William Lane Craig Retrospective I: Kalam Cosmological Argument
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ก.ค. 2022
- Analytic philosopher and Christian apologist William Lane Craig discusses his previous book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument. He talks time, the multiverse, the Standard Model of Cosmology, and the big bang.
Craig's latest book, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration, is available for purchase now: bookshop.org/books/in-quest-o...
William Lane Craig is an analytic philosopher and Christian theologian. He is known for his work in the philosophy of religion, philosophy of time, and the defense of Christian theism.
Register for free at closertotruth.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and produced and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Love the exchange of opinions and knowledge without a heated argument. This is how education works. That’s why I tune in.
This is not education it's misrepresentation and pretending armchair philosophy of one man who read a book Is more valuable than the painstakingly hard proces of gathering data, formulating hypothesis that are actually falsifiable, making it testable and predictable. This is just arrogance.
@@Carlos-fl6ch
Calm down.
@@joshheter1517 Do you also have something substantive to say or just this nonsensical bleating?
@@Carlos-fl6ch
I’d like to respond substantively to your original comment, but I can’t understand what it says. Do you know how to proofread?
@@joshheter1517 Ahhh. Is that so. You know I'll help you. If someone says something you don't, for any possible reason, understand. You ask for clarification. You don't just brabble the first thing that comes to your mind without context to than walk around like you've accomplished anything substantial at all. Yes I may have made grammar errors. But as you are probably an English native, you should be flattered that so many in this world at least try and use your language while they can express themselves better in their own language. Anglocentricism is not a virtue, it's often what causes English natives to lack any skills in foreign languages. So instead of being cocky you might try humility, but that often doesn't seem to be an actual word in English.
I like how Robert referenced the late John Polkinghorne here.
It really shows that he takes his guests seriously if he can still remember his discussions with them, even many years after interviewing them.
I would love to see Kuhn interviewing Wes Morriston and Graham Oppy. They have done a great job at dismantling and rebutting the underpinnings of Craig's kalam.
WLC has almost lost all integrity with his latest response that he reason for being a Christian is due to Pascal’s Wager and that he has to lower his standards of evidence for accepting anything to do with the claims of Christianity or he could not accept any possibility of Christianity being true.
WLC is now a joke.
Adolf Grunbaum also refuted Craig's Kalam.
Amazing, bravo!
Utter garbage
We don't know what time is. We don't know what space is. We don't know where, why, or how everything came from. We know very little and it may always be that way.
Yes, we do.
Typical atheist cop out. "We don't know anything and neither do you," argument. Come on dude seriously?
@@Convexhull210 so, just make something up is better?
@@wafarris is that all you ascertained from the kalam argument? Do you realize the cosmological argument has been one of the most popular arguments critiqued and defended in peer reviewed circles amongst philosophers, theologians, and scientists?
@@Convexhull210
Do you realize that most scientists and philosophers are Atheists and that there is no logical connection between the conclusion of the Kalam "Therefore the universe has a cause“ and "This cause is God“?😂
“Sound or Unsound” - makes me think about John Cage!
Where has WLC written about the Neo-Lorentzian view? Or does anyone know any either historical scholarship or technical physics explications of this view?
What is the difference between nothing and something for which we can have no consciousness or inference of whatsoever? Not even an inference of ignorance or absence.
Something which is neither ignorance or absence or nothing or anything we can assert as a presupposition or postulate?
Interesting interviewed
70 years ago catechism taught that GOD is everywhere. Been trying to get my head around "nothing" ever since.
Getting your head around nothing sounds doable.. lol
I think Mr Craig panicked for a moment.
He realised he is suspended above an abyss clutching a single, unraveling thread.
That's why one of his six "best arguments" for the existence of Yahweh is, personal experience.
@Con.Troller418 He urges for a vague deity he calls "god" but once dodged a debate against Dr. Jaco Gericke over the existence of Yahweh.
How can something be created from nothing? None of the apologists could ever explain that. They say, the universe cannot be eternal, but a personal deity somehow magically can…
because a consciousness can be out of time while eternal regression is not acceptable.
When you invent up things using your imagination, anything is possible.
I like the advaita vedanta explanation. Through the power of maya, pure consciousness becomes it's own object of experience. In reality, nothing exists but consciousness. The world is an appearance in consciousness. It's not an actually existing thing, in the same way the world in your dreams doesn't actually exist, but it appears to be real.
this is the exact reason for the "unmoved mover" argument and against big bang theory. the only other option seems to be an eternal beginningless universe. not sure why they are against this.
Universe has it's separate laws of physics where somethin cannot be createdd from nothin. We dont know the laws of physics outside/prior to our universe so somethin may or may not be created out of nothing. Our laws of physics only apply within our own universe.
We just dont know about outside/prior verses or existences
When time interact with energy, future probabilities develop (wave function?)
WLC? Closer to Truth must be scraping the barrel.
… do you mean “scraping”?
@@joshheter1517 no they dug through the bottom and now they are just scrapping the whole barrel.
@@scambammer6102
… or it’s a typo.
The Kalam only proves that since the universe exists it must have a cause. It says nothing about that cause. WLC uses his beliefs to add to the Kalam so that his god is "proved". The honest answer is we don't know how the universe started. We can propose hypotheses that can be tested. God isn't one of those hypotheses.
WLC has addressed this objection countless times.
There is no proof whatsoever that universes need a cause
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y
Oh wow, I wonder if WLC has ever considered this point. Very thoughtful!
