William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll | "God and Cosmology" | 2014 Greer Heard Forum
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 มี.ค. 2014
- For more resources visit: www.reasonablefaith.org
On Friday, February 21st, 2014, philosopher and theologian, Dr William Lane Craig, was invited by the Greer Heard Forum to debate Dr Sean Carroll, an atheist theoretical physicist. The topic of debate was, "God and Cosmology: The Existence of God in Light of Contemporary Cosmology." The rigorous debate was concluded by a lengthy question and answer period with the audience.
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel: / drcraigvideos
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Add Reasonable Faith On Facebook: / reasonablefaithorg
![William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens | "Does God Exist?" | Biola University | [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P0XRQd9YOUM/mqdefault.jpg)
![William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens | "Does God Exist?" | Biola University | [HD]](/img/tr.png)
Yeah, this is the debate that ended Craig's career. The cosmological argument was laughable before he was born, and that's all he had going for him. WLC is a one trick pony. And you have to admit, he mastered his trick pretty well. Got the better of some famous atheists who either didn't know any science or philosophy, or both, in the past.
Carroll publicly took away his trick. The shtick didn't work on an actual scientist who significantly out-qualified him on the subject matter, and also had a pretty good grasp on philosophy and could navigate his ramblings. WLC was *shaken* by the end of this debate. Don't know why some people still take him seriously.
Carroll made some pretty big mistakes on both the philosophy side *and* the science side. If you haven't had a chance yet, check out Dr. Craig's post-debate remarks:
www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/some-reflections-on-the-sean-carroll-debate
www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/further-reflections-on-the-sean-carroll-debate
www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/still-more-reflections-on-the-sean-carroll-debate
- RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg It's funny that once you really hone in on it, apоlоgists are all basically the same. Even the most educated and erudite apоlоgist, after enough pressure, is reduced to mumbling under their nose "b-but muh sumthin from nuthin" like an uneducated redneck repeating what their pastоr had told them. Which is what WLC does AGAIN, SEVERAL times, in his response. As Sean Carroll put so elegantly in the debate, repeating the opponent's argument in an incredulоus tone is not a cоunter-argument. But that is half of WLC personality; mocking his оppоnent by saying "bicycles/elephants pоpping out of nothing" to win over the crowd with a funny straw-man.
He is wrong when he claimed that the Hartle-Hawking model is NOT uncaused. Again, WLC is speaking out of his depth, or dishоnest. That is not surprising as he already demonstrated that he is willing to do so in this debate, when he misrepresented the model, or claimed to know better than the author of a model, in respect to Sean Carroll and Alan Guth. Every time he speaks about these models it is painfully obvious what he is; a philosоpher that is talking about a topic WAY outside his area of expertise. He knows JUST enough physics to stump an atheist oppоnent who knows nothing about physics. Obviously this did not work with an actual physicist like Carroll who was willing to challenge the premises of his argument.
And honestly, you think that WLC, a philosоpher who fails to accurately represent or even understand these models, at any point proved that Carroll made mistakes on the science side? Perhaps he could succeed in wоrd-salad'ing his way to show that Carroll made some mistakes on the philоsophy side (though it was hilarious to read WLC fuming about Carroll claiming that he is "wrong but also not even wrong", as if Carroll was making some rigorous formal logical argument with that statement). A teenager could read Hawking's pоpscience books and come out with a better understanding of various models of both a finite and infinite Universe than WLC. But WLC is an intelligent, highly educated man who uses his brain power to philosophy-mumbo-jumbo towards a conclusion that is fundamentally based on the inebriаted musings of illiterate sаvаges. And he uses the same argument for 40 years. An argument. Not evidence, not a demonstration. An argument that is based on medieval philosophy.
This is the best theists got. And it's nothing.
Of course, you want people to check out his post debate comments, when he can repeat his misunderstanding and appeals to authorities who don't agree with him.
If he wants a rematch with Carroll, I'm sure he'd entertain it. Craig got absolutely embarrassed when Carroll showed that the very cosmologist he cited debunked him. It was the best debunking of Craig of all time. You can't expect people to watch his post debate videos with any kind of assurance when he was caught lying and or misunderstanding science so many times in this debate.
His performance was an absolute joke, and like the original comment says, he was finally exposed as a novice in terms of scientific understanding. You lost fantastically, and you should accept your loss with integrity.
@@Horny_Fruit_Flies Comment 2/3 Craig won the Sean Carroll debate
Consider Guth’s 2007 paper Eternal inflation and its implications. In the abstract Guth writes,
“Although inflation is generically eternal into the future, it is not eternal into the past: it can be proven under reasonable assumptions that the inflating region must be incomplete in past directions…”Perhaps Guth is saying that inflation is not eternal into the past but the universe itself can still be eternal into the past? No. On page 14, Guth writes,
“If the universe can be eternal into the future, is it possible that it is also eternal into the past? Here I will describe a recent theorem [43] which shows, under plausible assumptions, that the answer to this question is no.”
Guth then describes the 2003 BGV incompleteness theorem. An interesting footnote demands examination. A theorem is considered most powerful when it has the widest possible applicability. The footnote discusses earlier theorems on the topic which were not as powerful as the 2003 version:
There were also earlier theorems about this issue by Borde and Vilenkin (1994, 1996) [44, 45], and Borde [46] (1994), but these theorems relied on the weak energy condition, which for a perfect fluid is equivalent to the condition ρ + p ≥ 0. This condition holds classically for forms of matter that are known or commonly discussed as theoretical proposals. It can, however, be violated by quantum fluctuations [47], and so the applicability of these theorems is questionable.
The added value of the 2003 theorem is that it applies to a much wider set of models. The earlier theorems could be violated by quantum fluctuations but Guth appears to be saying that criticism does not apply to the 2003 theorem.
Guth’s paper then goes on to describe a cosmological model that evades BGV theorem, the Aguirre-Gratton model. Earlier Guth had commented that no model with “reasonable” or “plausible” assumptions could evade BGV theorem. One must conclude that in Guth’s judgment the Aguirre-Gratton model does not have reasonable or plausible assumptions. But this is the model Sean Carroll endorsed in the debate.
When I saw the picture of Guth holding the sign, I thought perhaps he was planning to publish a new paper describing a model with reasonable assumptions that could evade BGV theorem. Six years have passed since the debate. I no longer think a paper is coming or that such a model is possible.
This episode represents a very interesting chapter in the sociology of science. Why would Guth agree to appear in a photograph that publicly undermines an important theorem bearing his name and all of his relevant science papers? That question has never been answered.
So, does BGV theorem imply the universe/multiverse had an ultimate beginning? Yes, of course it does.
Carroll claimed that quantum eternity theorem (QET) was better than BGV theorem.
@@Horny_Fruit_Flies Comment 3/3 Craig won the Sean Carroll debate
“If you need to invoke a theorem, because that’s what you like to do rather than building models, I would suggest the quantum eternity theorem. If you have a universe that obeys the conventional rules of quantum mechanics, has a non-zero energy, and the individual laws of physics are themselves not changing with time, that universe is necessarily eternal.” - Sean Carroll
Carroll’s blog “Post-Debate Reflections” cited his paper “What If Time Really Exists?” to describe the QET. I approached Carroll’s paper with interest thinking it was going to lay out a widely applicable mathematical theorem constraining all future cosmological models to be past-eternal if they were to be considered viable. That was not what I found.
The paper did not, in fact, attempt to prove a new theorem at all. And the term “quantum eternity theorem” does not even appear in the paper. In fact, the term does not appear anywhere in the scientific literature until after the 2014 debate.
Carroll’s paper began as an appeal to scientific anti-realists to consider the possibility that time is real. Carroll is not arguing that time is absolute or relative or anything in particular. He is simply arguing only for the reality of time. As a scientific realist, it would be hard for me to disagree with Carroll’s perspective here. The paper goes on to describe the fact that QM’s Schrodinger equations can move backward and forward in time. That is to say, once you know the wavefunction at a specific point in time, then you can calculate the wavefunction at any point along an infinite timeline from infinity past to infinity future.
Carroll writes:
John Wheeler, following Niels Bohr, liked to admonish physicists to be radically conservative - to start with a small, reliable set of well-established ideas (conservative), but to push them to their absolute limits (radical) in an effort to understand their consequences. It is in Wheeler’s spirit that I want to ask what the consequences would be if we take time seriously. What if time exists, and is eternal, and the state of the universe evolves with time obeying something like Schrodinger’s equation?
Here I must throw a penalty flag. Time can be real and not eternal. Carroll is committing circular reasoning. First, Carroll’s paper presupposes time is eternal and then after the debate Carroll claims his paper demonstrates a “theorem” that time is eternal. This is false and dishonest. There is nothing to stop time from coming into existence when the universe comes into existence and nothing to stop time completely if/when the universe stops changing. Time is simply a measure of change. At some point in the future we know the universe is going to run out of usable fuel, the stars will go out and the universe will no longer be life-supporting as it reaches maximum entropy. If nothing meaningful is changing, then I would argue that time stops. What good are Schrodinger’s equations at that point?
Needless to say, Carroll’s “quantum eternity theorem” doesn’t require any cosmological model to be past eternal. It only demonstrates that if an eternal universe existed, then Schrodinger’s equation would be able to calculate the wavefunction anywhere along an infinite timeline. But everyone working in QM knew that already.
Aron Wall wrote an interesting piece on Carroll’s use of QET. He begins with a quick overview of quantum mechanics and then makes this statement,
“It’s a little bombastic for Carroll to even refer to this as a ‘theorem,’ since it’s just an elementary restatement of one of the most basic principles of QM.”
In his Post-Debate Reflections, Carroll basically admits this “theorem” is very weak and easy to evade:
The time parameter in Schrödinger’s equation, telling you how the universe evolves, goes from minus infinity to infinity. Now this might not be the definitive answer to the real world because you could always violate the assumptions of the theorem but because it takes quantum mechanics seriously it’s a much more likely starting point for analyzing the history of the universe. But again, I will keep reiterating that what matters are the models, not the abstract principles.
I understand that Carroll likes models, but his attack on theorems is unwarranted. We use theorems to constrain and judge the models. For example, the Steinhardt-Turok eternal cyclic universe model is no longer highly regarded precisely because it violates BGV theorem. Carroll knows this and his attack on theorems is really an attack on science (Steinhardt-Turok eternal cyclic universe model).
