Famous Scientist Confronted With LOGICAL Case For GOD (Amazing Ending!)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ม.ค. 2024
- William Lane Craig and Sir Roger Penrose sat down together 4 years ago to talk about God & the Origin of the Universe and, as was expected, the conversation was epic! This clip features one of my favorite sections of that conversation, where Dr. Craig helped Dr. Penrose understand one logical case for God. I hope you enjoy it!
00:32: The conversation explores the relationship between the physical, mental, and abstract worlds and addresses three mysteries.
02:55: Discussion on the metaphysical nature of mathematics and its connection to reality.
06:05: The speaker discusses the potential source of logical and mathematical truths, and suggests the existence of an omniscient mind as a solution.
09:20: Discussion on the necessity of the abstract realm and its causal powers, from a philosophical perspective.
12:16: Discussion on the intersection of philosophy, intellect, and religion and its implications.
Here is a link to the full conversation (go give Unbelievable a sub... they are amazing): • Sir Roger Penrose & Wi...
MY DOCUMENTARY FILM: vimeo.com/ondemand/miningforgod
INSTAGRAM: / the_daily_dose_of_wisdom
FACEBOOK: / dailydoseofwisdomofficial
TIKTOK: / the_daily_dose_of_wisdom
I have recently become a Cristian (i am 22 years old) and for me it has been a huge revelation for my life and my worldview. I thank this chanel a lot, because it has had an influence in my conversion to Christianty, God bless you all❤
Welcome to the Kingdom family and God bless you! ❤️ 🙏🏻
Thank you so much for sharing this, brother! You have no idea how encouraging it is! This is exactly why I am doing this channel & your testimony has made my day! All Glory to God!
You are more than welcome Sir!🙏🙏@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom
Wow, praise God! Welcome to the Body of Christ brother! That's so exciting. I'd be happy to give you any resources to help you in your new life!
I feel you on this one. I recently became Christian myself, and it shook my worldview, I questioned everything I knew. I've actually been studying science and philosophy more now than when I was an atheist. It's so clear how science, philosophy, and theology go hand-in-hand, but secular society keeps them separated for some reason and limits their worldview.
I'm SO jealous of the ability of these men to so eloquently speak on such a high level - but just as importantly; to LISTEN to each other. Fascinating conversation!
I am happy if I can follow the conversation. Sort of. 🙂. Also relieved at conversation vs shutting down a differing view.
You Are An Admirer Not Jealous, For Jealous is Evil. Bless You To Never Covet...
It The Hardest Sin To Not Break.
Their civility is astonishing .
Can you imagine Richard Dawkins speaking like this 😂
@@betheva5917it’s gonna take me watching this dialogue 2-4 times to start to comprehend the ideas these 2 are talking about .
maybe its because you only have two brain cells
Now I understand why Richard Dawkins didn't wanna debate William Lane Craig
True 😂
William Lane Craig does not bring anything new for Richard Dawkins to debate.
@@kos-mos1127
“Lane Craig does not bring anything new”
“Richard Dawkins”
At least be a consistent atheist, that is at least be a consistent fatalist and epistemological nihilist…
In the words of the scientific populariser and high priest of “new atheism” Richard Dawkins….
“The universe we observe has … no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. … DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music [emphasis added].”
“At bottom no right, no wrong, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference” (Richard Dawkins).
Merry chap and an inspiration and reassuring voice to all the narcissists, serial killers, baby killers (abortionists) and genocidal maniacs out there!! Just live it out. You can’t not even for a second!!
It’s CRINGE atheism in full effect!!
Similarly, the prominent atheist William Provine stated that ultimately humanity and the universe has….
“No purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either” (William Provine).
Yeah makes total ”SENSE” and totally “SANE” and not DOGMATIC, nihilistic and totally self refuting at all!! Sorry but this is nothing more substantive than a “secular” FAIRYTALE for atheists, that is a “secular” FAIRYTALE for fatalists and epistemological nihilists.
Your world view, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!!
Just live it out for a second. You can’t!! The irony and the absurdity is that your own engagement in debate is your own circular refutation!!
It’s nothing more substantive than CRINGE atheism in full effect!!
Sorry but everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally fatalistic, totally nihilistic and totally and utterly self refuting!! Prove me “WRONG”? I’ll wait!!
To make it funnier, Dawkins says he won't debate him because "he is rude". Hello? Are we talking about the same man? lol
@@UnbiasOPWilliam Lane Craig is rude.
He does not answer questions. He deflects then ask his questions and expects an answer so it ends up being a one sided debate.
William Lane Craig. Articulating in words what my mind has thought for many years, but unable to put into words. Brilliant.
William Craig is very well-known for his meaningless word salads but he never comes up with a shred of evidence for his imaginary god!
And Mr Nauticalmiles8752 you already deleted my reaction for the fourth time! How dishonest can someone be! I thought that dishonesty was forbidden under the christian view!
You forgot to mention the fourth option! And the fourth and only valid option is that you are too deeply brainwashed from childhood on with all that supernatural nonsense of christianity and that therefore you are no longer able to realize it yourself!
Moreover, the fact that you are a Christian is a pure geographical and temporal coincidence!
And by the way, the crux of christianity and the crux of all the other religions I know of has already been debunked by science and evolution ages ago!
The coming into existence of the species of great apes called the Homosapiens was a gradual event that took millions of years! Especially the study of the changes caused by endogenous retroviruses in exactly the same places in our genome and the genome of the bonobos and the chimpanzees prove with ABSOLUTE certainty that we share a common ancester and split apart some 7 million years ago. There have been different species of hominids too and some of them, the Denisovas and the Neanderthalers, even mingled with the Homosapiens before they became extinct. We still carry a small amount of their DNA in our genome! Were those hominids not good enough for the imaginary god?
The difference between the Homosapiens and the other great apes is a GRADUAL difference but not a fundamental one! Do all the so-called believers really believe that the Homosapiens are the only species of great apes that can survive their own death by going to an imaginary hell or heaven just because they developed a bigger brain and frontal lobe by the unguided process called evolution? Are they serious?
And the Homosapiens are not the goal and the pinnacle of evolution. Evolution has no goal. In short it is the adaptation of species over a long period of time to the changing environment so that the species can survive. More than 99% of all species that once existed have become extinct so why then would an imaginary God have "created" them in the first place? And neither are we the pinnacle of evolution because that depends on what criteria we apply. If for instance we take longevity as a criteria then we are definitely NOT the pinnacle of evolution.
And to put everything into perspective. The dinosaurs ruled the world for over 160 million years before they got extinct due to the impact of a massive asteroid some 66 million years ago. If that would not have happened the then existing small mammals would not have been able to evolve into bigger mammals and eventually into the species of great apes including the Homosapiens. So nowadays, the Homosapiens would not even exist!
And so the crux if christianity and all the stupid and often cruel doctrines can ALL be thrown right out of the window! We are not "born in sin" and we don't have to be "saved" from anything! The concept of the "original sin" is utter nonsense since there never was a first man and a first woman! There us no afterlife, hell, heaven, soul, etc.
It's about time to grow up and to leave all that supernatural nonsense of ANY religion and all those bronze age myths behind and to deal with REALITY!
@@rudysimoens570he can certainly be long winded. I don’t think his purpose is to provide evidence for God, rather help many atheist see that their view is also a view of faith, a hope that you’re right.
@@kcb5336It’s not a view of faith. It’s just not being convinced of a particular claim until empirical evidence can be provided. You don’t need faith to not believe in something.
@@kcb5336 well atheïsme is not a belief and we don't have faith! It is the lack of a belief in the existence of ANY god or Allah or whatever name they gave to their non-existing celestial dictator because there is not a shred of evidence for any god!
People should believe something to be true on the basis of EVIDENCE! Not because they have been indoctrinated from childhood on with the religion of their parents and their community, or because it feels good to believe that there is an imaginary skydaddy that takes care of them, or because they like the idea that they have an imaginary afterlife!