@@joshheter1517 Like WLC is 'thoughtful'. He's nothing but a liar for jesus. He has said multiple times, out of his own face, that he doesn't debate, he evangelizes.
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y
I wonder how he got published in all of those highly-ranked peer reviewed philosophy journals… or how he got those respected presses to publish his books… or why he’s been invited to give so many prestigious lectures?
It’s a real mystery… since he’s not “thoughtful”, as you say.
These are just all assumptions. I am not accepting these arguments as any way closer to truth. He speaks out his mind, but he has no knowledge.
he stole it from aristotle
Reason pressents questions to the mind which Reason cannot answer.
To Infinite and beyond!
In tensed theory of time, how does time become objective?
Where he goes off the rails of objectivity and indulges his private beliefs is when he say this un-caused cause must be a "personal creator". Why personal? Only someone with strong tendencies to already expect to find a god with that particular attributes is going to do that. It's a complete non-sequitur. We don't know how the universe was caused, or what it means to think about time before the big bang, but there's no good reason to expect to find a personal being there. It's the result of pre-existing religious bias, for example if he went into this as a Buddhist he would have no reason to use the term "personal" in this context.
You partly misunderstand the Kalam then.. The “personal” attribute of the cause is due to the fact that there is a “choice” being made by this uncaused first cause to even “want to bring the universe into being or existence.” The creation moment has to do with volition. Hence why it must be a personal force/agent that caused the universe compared to an impersonal force such as gravity, for example. Gravity can’t choose to do something else because it has no volition. Gravity continues to do the same thing over and over again. It can’t “choose” to do something else and it especially can’t “choose” to “create” or bring something into being. Hence, why it must require a personal agent with will power. Impersonal forces are inadequate. So no, it isn’t “religious bias” as you claim but rather abductive reasoning that’s taking place here. And very good abductive reasoning. Again, Intelligent minds have the power to choose to create things, not impersonal forces.
I also failed to include that I think you may have a pre-existing anti-supernatural bias now that you mentioned “religious bias.” I say this with meekness and gentleness.
@@jaredschultz7900 I really don't see any necessity for a choice. It seems completely arbitrary. As for bias against the supernatural, I don't think of it as a bias really, it's just that all the definitions or descriptions of what makes something supernatural as against natural seem to me to be incoherent. For me, if something exists then it is by definition natural (in this sense, as against artificial which in the cosmic sense is just another sub-category of natural). If something affects the universe and can be affected by the universe, then it is part of the universe. If something cannot affect or be affected by the world, then whether it exists or not is moot.
@@jaredschultz7900 now you are assuming motive, which is the same thing as "personal". There's no reason to think that the "cause" (if there was one) had a motive.
@@scambammer6102 The impossibility of a past infinite universe eliminates a deterministic cause like Gravity or a probabilistic cause like Quantum Fluctuation.
Only something capable of altering it's own state _sua sponte_ is even possible as a potential candidate. The cause essentially must have existed timelessly in a state where it could not actualize the universe, and then become able of actualizing the universe at the first moment. The only such entity that exists is a personal agent.
Without a proper direction, how could you get closer to anything?
Bill likes the finite universe and the inflationary model to fit his philosophical model...yet holes in both the standard big bang model and inflationary hypothesis are abound. Something out of nothing does not work either. Way way more work is needed....yet Bill thinks he got it.....not so fast.
bill stole the idea from Aristotle as filtered through early Islaam and Aquinas and then repackaged for sale to modern American morons.
The good thing about atheism is that I don't have to go to a church every Sunday to remind me that I'm an atheist.
not believing all the BS also comes in handy
I wonder why the Universe needs a creator, but not so the Creator.
Because the universe is contingent
Because the universe is finite.
@@HIMYMTR
Great… now prove that the creator isn’t contingent…😉
Because when you exceed what is scientific and logical you're left with fantasy.
In universe, both time and energy travel at speed of light (information)?
The multiverse seems to be a way of thinking about things that accounts for contingency and I wonder if the mathematics used to support it are mathematics that attempt to describe a contingent physical reality.
multiverse is just an escape door to avoid an obvious fine tuning observation
Even an infinite multiverse wouldn’t escape issues of contingency in many arguments that have nothing to do with temporal origins.
multiverse = moving the goal post / kicking the can down the road :)
@@francesco5581 I want to agree, especially in some cases, but I don’t think this is the case for the physicists who put forward the notion. I think they might be lost in the math the way that Sabin mentions. Mathematically you could probably build incredible models of the multi-verse if you had sufficient computing power. This is why I say that I think that the multi-verse is ultimately and acknowledgment of the sort of contingency that exists in nature but maybe even more so in humanity.
@@gingrai00 the problem of the multiverse (not counting that there are and probably never will be proofs of any kind) is that add the concept of "infinite universes" ... infinite (like eternity backward) is some kind of thing that i think cannot exist in reality. Infinite can exist mathematically but not logically . To me at least.
Doesn't the first law of thermodynamics implies that energy always existed and wasn't "created"?
Please give an interview with Santa Claus next
Why?
@@joshheter1517 If Santa can deliver all those presents in one night I’m sure he might have some answers about the universe and how it started. Maybe different dimensions or time standing still.
@@jeffamos9854 it would be a long 34 hour night spread around differnt time zones!
