William Lane Craig: The Evidence for God. Imperial College, London, October 2011
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 มี.ค. 2012
- Prof. William Lane Craig was invited by the undergraduate Christian Union at Imperial College, London to give a lunch-time lecture on "The Evidence for God".
Dr Craig presented seven arguments and then invited questions from the student audience. The lecture was web streamed at the time. This is a high definition film recording of the event which includes the previously unseen Q&A session.
This man is the greatest to ever defend God, God is inside him and that scares evil spirits 🙏🏾❤️😊 God bless him.
He is lovely.
This man is a clown and only in the US can somebody like him be considered a ''thinker''.
lmfao 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
He is the best and still any 8 year old could beat him in a debate.
@@michaelwright8896yet. He destroyed Hitchins and beat Sam Harris, Peter Atkins etc. So they might have lower iq than an 8 year old. Sam Harris said this in the debate in his opening speech about WLC. “The one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists.”
God Bless Bill Craig! We need people like him to keep the faith "reasonable"
I'm sure God will give him treasures in Heaven
William Lane Craig is awesome
Do you understand anything he babbles about or are you just pretending to understand because you can't think on your own?
we think with him... if something doesnt make sense then we think about it ourselves... but it is awesome because all he says makes sense... and we dont need to question ourselves...
Even as a nonbeliever, I can admit that Craig is indeed awesome. And even Christopher Hitchens said that his colleagues took him very seriously; why can't any of these classless anti-theists on TH-cam do the same?
Vic 2.0 Vic, I see you under a lot of debates in the comment section, and I have to tell you that you are one of the most honest people on earth. Finally someone who doesn't have to resort to Ad Hominem attacks
@JP Collider dawgie, you are an idiot. Lol please stop with the nonsense! You are too stupid!
"I don't want my worldview to change so I'll close my ears"
Atheism isn't a worldview.
@@xxxod how is it not lmao it is
@@xxxod atheism is a worldview but most atheists don’t live by it’s true nature because that would mean they would need to adopt a nihilistic mentality. And they just can’t do that, they have no integrity to their own worldview that would have to consist of nihilism so what they do is borrow morality when they shouldn’t have any to begin with.
@@myidentityisamystery5142 because it's not. Atheism just means you aren't convinced of any gods. nothing more than that.
@@rickyderby atheism is not a worldview and what do you mean "true nature".
You are the nihilist here. You don't have any moral compass so you need a book to tell you right from wrong (and it fails). You also think there is a better life after this one which means you don't appreciate life for what it is like an atheist would..
Atheists know right from wrong better than any religious person since we know that what harms people, often is immoral.
Yet your holy book will try to tell you otherwise by creating exceptions for acts of evil like genocide or slavery.
Morality is exclusive from religion. any atheist would know that!
The absurdity in an eternal universe has to do with the self-contradictions that arise in an actually infinite number of events. Craig gives arguments for this.
If you want to dispute that, you must refute his arguments, as well as dispute all the evidence we have in cosmology for an absolute beginning. Writing in capital letters isn't an argument.
If God exists timelessly without the universe, then He isn't "born." He is simply necessary, unlike the universe, which is contingent.
Great stuff from Dr. Craig as usual!
Eric J. Miller
Nonsense from WLC...such a Liar
@@rationalsceptic7634 He’s speaking the truth my friend
@@liamlogan5337
It’s called begging the question.
Empty claims no evidence whatsoever. He’s defining his god into existence
@@liamlogan5337 The truth contrasted to what? Stop using big words and let loose the religious scenario of good vs. bad, cause you'll soon find out that your god is the bad guy in the story and the devil is the good guy trying to please his god and be protected from his well known loose of temper and wrath.
There is no such thing as truth. There is only reality.
Excellent! My first time listening to him. I would have really liked to hear that conversation continue between him and the Muslim questioner, because he was asking some very important questions, and I bet WLC would have been very prepared to answer them if there was more time.
Nick J
I doubt very much he would answer them convincingly except appealing to an emotional arguments, like he already stated, That God of the Bible is merciful, he completely swept under the rug all the vengeful, the jealous, the angry God who would punish his creatures for x or y reason.