Of course we can not disprove the existence of a God because the concept of a god is constructed on purpose in a way that it can not be falsified! "It" is supposed to "exist" " out of space and out of time" ( that in itself is nonsensical because for something to exist time and space is necessary), is not "created" "itself" ( special pleading), is supposed to have "created" "everything out of nothing" ( again special pleading), the trillions and trillions of galaxies, stars, planets, black holes, etc, with the coming into existence of the species of great apes called the Homosapiens, after millions of years of evolution, in mind! Absurdity squared!
And this imaginary "entity" is also supposed to care about what and when the Homosapiens should eat, what clothes women should wear, with whom they should have sex with and in what position, etc! That's preposterous!
Moreover, this god can not be detected in any way! That are exactly the same characteristics of something that does not exist! That is very suspicious isn't it?
But the crux of christianity and the crux of all the religions I know of have already been debunked by science and evolution ages ago! We are not created. The coming into existence of the species of great apes called the Homosapiens was a gradual event that took millions of years! So, there never was a first man and a first woman and the doctrine of the "original sin" is utter nonsense! We are not "born in sin", we don't have to be "saved", there is no afterlife, hell, heaven, soul, etc!
So, better stick to reality and to leave all that supernatural nonsense of ANY religion and all those bronze age myths behind and to deal with the REAL NATURAL WORLD!
@@rudysimoens570 because you didn’t understand therefore word salad what a cheap argument
William Lane Craig has such a great way of explaining things! And he’s so respectful while he challenges other’s ideas. Same with you! Enjoy your channel:)
Totally agree! He is very gracious even in debate context which is so important! And thanks for the encouragement! All glory to God!
William Lane Craig forgot to explain how does mind interact with matter. Intentionality is different than force. Matter has a force and pressure associated with it so how does mind create matter that has a force that is resistant to mind.
The book says God spoke the universe into existence. He spoke and it was so. It seems to me more plausible that a mind can create matter than it is to say that nothing can. A nothing can do nothing because out of nothing nothing comes.
@@XYisnotXX A mind cannot create matter because mind lacks the force to do anything. Matter has its own intrinsic force which allows it to interact with itself and change.
Nothing means nonexistence which lacks the property of existence. God creating the universe is metaphysically impossible. Without the Universe there is no space and time. So there is no such thing as before the Universe.
@kos-mos1127 how would a limited mind limited within time and space know what an unlimited mind outside of time and space and unlimited by it be able to do or not do exactly? Also all the evidence points to a universe which " began" to exist!
Brandon, in the future, would it be possible to introduce up-front who the relevant persons in the videos are AND include a brief explanation of where they stand/what they do? In this particular video, you did EXACTLY that with Sir Roger Penrose, but not with the other gentleman. So I was left wondering who he is (beyond his name, that is). Some of us (or many of us?) are new to this apologetics realm and don't know who these major players are or what their general positions are. There seems to be a kind of "preaching to the choir" presumption that we already know who these people are and where they're coming from. But that isn't so for all of us (again, perhaps many of us?). Thank you.
He usually does, but yes he probably assumed that people watching are familiar with at least Dr. William Lane Craig- since he's one of the top apologists :) by the way, welcome to the world of apologetics! One of my favorite aspects about this field of study, is that it's a tremendous tool to help bring the Truth to people of all backgrounds, careers, and so on. As an ex atheist/agnostic (I'm a scientist and on my way to becoming a physician), these apologists have played a major role in me coming to Christ. Some of my favorites besides Dr. William Lane Craig: Dr. Frank Turek, Dr. Hugh Ross, Dr. Stephen Meyer, Dr. James Tour, Dr. Michael Behe, Dr. John Lennox, J Warner Wallace, Lee Strobel. They all come from different backgrounds, from scientists/mathematics (Ross, Meyer, Tour, Behe, Lennox), to world renowned cold case homicide detective (Wallace), and all have lots of vids on here, as well as sites, books. God bless you!
@@bryant475
Thank you, Bryant, for your gracious reply. And I'm glad that you're in the family!
I really appreciate your taking the time to give me a primer on some of the notable names in the apologetics field. I even recognized some of them as having previously appeared on Brandon's channel. May God bless you as you seek to glorify Him in becoming a physician. What a great way to love God and man simultaneously
(Mt. 22:35-40). Again, thank you!
@@TFord-il5pu My pleasure, you'll definitely enjoy their work!Thank you for those kind words! Btw, my health play list has a lot of really good vids about how to optimize your health with Nutrition/Lifestyle! The physicians I follow are my role models, and do just that with their patients and anyone who looks into their work! These include Dr. Joel Fuhrman, Dr. Michael Greger, Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. Brooke Goldner, Dr. Saray Stancic- they also have a lot of vids on here, as well as sites, books. God bless!
@@bryant475 until Covid wasn’t really compelled to spend so much time finding out real information and these giants of wisdom and reason have given me insight hope and so much wonderful information. It strengthens your faith too. I’m so grateful. And generally the discussions stay academic and without dramatic rhetoric. ✝️🙂
In the description is the link to the full conversation. 😊
I love watching the logical progression from denial, to plausibility, to acceptance. - May God work in his heart!
I really enjoyed this conversation. I am going to look up the full discussion.
Thanks! It’s also linked in the description
One thing I noticed is that William Lane Craig recognized that Penrose is open to Philosophical questions or concepts rather than Hawkins that stated that Philosophy is death and the physics are the new light of the world to explain how the universe works. Great video
Philosophy is dead and I am sure that's exactly what Penrose thinks as indicated by his comment that everything is derived from mathematics and its understanding.
The simple observation of today is, anyone of relevance to the future of society, acts to discover the truth and doesn't just sit there thinking about possibilities and making stuff up when they don't have an actual theory or answer.
WLC relies on philosophy which is why (whether theists accept it or not) he is always crushed by scientific debate.
@@MarisaHoare-px8or Sorry, no I don't know that. Roger Penrose claims he is an atheist and has no belief in religion or gods.
@@MarisaHoare-px8or Well maybe in 1991 but not now. The internet places him as an atheist. It's actually not that hard to figure out. For example, let's say he had a discussion with someone like William Lane Craig where WLC tries to convince him a god may exist because it's well known he doesn't believe it..... Oh that's right, that's what the video is about.
Please engage your brain before commenting.
@@MarisaHoare-px8or What people like you forget is there are atheists like me who claim there are no gods (on a specific basis) and there are atheists who claim they must me agnostics because you cannot claim (technically) no gods exist without the full knowledge of the universe. Penrose is the latter. But, here's the thing and why Penrose is an atheist, the same philosophy applies to Mickey Mouse and unicorns i.e. you cannot claim they don't exist without the full knowledge of the universe. (There's a trap in there, don't fall into it.) Don't forget WLC is trying to prove his god which Penrose doesn't believe exists.
@@KuanGung ''the same philosophy applies to Mickey Mouse and unicorns i.e. you cannot claim they don't exist without the full knowledge of the universe...''
What? Had you seriously equated a Creator as possible answer to the beginning of the Universe with Micky Mouse?
The first is not only theological and philosophical, but scientific as well. There are speculations about reality being a simulation, and not necessarily in the 'Boltzmann's brain' fashion, but in the fashion of reality being simulated by a ultra-computer set, presumably, by a higher being (a computer must be set up by someone or something, after all) These speculations are seriously considered. The cosmological argument (insofar is offered as hypothesis) is not incompatible with science in any way. So to equate a God (a Creator of the universe, without religion attached) with unicorns is intellectual indolence or dishonesty.
I think people should appreciate that this is like watching two black belts discussing martial arts theory. Just two legends having an incredible conversation.
What a cool discussion. Love that it was respectful and searching and curious. I much prefer this type of dialogue to “debates.” Great content!
Please provide us more of this kind of content. So enriching. Great final summarizing comments. Appreciated
William Lane Craig is the G.O.A.T. Perhaps the strongest case for God outside of the scriptures that I have ever heard.
Dawkins won't debate him. He claims it's because WLC is pompous and uses big words, I think he's just running scared.
@@Warriorking.1963 Running scared from someone who doesn't have testable evidence to validate his god claims? Seriously?
