t know enough about math to defend it proper. I would like to know if god is containing infinity? Perfection requires no change, so we are talking about something that ought to be closer to zero or one, but decides to go beyond the infinite. Yet god cares nothing for math. Maybe god doesn’t contain the infinite. Anything makes sense when logic is no longer relevant.
If scientific study, we should stop talking about unproven phenomena.
The thing is, that humans are the only existing species, equipped with consciousness as their defense system that makes them superior to all other existences including less developed conscious humans.
If correctly observed, intellectualism is part of the defense system, to take off from natural level and be higher positioned than fellowmen.
The God arguments, religious rules and indoctrinations belong also to the concept of survival position among humans. This is existing but not yet recognized and realized.
The whole advance of human kind, is based on the natural conscious processes, in which a strive to a higher awareness for more understanding till its completeness.
This is observable, and is gapless.
Why is this the conceptual evolution process, is the open question.
1st📡🔭👽📡🌠
This is what is known as intellectual self-gratification
Not sure if understand, but only with the title... Are you trying to compite with or what???? Could it be than create something is not to show, Lookkkkk me... or, I'm the best here, do you like to learn??? Those are human attitudes....
William Lane Craig is far too skilled for me to refute and I still can’t bring myself to believe what it is that he’s saying. Literalism is actually a thing for me and it just doesn’t register.
Don't worry. Craig is just fantasizing about some invisible magical god-friend he made up.
It is a weird, obscure variant of that famous Christian fantasy creature.
Yeah most people who take WLC on fail to realize that he has decades of work before him to present to them and back up his views.
Abtract objects are merely a construct made possible by the fabrication of matter which dilates limited measurable time and distance.
For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
So because homosapiens can come up with math and logic and make abstractions about the world around them ... _Therefore God?_
One thing for sure: whatever was included in the leap that led to that answer --- it certainly didn't involve the human invention of logic
Lmao, a fuckin toast with the face of Jesus is a better proof than this circular arguments.
Fortunately, Dr. Craig didn’t make that argument. (Craig doesn’t even think that “abstract objects” exist.)
@@legron121 I'm not saying abstract objects and things like math and logic are real objects either; rather they are just useful tools that human beings came up with. If you start around 13:40 you'll see that Craig is agreeing with this view --- and that from there he goes on very quickly to saying (paraphrasing) therefore God exist. But without, as I said, any kind of logic by which he arrives at that conclusion.
You clearly don't know how science works.
Science is simply a method to explain NATURAL phenomena using fixed Laws of Nature.
God is not a Natural Phenomena which must obey the Laws of Nature.
The only way you can use Science to prove a soul/spirit & "God" is through the Function, Intelligence & Mind Categories defined using natural & unnatural phenomena known to be subcategories ... and demonstrate causal links.
Man is an INTELLIGENCE ... with a mind, free will & nature ... and can make abstract & physical Functions.
But Man's body ... is a physical Function composed entirely of Functions.
The Universe, Sun, Earth, Atmosphere, air, water & Life ... are physical Functions composed of Functions ... with clear & obvious purpose, form, design.
Everything in the Universe is an abstract ( time, space, Laws of Nature) or Physical ( matter, energy) Function ... made only by an intelligence ... because all Functions possess & require INFORMATION to exist & to function.
Information & knowledge ... are abstract objects ... from the Mind of an Intelligence.
See. That's how you use simple facts from natural phenomena & the Laws of nature ... and logical rational reasoning ... to prove a very powerful intelligence ( like God) made the Universe & Life (Functions that possess INFORMATION).
Abiogenesis & Evolution are complete BS. Nature & natural processes can NEVER make & operate the simplest abstract or physical Function ... nor make it more complex with minute changes over 4 billions years.
All Functions are only made by an Intelligence.
@@longcastle4863
I watched the entire video, Long Castle, and nowhere did Craig conclude from the fact that abstract objects are unreal that therefore God exists. You’re imputing to Craig an argument he never put forward.
So, when Dr Craig says "God exists" he is not ontologically committed to that view. Now I understand! For myself, I take a fictionalist view of the Bible.
Who created God?
@Ryan consciousness requires a brain. Or st least Some sort of complex does arrangement of matter or energy or something to act like synapses in order to function
In short : Consciousness requires complex information processing .complexity.
How did that complexity occur ?
Next, interview a small plastic soap dish as the results will be identical.
Soap dishes can’t talk.
@@joshheter1517 You are a genius...
@@DCronk-qc6sn
That fact would certainly lead to a difference in the outcome of the conversation, no?
@@joshheter1517 No, that's the point.
@@DCronk-qc6sn
But the soap dish can’t say words. Both people in this conversation said words.