And more importantly, if he does what many "Christians" do, is when the Bible is criticised they run to the "NT" but that doesn't wash for several reasons.
a) If Jesus is God that means he is the same God of the OT
b) If Jesus' father is i.e God had to sacrifice his alleged "begotten" son in order to forgive his creatures.
Which is the remark he made against Allah in the Qu'ran who doesn't forgive unless you worship him, and unless you do this and that, some of it is true, but the rest is not.
If you don't accept Jesus then you will not enter the kingdom of God according to the core teachings of Christianity, so where is the difference that WLC was referring to? None.
So many things wrong with these arguments and concepts of God in Christianity.
So, WLC won't be able to answer any of them, he is not the first Christian to be confronted with these dilemmatic issues.
He presented strong arguments against atheism but as for substantiating his own faith, I am afraid he failed. To this day no Christian has ever successfully refuted these arguments.
in fact most new athiests I find are not particularly smart themselves.
Says the one who believes in myths.
I’ve watched many debates between Christians and Atheists, seems like the Christians always come out on top based on reason. Atheism seems very unreasonable and illogical.
A reasonable defense of the faith with well-offered evidence
He didn't offer any direct empirical evidence. He presented entirely conceptual arguments and argument from ignorance fallacies. This is more obvious when he debates real scientists.
Graig has the soothing voice of Morgan Freeman, the Intellectual prowess of Aristotle, the Articulation of Barack Obama
all he needs now to become supremely powerful is the speed talking of Ben Shapiro
Hahaha🤣🤣... hilarious!!!
This man is a remarkable scholar and an exemplary Christian.
And God has blessed him with treasure !
Wooow, atheists are going bananas with this video. Look at how they insult Dr. Craig and religion instead of refuting any argument. And now imagine what they'd do if Craig acted like Dawkins and started mocking them for their beliefs or making videos laughing about their "hate comments"... they'd be asking for the removal of this video on the basis of hate speech or sthg like that
+adeusbandeiras HAHAHA! You're so right! In fact, the Amazing Atheist has a video talking about "A kid punished for atheism." They would whine like mad! AND JUST LOOK AT THE COMMENTS SECTION! It's full of "Oh, CLEARLY Bill's an idiot because I say so."
Craig had been refuted many times..just check the evidence against his metaphysical nonsense
Sceptic Science There are no real “atheists”. Everyone knows deep down that there is something or someone that we will answer to after death. Atheists are just God haters. That’s all..
Tony Dardi
Psychologically,I might agree with you as 6 Billion People need a God... but there is no real evidence for Theism..unless you need the supernatural!
th-cam.com/video/ew_cNONhhKI/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/79J1fzRgoR8/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/7xVBldyy_Oo/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/uLcK3Up8z7c/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/tRrq3s3P3Pw/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/Gpw-TSd36l8/w-d-xo.html
Acharya S- Exposing Christianity: th-cam.com/play/PLE7a2nnRT4JfSvwoWbc6LiR3hN7sHL7J1.html
th-cam.com/video/9KQaBxRt_bM/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/mAJVKbVRPZU/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/9C_Mqd4z16U/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/wKGFU3IVz2M/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/xzOrc_kwcU4/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/kzAqr4ymqck/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/cfhjIMArYG4/w-d-xo.html
@@rationalsceptic7634 What do you mean by REAL evidence for God? There is no real (let me add: scientific) evidence for evolution and yet most atheists embrace it.
I correct myself. I listened to him. I scoffed at him initially during his infinity coins argument but I misunderstood him. He was arguing against infinity existing in reality which is absolutely correct.
Ah, the famous argument of the dog barking at the wall.
@ciprianpopa1503 Ah, somebody looking to hit their lazy insult quota.
@@IrishBeerCan If there is a quota then I fill it well.
I don't understand why people automatically discard his arguments. They are well constructed and we have to be open to the possibility of a Creator God (whatever religious or not).
The Kalam Cosmological Argument has profound implications for us all.