If by goat you mean he makes empty assertions and can't do better then yes he is.
@@albaraka7519 Yes, seriously. He did have one, you can see it on TH-cam, and Lane Craig politely tore him a new one. Ever since, he's been running like a scared rabbit.
@@Warriorking.1963 Tore him a new one on what? What testable evidence did WLC present to show his god is real?
Another great video! I love conversations about Faith, Philosophy and Science. All the best my brother in Christ for you and your family from an Eastern Catholic 🙏😊
Thanks & God bless! 🙏❤️
Just Catholic Bro. Don't need to divide ourselves further.
Just want to say. As a life coach, spiritual being, father and friend these videos are excellent, interesting and thought provoking. I really appreciate you taking the time to share these wonderful discussions about God, existence and meaning. This was super interesting hearing the topic of three mysteries about abstract math. 😊
Thanks for the encouragement! 🙌❤️
This topic was not interesting.
@@MarisaHoare-px8or Daily Dose pops up because I watched mindshift debunk all apologetic arguments.
William Lane Craig does a great job with the ancient problem of the one and the many: mental, abstract, physical. God is that ultimate unity. There really is no other logical, complete, or satisfactory answer.
I have listened to this one before and I became a fan of justin for bringing together so many people. These are amazing conversations.
I’m grateful for Christian’s like William Lane Craig who have the ability to discuss God on such a high intellectual level with those who do not believe. I’m not stupid but these discussions, while I am able to follow, are very difficult for me to replicate when I try to speak to someone of high intellect about God. Not mentioned in this video but I do disagree with Craig about, is Creation, as I believe it happened in 6 literal days where he does not. But he believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and that is what is most important.
Why do you believe in a literal 6 day creation? Your interpretation of the words or from someone else? What is the definition of day? What do we know as day? A rotation of the earth? May I suggest a close reading of those verses. Try to keep an open mind without a preconceived dogma. It is difficult I know. Is it possible that the words don’t quite say things as you “know” them? Is it at all plausible that there may be some gap in the timing and that the light may have appeared before the lights in the sky that separated day from night were made? And does it actually change the biblical and christian teaching?
How did you show a god to be real and that he made everything in 6 days?
@@antbrown9066bro that Bible says “even and morning were was the FIRST day, second day,etc.” this automatically implies 24 hours, not millions or even thousands of years. The Bible is extremely clear on days. While yes it has metaphors and parables, there are things that are clear and that is one of the things that’s clear.
@@Matthewc5610 one can interpret clarity certainly with a preconceived view which is usually taught prior to reading for themselves. Check the verses with a close reading. Verses 1 & 2. No mention of time. Light was created subsequently and light was called day and darkness night.vs 3-4. The 2 lights in the sky, one for day and the other for night. When did they appear? After a number of events….. v 14. What happened in between….. So was the day a rotation of the earth - 24 hours as we know it today? Was the earth rotating to enable day and night as we know it? What was the light in vs 3 & 4 if the lights in the sky to determine night and day were yet to come? I suggest a revision reading. Write down the events in one column and the days in a column beside. See what you can find. Also, does it actually matter so much to you, your faith and to the real meaning of the bible?
@@antbrown9066 That The Bible was right about the Big Bang is remarkable. As you say, what do we define a 'day' when space itself expanded faster than light can travel. Earth rotated much faster, once upon a time, could this account for reports of people living to 800 years?
And as you say, does it matter? Would it change anything about the meaning of the Bible? As Jordan Peterson says: "people who care about literal truths are shortsighted, because I can tell you everything I did yesterday, from what I ate for breakfast, which route I took to work up until bedtime and it would all be literally true, but who cares? There is truth and then there is Truth."
Love your stuff brother. Thank you for putting out interesting videos.
Thanks for watching!
This was an excellent and very insightful clip, thanks. Would love to watch the whole thing if you can provide a link?
As much as I respect Sir Roger Penrose his lack of grasp about what WLC says about mind being metaphysically necessary, highlights Planck's assertion that science progresses one funeral at a time.
I've actually never heard that quote. That is a really profound way of putting it. Thanks for sharing!
More precisely Planck meant, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom You are very welcome and thank you for your work.
@@mirandahotspring4019 Exactly
I think you failed to grasp that Penrose was trying to be polite and avoid saying "so what?" He's a scientist not a linguist, and so he's basically saying "that's nice but what does it prove? Too often Christians are desperate to hear a smart guy talk rings around a scientist, and he does. Well done. But the world is full of clever talkers running rings around their betters. That's how we got into this mess. I prefer Penrose's humility to WLC's conviction like unto " a tinkling cymbal"
May God bless you and your family Brother, i appreciate these videos very much and you are doing a very important job for christianity and the fallen society we are living in right now.
Thank you for the new perspectives ✝️🙏🏼
Thanks so much for encouragement! All Glory belongs to God!
Continue to enjoy your content. It's amazing how fast your channel has grown. I pray for continued success and reach for you and your platform. God bless 🙏
Thank you so much!
Very good. I do enjoy Justin's moderating, he seems to know so much. Very well done. Thank you.
I feel like what we're watching is a very polite man trying desperately to find a nice way to say that another man's argument isn't very useful or coherent.
WLC can count himself lucky that RP is such a friendly fellow.
If you want to see WLC getting wopped by a physicist, I recommend his discussion with Sean Carroll. He does not have the aloofness Sir Roger shows here.
@@MarisaHoare-px8or What Sir Roger belives in his past time is irrelevant....He, politly yet firmly schools WLC about the merit of his claims...and in case you haven't noticed, there is none.
@@MarisaHoare-px8or Good luck to him.
@@derhafi no what I saw was a guy so baffled by the answer he repels it as not a possibility which, in mathematics, is nonsensical.
@@ACryin_Shame "he repels it as not a possibility which, in mathematics, is nonsensical."
Ever tried to divide by zero?
I truly cannot fathom how Penrose hadn't thought deeply about this stuff since he was 8.
I mean, I don't come close to him intellectually, but I've tried by studying all the philosophy, psychology, physics and metaphysics that I could get my hands on; especially including the huge cornucopia of ancient texts full of massive amounts of wisdom!!!!
From the Bible, to the Yellow Emperor's Classic to the Dhammapada to the Dead Sea Scrolls. So much to inherit!
lol
@@mrsnoo86
Lol. That's all you have to say?
You sound like a retard who's waiting for the short bus to show up outside of your parent's house window. Wow dude.
He is not saying as much as Craig, because he doesn’t agree with Craig . He admit what he doesn’t know, instead of linking the unknown directly to a god.
It is a lot to inherit and really beautiful that it's all still around, or at least buried somewhere.
@@jonathanhall1823
The unknown belongs to God Almighty. The only God. The monotheistic God. The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. Christ Jesus our Lord & Savior. If you don't get it by 50 years old I don't know what to tell you, other than you're incredibly dim.
i have a new testimony. i experienced Jesus and the Holy spirit last night. i’m a 19 year old woman on my path to Christ. i was out in my garage smoking a bowl while on some mushrooms (i’m a heavy smoker so after smoking a whole bowl i feel very mildly high, no sensation if anything just a headache) when i put down the bong down, i started to feel an electricity throughout my entire being, and a warmness, it felt blissful. i felt the presence of God. i whispered “hi, thank you” and the feeling got more intense and i saw the face of Jesus Christ. something in me said to go back inside, so i did. as soon as i walked inside, without even being able to close the door all the way, i collapsed. it was like the Holy ghost plucked my soul out of my body for a split second and put it back, almost as a reminder that i am not in charge, and that me being here is a gift. i soon realized that if i hadn’t gone inside i would’ve fainted hard on the concrete floor of the garage and possibly died. i believe it was God who told me to go inside in that moment. he let me feel his presence, reminded me of the privilege of being here and sent me on my way with a greater sense of my higher self and what i’m aiming toward. if you read this whole thing i love you God bless you 🩷
Read the gospel of John.Jesus is Lord of all. He said "I am the way. The truth, and the life, no one comes into the father but through me." Shalom
You do realise these kinds of experiences happen to people all the time on mushrooms? I'm an Atheist, ex Christian, and on mushrooms I have many deep, emotional experiences that one could call "spiritual". It just shows how intricate and powerful the mind is. Chemistry is an amazing thing.