@@jeffamos9854 I believe you’re referring to Daniel Dennett
"Empirical theories" are not to the point. Robert should have asked Craig the following questions: Is there any metaphysical or conceptual incoherence in the idea of an infinite past?; Is the idea of "something from (literally) nothing" incoherent? If the answer to either of these questions is No, Craig's position is undermined.
or maybe your question is flawed and both guys on the screen are more capable and intelligent than you to ask and answer questions that make sense....
@@EnigMagnum Ballocks. Who the hell are you? I'm a professional philosopher specialising in Metaphysics. Robert is not a philosopher and doesn't know what to ask. Craig is a good philosopher, I would just like to hear his answer to the key questions (of which he is well aware). So get lost, pal.
@@briangarrett2427 WJC has already answered both of those questions "yes". The reason is because he doesn't like the other answer. Seriously.
@@scambammer6102 no i didn't hear him say that. He said that some people think the universe had a beginning. That doesn't imply that an endless universe is impossible. Anyway it's not enough to say it. It needs to be argued for.
Never explain General Relativity in 15 minutes to a philosopher. 🙄
there are 5 kalema's in the mentioned religion,
in one of them it is exactly written that , "The Creator has created the universe out of nothing"
WJC agrees with that except his "creator" is christian
Can time interact with energy to become objective?
They can but there is nobody to them to do so
WLC @ his finest!
@@IntellectuallySuperior2U Typical Internet ignorant!!!
"WLC @ his -finest- funniest!"
Fixed.
@@con.troller4183 Academic Influence ranked Craig the thirteenth most influential philosopher in the world over the previous three decades (1990-2020), his h-index places him above the top philosophers of religion.
@@prime_time_youtube That's an emotional argument. It is also an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. Not that the website you refer to is any sort of authority. Craigs page there doesn't actually say what you claim and the rankings they do give are without context. I mean, what does a World Ranking in Philosiophy e of #135 actuallky mean? They don't say.
Being effective spreading lies doesn't make Craig's lies the truth. Influence is about how well you disseminate your views, not necessarily the quality of your content.
All of his fundamental arguments, like Kalam, are flawed and can be objectively shown to be flawed. That's what's important. Not the feels people get.
@@con.troller4183 *That's an emotional argument*
Nope, it is not. Those are objective indicators.
*It is also an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy*
Nope, it is not fallacy. It is an ARGUMENT from Authority, which is different. Here is a quote from Stanford's Encyclopedia:
_The ad verecundiam fallacy concerns appeals to authority or expertise. Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority _*_*BUT IS NOT REALLY AN AUTHORITY*_*
Taken from: Fallacies (Stanford's Encyclopedia)
*Not that the website you refer to is any sort of authority.*
The h-index is by far one of the most important Author-level metrics, if not the most important one. All author-level metrics have and WILL have problems, but the h-index very relevant in Academia.
Here is the quote from an h-index critic:
_The most common such measure is the h-index. A scientist’s h-index affects hiring, promotion, and funding decisions, and thus shapes the progress..._
You may think that the h-index should be updated. Ok, but that does not change the fact that TODAY, in the Academic world, it is the most important metric.
Baby don't like it? Well, just cry.
*I mean, what does a World Ranking in Philosiophy*
LOL! There is a section called "Methodology". You just need to read it... lazy. But again, the h-index is the most important metric either you like it or not.
*Being effective spreading lies doesn't make Craig's lies the truth*
Neither to you!
*Influence is about how well you disseminate your views*
Nope. That's your amusing definition of influence, you are not being academically methodological and you are not considered an authority by no one ever.
You really think that? Well, nobody cares.
*All of his fundamental arguments, like Kalam, are flawed and can be objectively shown to be flawed*
False, Philosophers may give objections, but there is no definitive refutation. Many top philosophers hold Causal Finitism and the principle "from nothing, nothing comes". So, both premises of the Kalam have supporters to this day.
You don't like the argument? No one ever will care.
How would finite work with a time cycle that starts at 1 second and ends at 360 in degrees? Considering infinity can only go forward in time.
why can infinity only go forward in time?
@@scambammer6102 that is what they are saying?
@@kricketflyd111 Well, I heard that too, but I don't agree with it.
@@scambammer6102 I figure if in a universe that is expanding then we are just somewhere in the time of it's eternity and it goes both ways in time and dimension.
@@scambammer6102 that would include multiverse.
Jeder Mensch ist eine Zahl. Die, die gleichzeitig geboren wurden, um genau der selben Uhrzeit, sind...?
"William Lane Craig discusses his previous book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument"
For those who may not be familiar with this argument, I will present it here:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
That is the Kalam Cosmological Argument in it's entirety.
Does Craig have anything to say in defense of the premises? Has he ever elaborated on the conclusion?
@@joshheter1517 Craig has taken the actual Kalam argument and tacked on his own personally chosen additional premises.
Those can be ignored, since they are not part of the Kalam Argument.
@@cnault3244
I mean, if you just want to insist on saying that “The Kalam Cosmological Argument” only refers to that very basic syllogism and nothings else…
… I guess you’re free to do that.
I’m not exactly sure what’s interesting about that. But, okay.
@@joshheter1517 "I mean, if you just want to insist on saying that “The Kalam Cosmological Argument” only refers to that very basic syllogism and nothings else…"
I am stating a fact. I guess if you aren't interested in working with facts..
@@cnault3244
Please cite your source. Please be very specific.