Carroll also knows that QET is not really a theorem at all and so cannot honestly be described as better than BGV theorem. Any cosmological model can violate Carroll’s concept of the QET and no cosmologist would care.
Conclusion
Uninformed viewers of the 2014 Carroll-Craig debate may think that Carroll won the debate. After all, Carroll is a cosmologist, he’s brilliant, confident and likable. He attacked and undermined BGV theorem, the science upon which Craig often bases his arguments. Carroll even enlisted the help of Alan Guth to undermine his own theorem. Then Carroll sprung the quantum eternity theorem on Craig, who was caught off-guard by the term since it had never appeared in the scientific literature.
Informed viewers of the debate came away with a different view. Carroll’s denial that BGV theorem implies the universe/multiverse had an ultimate beginning was shocking and dishonest. Also, informed viewers saw it as rather underhanded for Carroll to claim “quantum eternity theorem” was a recognized theorem that implies the universe is eternal into the past.
On the basis of the science, Craig was truthful with the audience and Carroll was not.
Truth will win out as they say.
Carroll’s behavior can only be seen as harmful to science.
What does a debate like this on deism really accomplish for theists? Fine. There’s a clockmaker god who built the universe and started the ticking. Now what? Clockmaker god or infinite universe? There are no implications to either answer. That must be very depressing for theists. All that energy and you’re no closer to proving the clockmaker is YOUR favorite god.
“You cannot get from deism to theism except by a series of extraordinarily generous-to yourself-assumptions. The deist has all his work still ahead of him to show that it leads to revelation, to redemption, to salvation or to suspensions of the natural order; in which, hitherto, you'd be putting all of your faith-all your evidence is on scientific and natural evidence.” -Hitchens
^^^This👆
Its necessary to call out the incoherency of naturalism
@@jarskiXD Then you should. Your post right now proves Christopher's point. If you can demonstrate the "incoherence" of Naturalism, you still "have all your work ahead of you" to show us: (1) any god exists, (2) YOUR god exists, (3) your interpretation of YOUR God's text is the right interpretation, and finally (4) the specific text in YOUR God's book resolves the "incoherence" of Naturalism that you have yet to convince us exists.
Of course, you won't do the necessary "work" because you know deep down you lack credible evidence to make it through all 4 steps.
Ps. Anti-evolution dolts have the same problem. Disproving Darwin's Theory gets them not one inch closer to proving any god, let alone their god, exists.
@@Hamheel21 The Bible is the only book ever written that stated thousands of years ago that the universe had a beginning. The latest spacetime theorems confirm that any universe like ours must have a causal agent outside of energy, matter, space and time. That's 4000 years after the Bible stated that fact. Bible prophecies prove the divinity of Jesus Christ. Only God knows the end from the beginning. Jesus fulfilled over 300 Old Testament prophecies during His lifetime .Wake-up before it's too late. Jesus is returning very soon. It's prophesied in the Bible and all Bible prophecies come to pass exactly as prophesied. Historical evidence proves that. Maranatha
Getting a god is better than getting no gods I guess. Every little helps for theists, if they can convince you that a God exists, then they can move on to their other metaphysical ramblings. If they can't even get to god, then they can't get to anything close to their religion.
Craig has this standard and well practiced move of putting on this sing-song incredulous voice and saying "I can't believe that atheists think that something can just pop out of nothing". Carroll gives him good reasons why the expression "something popping out of nothing" is incoherent and applies everyday intuitions to cosmological situations where we would expect those intuitions to fail. Craig's response to this is to again put on his sing-song incredulous voice and say "I can't believe that atheists think that something can just pop out of nothing". He is way out of his depth, scientifically and philosophically.
Oh and you some random guy on TH-cam has a better grasp on philosophy than someone with two masters degrees in philosophy? Imagine being that delusional... seek help! 🤣😂
I can’t believe his is a professional philosopher
@@drzaius844 have you looked at any of his work? As a Christian theist, I would say that Carrol won this debate. He’s more experienced in cosmology. However Craig has done phenomenal against others in debates. His work is recognized by many atheist philosophers. Even people like Christopher Hitchens have a high level of respect to his understanding and his work in philosophical framework.
@@LiftingGospel In what debate do you think WLC has done well? When I watch him (and yes, I'm an athiest, but former Christian) it sounds like he's either dumb or disingenious.
Let me explain. In a recent talk with Ben Shapiro, WLC claimed that slavery was a "program" and he concluded with "and anyway, they get released after 7 years."
In the very chapter with the verses that describe the rule to free fellow Israeli slaves (the year of Jubliee if I recall my Bible) it very clearly says that foreign slaves are chattel slaves, i.e. owned for life and such that can be left to one's children as inheritance.
I can't believe that WLC doesn't know this, as the verses are stacked right next to each other. So, in that case, he's a bold faced liar.
Now, if the claim is "he didn't know about those verses," I'd have to ask how that is remotely possible?
When WLC debated Sam Harris, WLC was demolished. Destroyed. I can't see it any other way unless one had simply decided WLC is right no matter what. If that's the case, why even listen to the debate in the first place?
Unless WLC comes out and admits he lied and explains why, I'll continue to have no respect for him and consider him a charlatan.
"sing-song incredulous voice"
Dr. Craig is amazing at moving goalposts in an admittedly elegant way. His confidence and delivery of illogical false dilemmas, shows that one can accomplish anything with enough practice.
How did he move the goalposts? And what false dilemmas did he present? - RF Admin
@ReasonableFaithOrg I don't feel the need to regurgitate most of Dr. Craig's talking points (which mischaracterized many aspects of not only the models, but also the beliefs and words of many who worked on those models), I will pick a few of the low hanging fruit.
He repeatedly ignored and maneuvered around the fact that the rules that govern the inner workings of a system do not necessarily apply to the system itself (the system being the universe).
I found his insistence that arbitrarily placed arrows and the direction that they point, on simplified diagrams made for illustrative purposes, somehow lend credence to his assertion that the models in question must have a "beginning", silly. Especially taking into account that the same individuals who developed the models maintain that a "beginning" is not a necessity.
Dr. Craig repeatedly asserted that under such models, universes dominated by "Boltsman brains" would far outnumber the universes with beings such as ourselves. He was informed by Dr. Carrol that "Boltsman Brains" are actually used as a sort of litmus test to help rule out such models, yet Dr. Craig ignored the fact and kept repeating his assertion.
I will stop there. To anyone who will watch this, that doesn't already hold the belief that God created the universe, it is clear that nothing he proclaims "points to a creator" actually does so. Dr. Craig is out of his depths, and his premises rely on the same sort of misunderstandings of physics and cosmology, that leads to "woo woo" ideas such as "The Secret".
It's pure sophistry.
Apologetics is nothing but sophistry.
@@happyhappy85 What reason do you have for thinking it's sophistry? - RF Admin
I'm still waiting for William Lane Craig to demonstrate his magic in a lab.
I'm Still waiting for anyone of the Darwinian Evolutionists to demonstrate this impossible theory in a laboratory when its supposed to have happened by chance under a rock somewhere in a puddle of primordial soup! Does the puddle have more intelligences than all the atheists together during the past 70 years trying to create a single living cell? With all their advantages and scientific knowledge, the puddle wins hands down!😂
@@gerardmoloney433 Classic Craig-esque straw man.
You are still waiting for some non-causal magic in Carrols lab.
I'd like to see Craig demonstrate a single simple math formula, whether it's his OR anybody else's. Oh, and I like the strawman reply with "Darwinian Evolutionists", I'm surprised of the computer use to type out a reply. ☮💜
Fraser… this is a classic fallacy… should I reject the fact that George Washington crossed the Delaware because I can’t repeat that event in a lab? No
Should I reject theism (a hypothesis grounded in theology and philosophy) because it can’t be assessed like scientific hypotheses can be? No
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." --- Voltaire
Craig ventured out of his wheelhouse and got punished. Carrol won it by a landslide. I applaud the attempt though, that could not have been easy.
You freeriding fishbowl kissers sure like deluding yourselves. It clearly feels good. All terms you miss from your externalizing tendencies. And I´m a progressive theist, very capable of critiquing even conservatives like Craig. Except he´s not the one desperately getting the issues backwards.
Another angle that addresses the foundational issues, touched on when Craig notes the phenomenon of a mind, is that "science" isn´t Carroll´s idealized absolute truth of "naturalism" until it proves limited. He even gets emergentism wrong in another video because of how much he overvalues "science," and mistakes it as non-philosophical in nature. That is, a human activity, humans using their minds, with various key implications, like the origins of scientific natural philosophy in Christian spiritual religious practice, having shifted ancient Greek spiritual-religious practices of the Socrates legacy......
Surprise....
On what bases did he win... he didn't hold a position. He presented 3 points that he nevered demonstrated were plausible. So, how did he win?
@@michaelreichwein3970 You sound earnest, but your sincere desire for truth in logic is misguided. Many people are ideologues and say things to feel good and powerful, not logical in seeking genuine truth.
Carroll argues within the assumptions of "science" stating his preferences and riding on the privilege of theorizing freely about complex physics subjects and the common supremacism of scientific -tech things. Craig wields the truth well in his philosophical clarity, but scientific materialists operate in denialism becsuse words are easy to use in confusion of logical systems.
@@michaelreichwein3970why would you expect a random atheist to understand higher order reasoning while their "top guys" can't
@Xialrinth because sometimes the Holy Spirit is reaching out to those who listen, and not to those who speak.. lol!
I still don’t understand why WLC will debate Sean regarding cosmology😂 Sean is a full time theoretical physicist lmao
Vanity and zeal of believe in Jesus. He is blinded.
@@dagkaszlikowski8358 You are blind.
That's how ppl lyk u are fooled into believing whatever an atheist-scientist would say. Don't forget scientists in the end study a given (the universe) with a given (the mind). A lil bit of humility would be in order. And nothing beats common sense.
Additionally all the cosmological info is available for anyone interested to learn. Your assumption that Craig wouldn't have anything worthy to say on the basis of cosmology is as dumb as saying "only the car manufacturer (or worse still seller) could drive the car or fix its broken engine."