Love your content. I’ve been into Christian apologetics of various natures for over a decade and I love your concise but helpful expanding on different clips. Craig is on my apologetics Mt. Rushmore for sure.
Thank you!
He's just trying to define God into existence. I think the comments section is pretty indicative of how weak his argument is: he's only impressing people who already want to believe him.
How is Lane Craig's hypothesis "logical" or any kind of "answer" to Penrose? He simply says that the only way we can make sense of the world is to postulate a huge Mind that created us. He insists that it's "necessary" to believe this in order to make sense of the world. Penrose simply, mildly says in response: "okay, but I don't see why that's necessary." Lane Craig then starts talking about how the world MUST have been created by this mind -- which he immediately Christianizes as "the Logos." Penrose looks puzzled. How is Lane Craig being logical, as such? And a note to the guy in the hat who is presenting this video -- none of the questions that he is interested in (why are we here, what are we here for, how does this Mind reveal itself?) flow logically from the idea of a huge Mind having created us. For all he knows, this huge Mind has no plan for us at all, and just woke up one day and decided to create the universe. And please don't reply, "well, the Bible tells us that we are created in God's image." You'll need better evidence than that.
Well said. I agree. It gets frustrating when apologists want others to listen and consider what they say but they don’t do the same in return
Mr. Daily Wisdom (sorry, but i can never find your name anywhere!), I found your summary remarks to be so powerful. Craig's assertion certainly cried out to be further clarified, exactly as you state. Many thanks for your making these available!
Hey! My name is Brandon, and you are so welcome! God bless & good to meet you!
"...Mind as the essential original component of reality..." Well put.😀
Sir Roger Penrose has my great respect, but seemed to struggle with the philosophical counterpoint with why a “mental” start to things is metaphysically necessary. Mindless ‘things’ cannot make decisions.
Precisely! I do think a seed was planted in this discourse though. Thanks as always for your thoughts, Joshua!
Common Joshua W. Hope you've been well friend!
He struggles with the concept of mind because there is no substance behind the claim. It's just an assertion. Whereas maths is self checking and cam be tested in the real world the proposed model has no means abstract or otherwise of confirming it.
And mind can't do anything at all without the physical world... This is what Craig doesn't understand. You don't get to take a concept like "decision", which is something that creatures with brains do, and extract it from the physical world and use it as an axiom for your theory. For example, my computer is running photoshop right now. Can I remove the computer and still run photoshop? Why not? I can easily imagine editing pictures and using photoshop with all of it's features without needing the physical computer, just as I can imagine a functioning mind without a brain. What most people learn when they're quite young, is that what you can imagine, and what comports with reality, are two very different things. Craig lives in imagination land with no sanity checking measures in place for his wild speculations. Penrose wasn't struggling with Craig's ideas, he was rightfully pointing out that there's no reason to believe it's true.
@@generichuman_ Here's a reason to believe it's true: Jesus Christ
I just can't do people who think the only way there could be a "god" is if THEY can figure him out and make sense of it all... They can "philosophize" all day long with what seem to be "deep thought" arguments, but they all come down to, "if I can't understand it, it can't be so..."
No arrogance in that at all....lol
Haha! A good point! It does ultimately come down to a matter of the heart, that's for sure. My hope is that conversations like these are helpful for the person who has maybe been indoctrinated into believing that belief in God is illogical or unacademic. I see videos like this one as what I would call "Pre-evangelism" or "tilling the soil" before the seed of the Word of God is planted. Hope that makes sense!
@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom I understand what you are saying but I see these as 2 different "intellectuals" using the Word of God as some kind of verbal sports game that everybody watches for entertainment. Who can out talk who...
Jesus didn't debate scripture with the Pharisees He just told them since they were so sure they knew the truth, they were on their own on The Day of Judgement...
We'll have to just disagree on the effectiveness of these "debates"...
Like what if I can't conceptually grasp your existence, does that mean you can't possibly exist?
@@christiroseify "And according to Paul’s custom, he visited them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas..." Acts 17:2-4
God can use many things to bring people to salvation. Whether it be straightforward evangelism, apologetic tactics, debates, etc. I remember reading in William Lane Craig's book On Guard where Lee Strobel was telling the story of a debate that Craig had with atheist Frank Zindler. At the end of that debate, 47 unbelievers became Christians that night as a result of Craig's arguments and evidence for Christianity (praise God!). I share this story to illustrate that God can use things like debates and apologetics to bring people into relationship with Jesus.
@@rocksolidhope "and reasoned with them for THREE Sabbaths..."
Paul did NOT take up "reasoning" with the same "educated professional" for decades.
AND... Paul was "reasoning" with men who knew and believed scripture to see what they were missing, NOT with anyone who preached there was NO god at all...
There is no "reasoning" with a person who says that...
No "reasonable" person says something came from nothing...
The reason Rogér is saying that WLCs forgone conclusion of an omniscient mind is vague is because it’s one of an infinite number of untestable, unfalsifiable, unverifiable solutions that conveniently answer all of the questions. That’s why Roger says, “I don’t know what to do with that.” It has no more explanatory power than any other untestable, unfalsifiable, unverifiable theory. For example, there is no reason for a singular mind. You could make the same argument with a hierarchy of minds, or a trinity of minds, or whatever. That’s what’s meant by ‘it’s not helpful’.
Also, further into the conversation Roger is clear where he disagrees with WLC and I would suggest everyone who is interested in this conversation go watch the whole video. I would boil it down to a scientist who finds conclusions based on facts versus a theologian who finds facts based on his conclusions. Edit: spelling
Love the quality of your content. Very deep and meaningful. Thank you
I am South African. You reach us as well
I love William Lane Craig's ability to articulate complex philosophical ideas with such clarity.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, thanks for the video. 😉
Craig has spent many years developing his lies so is obviously competent when it comes to presenting them. If you watch Roger Penrose's face you see him at times processing just how stupid WLC's assertions are.
You mean his pretentious way of speaking, to sound intelligent?
@byteme9718 Ad hominem attacks are the preferred tool for anyone who is unable to adequately respond to the substance of an argument. What parts of Craig's argument are incorrect?
@@mp_za I simply stated a fact.
Nobel Prize winning Sir Roger Penrose is one of the greatest physicists who've ever lived and has an academic record to prove that. Craig is completely scientifically illiterate and therefore unable to respond at any credible level.
@byteme9718 And yet, you still haven't addressed the substance of his argument. So far, you have only maligned his character. That might be your opinion, but it does nothing to advance a counterpoint. What about Craig's argument is incorrect?
Craig’s position in its most basic form is: “real magic exists.”
The only way one can honestly land on Magic as a deductive necessity is by ruling out all natural explanations first, and given we are still learning/discovering natural processes, such deduction requires omniscience. Nobody is omniscient.
So you can believe a magic god-mind exists, but that’s based on faith, not logic.
“Real magic exists”
Oh the irony!! Look up straw man fallacy and fallacy of incomplete evidence!!
Sorry but the fact is that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism, that is fatalism and epistemological nihilism basically says that [no One took no time to turn nothing into everything] right?
A belief that at worst is synonymous with the belief in MAGIC and at best it’s synonymous with the belief in myths and miracles. I don’t need your “secular” myths and your “secular” religion to know what right and wrong is!!
Or even worse a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism basically says that [no One took forever to turn the accidental arrangement of the MAGICAL cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea into everything] right?
Even accidentally squeezing the whole universe inside something “physically” smaller than this tiny dot [.] ok? And even magically creating metaphysical presuppositions such as Truth itself, that is value claims, the prescriptive laws of logic, absolutes and universals, the conscious agent/freewill, that is rationality itself right?
A whole list of metaphysical presuppositions, that is alleged “accidents” that are synonymous with the belief in MAGIC, MR SPOCK AND FAIRYTALES and at best are synonymous with the belief in “secular” myths and miracles!!