Does causation have absolute frame of reference in universe?
no. that's one of the flaws in the Kalam is that there are many theories of causation, often inconsistent, none of which are completely satisfactory. The Kalam is an argument for dim school children, ie WJC's target audience.
@@scambammer6102 TFW Atheists have to literally deny causation to save their worldview. 😂😂😂
@@grantgooch5834 So...what you got out of that is I am denying causation? Must be a WLC fan. What I said is that causation is more complicated than WLC's simplistic syllogism.
@@grantgooch5834 "TFW Atheists have to literally deny causation to save their worldview."
Actually, Theists deny causation. They just disguise their denial as faith in god, who has.... wait for it........ *NO CAUSE.*
Silly theists. Semantics are for kids.
Classic logical fallacy
Thanks for this. Very helpful.
William Lane Craig? Really? So many honest people to invite and you choose him?
Kalam is just too practical explanation of material world...
I'm a bit baffled by all this. We just don't know why there is something rather than nothing, but WLC ignores this and draws conclusions without evidence. So what that the universe doesn't have an infinite pass? That doesn't mean any God created the universe.
most likely the universe does have an "infinite" past is some form
Does humanity hold a unique and privileged position in this theory?
yes, because the "creator" is an all-powerful being who exists outside of space and time and looks and thinks just like us.
@@scambammer6102 This view of a creator is restricted to the Abrahamic religions. The Eastern religions have a somewhat different opinion.
@@mitseraffej5812 Well, you asked about "this theory". Eastern religions vary a lot amongst themselves. Some of them are anthropocentric. Even the ones that aren't overtly are implicitly. They are all made up by humans.
@@mitseraffej5812 If you read scambammer's other posts here you will know he is being tongue in cheek and cheekily literal at the same time.
Perhaps he intends to show that WLC stumbles from having no way to support any of his premises to, "therefore Yahweh". There's a series of non-sequiturs along the way but we all know where he is going. That's why the faithful think he's brilliant. They love his conclusions.
Dr Craig seems to confuse the start of the inflation of "our" instantiation of the universe with the beginning of "the" universe, meaning everything that ever existed.The "present model" that the doctor talks of attempts to explain only to the first.
Don't expect a christian to make a valid interpretation of physics.
the claim that "our laws don't apply to the preceding universe" is the same argument he could use for "creation ex nihilo". IE multiverse/preceding universe is just another "god of the gaps" argument.
Read the Bible. That's how it happened.
@@OsvaldoBayerista well, he's also not a physicist or cosmologist, and hasn't the foggiest clue what he is talking about.
@@janicebeams2389 I read the bible, it's garbage
The pour singularity b4 the big bang is ignored hence the beginning of the universe from nothing.... i acknowledge you singularity and your existence 👍
Why ‘theologist,’ and not ‘theologian,’ as a descriptor for Craig?
Why not charlatan as the fact that Craig is one is well established.
@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 what's hilarious is that WJC now thinks Genesis is ridiculous. Oh but virgin birth, guiding stars and risen dead guys makes perfect sense to him.
Actually, the finite present is a formation of the infinite past or the infinite presence. Time is a formation out of the infinite present. Time passes by infinitely fast in the absence of the existence of matter and gravity. Time slows down with gravity. We literally exist in slow motion in the presence of the gravity of matter.
thats awesome! Makes sense to me
@@js8270 Time is a real fabrication that we are in. It’s the direct result of matter in the vicinity.
The idea that the universe goes to infinity back in time is too much for my brain. Most probably the universe had a beginning and that fact makes me think how special and miraculous is the reality..its special in the most profound way. Imagine there is nothing, not even that nothing that we all imagine :)...and then suddently, a reality. And on top of that, as "a second big bang", life happend..
"too much for my brain" you realize that's not a valid argument?
@@scambammer6102 Compared to your pro infinity, argument, which is? I am not excluding the possibility. I am only saying that i can't comprehend with my mind such a thing..
@@scambammer6102 I don't even know if you can test it. How can you test if the universe has no beginng?
@@adelinrapcore not too much for my brain. Also not too much for the brains of most qualified physicists.
@@scambammer6102 sure, but the argument is?
The scientist Stephen Hawking believed that in one form or another, the universe always existed. If his system of belief just happened to be correct, then consciousness and suffering of all forms of life is natural, and there never was any judge-mental creator in existence, or any afterlife where souls of only humans go to be punished or rewarded.
"I still believe the universe has a beginning in real time, at the big bang. But there's another kind of time, imaginary time, at right angles to real time, in which the universe has no beginning or end." -Stephen Hawking Black Holes and Baby Universes
Using 'BigBang' Cosmology & 'TheStandardModel' . . .
as 'evidence' for
Exclusivistic Claiming 'Christian' Apologetics . . .
IS a 'BlackSwan'
for
'BigBang' Cosmology & 'TheStandardModel'
The mystery of consciousness keeps coming up until we are capable of defining its nature. Only then we would know if consciousness could've possibly been the motive behind the existence of the universe. To find out we would need to know if consciousness is ever existing and if it can be aware of itself without a body. Because if this is the case then the natural will of our consciousness to know/experience itself could have been the reason behind the existence of the universe which is making it possible for consciousness to experience itself.
I think you nailed that. I could actually follow your logic. Well said
this is what ramana maharshi and nisargadatta maharj both teach.
BS. All we need for proof of the origin of the Universe & Life ... is to e fully define the INTELLIGENCE & FUNCTION categories ... using natural & unnatural phenomena which are known subcategories.