Weapon Chest Christian Ministry “Weapon Chest Christian Ministry”? Uh ...
I would love to see a debate between his former student John Loftus and himself.
Excellent Work, WLC!
well the cosmological argument was pretty logical and authentic
Amazing
Let's keep in mind when ever we are exposed to information we have a tendency to lean to a bias perception of how we interpret the information we receive. It's all about level of conciousness.
You need to watch the next video in the Tour playlist "Can We Be Good Without God" because Craig deals with it there at length.
If you state that you must doubt the naturalists’ claim that the universe has always existed, the same doubt must apply to the claim that a god being has always existed.
No explanation is ever offered by theists as to why they are unable to be satisfied by “the universe did not need to be created,” but are wholly satisfied by “god did not need to be created.”
exactly!
On Guard is an excellent book. Very sound reasoning.
On second thoughts, we don't actually need to buy the book.
He's already told us what's in it.
Greatest apologist alive.
Even if we accept immaterialism, it does not necessarily equate the existence of the gods, it just shows that entities outside of physical matter, are present, but afterwards we fail to characterize these objects, due to the inevitable nature of testing them, via the natural sciences, that would require us to create a new methodology for such, and until we do so, nothing can really be said about these objects, but that they might exist.
Consciousness is not abstract. It is based in the physical world.
Imperial College still had Blackboard s 9 years ago. I wonder if they have had an update
Am I nuts, arrogant or faithless to find this compelling and irresistible?
No. Being maximally great is typically defined as the greatest thing logically conceivable having necessary existence. That would preclude things like the ability to create rocks too heavy for him to lift, becoming non-existent or making itself *not* maximally great, and generally performing any acts contradictory to its nature.
When a person dies, the brain can remain active for around 5 minutes. After that, nobody knows what would happen. But when the brain dies, there is no reason to believe that your personality will live on. In fact, there is good reason to believe that when the brain dies, everything about you will also die. It's a sad thought but at least it's true. William Lane Craig always does this; he subtly says that Atheism is depressing and this persuades a lot of emotional people.
"Intuitively, I think there should a moment one year before any moment. That's the concept behind limitless or infinity.?" i'm not sure what you mean here. Nobody disputes that given a universe that goes back eternally, there is a moment before any moment, and no first moment. And it's also true that if there is a beginning/first moment, then by definition, there is no moment before it. We don't know for sure which it is.
As am I and I'm saying that love can sometimes be a bad thing and self-destructive.
@graceteam
I think it'll be the next one. They put the last two up because the Christian Evidence Society were able to assist in funding the edits.
When did David Lee Roth convert?
The problem with arguing against most Ontological arguments is that they rely more on 'a priori' (knowledge) than empiricism. However it doesn't make their assumptions any less valid than any other argument that cannot be disproved. Many valid and logical arguments can lead to false conclusions but that reasoning does not make those arguments/conclusions false unto themselves by merely existing.
What about String Theory,Bill?
Why did you remove your last comment? I can see it in my e-mail. Thanks for your answer anyway. I certainly appreciated your great will. You have been polite all the time and you showed that you can listen to the other side. I mean, you can see the point of WLC even being an atheist. I'd like to say that you were right after all, but I didn't really get you in this last argument.
How are things going with you
Let's begin with 0:09:20, he says “that means that the number of past events is infinite”. I think it means that he is taking infinite as a number. But that's not really the problem. It's just terminology. The problem is when he sees a problem with an unlimited quantity by reasoning that way. Actually, the real problem is saying he subtracted identical quantities from identical quantities because he used the same expression, infinite. They are both not limited (infinite) but not identical.
I don't mind his argument. He's definitely one of the best creationist philosophers. When people start arguing about the existence of "their" god is when shit goes haywire.
The problem with this comment is only one view can be the “truth”. So you need to research and see which seems to match the evidence we see around us, and which theology and teachings are without error. Christianity definitely blows every other religion out of the water in this regard. It even has over 200 supernatural prophecies that are verified to have been written 300-1000 years before they happened.