I don’t need your “secular” myths and your “secular” religion, that is your secular fairytales to ground metaphysics, that is ground Truth and value and human dignity and respect. I don’t need your “secular” materialistic quasi religion to know what right and wrong is!!
I wouldn’t have the arrogance to ridicule, GASLIGHT and lecture a bereaved mother during a pandemic whose only consolation is the hope of being reunited with her family and child in some kind of afterlife!!
The burden of proof is on you buddy to demonstrate that we need your “secular” myths and your “secular” religion to know right from wrong!!
I don’t need your arrogant, “secular” quasi materialistic religion to ground metaphysics, that is ground Truth and values such as empathy, respect, goodness, human decency and morals and ethics!! I don’t need atheism, that is I don’t need your APEISM/FATALISM and epistemological nihilism to know what right and wrong is LOL!!
Sorry but I’m biased against beliefs that are synonymous with the belief in MAGIC!! I tend to doubt that they are rational!!
Do you have actual evidence or not that MAGIC is real? I’ll wait!!
You are wrong in your interpretation because you don't do the work of thinking it through.
There is no natural cause for math or intentionality.
There is no such thing as infinite natural causality. It had to start somehow. The first cause cannot be natural. Minds exist and we know they are not based on a natural support. Now we have NDEs as a science and neurosciences to push conscience at least to cuantum realm, or beyond.
To insist in the necessity of a "natural" explanation also require a faith, an allegiance to. Philosophical framework, that is a worldview. You are not more illuminated than people that prefer "magic" as an explanation.
But Craig is not proposing "magic". He is proposing an infinite mind. There is nothing odd about it. You combine our knowledge of our own minds with the necessity to include all infinite mathematical abstractions, and you get the necessity of an infinite mind. Where is the "magic" in that?
@@georgedoyle2487
You said: "the fact is that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism, that is fatalism and epistemological nihilism basically says that [no One took no time to turn nothing into everything] right?" -- Nope. Materialism/naturalism says nothing exists objectively aside from matter/energy. Fatalism is just determinism (all events are predetermined). Epistemological nihilism says that knowledge either doesn't exist or is unattainable by humans. Atheism says that no god exists. NONE of these positions include commentary on the origin of the universe, so they don't even come close to "no one took no time to turn nothing into everything."
Not sure why you switched to morality, but morality is a man-made construct that seems intrinsic to any sort of social species. No god or magic is required for us to consider whether an action yields a desirable outcome or not.
There's nothing magical about abstract concepts like "truth" and "laws of logic" either. Truth is that which corresponds with reality; laws of logic were invented by Aristotle as recommendations for how to think.
Grief certainly doesn't have anything to do with magic or the supernatural... not sure why you brought that up.
The burden of proof is typically on the one claiming the objective existence of something. That would be theists/theism. If God objectively exists, there should be indications of his existence (just like how gravitational lensing indicates the existence of a large mass).
You seem to require "grounding" for "Truth and values such as empathy, respect, goodness, human decency and morals and ethics!!" -- These are subjective and/or abstract concepts, which have no "grounding" by definition.
If you are biased against beliefs synonymous with Magic, then you must not believe in God, correct? The bible literally says God spoke a word and created everything. That's magic.
Do I have evidence that magic is real? No, of course not, that's why I'm an atheist.
@@NullHypatheist
SMOKESCREEN!! As usual, militant atheists promote more pseudo history conspiracy theories, subscribe to more pseudo philosophy and pseudo science and build more straw men than a scarecrow factory and a Richard Dawkins convention!!
As if logic and mathematics was invented not discovered!!
Was that a “RATIONAL” claim or was it just determined? Is that actually “TRUE” or was it just “INVENTED” right? You’re actually claiming that [MANDELBROT SETS] were invented right?
Glad we cleared that one up!!
Do you have an actual GROUND for that claim or was it nothing more substantive than an arbitrary subjective taste, an arbitrary subjective preference, arbitrary cultural relativism, that is as arbitrary as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of six right?
Your world view, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists.
Listening to very angry atheists trying to defend atheism/fatalism and epistemological nihilism by attacking religious expression is as entertaining as watching someone trying to thrash the joy and life out of the front of his car with the branch of a tree in order to beat it into submission. It's very Basil Fawlty like at times!!
@@NullHypatheist
Theism is a much misunderstood and purposely mischaracterised concept. Sorry but the fact is that theism is basically just a [Position of Disbelief] regarding one question. It does not specifically deny atheism, that is it does not specifically deny fatalism and epistemological nihilism. Theism just postulates that there is no good evidence or convincing or compelling reason to believe that…..
“Birth is an accident, life is ultimately meaningless, ultimately purposeless and absurd and DEATH simply ends the absurdity and illusion that birth began” [Atheism].
Your world view, your absurdity, your APEISM, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists.
Sorry but this should be very easy to grasp unless you just purposely don’t want to understand out of intellectual dishonesty. Theism, that is objective morality is simply just a [Position of Disbelief] regarding one question. It does not specifically deny atheism or moral subjectivism, that is it does not specifically deny fatalism and epistemological nihilism. Theism just postulates that there is no good evidence or convincing or compelling reason to believe that….
“ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE MAGICALLY HAVE VALUE BECAUSE ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE SAY ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE MAGICALLY HAVE VALUE .” [APEISM/NIHILISM].
Am I close?
Am I close or a long way to go? LOL!! I’d bet my sanity and even my life that I am pretty spot on with that definition of APEISM and SUBJECTIVISM
Please let me know if that definition of ATHEISM is inaccurate? That is please let me know if that definition of APEISM is inaccurate?
Equally, please explain exactly how ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE MAGICALLY HAVE THE “MORAL” AND “RATIONAL” HIGH GROUND REGARDING ANYTHING IN A ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS UNIVERSE? I’ll wait no problem!!
Your world view, your absurdity, your APEISM, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists.
Sorry but I’m just biased against beliefs that are synonymous with the belief in magic!! I tend to doubt that they are rational!!
Do you have actual evidence or not that magic is real? I’ll wait!!
Great clip; great summary‼🫡
I’m just happy to be alive in this time and conversations like this can happen.
My biggest question is how can this two gentlemen hold soo much information in their head??? I struggle to remember my co-workers names 😂 love you all
I feel sorry for Sir Penrose for the fact that he had to sit through this white noise of nonsensical rhetoric
Penrose is having none of it.👍🏼
A most excellent conversation, what privilege to witness.
Richard Dawkins would never be able to keep up with William. Less than ironic you've never seen the two together.
God bless
Great video and great perspective on the conversation! You said it so well. We must ask 1. Does God exist? and 2. Can we know this God? This conversation was more on the side of #1 but if you affirm #1 it not only follows but is prudent to investigate #2. But it's so interesting that the awareness of #2 and the instinct we seem to have about it is enough to prevent some from even engaging or affirming #1 even when it is logically satisfactory.
Well said.
Sir Roger was very polite here. He found a variety of ways to tell Craig he just wasn’t interested in Craig’s takes. His body language in several places was what I imagine I look like when my aunt starts going on about Qanon.
When she starts quoting, do you remind her that Trump was a Russian asset since the 80s and that men have periods? 😂
I mean he accepted going to a Christian podcast
@@bowieupland6112 Remember when people thinking a trans woman should just be called a woman (because who cares?) led to the siege of the US Capitol? I don’t either.
@@scottgodlewski306
Is English your second language?
@@bowieupland6112 Clunky, admittedly. If you didn’t get the point, it’s that neither of those straw men duped an audience into attempted violent overthrow of the government. So comparing Qanon to trans rights is a category error.
Was my English better? Too much? Should I use words with fewer syllables?
The title of this video can literally be translated to “God of the Gaps” and have the exact same meaning
It's funny how one side loves the concept of "God of the Gaps." Yet the same principle applies concerning nature too. "Nature of the Gaps." "We just, don't know," but there has to be a natural explanation because nature is all that exists.
Your side prides itself as being the side that only adheres to science and yet you do the very same thing you accuse the other side of doing. You adhere to the nature of the gap's philosophy.