Man is a Natural Intelligence. Logically there is an UNNATURAL intelligence. So you define the Intelligence Category only using features, characteristics, properties of a natural intelligence and are NOT unique to that subcategory.
A machine is an unnatural physical Function.
Life are natural physical Functions.
Mathematics & Law are unnatural abstract functions.
Atom, molecule, elements are natural physical Functions
Laws of Nature are natural abstract Functions.
The Laws of Physics are unnatural abstract Functions.
So the Function categories is subdivided into the natural & unnaturral functions .. then subdivided into the abstract & physical Functions.
By fully defining the Intelligence & Functions category using all known types ... you can identify what is or isn't an intelligence or function. And if demonstrate clear causal link to a natural phenomena, then you have the proof.
Only an intelligence makes Functions.
And everything including the only known intelligence ... is a function.
Animals, Man, Angels & God ... are different types of entities ... with there own type of Mind .. an down type of free will, nature & consciousness.
The Mind of an intelligence is Unnatural & nonphysical ( ie soul/spirit)
The Mind of Man is natural ( brain ) & unnatural ( soul).
Man has a body & soul ... and both have free will & consciousness.
This is why the Son of God said 2000 years ago:
"Love God with all your heart, mind & soul."
The Body & Soul .. can Love or Hate .... God. The body of Man is his Nature. And this is why the Messiah had to be born of a virgin and have a corrupt body. You body will either sin or convince your soul to sin.
This all has to do with the type of MIND ... no a function of a mind.
You’re making a case. But the problem is that you’re assuming you can start from autonomous reasoning and get to the truth
That’s impossible.
Science makes no truth claims. All scientific conclusions and theories are provisional strictly.
So your worldview paints you into a corner where you have to literally deny knowledge and hence contradict yourself and justify beliefs based on arbitrariness.
@@deanodebo The Laws of physics are "truths," facts & information ... that an intelligence ... extracted from various types of "natural " Functions ... using an abstract function called scientific method.
Science(function) completely relies on the Laws of Nature(functions) for Man (function) to to explain natural phenomena(functions) and acquire ( data, information, knowledge ( functions) about this Universe ( function) and things of it( functions).
Only an intelligence makes, maintain, improves, fine tunes ... abstract & physical Functions.
Everything in the Universe is a Function.
Every Function possesses & requires INFORMATION to exist & to function.
Information only comes from the MIND of an Intelligence.
Everything in this "physical" existence comes from the MIND of an intelligence..
Only an intelligence can make Functions that possess INFORMATION.
Only an intelligence can extract INFORMATION from a Function ... made by an intelligence.
This is all about the mind of an intelligence.
For a natural mind of an intelligence .. was made by ... a ridiculously powerful UNNATURAL mind of an intelligence.
And all entities that have a MIND ... will have their own type of mind, free will, nature & consciousness.
Animals have their own type of mind, free will, nature & consciences.
Man's mind is natural ( brain) & unnatural(soul) because the mind of an intelligence ... is unnatural & nonphysical.
God is the mind & consciousness who made the Universe for Man to live with Him forever as His children.
But Man has free will & a nature ... and the rest is history.
What is the development of creation from nothing in bible?
Trust me on this one...ask Lawrence Krauss questions regarding the beginning of the universe not a two bit hack and phoney like Craig.
LOL Lawrence Krauss is a fanatic atheist just like Craig is a fanatic christian.
I'm still waiting for WLC to demonstrate the supernatural.
For anyone with ongoing nausea, listen to Craig for a few seconds and you'll finally puke.
The lie of Christ and or any God for that matter has and will always make the world less than. The truth is that we only get this one life. All the eons before your birth will be exactly like all the eons after your death. So forcing someone to give birth, or dictate who they can love and marry or who they want to be while here makes no sense. The only heaven we humans will ever get is if we work together to create it and the cults of religions will always stand in the way. Because the world will always be hopeless and less than with the belief in Christ or any other God! Why take responsibility to make the world better when a magically invisible being is going to solve all your problems? Why focus on making this world better when you believe something better awaits after death?
amen
Correction. No models you are willing to spend five minutes thinking about. What you are attempting to describe of the infinite is simple, but it won't sit in the lethargic language habituation format. Again, I know this cannot be perceived, but it is likely there is sentience elsewhere
these ppl read books like drinking water everyday the bg is all books x.x, i use anime bg in my video calls :(
WLC?! Seriously?! SMFH
He’s one of the most cited philosophers of religion in academia of the past generation.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
@@joshheter1517 Cited by theologians and philosophers of religion. The Kalam, which is WLC's whole life, is BS
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y
Yes. An academic philosopher was cited by other academic philosophers. A stunning insight on your part.
@@joshheter1517 The fact that he is cited by colleges in a discipline of philosophy that I find ridiculous doesn't help your case
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y “That I find ridiculous”
Sounds like a you problem ngl
Even if the universe somehow started from pure nothingness, it takes a leap of faith to say it’s a person who existed who decided to design and create and another leap of faith to say it’s Jesus or some other earthly ancient civilization discovery. I am never impressed by medieval theology apologetics.
Not a person, but God.
@@krisspinden if we start by accepting that anything that exist must have something behind it, we are not going anywhere. Or more accurately, we are going to infinity.
@@AbdallahbnAbbad not if the definition of God is the preexisting or the uncreated creator.