To conclude, the "god" question isn't really about science v god. Rather it's about worldviews, that's atheism v theism. This is borne out by the fact that there are scientists on either side of the divide. It might surprise you, for example, to know that 65% of physics Nobel laureates between 1900 and 2000 were actually Christians.
Because of the arrogance of religious monotheists: only they have the truth and that truth is absolute as proclaimed by an autocratic deity.
@@CesarClouds Truth is always absolute. Your comment makes zero sense.
This is the one debate that I think WLC struggled in. Sean was so well mannered and gave respectful attacks to theism. Didn’t lose his cool once. Rebutted the points very clearly.
Beautiful debate as a whole. One I’ve been able to listen to more than a few times.
I am perfectly happy to admit that the universe has changed.
It was very small and now it is very big. Why ? I don't know.
But I don't think my ignorance is evidence for God.
I agree that we dont know and will probably never know. Imagine being so arrogant that you think you know how the universe came into existence just because a book said so loool these people are either incredibly dumb or just mistaken
I'm still waiting for Dr. Craig to demonstrate the supernatural.
I've been asking for that from any theist as long as I can remember. Even if something exists outside of or transcends spacetime and the material-physical realm, as physical beings, how could we perceive it? I don't see how we can. It just seems like an attempt to shoehorn religious dogma into science.
@@alankoslowski9473 We can't perceive what doesn't exist.
@CesarClouds And you can't perceive what you refuse to accept!
@michaelreichwein3970 Never in the history of humanity has science been overturned in favor of theology or philosophy.
@CesarClouds I was talking about you personally! And because of falsifiability, science can not claim to know anything! No facts! Only theories!
A true pity that there was no cross examination in this debate
I think every debate should include cross, mandatory.
@@kylereese4542agreed!
This debate needed a cross examination more than many.
@@harlowcj true
What's that
The idea that a syllogism can prove god is insane.
Why? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg because syllogisms are not evidence. Logic cannot prove that something exists. Sorry!
@@drzaius844 If a deductive syllogism is logically valid, then the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. The question then becomes whether or not the premises are true. If the premises are more plausible than their negations, then you have a good argument on your hands. So, yes, conceptually speaking, a syllogism can provide good reason to believe that God exists. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg You kind of ignored the original claim, my dudes. Original poster said "a syllogism can't *prove* god true", and you replied with "a syllogism can give good reason to believe god is true". Those are not the same things.
The original poster is correct in their claim. The mere suggestion that you can prove something true with a syllogism would have you laughed out of any science lab on the planet, and then probably beaten up by people in lab coats in the parking lot. What modern, civilized people do is gather empirical evidence to demonstrate the truth. Making an argument, which is all WLC and theists like you do, is literally the first step in any scientific setting, usually done in a university cafeteria, before they start doing the real work in the field.
That you think making a logically sound argument is enough and you can sit back and bask in your success, just shows that you've given up on actually demonstrating that your gods exist. I have more respect for people who try to prove miracles or use their dreams as evidence, at least they don't delude themselves into thinking that they can use word salad to will their fantasies into existence. At least people who believe in miracles respect the concept of evidence.
@@czajkowski2352 Why would people in a science lab be laughing? Science does not prove anything in the way you or the original commenter are using the word either, just like the syllogism. Clearly the sense in which "prove" is being used here is not the certainty of a mathematical proof as you are now implying. Proof here is obviously being used to express positive evidence for, or justification for the conclusion in question. Theres lots of room for dishonest equivocation here. Clearly reasonable faith and William Lane Craig would NEVER claim (indeed they have explicitly stipulated the opposite on many occasions) that syllogisms can give you mathematical level CERTAINTY of a conclusion. All they have ever said (correctly so) is that IF the premises are true, then the conclusion is certainly true. The truth of the premises are NOT claimed to be mathematically certain or logically necessary.
W.L.Craig says at 1.34.20 and 1.13.55 he finds it too fantastic to believe the universe came out of nothing, yet he still believes God created the universe out of nothing ! duh.
On atheism, the universe lacks both a material and and efficient cause. On theism, the universe merely lacks a material cause, since God serves as the efficient cause. The universe's having such a cause is the *conclusion* of a deductive argument, the premises of which are more plausible than their negations. If you want to avoid the conclusion, you'll need to reject one of the premises and explain why. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Thank you for your reply. Your staterment is however, flawed. You say, the theistic point of view accepts a creator and therefore is "more plausible" than an atheistic stand which lacks material and efficient cause. Here's the problem if you already have a creator .. you have to accept the entity called God is eternal, and so without beginning but the big problem with an ever existing entity is that you are required to believe it has always existed. Now, let's get real here. No person on this planet can comprehend eternal .. no matter how far back you push the boundary [million, billion, trillion years, etc. ], the entity is there ! To accept theism, you are asking for someone to comprehend something he CANNOT. This sort of evidence would not stand up in a law of court would it ? It is untestable and therefore invalid as factual evidence. God is not a fact, it is a belief based on logical fallacy and illusion. The very concept of a creator began a long time ago in someone's mind. That's exactly where it came from. So many logical fallacies and illusions everywhere .. somewhere on U Tube there is a video where information was given to a large computer and it concluded there must be a creator !! You know, some people may believe this sort of thing but no computer could conclude such a thing. It simply does not make sense, but the theist will keep on trying anything to prove there is a creator. It cannot be done. So I hope to have explained why God is hardly a good starting point to go one step ahead of the atheistic viewpoint. To conclude, not one person has a damn clue as to how the universe is here. End of.
@@wynlewis5357 Note that in the final conceptual analysis of what it means to be a cause of the universe, the attributes do not include this cause existing infinitely in the past, since time began with the moment of creation. So, Dr. Craig's position has always been that God is timeless without creation and then entered into temporal relations at the moment of creation. And while this may seem strange to us as finite, temporal creatures, it is the most rational conclusion based on the plausibility of the premises (none of which you've so far denied). A great many aspects of reality are strange, so it's not a very good rebuttal to a formal argument to say that it's entailments are weird.
You complain that the evidence adduced is "untestable and therefore invalid." First, the scientific evidence supporting the second premise *is* testable. In fact, it *has* been tested. That's why the premise is so strong! Second, you seem to be tacitly assuming a position of scientism, where science is the only source of true knowledge. The problem is that such a claim fails its own criterion and so is self-defeating. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Well, I get the impression here that you are engaging in semantics to endeavour to give strength to your position[which is based on faith]. You are now implying that God is timeless. And there's me thinking that all religions accepted God to be eternal, existing without beginning. You say that Dr Craig's position has always been that God is timeless. Exactly from where did he get this information to say God is outside time and not eternal ?? It seems to me, he has come up with this hypothesis to try and prove other points in which he believes. It is merely a guess on his part or a guess from someone else. There is no need to convince me the universe is weird, I have concluded that all by myself ! If quantum physics is weird[the stuff you, I and everything else is made of], and not one person has a clear understanding of it, then what chance do we have of understanding reality ? If there is such thing as a creator, then the evidence for it is entirely on the theist. As you have to accept, there is no good evidence to support it. And much less so called evidence for Christianity[which counts for only 25% of the world's religions]. In my reply, I said "Eternal" is an untestable thing but you say it has been tested. What ?! WHERE on earth did you get this information ? The infinity[set theory] branch of mathematics have driven some maths professors crazy as there are no real or natural numbers to play with. And here you are saying it has been tested. Where and when ? Oh, and btw, I wasn't "complaining" about anything .. I simply put forward factual statements. So, your premise is NOT strong, it seems that you have misused and misunderstood something along the line and used it to try and support your God theory. And for the last part of your reply, you have attempted to put words into my mouth .. a below the belt tactic I've noticed many theist debaters engage in. So I will make clear for you then, I do NOT think science has all the answers and they have been wrong in many things over the centuries. However, that is the way science works .. attempts are made to falsify postulations. That said, science has given us a great deal in so many ways and we would be at a loss in todays world without it. Don't knock it. Supply me with some proper evidence for the existence of a creator and I will consider it with an open mind.
I’ll give it to Craig for being the best Christian apologist but I don’t think he was prepared for a scientist like Carroll who also has a pretty good grasp on philosophy.
Yeah, no. Carroll clearly talks smoothly, but you simply don´t know your stuff, like many people in this sci-tech cellphone internet happy modern society. Carroll´s BS is obvious. The very inclusion of "God" in the title means a speaker needs to know something about God and religion, and not treat his scientific profession as if it makes him an expert on God and religion. He needs to look some things up about God and religion.
And what does Carroll do? He complains about "religion being poorly defined" and "abstract, medieval principles" that are unnecessary, because "building models" is all you need.
Now, WL Craig for his own part, plays things too straight and stays away from nailing the anti-phiosophical ideological fallacies that Carroll pushes like psychiatric-pharmacological salespeople pushing pills to cure depression.
The bottom line is that "building models" alone isn´t concrete techhie work, like Carroll makes it sound actually. It´s theoretical, which is abstract, and philosphical, because "modern science" IS actually a form of philosophy, originally called natural philosophy.
His disdainful labeling of metaphysics like Craig talks as "medieval" is ideological projection fallacy, because he is in denial of science as actually philosophical. And the limits of "science."
"Eternity" is a good point to see the egg in his face. Scientific principles include entropy, and the Big Bang, as Craig points out. And trying to justify an "infinite timespan" for the physical Universe is patently against a few things, including the logical coherence of physical things.
But, it´s the various angles that expose his ideological supremacism and superiority complex, which are forms of ideological doctrinal religious behavior. The way through is more like WL Craig´s start to approaching it, which is advanced and sophisticated.
Agreed. Craig gets lots of credit in my mind for even TRYING to understand the science. Puts him miles ahead of other apologists. And it's telling, and absolutely devastating for theism, that even the most scientifically literate of christian apologists gets absolutely clobbered in a debate like this.
@@contrarian23Except he didn't get clobbered, when his opponent is suggesting that the universe came from nothing. Such a ludicrous idea on its own was enough to invalidated Carroll's position, Craig didn't even have to break a sweat.
@@ysycotikCame from nothing?
You people still think nothingness is a location lmao.
@@donaldmcronald8989 Who says I think nothing is a location? I think nothing is nothing... if you think its something else then I question your sanity
Been looking for this
Dr. Craig lost
Shane Carol lost
@@macysondheim at least get his name right
@@betsalprince How about this instead
🖕🏼😁
😂😂@@betsalprince
4x in a row craig goes to the popped out of nothing strategy.