The fundamental question is the number of gods. All the non-zero values lie along the imaginary axis. The only real number of gods is zero. WLC's position is "presupposition", which means he will posit that a god exists, and that belief is proof in itself. Rather primitive indeed.
Some people understand that everything is interconnected and some people don't.
how does it logically follow that the only real number of gods is zero if all the non zero values lie along the imaginary axis?
@@bretttheroux8040 I tell you: It is a miracle!
"rather primitive indeed." Lol
Why do you guys always come off as such smug assholes all the time? (your argument doesn't even make sense.)
Real and imaginary have different meanings in maths than in everyday conversation. The imaginary axis is not populated with unicorns and fairy tales.
If the universe was created by a human (his image), why does he hide? Why not show himself? There is no good answer because it cannot be true
WLC looks like he is close to meet his god
It’s amazing to make up stories about God.
The brain cons the brain 😂😅
This guy is not a serious person. Interviews like this (the one w/ Chopra is another example) cheapen the series, IMHO (okay, not so humble).
I detest Chopra . He’s worse . Snake oil salesman . Craig’s more of a used car salesman
@@tonyatkinson2210 Lol, yes is very different. At least this guy is a well studied philosopher, Chopra is a totally fake robbing people.
@@tonyatkinson2210 Well said, sir.
Lmao. But a lot of philosophers takes him seriously. And why don't you refute his arguments?
@@nietzsche1991 the Kalam cosmological arguement doesn’t pass even the first premise .
And even if it was sound . All it tells us is that the universe had a cause .
@Pierre C: I am particularly tired of listening to Craig. CTT used to interview a good guest once, for their opinion and then revisit him again, subsequently months, or even a year later. This rapid succession of WLC episodes on CTT is terrible.
I had enjoyed closer to the truth so much but to see it sink to this low level of discourse is disheartening.
What specific problems do you have with what was actually said in this video? Please be specific.
@@joshheter1517 patrolman Joshua doing his best to control the discussion again.
You're guaranteed a petulant response from policeman Josh Heter who allows no dissenting comments on this channel 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@midlander4
The irony isn’t lost.
Are we going to go back thousands of years to a time when if we didn't understand something we'd assume a supernatural agent? Really? Why all this talk of gods? I thought this was a channel that espoused rational thought.
Do numbers and logic threaten God? Haha if anything they threaten atheistic materialism which asserts that only physical objects exist and therefore abstractions like logic and math don't exist.
I agree. I always thought that the strongest argument for dualism is the abstract world of forms, ratios (e.g. such as pi or the golden ratio), patterns, algorithms and the like, i.e. "information" which may be understood to exist somehow independently of a particular physical manifestation. ... that Plato believed the "real world" was informational, and the world we see and feel is just the impression that some part of that real world is making on the physical substratum.
And surely the idea of spirit is essentially that of "essence", which, it seems to me, must closely correspond to the information of the thing. If the information could be "read out", and then somehow "infused" or "imprinted" back into material form, used to rebuild a physical manifestation of that same information.
I mean, it seems to me that much of the debate around materialism surrounds the question of whether or not information can exist independently of physical representation. And perhaps those who suggest it can, must perhaps be willing to suggest that perhaps there are parrallel universes, or that our own universe is simply a bubble inside another universe, or that perhaps the information, (that we are trying to imagine can somehow survive/ be preserved without physical storage/embodiment) might somehow "encoded" into "the environment" in some fashion we can not observe, measure, or directly perceive. And anyway, yeah, it seems to me that a materialist is basically someone who insists all information must be physically manifested to exist, where , (I imagine) a "dualist" basically assumes that information or "forms" can exist somehow outside of our physical reality, and that they may, or may not, "enter into" our physical space-time reality "fabric". Anyway, Cheers
Who has ever learned anything from a Christian apologist? The answer is no one. The only thing to learn is what not to believe. Closer to Truth with this guy??? LOL Please...
This channel owner seems to be somewhat distracted from the truth by a money making attitude.
How fatuous of Craig and apologetics in general. Craig’s faith is founded on personal emotional and psychological experience yet he spends a lifetime in an ivory tower studying the arcane. Why isn’t he in the desert or a cave or on a mountain top seeking contemplation.
Religion = Emotion. Jesus was no philosopher he was a motivational speaker and miracle worker or entertainer depending on point of view. Craig’s ability to walk on thin ice is his attempt at a miracle and that’s all he has accomplished in his career.
Craig arguments are like him… made of straw.
Calm down.
@@joshheter1517you keep trying so hard don't you? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Guaranteed to trigger Josh... nice one! 👏👏👏