These are interesting discussions but I can't help but imagine a cinematic twist where the camera pans out and it reveals this discussion is being held buy cells neurons wondering if there is a brain or higher consciousness that's controlling everything. As difficult as it might be to have a conversation like this that could convince an atheist, I feel as though if we just had a greater perspective/greater comprehension the question of God would be so much more obvious and undebatable.
Penrose and Craig. Two of my favorite minds of any field, and certainly my favorites in their respective fields.
A very smart man politely telling a death cult member that his ideas are usless atavistic nonsense...So polite in fact, that, judging by the comment section, it went over most peoples head. Particulary over those with the same adherence towards ancient mythology as WLC.
For me it was that gentle sweet manner he so politely told us we smoke crack 😬 I was so tickled with his insult of Christianity that I almost didn’t feel the sting of it all but alas .. grandpa for sure lovingly makes us understand how it’s really MIND control being any religion or thought of God and that’s a necessary conversation Christian’s should realize and be compassionate about towards others .. as a Christian I did feel the spank but then again I’m open to being humble so there’s that but looping it and theorizing it he won for sure
@@Thedevilisaliar23 I'm not getting your point here...could you please elaborate?
Isn't The Lord AWESOME!!
Yes!!
Yes, Zeus is amazing! So is Horus. Odin is the man! Brahma is great!
@@mirandahotspring4019to compare the Bible God with Zeus etc. Just Shows you never ever did any Research.
@@n1ghtwhirl All research shows what nonsense religion is!
Loved your after thoughts regarding Roger’s comment about “not knowing what to do with it “. I was thinking the exact same thing. It send the only logical conclusion would be to slow yourself the ability to seriously investigate the truth claims of religions that match reality and try to discover if any of them are true rather than to just dismiss them.
If you imagine that Penrose hasn't "seriously investigated the truth claims of religions" - that just shows you know nothing about him.
Long ago (or perhaps not so long ago), what we call formal science (and science simply originally means "knowing/knowledge") was once called appropriately "natural philosophy" or material philosophy, as it was only one of other epistemological methods, so metaphysics and physics are not to be completely alienated and then one may risk abandoning one or the other! Glad to see these two contend with more forms of science than merely a reductionist positivist materialist/naturalist atheist worldview that totally ignores the metaphysical reality we live in.
Math continually reveals the Lord's genius. The Mandelbrot pattern and Fibonacci curve are prime examples.
So true! The more I learn about mathematics the more amazed I am by the brilliance of God.
@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom I know this is really random, but what kind of music do you listen to man?
No, it simply reveals the marvels of nature.
@@mirandahotspring4019 Nature cannot create intelligence.
@@mirandahotspring4019 Nature is the result of a creative mind.
WLC is always ready to tell you he’s the smartest person in the room. Particularly when he isn’t.
He doesn’t listen, he just tells. He’s looking to confirm his own bias.
Ummmm........it's a discussion on their views on said topic.
I suggest you investigate Bernado Kastrup and his Analytic Idealism metaphysics. It resolves the question of how mind/consciousness can be fundamental, how it can give rise to the (perception) of matter, the connection between the one and the many, an intruiging proposal for what the purpose of life is... and much more besides.
Ask Bernado on as a guest - he's exceptionally good.
Wow, never heard this argument for Mind being the source of reality being posited like this before. Very insightful!
Reading through comments it's astonishing how little people comprehend as to how much of a problem "The Hard Consciousness Problem" is for physicalism.
Even Penrose knows this prompting his quantum consciousness theory.
Perhaps rational people understand that it's not a problem at all. Not knowing the answer to a question does not render one's entire worldview moot or incorrect. The actual problem is that religious whack-jobs have to have an answer to every question whether or not the answer makes any sense or has any supporting evidence.
@@avishevin1976,
"Religious whack-jobs"!
Thanks for playing unworthy.
You are dismissed.
@@avishevin1976Nice strawman and ad hominem combo there, buddy. Unfortunately it's still not enough points to win tonight's fallacy bingo, try again.
@@lastnamefirstname850
I see you like to throw out terms you've heard but do not understand.
@@lastnamefirstname850no af hominem or Strawmans in that comment
Sir Roger looks at Lane Craig is if to say, this man is mentally unstable
He looks at everyone like that. Smh.
Great video.. love this channel, always learning something
Thank you for your channel. I tend to intellectualize things before diving in. This channel, and a few podcasts, have helped me to see the Truths of the Christian faith. I’ve started reading the Bible again and diving into the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I plan to find a parish and start going to Church.
Thank you for your ministry 🙏💚
There's no such thing as a "logical case for god." You can either prove one exists or you can't. Rhetoric is not proof of the existence of a thing. You can't argue a thing into existence. Physical, testable, consistent proof is required. Lacking that, you've made no case whatsoever.
Yet there is little absolute proof for many concepts and ideas we debate over in the scientific realm some things such as string theory or dark matter are hotly contested in the community, why do these things get a pass when making a case for them but the existence of God does not?
@@rickyrain7773 Hotly contested. You said it yourself. Neither of those are considered law, just working theories with mathematical proofs at their core. Testable, repeatable mathematics give them enough validity to be debated, i.e. hotly contested. But every physicist who studies those topics would looove to write the paper that disproves it... as much as he or she would looooove to author the paper that definitively proves it. Scientists who are doing the work ethically are not fanatical, and they are willing to be proven wrong. That's one major difference.
Another is that science isn't really concerned with "why" so much as it is "how." Scientists are looking to uncover how the universe works, how it formed, and how it will end, but the scientific method cannot discern why a universe would appear. That is something religion tries to do, offer an explanation for why we are here. The problem is, no religious believer at any point in history has proven that a creator--from any of his religions--ever physically existed. That's why you see "cases for christ" or "arguments for god," but never evidence of god, i.e. a dna sample, hair, skin, a photo, etc. At least a dark matter resesrcher or string theorist can say, "Look at my math."
Its a shame god or gods appear completely unable to send something comprehensive or obviously understandable to give no doubt to their existence rather than having humans use philosophical arguements to say why they think theres a god/gods but sadly no.
I will be reaching out to you about this because I am not religious but agree fully with you and that mind is where we need to be looking for the link.
I have too many ideas and concepts I’m trying to formulate into a coherent thought. But my own spiritual path to Enlightenment (which is not from a religious perspective), understanding of science as an RN (which includes biology and psychology) and the frame of reference I see too as many parts of a whole.
On a side note: Craig is someone I want to listen to more. He is David Lee Roth minus the sex, drugs and rock n roll!
This reminds me of another video posted on this channel with John Lennox talking about causation and scientific analysis of making a pot of tea. Something about how he asks "if I want a cup of tea, turn on the stove and ask 'what made the water hot' a reductionist would speak of the fire or the electricity of the stove and the chain of events in how a stove works, but I say to them 'No' - what made the water hot is me; I wanted a cup of tea, I turned on the stove, so a reductionist completely misses the point in his scientific analysis of 'how' if he ignores 'why'.
(Not a verbatim quote, just what I remember of it and how it applies to this conversation between Penrose and Craig)
God of the gaps fallacy. Yes if you create a magical being that has unlimited power it can explain anything. So inserting it into any problem that cant currently be explained, it will explain it. Unfortunately you first have to have evidence of said magical being. And you don’t have that. Arguing against a magical invisible being is impossible, however when you insert the bible it becomes quite easy.
There is no logical case for god. All arguments for god are predicated on the presumption that god exists, thus rendering all arguments circular.
Design requires a designer. Sculptures require a sculpture. Fact that time space and matter had to come into existence at the exact same time. One can’t exist without the other two. Use the word”creator” if you can’t bring yourself to use the word, “god.” Case for a creator is logical.
@@jesselinczmaier7187
There is literally no evidence for a creator, and there _certainly_ isn't any evidence that anything natural was designed.
@@avishevin1976lmao. A law cant write itself.
Evidence for logical thinking?
@@n1ghtwhirl
Straw man much? No one ever claimed anything wrote itself. Just because a thing exists doesn't mean (a) god did it.