@@krisspinden problem is this is circular logic. You make a definition and say it’s true because it’s by definition.
Started from pure nothigngness , is an incoherent statement . Nothing isnt something that can be progressed from. Nothing can only be and can only go to nothing. The universe is the place where EVERYTHING is.
William Lane Craig is becoming less and less relevant these days which is a good thing. His past videos have been able to generate numerous views but today he struggles to reach a public. Therefore he frequently visit popular channels that give him an audience.
From the get go the nonsense is clear.
The Kalam is not sound. The premises compare coming to existence ex materia with coming to existence ex nihilo. It's simply nonsensical.
Than the claim is that the universe came to being ex nihilo. If there is nothing I mean absolutely nothing than there cannot even be laws of nature nor logic. Nothing means nothing. So how can you than use logic to claim to know what is and is not possible in a situation where nothing exists. What is happening is that WLC claims there is nothing except what his intuition tells him is necessary for his preferred worldview to work.
The arrogance when talking about the standard model is excruciatingly painful to even watch. Many many many scientists have and are working on the standard model around the clock. Now one man reads a few books on the subject and decided that he should school those scientists who did the hard work and explain to them where they are wrong while often misrepresenting their position I particular and science in general. Sounds foolish to me.
The standard model, as have been explained to WLC over and over again by scientists doest in anyway say that the universe has a beginning. Big bang cosmology is classical mechanics the universe however and it's beginning in particular is dependent on quantum mechanics. At the big bang classical mechanics break down. The rules of classical mechanics simply don't work on that level. So any definite position on the subject is nonsensical. It would be more honest to say we don't know so right now I am absolutely speculating and pretending that my armchair speculation is more valuable than the hard work done by people who spent a lifetime working on these matter, because I have read a book.
BGV is only about inflation in our local presentation of the universe. It doesn't exclude that big bang and inflation started many many times. In different locations.
All these models can be part of an infinite past. Why would a so called leading philosopher choose to misrepresent the science behind his claims so purposely.
Just make your choice. It's neo lorentzian or relativity. What Craig says here is that the universe is playing a trick on us making us believe that relativity is real but we should rely on our intuition to understand that time is not relative. That's so extremely funny.
I see Craig still doesn't understand modern cosmology. He keeps repeating his garbage, even though several cosmologists and astrophysicists, and even other apologists and philosophers have corrected him, even in open debates.
He just ignores everything and keeps regurgitating his nonsensical theistic excrement. He truly is a dishonest liar.
To think I used to respect him...., even look up to him... such a disappointment.
Modern cosmologists don't know what they are talking about.
@@janicebeams2389 Ah, a science denier. Well at least theists are consistent in their folly and love of ignorance.
@@andreasplosky8516 I don't deny science, I establish it. The Cosmology of David explains the young cosmos in detail. Just because you parrot errant science doesn't mean you know anything about cosmology or science in general. It just means you are a highly evolved parrot.
What does Craig get wrong?
@@TBOTSS Look it up for yourself. I am not spending precious time doing the work for you.
If there was a creator which gave birth to the universe, then it must be a goddess not god.
Also if inflation theory is true, then there are multiple goddess working together, which is in line with the philosophy of Hinduism.
Gosh. His whole philosophy starts and ends with the Kalam argument. What a waste of time and energy.
This Vs people like Penrose who can use maths and science to form their beliefs, rather than pure philosophical masturbation
Dr. Kuhn, Craig is a conservative evangelical apologist with some absurd opinions. He is not a serious scholar. Moreover, he believes you're going to hell, and he's perfectly fine with the idea. He is a profoundly damaged man.
I wish you wouldn't waste your time and ours with fundamentalists and fanatics.
the whole premise of the show is wasting time with fundamentalists and fanatics
@@scambammer6102 No, he talks to serious scholars of religion as well as scientists.
He is an religieus man and talking from religieus point i dont see hem as a free sceintist.
God this is dumb. We have no examples of "no thing", nor does sound reasoning reference to no thing in their theory.
In good faith (no pun intended), would you agree that the fundamental premise for science is that effects have causes? If that premise is not true, then what is the point of science? After all, one could merely say, “This has always existed” and we are done. If the premise underlying science that effects have causes is true, then all of us are in a conundrum, including Krauss. Why? It’s because the claim that the eternal nature of anything (including quantum fields a la Krauss) violates the underlying premise of science.
Three choices:
1) eternal contingencies - fits the scientific premise, but cannot be proved by science as we are simply following the turtles and don’t know if they’ll stop. Therefore, this claim is also a faith based claim.
2) eternal nature of some fundamental physical aspect of nature (ie quantum fields) - violates premise of science and is thus a faith based claim. In a very real sense, this is the “god of the gaps” argument by science. Also, it’s a magical claim.
3) eternal nature of some first mover who exists outside of space time - impossible to scientifically define, violates premise of science, also a faith based claim, and also a magical claim
Any of the above may be true, but we cannot prove it via science.
@Bruce Wing I can't discern no reason as to "why" the universe exists. Whether it's always existed or otherwise, we may as well say it just exists, but we're curious optimizers. What's our plan once we discover enough that we feel we know the why? Assume it's possible to discover such a thing. Whether we assume a sky daddy or not, my ego is illusory. I'll just try to be as good to the universe as I can. Can't see anything wrong with that.