I understand that a lot of people act out in order to try to prove to themselves they'll never be judged and are God, because they were bullied as children.
soo in your opinion if i think of new york city when i die is that what i'll see how long will this image last also in the documentary i saw the atheist said she not only saw heaven but spoke with family members but that was in a cnn documentary i saw in another documentary i saw the person died then came back and said what the operators were doing while she died
By definition, if we're supposing there was a first moment, then there cannot be a moment before a first moment, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about a first moment.Personally I think there may have been some kind of timelessness and then something happened and you had the first moment,beginning of time.What timelessness is/means we have no idea.How something can happen in timelessness is another thing I think we can't explain.How can anything move or change state!but maybe that started time
Test is defined as the following:
"a critical examination, observation, or evaluation" -Merriam-Webster
The question is not if we can test the nature of God, but can we test the validity of claims mentioned about God. Just my view.
No go and test these claims. I have.
Moreover, use this same approach in relation to all, eg. Evolution, atheism, science in general, the things people say, what medicine claims, etc.
This man is so clever.
I admit that if we accept an initial moment then there wouldn't be any moment before, just by definition of a first moment. And in this case, we would need just finite number of avents to reach the present. Actually, it seems that this is the case of reality, accordint to the modern theories. But admiting no first moment and no first event makes sense as well, and at least to me, it seems more intuitive.
People who want to propose the philosophy of immaterialism, they need to create a coherent theory about it, along with the ways to test it. If God wants us to believe in it, and to follow its guidelines, it would give us a method to explore its nature, and if that is immaterialism, then philosophers, theologians, etc., must provide a new model outside of faith, as faith is a belief, not a way to debate the nature of the universe.
No. I'm sorry, I mean, I didn't understand what you meant. You said " If there were an infinite number of years going back, leading up to now, then let's pretend now hasn't happened, how would we ever reach 2012?" (maybe I didn't get it because of my bad english). "Let's pretend", does it mean "let's suppose"? But in short, I don't see why we couldn't reach any determined point in the time line. Do you mean just because we don't have any first moment?
50:00
Morals is the best one.
Rape is always wrong no matter if the entire world says it's ok.
where did you get that it is wrong?
That's subjective. Animals don't seem to think there's anything wrong with it.
SpyWhoLovedHimself name one time when raping a human would be acceptable....
Well. What I mean is that he cannot say that he starts with identical numbers and subtracts identical numbers to reach diferent results in those two examples. He can't say that when he subtracts infinity and when he subtracts infinity minus three he's using the same number. Infinity is not a number in the first place. Infinity is a concept to represent not a determined number, but any number greater than any one you can think of. If I am wrong, no problem, just explain that to me, please. Thx.
Regarding his point on God being the source for objective morality, does Craig believe God wills this to be because it is objective or is it objective because God wills it to be.
It's a simple question I rarely get answered
The problem with asserting that a God does exist, is if that God is involved with the physical world, which is within the fields of science. Anytime a God does any kind of intervention, you can explore this scientifically, rather it be with the historical sciences, or history itself. If a person wants to assert Deism, then there is not much to debate, as a God might have designed the observable universe, but to say it is a theistic god, then we can debate that concept.
I agree that the modern physicists say the universe had a beginning but I think WLC has not enough math knowledge to fully understand what it means. Neither do I, of course. But I dare to say that the bigbang is not something that comes from a contradiction in the idea of infinity. On the contrary, they must have used this concept many times in their calculations to come to this conclusion.
Yes. He says it from 0:10:20 to 0:10:35. I'm simply saying that if he says that then his math must be weak, therefore I don't think he can fully understand the theories involving the bigbang. Neither do I, but anyone who tries to start a theory with that should at least understand it very well. Don't you agree?
Damn, I REALLY wanted to hear the response to "Jesus is an idol." Dr. Craig's eyes lit up like he had something pretty good up his sleeve. I'm actually rather curious myself. Does anyone know his answer?