Because it is a logical impossibility.
If science is founded upon any logic then it can’t be the something from nothing logic.
That would make it a contradiction.
So you never listened just like Craig? @tgenov
@@tgenov which Sean Carroll explains over and over as a misnomer of his position. Craig, instead of engaging with the correction just covers his ears, closes his eyes and repeats again the same thing
This video should start with a health warning. I have been head-desking for 27 mins as Craig fails physics again and again.
Where did he fail?
@@Shehatescash he talks for too long for me to listen again and give specifics, so I will generalise.
He claims the fine tuning of the universe is evidence of a fine tuner. But there is no evidence that the universe is fine tuned.
He claims that the universe having a beginning is evidence of a conscious beginner. But the evidence that the universe has a beginning is very shaky.
@@nickguy8037 1) Graham oppy who’s 1 of the leading academic atheist agrees that the universe is fine tuned. He goes as far to say that the fine tuning is the best argument for god (by that he means it’s the hardest to deal with). Now oppy does think we can explain the fine tuning without god, but that’s a separate question from whether or not the universe is fine tuned. “No evidence”, when I see this phrase I just immediately ask myself whether or not this person is familiar with the debate? No evidence? That’s the true delusion. “There is now a broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is fine tuned for life” - Paul Davies. Now you can disagree with the physicists, cosmologists, and philosophers, but to say they have no evidence is just incredulous. Richard Dawkins (who I think is extremely incredulous, dishonest, and lacking in understanding of the issues) believes in the fine tuning. Do you think that’s the type of person who believes with no evidence? I think we can say that as far as we (as laymen) can declare, there is fine tuning. It’s the consensus in science.
2) The evidence that the universe has a beginning, is the Big Bang! The Big Bang theory says that the universe began about 14 billion years ago, they teach this in American middle schools! The evidence is far from shaky, it’s trivially accepted as true by scientist that the universe began about 14 billion years ago. There are countless independent studies which suggest this I mean, do you honestly think the evidence for the Big Bang is shaky?? If you remember, in this debate Sean argues for the idea that something can pop into being out of nothing, but if he thought the universe was eternal, he wouldn’t need that argument because there was no coming into being it was always there. In Sean’s own model of the universe it’s not eternal, and in the model he showed the second time Craig explained how the second model was 1 he agreed with and that it was an entropy model not a time model.
@@nickguy8037it really isn’t. It’s the consensus the universe had a beginning. So it has to have a cause.
@@Sm64wii Only the consensus of theists.
Physicists don't make that claim.
In fact, they don't even claim that the "big bang" happened.
That is the theory that provides the most explanatory power so far, but is only tentatively supported.
But, given that we cannot detect anything before the recombination epoch ended (at least until we get good at measuring gravitational waves), we can only guess what happened before that.
Note that the recombination epoch ended 300000 years after the supposed "big bang" began. Everything before that is a guess and physicists acknowledge that.
Furthermore, there is very little agreement that there was a beginning to the big bang. Given how time is affected by intense gravitational fields, it is possible that the concept of a beginning is nonsensical.
Finally, the "Big Bang" is a name given to the expansion of the universe... something that is still happening. So it is not correct to say it was a beginning that we have passed. What happened "before" expansion (if that can actually be a logical question) is entirely unknown and could include an infinite number of events.
No consensus on the beginning at all.
Damn, the beginning of Carroll´s opening says it all. God is not even in contention as a serious explanation among cosmologists.
Of course not. Because Carroll is implying that only physical explanations are considered. How would scientists arrive at God as an explanation for anything if they're only looking for physical explanations to begin with? It's for this precise reason that so many non-theists have been dissatisfied with cosmological models that support the universe's having an absolute beginning - because the theistic implications are so clear. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Thats just false. If any non physical model had evidence or at least its parts had evidence, it would be considered. Thats just not the case.
@@nosteinnogate7305 What do you mean by "model"? The models being discussed in the debate are *physical* cosmological models. So, if you're going by their definition of "model," you're making the same mistake as Carroll, demanding that a search for the physical yield a non-physical explanation, which is absurd. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Basically just a system that explains the data and predicts future data. If a non-physical anything exists which has influence on our world, that can be described by a model. If you cant do that, you are in the same boat as any other imagination.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Physical explanations are the only ones we can actually test and reason about. Anything else is just irrelevant and complete guesswork for someone that's trying to reason about the real world. The second you start venturing out of that, any other explanation may be equally false, or equally correct - We have no way of knowing whatsoever. Furthermore, i'm going to presume this is a christian channel; these ones usually are. EVEN if the universe was created by a supernatural entity, there is a gigantic leap from that, to the god of the bible, Yahweh.
9 years on and the Craig linguistic nonsense hasn’t aged one bit.
At least Carroll knows that he doesn’t know anything
And yet you keep tuning in to listen after 9 years. You sound like a fan that gets mad bc you waited in the rain and Shaq didn’t sign your basketball.
Too many big words. Dont get it.
He usually sticks to his guns and no one has given him a run for his money in at least a decade
@@pepperachu Who are you referring to?
Apparently neither does Carroll. Didn't hold a position in the debate. Didn't prove any of the 3 points he presented .
When we know everything, God will pop out of existence.
😂😂😂😂😂
whoa
We will not achieve that tho
@@abdooljackson1399
So as long as there are mysteries, God will be a useful hypothesis
30 minutes in an it’s clear the theme is Craig is out of his depth.
It sounds like this should have been a debate between Sean Carrol and Alexander Valenkan. Craig really doesn't need to be here...and given later events, really proved himself not to be trustworthy in his convictions.
"If there's just one in a million chance that this is true, its worth believing." -- low bar Bill
Yeah, no. The debate is about Cosmology and God, and Carroll insisting on an eternal Universe mistakes the origin of the very theistic issues he´s willing to acknowledge. In Christianity, and otherwise.
this guy is a top abrahamic charlatan.. a total waste of neurons
@@robinhoodstfrancis Carroll doesn't insist on an eternal universe. He said there are plausible models that don't necessitate god. These models are ontologically simpler than theism since they're based on what we know about the universe without invoking anything superfluous like god.
@@alankoslowski9473 Nice try. However, you tripped over knowledge and reality as many or most, or all, science ideologues do. Scientific models are made for studying physical objects and processes, with methodological naturalism. As such, scientists are doing natural philosophy, and confuse themselves in having failed to study the History and Philosophy os Science, so-called.. It's ALL natural philosophy, in fact, with varying clarity of emphasis.
Thus, in "science", the renaming has gone with the technophile conceit of the "demarcation" problem. That's only a problem for overspecialized science ideologues, as I've begun to indicate.
Thus, Carroll's only expertise is cataloguing speculative efforts in "theoretical physics" and their proposals. And the existence of arguments like Bord, Guth et al. which Is reported as past finite in implications. I recall that Carroll is bent on past eternal, which is part of his disconnect and confusion conceit that he thinks he is not just a philosopher.
Clarifying the existence of proposed past eternal models is one thing, as is noting that "science" studies physical things without God. Arguing that "science" negates and-or is supreme and invalidates metaphysical logic is a Domain Neglect bias, to use an existing term to go with the Knowledge Domain fallacy I've had to name. It's epistemological, and epistemic by implication.
Simplicity is only accurate if it applies within a common knowledge domain framework. Carroll, and you following him, with less bias than Dawkins types anyway, can't even get to the philosophical nature of "physics" itself, and the very real psychosocial symbol using phenomenon that is the trans-physical human mind. "Simple"? Calling "love" nothing but neurochemicals is simple, but not even accurate in neurochem. That would be inaccurare overzealous human ideological reductionism, not "simplicity." Craig isn't doing "god of the gaps." You guys are folliwung Carroll in doing "Gap in the philosophy", for starters..... . That's an amazing original formulation on my part. Thank you for spurring me to it.....
@@robinhoodstfrancis listen to carroll's opening statement again.
instead of rejecting tens of theories and concluding that if they are not true, then God exists, Craig could examine the theory which is proposed by God himself in his own book and to see if it is consistent with the facts (those to which he examines the theories). A creation without big bang and with no bang at all, starting with the earth and then the sun and moon, with no other galaxies and the earth is habitable immediately after the creation and life appears in the most complex format on it.
This presupposes that the creation texts in Genesis are meant to be read literalistically, which Dr. Craig has shown to be implausible given its genre analysis. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Ah, so you're moving the goal posts again. Yet again...lol Okay. don't you see why anyone outside your religion thinks you're being unfair, dumb, and simply don't care about truth?
wlc got destroyed in this debate, laughably so Any honest Christian would admit that and put WLC in the nutso category, where he deserves. I've heard him say that there MUST be a literal Adam and Eve, but of course, we know that's impossible, so what? That's another change? Or WLC had that one right? lol
Really, this superstition you'll believe is silly.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg so we can ignore everything in there
@@bee4781 How does that follow? Do you ignore poetry like the Psalms because it uses figurative language or Revelation because it uses apocalyptic symbolism? - RF Admin
yes, I do@@ReasonableFaithOrg
I think Sean Carroll is the best person to explain how to conceptualize “a universe out of nothing” idea. Even though he doesn’t believe that himself, that’s not his cosmological model, he’s very good at explaining the correct way to think about that concept.
I must have missed his explanation. Where did all the energy come from?
Craig never fails to entertain. Always hilarious when one needs a bit of laughter.
I was thinking the same thing about comments like this. When I'm feeling down, they're my go-to! Thanks!
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
Voltaire
@@AtamMardesIt's hilarious because Voltaire was a deist but saw through religion.
Be honest. Craig got his can handed to him. No contest.
I think we can all agree Craig's bycicle argument was the best most hilarious part of the debate.
Craig didn't even understand Sean Carroll's reply or his statements. It's not about "winning" as there is no win. Apologizing for new data incoming isn't productive, and Craig's "theory' doesn't return useful data or further searches with the scientific approach. ☮💜
Craig is simply outclassed on the science here. You have to be a dishonest theist to think that Craig won this.
You're lying to yourself
Why would the universe have to react from its beginning? Who's to say quantum fluctuations can't occur anywhere in time?