@@niceu9197 - I did not address a why. I addressed the fundamental premise of science. Do you agree with the premise? If not, why not? If so, aren’t we still in a culdesac of theories that are each grounded in faith, not evidence? And aren’t each of the theories based on inferential reason?
If science is based on the premise that effects have causes AND that there can be no abstract first cause, then the believer of infinite causes has a faith based belief that there will always be another explanatory cause for a given deeper discovery. He will never find the ultimate answer. If instead, one believes in the eternal nature of a physical aspect of the universe BECAUSE one can find no cause for the said effect, that believer is violating the core scientific principle that applies to every other thing science studies (effects have causes). If the believer looks for an abstract first mover (like many mathematicians believe that math exists as an abstract object outside of space and time), one cannot define that first mover even if one is logically deducing that, as everything else in this universe seems to have had a cause, the solution must lie outside of the universe.
It’s important not to conflate a first mover with any specific religious tenet.
@@niceu9197 - By the way, you write you want to be “good to the universe”. Do you believe “good” can be defined in a way that is universally agreed upon? If so, you are in the metaphysics of Plato’s Forms… and the less well articulated tenets of most religions.
@@StrategicWealthLLC no just based on my own understanding
Sad to see this channel throw away its credibility on this flimflam artist Craig.
This is just sad......
Why is it sad?
Past cannot be infinite. There was a point when time neither went forward nor backward.
says who, you?
Ignoramus!
He’s god?…
Here's the deal Bill, you do all this "I love science stuff" cause it agrees with my supernatural gobbley-gook. But tell me this how did this mythical creature that put this all together end up 13.8 billion years later in a manger in some no name backwater place in what we now call the middle east? Listeners, don't fall for this BS. Bob, you need to hold his theocratic feet to the fire.
Shame on you for giving this charlatan a platform, Kuhn! There's a truth for you!
Shame on you for throwing around wild accusations with no way to back them up
@@MACHO_CHICO , Nothing wild about them! Earlier I provided the facts of the matter. Do even a modicum of research & you'll see for yourself what this snake oil salesman is all about.
@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 I have done plenty of research actually, and what I see are people like Lawrence Krauss screaming that he’s misrepresenting the science and yet his quantum vacuum alternative isn’t any better.
Are you assuming he’s a charlatan simply because he’s an apologist? That would very much be begging the question no?
CRAIG: The universe began to exist.
Or DID it?? How do you know? How COULD you know.
Sounds like a baseless assertion. It's also begging the question except you have disguised it with a precondition you cannot prove.
Derp.
Having WLC here really takes you "further from truth".
Great video, please do a interview with Jordan Peterson?
Peterson does not do science or philosophy, what is his value here?
Please don’t. Ugh.
Peterson has gone the way of political hack, I don’t expect we will see any new gems of wisdom coming from him anymore
Good one!!! You're very funny
WLC is a genius.
...in the snake oil business.
LMFAO
@@TurinTuramber Oh look
Another blatantly untrue accusation
@@MACHO_CHICO You disagree with my assessment of apologetics? Pity they couldn't back up what they say with empirical facts and evidence, then they could sue me.
@@TurinTuramber Empirical data is the entire point of cosmological arguments like the kalam and natural theology in general.
It is you who needs to show the universe is truly infinite and thus didn’t need a beginning.
".. that it is an uncaused, um... changeless, spaceless, timeless, enorrrmously powerful, *personal* creator... " WLC
He's a career apologists so, of course he can utter that nonsense with a straight face.
WLC... what an objective waste of everyone's time. None the less, respect to Dr. Kuhn for giving everyone, even this disingenuous scumbag, an opportunity to make fools of themselves!
I love how people like you can throw around these wild accusations yet consistently fail to back them up.
Please seek help.
@@MACHO_CHICO Yup, Craig has been throwing out this BS for years and can't back any of it up
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y That’s just blatantly untrue.
Look how much has been written about it over the last several decades. For something so indefensible that sure seems strange.
@@MACHO_CHICO people wrote about the flat earth for millennia and they still do. Do you believe in the flat earth?
0'12" Billy Liar deliberately misrepresents the Standard Model... in fact he gets it fractally wrong. But then he's as poor a physicist as he is a "philosopher".
How does he misrepresent it? Please be very specific. Cite your source.
@@joshheter1517 this really isn't complicated. But if you're too lazy/dishonest to spend 10 minutes googling modern thinking about the "beginning" of the universe - and trust WLC's blatant misrepresentation instead - then it says a whole lot about your academic integrity.
@@midlander4
1. Refuse to defend your claim.
2. Lob insults and accusations at your opponent.
Yes, it is *I* whose academic integrity is in question.
@@joshheter1517 excellent dodge. You're not a cosmologist, are you? You're a "professional" philosopher. So why don't you just stay in your lane?
@@midlander4
I asked a question, you declined to answer it. I’ve made no claims about cosmology; how exactly am I outside of my lane?
More importantly… are *you* a cosmologist?!
It would seem that the evidence for a personal God is growing as we build more powerful tools for detecting life in other places yet keep coming up empty. If intelligent life is out there in a vast eternal and infinite reality it would seem we should have come across it. We could be all there is this would be strong evidence for a personal God.
I'm not exactly sure why this is evidence of a personal God. Because, even if there is intelligent life with souls He would also be their personal God.
Zero evidence, absolutely zero evidence!
@@krisspinden
Yes that makes some sense, though personal would imply a more focused God and if we were all there was it would lesson his focus so he could be more personally involved with us.