@@avishevin1976 Listen, your claim that there's "literally no evidence for a creator" is not only ignorant but also intellectually lazy. Have you bothered to delve into the vast array of arguments and evidence put forth by countless thinkers throughout history? From the intricate design of the universe to the fine-tuning of physical constants, there's plenty to suggest the existence of an intelligent creator.
Listen, your assertion that "there is no evidence for nature to be designed" is simply unfounded. Have you seriously considered the complexity and orderliness of the natural world? From the intricate ecosystems to the precise laws of physics governing the universe, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that nature is not a product of random chance.
So before you go spouting off baseless claims, maybe take a moment to educate yourself and engage with the actual substance of the debate. Otherwise, you're just adding noise to the conversation without contributing anything meaningful.
Aha, Low Bar Bill ... how refreshing to enter him as the savior for a logical god. :)
He literally started believing based on Pacal's Wager. Yep, solid logic.
Aha! Reddit Atheists 😂
It's a classy and interesting debate between two great minds. I recommend for further discussion the trilogy of Muhammad Haj Youssef : 1- Ibn Arabi :Time and cosmology.
2- The duality of time.
3- Ultimate symmetry.
A very respectful discourse. Congrats for such high level debate. Also love the cap! Jesus knows how elemental this is. Cannot wait for him to enlighten us.
"Jesus knows how elemental this is" Jesus is myth. LMAO
Show me the historical documents where jesus was called by name outside of the bible. Delusionals will stay delusional.
Such a big conversation between two briliant minds. Thanks God am not that briliant so that I simply have faith to our Lord without throwing big questions that I even cannot asses.
A capacidade de síntese do Bill é Impressionante, em 3 minutos ele fez uma união perfeita de 3 conceitos profundos propondo uma união plausível do Abstrato, físico e mental. 😮
Aos colegas Brasileiros, não encontrei oradores brasileiros no nível do William Craig e Jhon Lennox na apologética cristã, alguma indicação?
I always think of this scripture when intellectuals ponder our invisible Father.
1 Corinthians 1:27
But God has chosen the foolish things of the world, to confound the wise. And God has chosen the weak things of the world, to confound things which are strong.
This scripture is not evidence of anything as it is made up by man.
Or another question to ask is what is the underlying NON-UNITY for all these 3 realms? Is it possible that in any setting or dimension, these 3 realms in exist in different combinations or permutations depending on where we are in the universe or in a parallel universe?
Very interesting conversation... I can't help but relate it back to cosmic origins. Before the physical universe was the abstract universe represented by the mathematics of the quantum wave function, but for that wave function to break from the Abstract and fall into a determined physical state, the only thing that could be present to observe the wave functions collapse before any physical presence existed must have been the Mind of the extra-universal creator. As St. John the Evangelist put it...
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.
There is no such thing as the physical universe there is just the universe. Mathematics models of the universe and the universe are two different things. Mathematics is used to create a map of the universe. The Universe is the totality of existence.
@kos-mos1127 actually, mathematicians disagree with this. They say, as Penrose does here, that mathematics is discovered rather than invented by people. Also, it exists independent not only of humans, but of the physical universe you describe. In fact, surprisingly, there are whole areas of mathematics that have no relation to the material world. In other words, there is not a 1-to-1 correspondence. While every physical thing can be mapped, as you say, by math, not everything in math ties back to something physical.
@@rebbrown7140 Mathematics exits as an idea not as an independently. The physical universe exists independently of us and of math that is how math can have no relation to reality. Math in order to be useful is mapped onto the physical universe so it can make accurate predictions about reality. That is why they say theory can only take you so far.
Love this conversation. In trying to fully understand the argument, I see how the abstract realm has no causality on the physical realm, it is conceptual with no ability to actually make things move. But how does the realm of conciousness have causality, unless it has synapses and nerve endings throughout the universe? (Which I'm not a pantheist, I believe God sustains himself fully outside of the reality he created)
Where’s the full video at? I really want to watch the whole thing
I would add to this discussion God as a necessity outside the realm of energy and matter, intelligent, conscious and subtle in a way that could make the pattern of reality in advance and would create or affect matter but not be disturbed or affected by it.
Interesting that Dr Penrose quizzed that he doesn’t know what to do with Dr Craig’s proposition but when you think about it, it actually leads to the discoverability of the universe and the intelligibility of the material world - both fundamental assumptions of scientific endeavour. For what could apprehend and appreciate even to an infinitesimal degree such elegant truths about the universe but minds fashioned by a Mastermind who made it all?
But wouldn't that mean that mastermind could have created those 'elegant truths' differently?
@@rizdekd3912 Sure at the face of it, I have no objections to that possibility, after all the fundamental constants and quantities in the universe did not necessarily have to have the values that they have, it could’ve been different and that would’ve been detrimental to sentient life. However when you talk about mathematics, logic, numbers, it seems to me that these are ‘things’ that simply describe how God’s mind works (logical knowledge of all true propositions, traditionally called His attribute of omniscience), just as much as how his character is goodness itself, from which we derive objective moral values and duties. These are all part of His nature and essence. Thanks.
@@entershikarii "However when you talk about mathematics, logic, numbers, it seems to me that these are ‘things’ that simply describe how God’s mind works (logical knowledge of all true propositions, traditionally called His attribute of omniscience), just as much as how his character is goodness itself, from which we derive objective moral values and duties. These are all part of His nature and essence."
But if that is 'how his mind works' then wouldn't that mean those things are more fundamental than God's mind/nature and...God himself? IE it seems his mind has to work that way which means something else dictates how his mind works. His mind could not, even in theory work differently. IOW his omniscience means he knows all and...among the things he knows are how fundamental reality works...ie what is logical and what is mathematical. He, like us, are subservient to that reality and cannot change it.
@@rizdekd3912 Yeah, this is like the mangled Euthyphro dilemma, however, that God cannot make logically impossible things neither limits His power nor makes Him ‘subservient’ to His own nature because that’s His essence; it’s simply pretty much God just can’t help but be God. He is Himself Ultimate Reality and nothing else more fundamental.
So good! Thank you Lord Jesus for working through Dr. Craig and turning the gears in the minds of today's thinkers.
You’re amazing bro. Always love your analysis.
I have a question: is the Mario moustache by design? Maybe wear a red cap! I think your channel is great! Keep up the great work. Thx!
Great video - thank you. I enjoy listening to your interpretation / view of what’s been said - but do find the inclusion of your video reaction - whilst the main clips run to be a distraction.
I am glad you see that if this was the end of discussion, Penrose would be correct. I don't necessarily disagree that if we could agree that a Mind is involved other questions would come into play. I think the reason there is a cringe factor when religions are mentioned is because there is a noticeable exaggeration of what it all means. It's like adding a superstitious component to the philosophical, which is why I think Penrose felt more comfortable when Craig attempted to keep it at the philosophical level rather than the religious level. The primary problem when it comes to discussions between theists and atheists is that atheists often see the Mind of God that theists want to make a case for as coming across as a self projection of our own mind on to nature itself. Atheists see nature as the necessity, where theists don't, they don't think nature can do it alone and requires a Mind to guide it but I don't think that case can be made.
This argument is quite profound and very logical.
The Scientist can’t seem to doubt or counter this claim. His concern just seem to be “where did this mind come from”
You can see the pulling away as it all seems to point back to God(religion)
Perhaps you can answer the question "where did this mind come from?” as well as the supplementary questions "How do you know this?" and "Why that particular "God" and not another?".
BTW: Evidence-free assertions and Magical-thinking are not allowed to "pass" as answers.
@@donthesitatebegin9283
True. It’s just sad that Man may never find enough evidence of God in the physical, at least not soon; we might find evidence for God, as in the mystical, metaphysical and even the spiritual which have been proven to exist but to find evidence of God would mean to See God.
It’s one thing to have all of creation pointing to a logical mind or discovering that the likely hood of the universe being purposeless(made by chance) is impossible but like he said,” If I get a vision of God, would I be able to trust in it?”