Just basically.Jesus is an idol only from the concept of God from an Islamic world view.Disprove the Islamic world view of God then one disproves their opinion that Jesus is an Idol.They believe Jesus is a legitimate prophet.They do not believe He is an idol from that perspective.They say that the Christian world view of God makes Jesus into an Idol.So in order to deny them this accusation,one must disprove the Islamic view of God.This is done through various methods.Historically,as well as in other ways.A thorough study of Islam and all the arguments are not necessary.The anachronisms found in the Quran are alone enough.Add to that the contradictions through out the Quran,which are not just assumed contradictions,but are so blatant that Quranic apologists dont even try to deny them.They instead invoke their doctrine of Abrogation...=....what is said later in the Quran replaces was was said earlier.
At 10:00 Craigs shows his weakness at mathematics. There is no such a number called infinity that can equals an infinity derived from another way. It simply goes like this:
let n be the number of coins and n can be bigger than any other number you can think of, (n is unlimited rather than infinite)
then n-n/2 = n/2 for any n
n-(n-3) = 3 also for any n
but n/2 ≠ n-3 except when n=6
So, no mathematician says that infinity/2 = (or ≠) infinity-3. The concept of unlimited is used not infinity.
Well, anyway, the idea is not contradictory, but saying that this is a number is. The fact the he gets different results from different operations involving different quantities is not absurd. On the other hand, the concept of infinity as something that has no limits (being greater than anything we can think of) is fully in accordance with a limitless time in the past. By the way, not only infinity is just an idea in our minds, any number or concept in math exists just in our minds.
What I, as a muslim, do not like is the behaviour of athiests towards WLC. He is a genuinely nice guy who speaks logically and kindly yet you call him such things that he would never say. May Allah guide us all to the truth.
you are quite correct Sagat. WLCs arguments on this video are valid and logical and WLC is a genuinely nice guy. The fact that atheists denigrate a man with masters degrees summa cum laude and doctorates under the leading philosopher of religion of the 20th century perhaps and one of the top theologians of the 20th century only serves to show the inferiority of atheists to Muslims like yourself. Of course objective criteria such as degrees, results, technical papers published are all irrelevant to many atheists. Not all of course. The website Commonsense atheism admits that WLC is slaughtering his atheist opponents. You should check out WLCs debate with Richard Carrier. Even Carrier admitted afterwards that he couldnt cope with WLCs responses! God bless you Segat!
bruh.. triggered?
Yekkt and you are an astronaut.
Hey dude. I read what you wrote to me about HIV and condoms again and I liked it as it gave me a lot of insight showing me how true and practical the Scripture verses are, and how worldly teachings really have no validity and are quite dangerous to adhere to. You are a wealth of knowledge for people. Pm me. It would be awesome to hear from you again!
Were you going to address the other portions of my comment? What I mean by that statement is that God not being "able" to control his own nature wouldn't be a problem for a theist. Being maximally great (or having any of the "omni" qualities) does not entail the ability to perform logical absurdities, or anything else contrary to his nature (such as creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it, lying, etc.).
If God is by definition maximally great, as Craig is explaining, then there is nothing external dictating what his nature is.
Yes, and that is also God. You just hinted at the Christian concept of the Trinity.
Now that we have enough evidence that God exists, we don't need to discuss it any more.
As Jesus once said, "It is finished" (John 19:30)
maybe I removed it because there was a spelling mistake and I made an almost identical comment here straight after without the spelling mistake. Or a typo like of when I meant or. That's normally the case. Otherwise it was a mistake. You're welcome to post it if you think it's not here
What do you mean how can you ever reach the present? If we have an infinite number of past events, where should we be now? In the future? In the past? Just as in the case of the coins, we could possibly be in the present as is the case. Taking all the time intervals from an unlimited length of time can be zero (taking all the coins). I think this is consistent, isn't it?
yeah by let's pretend , i mean let's suppose. Your last sentence has what I mean.. in that if we do have a first moment, then sure we can count some finite number of years to 2012. But if we don't, if it were possible to have an infinite number of years going back, then that's an infinite number of past events. and I don't mean like an infinite number within an interval like there are an infinite number of numbers on a ruler between 2 points or as between 3:00pm and 3:01pm.
It can be both good and bad. If you have lived you should know this.