I don't use internet debate phrases often, but damn, Craig got *D-D-D-DESTROYED*
Like, I felt second hand embarrassment for him at some points
When Sean got Alan Guth to comment, *in the middle of the debate,* that Craig was misrepresenting his model.... OOF
In a sample of 2307 adults in the US., IQ was found to negatively correlate with self reports of religious identification, private practice or religion, mindfulness, religious support, and fundamentalism, but not spirituality.
Cite the source, I want to read the whole report and who carried it out.
Mindfulness seems like the odd one out here. Has nothing to do with religion.
@jelmerschmidt Yeah, that's a dumb idea like being more aware equates unintelligence.
The fundamental flaw with Theism is the apologist can literally make up anything as a retort.
That is why it's a fantasy. God has no effect in reality.
Theism is not well defined
@@ThatisnotHair Does the Big Bang have an effect in reality?
At the very least it has the effect of us remembering it.
It isn’t like any human was around to see it 13.8 billion years ago.
@@Foration3 Well-definition is not well-defined either.
As a matter of fact definition itself is not well-defined.
In the way that Mathematicians use the term “well-defined”.
I love that you guys have so very little that you desperately cling to whatever scraps of arguments you think you can.
You say "we weren't there to observe it" as if you suddenly give a shit about verifiable evidence, the scientific method, or observation based conclusions.
Surely if this is how you feel about the big bang, you wouldn't be a Christian and believe a guy was magic and rose from the dead? Not only were we not there to observe it, there's no extra biblical evidence he existed, and absolutely zero evidence whatsoever that his kind of creepy blood magic resurrection nonsense is even a possibility
This will always be funny to me. A guy arguing why his imaginary friend actually exists to a scientist.
Not quite
@@sk8rkid1016 Yeah I guess, he doesn't actually make any valid arguments. Good point
yes Cragi, creating models from which one can make predictions is the same as creating different versions of god so it can fit the current knowledge we've collected through science, for sure they are. While one uses predictions you use "coherence". Jesus, how dare you say such a silly thing.
Craig was probably surprised when he discovered that the God that he defined to be the perfect explanation for everything actually explained everything perfectly.😂
57:00 This should demonstrate to ANY observer that Craig is merely "quote mining" when he cites cosmologists: he is telling S.C. that S.C. thinks the opposite of what S.C. actually SAYS HE THINKS!
It's this kind of rampant dishonesty from EVERY Christian apologist I've watched that makes me distrust any time they quote ANYONE. Not only are they lying, by taking quotes out of context they are misrepresenting the authors and implicitly calling them liars in regards to their beliefs.
This is trivially demonstrable in logic. It is called modus tollens.
If P, then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P.
If Caroll says he believes P, and P implies Q.
Then if it is empirically demonstrated that not-Q is actually true.
Then Caroll necessarily believes not-P.
He is proving Caroll wrong. Literally.
This is how logic with law of excluded middle works. Either P or not-P.
If you think that P is true, but it turns out to be false. Then you were confused.
You were thinking -P.
It's not about thinking and believing, but the topic and conclusion in the theorem inself.
Craig disagreeing with the author of the guth velanken theorem strikes me as profoundly dishonest. He has been corrected and still references it smh
1:15:04 Craig is incorrect about the alleged "taxicab fallacy". From the fallacy files website: "The Fallacy Files has no entry for it, nor does any standard text or reference work on logical fallacies". Furthermore, "Even if we suppose that those who hop out of the taxi accept inconsistent claims, even for a second, that is not a logical fallacy. Inconsistent beliefs are certainly bad things to have because they cannot all be true, but logical fallacies are not psychological". I can't believe Craig used a fake fallacy just to score, not logical, but rhetorical points for good soundbites. (Even if it was a real fallacy, Craig misapplied it since Carroll did not evince an argument; he simply highlighted a _fact_ : "The universe is different than our experience")
How can you have low entropy in the middle of something that is eternal? Doesn't the concept of being eternal eliminate the concept of their being a "middle"?
“Within” will probably be a better word
Watching religious people try to explain science to a scientist is like watching a chimp try to start a fire.
😂🤣 man they are taking ridiculousness to a whole new level, they don't want to say I don't know, which is the rationale move, instead they read a few lines here and there from philosophers trying to stick it up to Carroll a frontier cosmologist who is trying to understand the universe.
Supernatural superstitious. Where is gods mom and dad? Did they die? The creation of the universe started with the spaghetti monster cooking up a new dish of pasta and put too much garlic and spices in the pan. It exploded and thete you got a big pasta bang. Anything is possible in lala land.
The land of the atheist
Pastafarian! 🍽️ FSM doesn't have parents. He's uncreated. Why call him 'monster'? He's nicer than many other religious deities.
Roger Penrose's idea of cycling universes makes a lot ot sense to me. Carroll didn't seem to on board last I saw, but it seems like something to consider.
Sean Carroll has a lot of bad ideas. No need to follow him on that path. Penrose is probably right about the CCC, even if he is wrong about almost everything else he says these days.
Few scientists give Penrose's idea any credence, and it's been studied and considered to death. It's a perpetual motion machine for one thing.
The audio could have been better but oh well. Thanks uploader. Very interesting.
If the universe had a beginning, there is no eternity before the beginning, because there is no time outside the universe, and therefore no "before".
"Eternity" can mean several things, one of which is a timeless state. This is consistent with Dr. Craig's view that God was timeless without creation and entered into temporal relations at the moment of creation. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg If God is timeless, how did he cross time to get here today? Oh, you say, he's always existed?
Okay, as soon as you say that, you open the door to quantum mechanics always existing.
If God can be eternal, so can the universe. Unless you're going to make an exception for God and say only He can have this property for some reason? Special pleading is a sign of a weak arguement.
It's funny that WLC cannot argue fairly and honestly. "We don't see bicycles POPPING into existence." Yeah, duh. Thanks for that brillance.
@@michaelsbeverly Again, Dr. Craig's view is that God *was* timeless without creation and entered into time since the moment of creation. This is simply the logical outworking of creation being the first moment of time.
Quantum particles haven't always existed because, according to modern cosmology, the entire quantum vacuum from which such particles arise came into existence a finite time ago. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg And you're a quantum physicist all of a sudden?
Where'd you get your PhD?
You're doing what Christians ALWAYS do and that's build a strawman and pretend to have won an arguement.
Your assertion (a dumb one) asserts that ALL Quantum Mechanics is understood and all quantum PhDs AGREE on everything (the cherry picked point you think gives you the upper hand).
Don't you see how disengenious you are?
Can't you admit that you could be wrong and that the universe might not be as you think it should be in order to prove your god theory must be true?
WLC's view that god was timeless is just an assertion without a shread of evidence to back it up. You might as well insist that we live in the dream of Brahma, it's just as valid and has as much evidence for it.
The REASON you and WLC don't want to admit an obvious truth, like Christians didn't want to admit to a heliocentric solar system or that evolution is true and obviously so, is that you're grasping at straws to try and hold on to your faith (and keep the sheep in line).
If God is so great, why not admit that the universe didn't need him, obviously, to exist, but that by FAITH you believe in Him?
Are you scared that admitting the truth opens the door for sheep to leave the flock? What's the fear here?
Obviously, quantum mechanics has proven, just like biophysics has shown almost certianly, and without any doubt evolution has proven, that we don't need a god to exist.
sure a god could be possible, just like Sean Carroll said, it's not logically impossible, it's just a very BAD explaination, for many reasons he gave.
If your faith was strong and secure, you should have no problem admitting the obvious, we could live in a universe that got here differently than by means of a supernatural warrior god of the bronze age, and that these other explainations are a lot more consistent, logical, and don't require one to make excuses constantly.
Just think about how strongly Christians insisted that the heliocentric solar system was a bad idea, spawned by Satan, and that it was clearly obvious the sun orbited the earth, a FACT, they said, confirmed by His Holy Word.
Of course, today, not many Christians are standing on the Bible when it comes to a flat earth or a non-heliocentric solar system, because, duh, it's obvious that it's stupid and faces in the face of what is clearly proven to be true. The earth orbits the sun.
With quantum mechanics, we know things might not be as they seem, and we don't have definitive answers, but we know for a FACT that a god isn't necessary.
It might be that a god exists, and I suspect the Christians next retreat, like they did with evolution, is to say, "Oh, quantum mechanics is how God made the universe, the Bible showed that all along! Isnt' that Special?"
Be honest and quit fighting reality.
God may exist, sure, but He (or she, it, they) is NOT needed for us to be here. Period.
This argument is settled.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg you missed my argument. There is still no “before”, because that would require time. Also, “entering” something is a process, which requires time. If you’re timeless, it seems impossible to “enter” something.
I’m not sure I was watching the same debate as most others. I found Carroll’s arguments to be weak. I have models! - that I don’t claim are right. See the models I have? They aren’t right, but you see them, don’t you?
And WLC is like, great, I’m not saying you don’t have models, I’m saying if the universe began to exist, it has a cause.
To which Carroll replies: MODELS! That I’m not claiming are correct.
Exactly! I think most of these commenters don't understand this. Their minds are made up and simply adore Dr. Carroll. Their faith is great!
At 1:53:36 the gentleman asks why does Craig believe God gets to just exist outside of time. Listen to his answer and tell me what his proof/argument on why God does exist. To me it sounds as just an assertion.
Some have argued that Carroll won the debate...On what bases did he win... he didn't hold a position. He presented 3 points that he nevered demonstrated were plausible. So, how did he win?
He didn't for that reason. Craig made a foundation & showed why/how Carroll's models were untenable & Carroll didn't hardly make a foundation. Biased atheists say he won.
@brunoson069 agreed! What amazes me is that those who seek after truth... when finding it! Then, proceed to turn their back on this truth to believe in a lie.
We see the creative mind of God all around us. Yet, many choose to deny what their senses and logic continue to argue!
@@michaelreichwein3970 So many people say the bible made them atheist. It's like looking for Nikes in a store, searching 1 isle & thinking there's none. I'm a deist but admit I can't know. Not the Spinoza pantheist, that makes no sense.
@@brunoson069 I think the Bible spoke to their heart about their sin. So, rather than turn to God. They ran from God's accountability by denying his existence.
@@michaelreichwein3970 I get it's what's taught, but I don't see behavior change, but admit change of some morals. Those I see change are *believers!* deciding to not worship, pray etc. **(Backsliders)** I haven't changed 1 bit, my behavior & morals are the same.