@@donthesitatebegin9283
True. It’s just sad that Man may never find enough evidence of God in the physical, at least not soon; we might find evidence for God as in the mystical, metaphysical and even the spiritual which have been proven to exist but to find evidence of God would mean to See God.
It’s one thing to have all of creation pointing to a logical mind or discovering that the likely hood of the universe being purposeless(made by chance) is impossible but like he said,” If I get a vision of God, would I be able to trust in it?”
True. It’s just sad that Man may never find enough evidence of God in the physical, at least not soon; we might find evidence for God as in the mystical, metaphysical and even the spiritual which have been proven to exist but to find evidence of God would mean to See God.
It’s one thing to have all of creation pointing to a logical mind or discovering that the likely hood of the universe being purposeless(made by chance) is impossible but like he said,” If I get a vision of God, would I be able to trust in it?”
@@pianoaccidentals870_it’s one thing to have all of creation pointing to a logical mind or discovering that the likely hood of the universe being purposeless is impossible_
Could you clarify-
Are you saying in your opinion on these?
It is nice though that they're getting along at least despite the disagreements of opinions and not attacking one another.......
Speaking of legends in science and philosophy I think Wolfgang Smith (degrees in math, physics, and philosophy by age 18) has the best model. And he’s still incredibly sharp at 93.
BTW, he’s a devout Christian. His long, deep talks with Curt Jaimungal are amazing.
From what Sir Roger said it seems that he finds the multitude of religious beliefs to be an adequate reason to reject a belief in God as omniscient and a causal factor in the existence of the universe. He would not reject the reality of a scientific belief merely because many did not clearly understand, would he?
Sir Penrose, explain how all fundamental laws of reality as we know them managed to be present in all their precise complexity at the moment of the supposed big bang?
There was no complexity, Dumbdumb.
I think Sir Roger Penrose is just too polite to say what he really thought. Him pointing out that it's a bit vague was restrained of him.
A wonderfully thought provoking video
14 Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. Amen
The problem with this idea, is that in order for this mental world to be able to do the work of bringing these other worlds into existence, it would require much more than just pure consciousness (whatever that means), it would require things that only brains can do. Brains make decisions, brains manipulate math, brains manipulate objects, etc. Why would it be the case, that for us, we require a symphony of 85 billion neurons and a quadrillion synapses to perform these tasks, but it's something that can just... exist, out there in the aether as a matter of brute fact? The idea that given all we know about neuroscience, and how intimately brain function maps to cognitive ability, and how deficits in the brain correspond to deficits in conscious experience and ability, that we can still believe that all of this complexity can exist without the hardware.
This quote comes to mind: "We are not human beings having spiritual experiences, but we are spiritual beings having a human experience." I always look at the brain as being some sort of neural receiver which can interpret the great consciousness but is limited in its capacity. It isn`t so much the brain, which is the source of consciousness, but it is like a radio, which receives the transmissions and makes them readable, knoweable. So in this way, the brain is actually a limiting container (albeit having such complexity) for consciousness to exist in. This would also illustrate that humans needed such advanced brains in the first place to reach this level of conscious understanding.
As WLC alludes to, the mind can move matter. So it is not at all hard to believe that consciousness exists outside the material realm but can also will it into existence. You said the "brain makes decisions". It still seems you think the organic matter itself makes decisions. But really, it`s the mind inside the organic matter. You´re basically putting the wagon before the horse.
one of many good points, thanks. We are barely scratching the surface of examining existence, and yet we teeter on the edge of non-existence by focussing almost exclusively on the physical, while christians make vast presumptuous claims to know with certainty that they know because the creator revealed itself to them. Craving certainty and fearing death do wacky things to intelligent people. Thankfully none of that makes it any less amazing to experience being alive and curious. Cheers
@@HideyoshiR There no such thing as mind inside of matter. The mind is the brain modeling itself.
@@HideyoshiR The problem is, there's zero evidence for this idea that the brain is a receiver for the mind, and quite a bit of evidence that qualities of the mind, including our memory, our cognitive abilities, basically everything we can care about, are the product of the brains functioning. People have near death experiences, and don't see the issue with them remembering the experience... If they exited their body to join the cosmic intelligence, why would this information be in their brain? Does the cosmic intelligence perform a write operation to the brain if it's away for a while, like a dirty data cache? What about when people get brain damage, why isn't their conscious experience more expansive and vivid instead of less? Empiricism seems to spell out the exact opposite of what you're proposing.
@@generichuman_ I think what I stated may have given the wrong idea or implied things I didn`t mean to say. I did not mean to say that there is only one great consciousness (i.e. God). I also believe there is individual human consciousness (commonly referred to as souls) existing independently from God. (going back to this: "We are not human beings having spiritual experiences, but we are spiritual beings having a human experience.")
So when I say that we can "receive" transmissions from God, that`s actually just an entirely different portion of the picture, one that`s hinting at a connection or relationship between the two btw. I unintentionally disregarded the separate, human consciousness. So that was kind of beside the question I tried to answer. In some way I was speaking synonymously about God consciousness and human consciousness without making enough of a distinction between the two. Also, if there was only one consciousness, it would imply that we are puppeteered robots that lose their identity once dead and the conscious element fuses back into the big one. But that cannot be true since we have independent identities and free will. So in other words, we aren`t the same entity as God, we are separate ones with unique experiences. (Though, the bible says this for example: "And God created us in his own image.")
Anyway, whether you look at one or the other, the question still remains: Is there consciousness to begin with? And what is it?
I simply do not believe that humans are just flesh or that life is just matter. What is the "I" portion in you? Is it not the voice in your head or the agent that makes decisions, based on (or against) their feelings and thoughts? Is there not a clearly defineable part in you that you can refer to as the "self"? The one that operates behind thoughts and emotions (teachings about meditation always highlights this for example).
It seems you asked your questions based on what you thought I implied (but I did`t mean to) So if I had to look at the near death experience: Well, if we have individual souls/consciousness, then it can be understood that the soul itself is going through the experience, no? Since it is in fact severed from the human shell momentarily. And when it enters back into its human body, it goes back to using the brain as a means to interpret and recall the experience as best as it can. But it`s not the brain itself that created the recollection. So of course it exists as an individual experience (not one that is randomly had by one big consciousness). People who go through those experiences often say that it feels unlike anything they ever felt. It`s pretty much undescribeable. Yet they try as best as they can (with our limited brain power).
When I brought up the idea of a brain receiver, I undermined the more important fact that it`s also a processor through which our souls experience life of course. Btw, I still think it can also receive and interpret info from the God consciousness (but that`s just a different function of it).
About the brain damage issue: Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "conscious experience". If it refers to alive human existence, then of course the brain will be limited in taking in reality after such damage occurs. But that is of course because the soul at that point is still inside the human shell and living the human life. So it does not contradict the fact that once the soul leaves the body, its conscious awareness becomes one of a superhuman/transendental nature (--> near death like).
Basically, if you can believe in human consciousness or soul, you can believe in a God consciousness. If not, then I`d be really curious to know as to how you explain life.
This discussion is what is called classical apologetics. But at best, as we see here, it necessarily points to a transcendent intelligence. That by itself doesn’t help a lot. Most human religions have that, so now what do you do? You are right that we need more for God in three persons, the trinity.
Excellent. Good food for thought
Consciousness is the ground of Mind, Abstraction, and the material universe, individually, collectively and universally. We can know this immediately through our own experience. All things are only known within our capacity for consciousness; our sensory perceptions, objective data, our thoughts, and our feelings are all known within the subjective, consciousness.
Why cant the physical give rise to consciousness which then gives rise to abstraction? Why are they separated?
If consciousness is the quantum wave function how could the quantum wave modify itself, probably by manifesting a reality following fundamental laws which allow it to separate out portions of itself as little biologic entities capable of containing persistent waves of quantum selfness capable of looking in upon itself and exploring the qualities of perception most preferred. If you have eternity, what would you choose to see in movies, sporting events and wrestling matches to while away the time?
Great discussion
Its not the fact that the universe is mathematical that is an mysterious coincidence but that the mathematical model of the universe is so fine tuned to produce stars planets and complex matter.
BOoOm! Love the video!