In the case of 3:00pm and 3:01pm, the infinite number of points get closer together. But what I mean is, an infinite number of equal sized units e.g. years, That cannot happen. If you have to go through an infinite number of years before reaching year X, then you won't reach year X. (i'm no mathematician and your maths is probably better than mine, but that's what it seems to me).
You seem to have lost this argument. We've resolved the argument to a point where God is an indemonstrable concept and exists only in that context.
OK :), I liked you. You are someone who is worth discussing with. :) Thanks guy. Let's have a break. :). I have an answer to this last argument, but I admit I did miss your point at some moment. Sorry.
You clearly haven't actually understood the argument; claiming something does exist is not an explanation as to 'why' it exists.
Secondly, history does not disprove moral realism, we have since progressed in terms of morality, which is only possible if certain moral values are better (or ought to be valued) over another, in other words Objective morality is true.
You are incorrect. According to the BGV, even in a multiverse scenario, the world ensemble itself has to have an absolute beginning.
Nature means inherent qualities. So if a being is necessary, its inherent qualities must be necessary. CoCo was objecting by saying that if God is maximally great, He must control his nature. I interjected and explained that If there is a maximally great being, then his nature can't be contingent, by definition, for his inherent qualities would be necessary.
Question to the last argument: It seems that the student is adamant about the God of the Quran contains equal mercy to all humans regardless of their belief, but Dr. Craig claims that the God of the Quran only shows mercy to his believers, well, my questions lies which one correct in regard to the Islamic scriptures?
That means everything. These things are real even if they are only thoughts or concepts. The number 2 exists in the real world, love does, the consciousness does, dreams do, fiction and ideas do too. All of it, exists in this universe that we share. That is what universe means afterall... 'all things'. Your God is just the same. He exists alright but simply as an idea in your mind.
It really doesn't matter if people are religious or atheist so long as we, as a society base our laws and education etc around what we know to be fact. There's really no harm in belief in anything no matter how stupid it may seem to the rational thinkers among us so long as it is separated from the way we integrate and treat one another. Now there's a wish for the whole of mankind?
He s not a creationist in the traditional definition of the word. He accepts evolution.
..But if the present is the last event that happens,then an eternally into the future universe that goes on forever doesn't have that problem
Look at from 0:8:40 particularly 0:9:08 He argues clearly that an infinite number of things is absurd and therefore he believes cannot be. And when he's doing the maths he's showing how absurd it is and that it cannot be. As it leads to contradictions.
And you can show 2! Two is a magnitude and you can demonstrate that. You're trying to apply a property to 2 that by it's nature it doesn't have. It satisfies it's own criteria. The difference is you are making something real out of something that you cannot show to be real in anyway (that being God). By showing somebody 2 things you are showing them 2.
Any, and all claims are open to testability, regardless of what or who is the source of them. To test the nature of God, such as infinitude, is not acceptable, but to test a metaphysical claim about the nature of existence, which upon that God does exist, is open to a test based upon the claim which it makes, and typically many things said about God, are indeed within the limits of the scientific method, although not entirely explore, but enough to permit science as a method to test this.
I do agree with you, i'm a very reasonable guy.. And you seem to be too. Just to clarify, do you "get me" in regard to my last argument? do you agree? or disagree? we're certainly making progress.
Let's suppose you are right. Let's do the same thing with the future then. Do you think there will be a last moment in the Universe? A moment when there will be no more future moments to expect? A last year. That may be the real case. But is it intuitive? Isn't that more problematic than admitting that there will always be a moment after any moment? It's the same reasoning. Intuitively, I think there should a moment one year before any moment. That's the concept behind limitless or infinity.
I never said I agreed with it. Dr Craig decided the criteria and you agreed to it. You picked and chose what it is to be maximal for your God. Great, good, bad ... all of these attributes are relative things. You have simply decided what your morality is, called it great and created a God to champion it because he 'must' agree with your morality.
Who uses his THUMB to symbolize “the first” of a list of things? That’s just weird.