1:21:40 How and when Sean explained what makes the universe different?
30:48 and 31:22
Also, right after 1:21:40 he again says how and why.
It's also fallacy of composition. Just because water can be wet doesn't mean water molecules are wet.
@@CesarCloudswhat do you think the explanation was? “There was no time before the universe, yet the universe began” thats an omission that on the model the universe spontaneously came into existence at 1 moment. He didn’t rephrase it any better
@Shehatescash Carroll basically said that Craig is using vocabulary that works within the universe but cavalierly applies it prior to its existence.
The teleogical argument assumes fine tuning... exists. How do we know the universe is fine tuned? I can imagine 2 possibilities for the constants in the universe:
1. Constants are such that sentient life can exist.
2. Constants are such that non-sentient life cannot exist.
3. Constants are such that life cannot exist.
We clearly live in a universe where 1 is true. But suppose the universe was of the 2nd kind: then, nobody would posit this argument (since no sentience would exist). Even more so, if the universe was of the 3rd kind, nothing would ever even stumble towards this argument. The fact that this is option 1 doesnt change anything. Perhaps, other than life, there are other things or being or notions that could exist if the constants were different, but don't (and we are in a 3rd version of the universe for those things, instead of for life)
39:16, 40:31 Q, 45:00-6 🔥 onwards ‘under theism, vs under naturalism’ rant. 47:48 ‘because theism is not well defined’. 1:45:21 on free will. Craig appeals go counterpossible reasoning 2:13:10
If you believe in the God of the Bible, then I suppose the arguments in favour of the existence of that god are very convincing indeed.
Otherwise, they can be dismissed as superstitious nonsense.
Our testimonials page is full of testimonies from people who had no prior belief in God or the Bible. What convinced them was the strength of the arguments and evidence. But, sure, anyone can dismiss anything if they try hard enough. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg What evidence? Claims yes, plenty of claims, but zero evidence.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg And so what if someone can argue better than another debater. Still does not in any way prove your manmade religion. Think I will go with Albert Einstein's Spinoza.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg The Australian aborigine has been walking this earth for over 50 thousand years. Suppose the manmade Christian God concept was not around then and the great big strong testimonies and arguments for it.
@@user-mg8tw7yo4f Your argument seems to be this:
1. If Australian aborigines didn't have a concept of the Christian God over 50,000 years ago, then the Christian God does not exist.
2. Australian aborigines didn't have a concept of the Christian God over 50,000 years ago.
3. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.
Clearly, premise (1) is false. Australian aborigines also didn't have a concept of black holes. But obviously their lack of a concept didn't have any impact on whether black holes existed. So, the argument fails. The lack of the concept of the Christian God among ancient Australian aborigines had no relevance for whether the Christian God actually exists. - RF Admin
Still wondering years later how anyone thinks Craig "won" this debate. He was shut down on the science, absolutely. He was shut down on the philosophy too.
Probably only people that haven't actually watched it.
Craig won
Isn't the whole Boltzmann-brain argument based on the materialistic view that conciousness is purely a property of matter? Wouldn't that totally defeat the concept of souls, and therefore most popular concepts of a god?
No.
@@macysondheim please explain
Under naturalism, life is purely physical. There are no immaterial states required for mental states. This is what we say to the naturalist who advocated for a multiverse, and the naturalist would of course be committed to the view that mental states are explained only through physical states
Possibly, but there’s two things
First, Craig is arguing against the multiverse on the basis of the Boltzmann brain problem. So he does not believe the multiverse exists, and therefore he doesn’t believe consciousness is a property of matter
And second, Craig could simply be doing an internal critique of the multiverse hypothesis
Einstein thought nothing was an impossibility, if that’s true the Kalam argument doesn’t get off the ground…
The only thing in existence as large as the universe is Craig's ego.
Why do you think he has a big ego? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg For one he frequently postures and grandstands like he is some eminent force in this topic whilst really offering nothing more sophisticated than the Kalam.
@@timcollett99 You don't think the Kalam is sophisticated? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Not even remotely.
@@timcollett99 We're very interested in your analysis of the chapter on the Kalam in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Let us know when it's published. - RF Admin
Craig’s use of out of context quotes from reputable scientists underlines his dishonest style of apologetics.
What quote did he use out of context? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg
52:14
Craig misrepresents Carroll’s work by saying that according to Carroll’s very own model, the universe had a beginning.
1:03:32
Carroll, who has repeatedly said that he doesn’t believe that the universe needs to have a beginning, points out that a point of lowest entropy does not constitute a beginning.
This manner of debate from Craig is either due to ignorance or dishonesty, perhaps a mix of both.
But considering that Craig is a pretty smart guy and considering that he has just heard Carroll say that he doesn’t believe that the universe needs to have a beginning, I am forced to conclude that Craig is being dishonest.
@@davidolatunji119 //Craig misrepresents Carroll’s work by saying that according to Carroll’s very own model, the universe had a beginning.//
There's a difference between what a position claims and what it implies. Carroll claims that his model doesn't have a beginning, but it does imply it, since both the forward direction and backward direction of time's arrow start at the same point. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg
The point that you are trying to make is like insisting that a picture of Jesus with a halo implies that he has an actual halo despite the artist saying that the halo is meant to depict holiness.
The arrows are an illustration that show a point of lowest entropy. If you want to call a point of lowest entropy the beginning, you are free to do so but haven’t demonstrated anything, you’ve just changed a definition.
What do you mean by “there is a difference between what a position claims and what it implies”? Presumably people make claims about positions not the positions themselves.
@@davidolatunji119 //The arrows are an illustration that show a point of lowest entropy. If you want to call a point of lowest entropy the beginning, you are free to do so but haven’t demonstrated anything, you’ve just changed a definition.//
Since Carroll himself equates the direction of time with entropy, it's perfectly reasonable to say that his model implies a first moment, a beginning.
Many physicists have rejected the Carroll-Chen model because of the lack of evidence for (and implausibility of) the time-independent Hamiltonian with non-zero energies it requires.
//What do you mean by “there is a difference between what a position claims and what it implies”? Presumably people make claims about positions not the positions themselves.//
Yes, the phrase "what a position claims" is just shorthand for "what a person claims about their position." There can obviously a difference between what a person claims about their position versus what their position actually implies. For example, a person may claim that heavily rusted and missing bolts on a roller coaster do not endanger riders. But, of course, given the compromise to structural integrity, this is exactly what heavily rusted and missing bolts imply. - RF Admin
45:43 What do we expect the universe to look like under theism vs under naturalism.
From this premise:
"Everything has a sufficient cause" (that Craig and other Kalam supporters state) you can go to the following conclusions:
A. There is an infinite regress of causes. (Which is correct with the premise) or
B. There is an uber-cause, which is either self-causing or has no other cause (special pleading).
I don't support the criticism of infinity. It is difficult to grasp for humans (since our minds didn't evolve to deal with infinities, nor are we used to it) but that doesn't mean it's false. It's important to notice that the statements 'past is infinite' or 'there is an infinite regress of causes' are not identical. Infinite regress of caused could, just like Zenon's turtle and Achilles, be an infinite series with a finite result. We could have a finite past with infinitely many smaller and smaller causes (at least philosophically speaking, perhaps physicists will prove me wrong). Meanwhile the statement 'the past is infinite' can be easily explained as 'before every day, there was another day'. I don't see anything unintuitive about that. I would argue that stating that points where past / future does not exist are far more unintuitive, yet more mainstream thanks to Penrose-Hawking.
Finally, let's assume you agree with 'everything has a sufficient cause' (even though radioactive decay suggests otherwise) and let's agree with the special pleading against infinity, for a self-causing / causeless being. Now you also have 3 options:
A. The universe itself is causeless / self-causing.
B. A necessary being other than the universe is causeless / self-causing.
The first option seems to be supported by the fact that matter and energy can be transformed one into the other but you can't destroy or create matter or energy without using the other. This suggests all matter / energy is a necessary being. One might say that all beings are non-necessary and you can't have a collection of non-necessary beings be a necessary being, but this assumes all beings are seperate. Monism perfectly solves this issue, stating that all matter and energy along with spacetime are the necessary beings; meanwhile their association or position relative to one another or 'state' is non-necessary; this is no different than stating that god is necessary but his temper is non-necessary (but monism does assume one being less, being promoted by the Okcham's Razor).
Some people deny Monism based on their feelings ('I feel like I'm seperate than the universe) but all our scientific knowledge points toward it. On top of that, having a feeling of being seperate does not necessitate us being seperate. I have a feeling I have a free will, consciousness, that I ate pancakes this morning... some of these may be incorrect (after all, we've experienced many a time our feelingd or intuitions to be incorrect, and as Bertrand Russel put it: If Common Sense is true, physics is true but if physics is true then common sense is false, therefore common sense is false).
Now let's assume you agree with 'everything has a sufficient cause', you agree with special pleadings against infinity for a causeless / self-causing being and you agree it's not the Universe itself. You have arrived at... nothing. The Bare Causeless Being is by definition:
- something that existed at the beginning of the universe
- and caused the universe to exist.
To prove that it's still out there, the theist would have to say that it's timeless (but where would you prove it's timeless? How do you show that something even *can* be timeless?).
To say that it's a person, you need to show that physical laws or other non-conscious beings cannot cause something out of nowhere (well, process of radiation hardly agrees with you there).
Omnipotence is usually stated as necessary to create universes; that's not true. I can write a book but that doesn't mean I can also run a marathon. If this necessary being can create universes, that's the only thing we know about its powers.
Omniscience - I don't see why a process put in motion by one couldn't get out of hand and become unpredictable or unknown even to the creator. Also omniscience assumes its a person (and we don't know that).
To sum up, Kalam argument requires agreeing with a questionable premise, agreeing with some special pleading, assuming that Monism is false based on one's feelings and then doing some mental gymnastics that are hardly intellectually honest.
For anyone that was fooled by Craig’s disingenuous analogy about the bicycle out of nothing. Bicycles are very complex, and significantly more so are the humans that design and manufacture bicycles. Why is it necessary that the beginning of the Universe was due to some complex process. The “Evidence” that humanity has gained thus far strongly suggests that simplicity goes towards complexity. Evolution being the best example.