@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 zero evidence of God's existence? From a rational perspective I at least could say that it is just as rational to believe in a God as it is to not believe in God. There really is no satisfying answer for the existence of creation from a strictly materialistic perspective and God is a beautiful way to attempt to explain the unexplainable. That certainly does not prove God's existence but it is plausible.
@@mickeybrumfield764 God by some definitions is omnipresent and omnipotent, meaning everywhere alway and all powerful. So, there is no limit to His ability to be guiding everyone's heart.
matter came out of nothingness... but some kind of consciousness existed (and exist) out of time.
There are many videos on TH-cam by people without Masters or Doctorates showing how easy it is to destroy Craig's arguments here -- which are nothing more than a superficial updating of a proof for God already demolished and shown to be logically weak and untenable all the way back in medieval times. Craig just panders to people needing to hear someone with a degree saying their beliefs are correct -- even though they really don't have a clue what he's talking about. Craig is a lightweight -- at best. At worst, he's no more than a Flat Earthers or Six Day Creationist making money by going from Church to Church -- usually the ones located in the Southern States -- following behind those preaching Qanon conspiracies and claiming Donald Trump is God's Chosen One.
Are you done?
What proof is Craig's argument an "updating" of?
I don't blame WLC, I couldn't prove the case for God either. If it wasn't for superstitious needy people, then the word God would be antiquated.
Sir, if you aren’t going to order anything, please exit the drive-thru.
@@legron121 The earliest formulations of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God dates back to 11th century Islamic philosophers and theologians -- and has not generally been considered convincing or logically consistent for centuries now. People who already believe there's a God, however, do occasionally try to revive it and give it credence in a similar fashion as they do with arguments such as the uncaused Cause or the complexity of Nature suggesting intelligent design. All these are now pretty much just considered in the realm of religious apologetics -- not serious philosophy.
Both ideas, one of the existence of "absolutely nothing" before a point in the past, and one of the "multiverses", are wrong.
When you can break in reality the absolutely universal, real, and continuous chain of real "material" cause and effect, then you can say anything you want about anything ( thing that you can't do, and nobody can't ).
Stop talkindg stupidities and nonsense!
KCA is deceptively a simple one. To refute it, just provide your own theory why it is wrong to say that the universe had a finite past,
and secondly, provide your theory how it is wrong to say that the cause of the universe must be a god who is beginningless.
If you challenge Craig with theories, he will surely be glad to respond to them. He is a philosopher who is happy to argue. Personal bashing gets nowhere.
*just provide your own theory why it is wrong to say that the universe had a finite past*
There's a problem with your statement. Philosophically speaking, causal finitism is the best model, so, there cannot be a infinite set of causes. Koon's Grimm Reaper's argument really does not seem to have a flaw and it avoids the division of time that confused many people.
Now, sum this argument with all other evidence for the beginning of the Universe of the Standard Model (which is mathematically consistent AND physically realistic) then you have the most robust model which is preferable against other alternatives.
To my knowledge, the only way to avoid the Grimm Reaper is to admit there are absurdities, which is self-refuting.
*secondly, provide your theory how it is wrong to say that the cause of the universe must be a god who is beginningless*
The KCA does not conclude what you think. The assessment of the cause tells us that this is an uncaused, immaterial, spaceless, timeless, powerful and personal cause.
The word "god" is not included in the assessment. Nothing in the argument concludes "God exists", theists use this assessment to say "this cause is what we call 'God'."
To be clear: It mustn't be a god, the word "God" is just a tag name for the cause.
to refute it just deny the premises. it's pure speculation.
@@scambammer6102That is a terrible approach! You cannot just deny Causal Finitism saying it is speculation! There are a lot of arguments that argue for it (like the Green Reaper Argument) to just say arbitrarily say it is "speculation". In fact, the only way to avoid Causal Finitism is to be open to absurdities... which is absurd!
@@prime_time_youtube Don't waste your time with this idiot. He's spammed replies to every comment and can't even write out the argument correctly.
He thinks the first premise is "everything has a cause." 🤣🤣🤣
What nonsense . The notion that there was something before something else created EVERYTHING is absurd. if God created the place where EVERYTHING EXISTS then where was he? No where? How can you be no where if you created everywhere ?
Dummy
Outside of space, whatever that means.
If you take a strictly materialistic perspective you could say, "how could something come from nothing?" and conclude that there must have always been something since something could never arise from nothing.
But, to your point, where did God exist before there was something? To a materialist this seems like a contradiction. However, given the definition of God as something outside of the material realm there is no contradiction. God could have always existed brfore matter existed.
If all you knew was the inside of your windowless house, the notion of outside of your house would be considered nonsense.
@@ronaldmorgan7632 Yes, but outside of space is impossible to imagine. I tend to think that consciousness itself is somehow outside of space.
Thanks for bringing Bill Craig to the show, Robert! Let us remember that satan is extremely powerful and will do literally everything to shake our faith in God until the very last moment of our lives. In Jesus name, Amen.
praying on youtube is super weird
@@joelapeterson it's for the alogithm
Nothing new under the sun. The worlds minds continue to look for alternatives to God. Furthermore, if the universe had a beginning, it had to come from something other than itself. How can something finite create itself? Is this logical/reasonable? Self-evidently, the universe itself couldn't have existed before its own beginning. Those are just facts. Enough with I don’t know. Ignorance isn’t excuse to not ask hard questions.
The universe emerged from an initial dense state.