That's a compelling argument
Nearly all Europeans I guess. I am surprised you find it odd.
fred hoyle himself who coined the term big bang but of course denied it,did say someone has tinkered with the universe! an many more quotes by atheists in the same statement.
Man, the first guy was nervous! xD
Yes. That's what I said. There is no maximum, that is, n has no limit. n can be as big as you want or even bigger. But it doesn't matter. For any number n you chose, n-(n-3)=3 and n-(n/2)=n/2. But on the other hand, n-3 will always be different from n/2 (except for n=6), no matter how big it is. If that's not correct then you tell me which n makes it false. Would you think, like Craig, that just because he call it infinity in both cases, they could actually be equal?
But they aren't equal, the answer is 6 to both equations. They have a finite answer (not infinity). In other words if you set up your equations with physical apples you can. You cannot demonstrate any equation or function with the use of the idea "infinity" as it isn't an actual value. So as to the existence of "infinity" does not exist in the physical world to humans.
the desire to worship IS the desire to be an abject slave.
-Christopher Hitchens
wlc is one of the best out there,even credited by many athiests so I beg to differ with most of you on here. read hitchens comments on wlc right on you tube .
This is a valid question. But I think the answer is rather simple. God's maximally great nature is necessary. For maximal greatness could not be contingent. If it was contingent, it would not be maximally great.
Therefore nothing dictates his nature. It would be logically impossible to dictate a maximally great nature.
The thing with WLC is that he uses logic and philosopy combined for his own personal believe which is christian. He should debate a atheist philospher and not scientist.
he has my goodness, many many times.
He does, as Bob Free says, and has done it so successfully that most fear him like the Germans feared Patton, to the point that some just run away and refuse to debate him at all, like Richard Dawkins. Now, granted, Dawkins is not exactly a professional philosopher and not even a good amateur philosopher, but the one that comes to mind who is a professor of philosophy is Kevin Scharp and it is on TH-cam.
Yet another criticism just thrown out there in haste. What are the anti-theists going to tell us next? "Maybe Craig should write a book or two to prove he knows something"? Lol.
What I describe doesn't involve him saying that. I've heard him say infinity is not a number. Can you give the time in this video that you think he says what you claim he says?
It's unfortunately typical in the "new atheist" circles to simply appeal to ridicule and pretend you've made a substantive argument. And then they pretend to be intellectually superior. It's quite a sad display, actually.
What is the stupid music at the beginning?
Well done. Will you ever get a clue?
And therefore is as 'real' as any fiction that anybody can spew out.
There is strain in his voice that should be analyzed. I believe that it belies the claim that he believes what he says.
Grasping, aren't you?
i think there's a simple but big flaw in the ontological argument as he presented it. one could change the first premise to say that a max. being possibly doesn't exist. since there are possible worlds where a max. being exists, he can't exist in every world and therefore doesn't exist. is this an issue or am i not realizing something?
There is no such thing as unlimited as you described in mathematics. If you let a variable be a real number there is no upper limit to choose the biggest one. You can choose from (-oo, +oo). The variable you described is the limit(n) when n approaches infinity. So your calculations are wrong since you can't subtract infinities.
Agree +1
I happened to watch a video posted by RF drcraigvideos, "Did God Command Genocide in the Bible? William Lane Craig vs Richard Dawkins”. I certainly admire some arguments presented by Dr. Craig and I've never thought Craig could really say such horrible things. God chose israelites to punish Cananites? Killing children from the Cananites would be a favor to those children because they were being salved in this process? Always thought Craig would say these biblical accounts are metaphorical.
Rational people just say:
We don't know... rather than cite some improbable God
Hypocrites say I don't know, if you don't know , then how do you know that there is no God?
If you say "I DON'T KNOW" it means you have conceded that you do not know, why then turn around and say that God does not exist, or this wasn't from God ?
Rational person remains consistent, a hypocrite only appeals to a so called rationality when God is in the equation.
You can no longer hide behind "I don't know". If you don't know then don't argue. Period
samuel barry
Because God is self contradictory!
This Guy believes in the Holy Spirit...a product of his Brain not God...he should check his sources!