If the universe was not created then there are only two options to explain its existence:
1. The universe came into existence out of nothing
2. The universe has always existed
However, neither of these options can be chosen because option 1 would violate all known physical laws and option 2 would lead to an infinite regression of reality resulting in a contradiction. Therefore the only option left is to agree that the universe was created.
But how can you dismiss a personified creator? Let's assume the universe was created by some natural law as atheists and cosmologists suggest. However this natural law cannot arbitrarily decide to create the universe; it must have been satisfied by some condition before it could create the universe.
If the condition for the natural law has always been satisfied then the universe has always existed leading to the contradiction of infinite regression. If the condition for the natural law can be unsatisfied then the natural law needs to decide to create this condition. How is this different from a personified creator?
@@clay806 "Universe out of nothing" and "universe is created" is a false dichotomy. Also atttributing it as "created" adds a lot of baseless assumptions into it. You're already making up your conclusions and you work backwards from there.
Actually, there is a law called Entropy that physicists invoke. It basically says that things tend to go from complex to simple.
Evolution is not even a scientific theory and since you present it as proof, it’s clear you are willing to change your standard for evidence when the outcome is undesirable to you.
You are more than happy to buy into evolution without requiring proof because it doesn’t come with any moral responsibility.
@@clay806 you are objectively wrong to assert what you did.
Past eternal is not logically inconsistent and is the most plausible of the arguments.
@@andrewfairborn6762
Can zero plus zero equal to 1 ?
th-cam.com/video/N6UW3Imn5b8/w-d-xo.html
28:56. True. There's no deities being discussed in modern cosmology per the peer review. Debate was over at that point.
Why would the debate be over at that point? - RF Admin
@ReasonableFaithOrg Craig stated, more than once I believe, that he's not urging against the science but using it in support of premises for a deity's existence. That's fine, but philosophy doesn't hold sway over science. It's the other way around.
@@CesarClouds What does it even mean to say that "science holds sway over philosophy"? Is it possible for science to overturn the laws of logic, or to operate without the assumption of the reliability of our cognitive faculties, or to operate without the assumption of the existence of the external world? Clearly, there is no such thing as science without philosophy at its foundation. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg I meant to say "precedence", as every introductory book about western philosophy, that I'm aware of, states. I don't know if science can presently meddle in pure logic as you state, but it's made inroads like in quantum logic.
@@CesarClouds No, science has not made inroads in replacing or modifying classical logic with quantum logic. Quantum logic isn't a logic at all, since it doesn't have anything to do with reasoning processes. It has to do with summarizing the measurements performed by quantum apparatuses. Here's what atheist philosopher of science Tim Maudlin had to say about it:
"The horse of quantum logic has been so thrashed, whipped and pummeled, and is so thoroughly deceased that...the question is not whether the horse will rise again, it is: how in the world did this horse get here in the first place? The tale of quantum logic is not the tale of a promising idea gone bad, it is rather the tale of the unrelenting pursuit of a bad idea. ...Many, many philosophers and physicists have become convinced that a change of logic (and most dramatically, the rejection of classical logic) will somehow help in understanding quantum theory, or is somehow suggested or forced on us by quantum theory. But quantum logic, even through its many incarnations and variations, both in technical form and in interpretation, has never yielded the goods."
- RF Admin
The best.... no shouting...
Carroll addresses the Boltzman Brain "problem" right away. Craig pretending he didn't doesn't change a thing
What was the argument against it
@Shehatescash that the researchers actually use "Boltsman Brains" as a sort of litmus test, to help rule out models. Essentially, if your proposed model predicts universes dominated by "Boltsman Brains", then they know it doesn't work. In other words, Craig's is presenting a false dillema.
@@ReasonBeing25 The model doesn’t have to ‘predict ‘Boltzmann brains. The model can also either entail Boltzmann brains, or be underdetermined with respect to why there are not boltsmann brains but there are regular brains. Craig argued this point
@Shehatescash I don't follow your point. I'm attempting to provide a summary answer for someone's question. Dr. Carrol corrected Dr. Craigs mischaracterization of the "Boltsman Brain" dilemma and it's use in formulating models, to then have Dr. Craig repeat his assertion afterwards. Are you suggesting that this was not the case? Please correct me if I am misreading you
There is NO model that includes a transcendent being doing anything. Mr. Craig, you must be talking about some other model, one that does not demonstrate any claim of yours. Try again.
Craig didn't claim any such model. The only models he references are made by cosmologists. He speaks of the logical IMPLICATIONS of models which begin from nothing. Try listening again.
@@glennsimonsen8421 He didn't claim any such model? Fine. I cannot possibly hunt down what I was referencing if it means watching Craig again attempt to convince people that his conclusion is true by fitting science around his philosophical argument after the fact. He didn't use science to get to his god, he used emotion. How do I know that? Because he has so proudly announced it to the world. Model, schmodel. I don't care.
As with most apologists, Craig invokes science while NOT DOING ANY SCIENCE, yet he calls others intellectually lazy. He has no falsification criteria and still insists atheists claim the universe came from nothing, even though god clearly must have created the world FROM NOTHING. He's a withering old man who hasn't had a new thought in four decades, and he believes that if god wants to torture or drown us all just for grins, well, that would just be the swellest morality anyone could hope for. Craigs mind is broken, and as you are defending him, so may yours be.
Don't bother responding. I've given up thinking there is anything redeeming about the guy. He'll be pretty much forgotten in twenty years anyway.
Yeah hot is Craig get up and have anything to say after Carol's first go at it how do you respond to that like thinking you're the great baseball player cuz you're the best baseball player on your little league team when you're batting 600 with all kind of wonderful stats and then Nolan Ryan even at age 75 gets up and starts throwing baseball your way you're going to strike out every time
its like carroll was playing on his smurf account or some shit. Wasn't even close
Comments disabled...?
Interesting discussion - as ever, it's unlikely to change many minds but good points were raised on each side. The low point I have to say comes towards the end, when WLC is asked by an audience member to respond to the image Carroll refers to of Alan Guth holding a sign saying something along the lines of "the universe is probably eternal". It was an important question and I'm surprised Carroll didn't pick Craig on it.
Now I'm sure it's much easier to answer these questions in hindsight, but Craig's response - that maybe Guth has a "hunch" - was baseless and sloppy. I left with the impression that Guth's views outside the BGV theorem were of little interest to Craig.
My opinion, WLC did not raise any good points. Particularly since it was clear that his attempted use of physics to justify his position was, well ,wrong. I would have thought that given 1-2 thousand years theists would have managed to come up with some kind of convincing, evidence based argument for their claims. I've yet to hear of that having happened.
Nice to read the only informed and objective comment on this thread.
Nice to see Craig getting a lesson in science.
Sean Carroll goes "What in the world am I doing here????". ;-)
1:34:00 lane craig as always is making unfounded assertions, of course bicycles pop into existence all the time, what he misses is that some assembly is required.
the answer to craig's claim has always existed (!) radioactive decay happens totally randomly and has no cause, things do not need causes.
Radioactive decay has a cause buddy.
@@PA-1000 Explain it then buddddddy
@@fieryscorpion" an imbalance in the number of protons and neutrons in the atomic nucleus". Literally a google search away.
Assembly is certainly required. And Assembly requires an assembler - an outside agent.
It was once said if Sam Harris that “his attempt to transcend philosophy is just him doing it badly.” I think it can be said of WLC, “his attempt to transcend science is just him doing it badly.”
Where did he attempt to "transcend science"? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg By trying to apply dubious metaphysical principles to discussions on the origin and fine tuning of the universe, as if that refutes what actual cosmologists are saying about it.
It’s just like in Harris’ “Moral Landscape” where he applies flawed inferences from neuroscience into discussions about meta-ethics, and ignores what actual experts in both fields were saying about his conclusions.
@@bigbrownhouse6999 What metaphysical principles did he use which are "dubious." - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg The principle of sufficient reason. It has many defenders today of course, but has been in dispute among metaphysicians for hundreds of years, so Craig is wrong to treat it as self-evident.
The other is a somewhat foundationalist approach to the cosmological argument, where he thinks that the first cause has to be a necessary “transcendent” being as opposed to a brute contingency or something. For instance, John Stuart Mill suggested that the necessary ground of the universe could simply be the existence of matter and force. Carol hinted at a similar idea in his own speech, and Craig didn’t seem to understand.
These two assumptions misrepresent the state of metaphysics today. They aren’t necessarily false, but even if they are true, our knowledge of them is at best indirect. You can’t say that a cosmological model is wrong simply for violating principles that we aren’t even sure about.
@@bigbrownhouse6999 Your first point regarding the principle of sufficient reason is an appeal to peer disagreement, which is a psychological observation and doesn't do anything to show that the PSR (especially the weak-PSR defended by Dr. Craig) is "dubious."
Your second point about is simply false. Dr. Craig doesn't conclude from the Kalam Cosmological Argument that the cause of the universe exists necessarily. Rather, that's a conclusion of different arguments, such as the Leibnizian cosmological argument and the modal ontological argument. Moreover, Dr. Craig's claim that the cause of the universe is a transcendent being is the *conclusion* of the argument, not a "dubious metaphysical principle" upon which the argument is built.
Regarding Mill, yes, people propose all sorts of very silly things. Matter cannot be the necessary ground of the universe because it is part of the universe itself and the universe does not exist necessarily. It is doubtful that forces are really things that exist, and so cannot ground anything. Rather, forces seem to be descriptions of the way physical agents act and interact. Needless to say, descriptions are not entities which can cause the existence of the universe.
But let's assume that forces do exist. Why think that they are sufficient to explain the existence of a finite universe? They would not be causal entities and therefore could not cause the universe to exist. Moreover, they would plausibly also be parts of the physical universe itself, so, just as with matter, they could not ground the existence of the universe. - RF Admin
Am I tripping or did they clap polyrhythm style ala zzy at 28:04?
Seriously how tf
I think what we are hearing is the combination of clapping and one of (or all) the speakers' microphone(s) getting jostled. The speaker's mic cuts out the clapping so we get a polyrythm effect. Its still a super cool and unlikely effect and an amazing ear to notice in the first place!
OMG. Greatest comment ever. I hear it as well. And I'm completely sober.
Craig just uses the "logic fallacy fallacy" almost continually during the talk. Extremely dishonest. When he isn't using it, he's using the "strawman fallicy" on every other point. 💜
Craig won this debate quite easily
@@charlescarter2072 the strawman arguement is the easist way to win this audience.
@@BrianFedirko I assume you are an atheist?
@@charlescarter2072if only any academic or even laymen agreed with you. 😉
@@Greg-xi8yx I don’t need them to
01:54:00 Craig: "god is a..." - why can these people NEVER see that this is an ASSERSION, an assumption, it is NOT demonstrated?!?!
How is it an assertion when thats literally the agreed definition of what a God would be... keep up
Don't patronize me! It is NOT an "agreed definition", that's the point! "God" CANNOT BE an "agreed definition". Until the god or god(s)' existence and properties have been demonstrated IN REALITY then it is ENTIRELY an ASSERTION. The religious ASSUME WITHOUT PROOF god's a) existence and b) properties - and therefore, using "Hitchen's Razor": anything asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. So, YOU "keep up"!
@@r.i.p.volodya That last comment makes zero sense. You're basically arguing that people can't debate anything unless concrete evidence for said thing exists in reality. Why do scientists bother debating whether aliens exist then? You deserve to be patronized for this illogical line of thinking lol 🤦🏾♂️
There is definition of what a God is. You know what it is, I know what it is, so do theists and atheists. The definition is independent of its existence or non existence.
1) "That last comment makes zero sense" to YOU!
2) You're damned right "people can't debate anything unless concrete evidence for said thing exists". To do anything else would be an utter waste of time, like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! Only the religious are this pointless.
3) What would be the PURPOSE of debating ANYTHING the existence of which has NOT been demonstrated?!
4) Absolutely NO scientists debate "whether aliens exist" - their existence, though possible, has never been demonstrated - there's nothing to debate.
5) There is NO SINGLE definition of a god - but there ARE many many many differing CONCEPTS of god. Craig is making a HUGE and UNWARRENTED ASSUMPTION by only running with the Christian concept. Who is HE to ASSERT that's the only one?! Hence my original comment.
@@r.i.p.volodya You're clearly living in some delusional reality if you think people don't debate the possibility of alien life existing. Here in the actual world where the rest of us live, people debate such topics all the time... even scientists 🤦🏾♂️
Therefore your claim that subjects cannot be debated unless said subject has some evidential basis in reality is utter nonsense lol
1:13:55 Nobody is arguing that something can come from literally nothing. There was never nothing.
Praise the eternal universe my brother 😂
Means eternal universe which clashes with entropy and heat death and Law of conservation of energy.
And the evidence for that? Have none? But your faith is great.
@@glennsimonsen8421 We know for a fact that in the beginning there was energy, and energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
We all know that the universe has grown some.
And most of it is gruesome, especially those black holes.
I am willing to pay anyone who can tell me who is responsible.
It was me 😬
Sorry, I was having a bad day.
@@nickguy8037
I lied about paying you 👹
@@tedgrant2 nah… it was a botched job anyway
@@nickguy8037
Free will was a big mistake
@@tedgrant2 I was aiming for a feature. I got a bug.
Willy knows that some people are worried about their eternal souls.
He can assure them that they will be saved if they just believe him.
As a result, some will give him money to keep the faith alive. Wicked !
What law says there is nothing? There is a law that says there is something. The conservation laws state matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. There is no such thing as nothing.
Exactly!! I was thinking the same !! There one really amazing explanation by Sabine Hossenfelder about nothing and how it is just an concept of human language.
Craig is so full of it it is likely in most certain that our little part of the universe Hattie beginning midday rapid expansion from a singularity Hattie beginning does not mean the universe did not exist before that you just have no idea
Did he just say panopoly instead of panoply...
Craig clearly loses when he defaults back to the aforementioned "incredulous stare" when he bleets about how fantastic it is to believe the universe "popped into being" which was more than once explained by Carroll to make no sense in the context if the universe.
He had to pander to his customer base and have something in there about “universe from nothing”.
Heaven forbid that Craig would actually be honest. I don’t think he knows how.
53:00 It STAGGERS me that a mere philosopher DARE tell a cosmologist about cosmology!
When somebody made up the idea that one person made the universe, they didn't know how incredibly big it is. They thought the stars were little lights in a dome, just above the earth reachable with a very long ladder.
You think an omnipotent God couldn't create a big universe? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg
I suppose Brahma could do it.
Or maybe one of the other imaginary creators.
Perhaps my imagination is limited by my scientific education.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg
The modern idea of God is very different from the god of Israel.
He is invisible, timeless, spaceless and does not live up a mountain
Apparently the god of Israel sometimes lived in a tent ! (Numbers 7:89)
@@ReasonableFaithOrg
And God said "Let there be billions of galaxies !"
And lo, it was so, and he saw that it was good.
Is that how it happened ?
@@ReasonableFaithOrg
Then he said, "Let there be billions of stars in each galaxy"
And "billions of planets, some just like the earth !"
Maybe he likes lots of planets for Jesus to visit, then die again.
Whoever recorded this should've been monitoring the audio. It's appalling.
Craig's version of the Kalam relies on a bad premise. He asserts that things "begin to exist". You have to look at this assertion quite carefully. We can't use a loose or poetic interpretation of it, if we want to be logically sound and valid.
Things can "begin to exist" in an informal way. For example, my omlette "begins to exist" sometime after I crack the eggs but before I take a bite. To be more precise, I wouldn't say that the omlette begins to exist, I would say that I begin to LABEL the thing as "an omlette". All of the constituent parts of the omlette already existed. The parts were merely rearranged, and a label was applied. It did not "begin to exist" in reality.
So ask yourself the simple question: do you have any reason to believe that any object EVER has "begun to exist"? Not in the way that I described with the omlette, but in the way that Craig means when he presents his Kalam?
In my experience, objects do not ever "begin to exist". Rather, pre-existing things are rearranged and re-labeled. So the first premise of the Kalam seems like nonsense to me, and I'd need to be convinced that it's possible for anything to begin to exist, let alone the universe.
There are other issues I have with his Kalam, but this specific one is what originally convinced me that it's wrong when I first thought it over. Craig likes to talk about the Big Bang but he grossly misuses it - he wants people to think that the Big Bang proves that the universe popped into existence, but it does not. He uses this argument with laypeople who don't understand the science. It's quite dishonest in my opinion - I am almost positive that he knows better.
But mate the burning red dot waiting to explode isnt more rational than bigbang popping in nothingless if you mean that. God exsist, and there is nothing we can do about it.
In what way did the universe exist prior to the Big Bang? Don't scientists say neither time nor space existed prior to the Big Bang?
All language is about putting labels on reality. Stepping back and explicating that labelling process doesn't do anything to deny the phenomena that's being labelled. From my perspective, all you've done is break down the concept of an omelet beginning to exist into more labelled components. But that doesn't deny the observed phenomena of the omelet beginning to exist.
No it's iron clad, I watched most of Bills debates and I haven't seen anyone properly refute it
Didn’t you just kick the can further down the line? If we only labeled and omelette based on a rearrangement of its parts. Look at the parts, then we can keep following this line until there was a first instance of the individual parts. We labeled them, but how do we follow that there never was a first instance of an egg for the example
Craig got creamed.
How ironic that WLC states that 'you can always concoct elaborate schemes to explain away the evidence...' Sounds like the apologists creed.
01:43:00 Give me an example of a simultaneous cause and effect, please...
It seems plausible (Dr. Craig even says "virtually inescapable") that *all* cause-effect relations are simultaneous. If they were not simultaneous, then the conditions at the time of the event would be insufficient to produce the effect. Dr. Craig discusses this in Question of the Week #678: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/creation-and-simultaneous-causation - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg "It seems plausible that all cause-effect relations are simultaneous" - not to me it doesn't! In fact, I can't give a single example of one! Apart from the fact that (alla special relativity) that there is an issue with simultaneity: simultaneous for one observer is not simultaneous for another, e.g. But, more importantly, you cannot have simultaneity without a concept of time and Craig is talking about his yet-to-be-demonstrated god 'deciding' to create the universe "before" time existed. One may as well argue about angels dancing on the head of pin!
@@r.i.p.volodya Take any cause-effect relationship - a footballer taking a penalty kick, for example. The effect is the ball moving. The cause is the footballer who kicks. The scenario you envision has the footballer who kicks at time t=1 and the ball moving at time t=2. But note that at t=2, there's no cause present to move the ball, so it will not move. There is no recognized rule of inference that allows causal power to leap across a temporal chasm in order to produce an effect at which the cause does not exist. Nothing comes from nothing.
Special relativity theory doesn't preclude simultaneous causation. On some interpretations, the simultaneity is limited to particular reference frames. But on other interpretations, such as that of Lorentz, it is absolute. Since these interpretations are empirically equivalent, it cannot even be said that STR eliminates absolute simultaneity.
Also, Dr. Craig has never claimed that God decided to create the universe "before" time existed. This is a mischaracterization. I would encourage you to listen again and pay careful attention to the precise wording he uses. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg 1) A footballer deciding to kick a ball and the ball subsequently moving is IN NO WAY instantaneous!
2) Special Relativity ABSOLUTELY proves that simultaneity is NOT true for all observers!
3) Craig claims that (the yet to be demonstrated) god created the universe. This implies cause-and-effect WHEN THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS TIME.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Watch "Debate - Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs Peter Millican (Birmingham University, October 2011)" to see Millican make the EXACT same point!!
Why does reasonable faith keep this video up when Sean Carroll completely demonstrated William Lane Craig's failure to grasp physics and the intellectual vapidity of all his best arguments?
Where did Dr. Carroll show Dr. Craig's failure to grasp physics? - RF Admin
Debate in the nutshell.
Carroll: science.
Craig: magic.
You're not following. Craig speaks from science, logic and philosophy. Surely you don't think Carroll would debate him otherwise.
Craig got absolutely fried. How surprising. 🙄
Howso? - RF Admin
Well, Carroll literally bringing the cosmologist into the debate who Craig cited repeatedly and showing that Craig didn’t understand his ideas at all. It was a career ending moment honestly. I guarantee everyone in the audience either looked away or stared at their feet. I know I shifted uncomfortably from home the first time I saw it. As a guy who knows there is no soul it was soul
crushing. 🤣
@@Greg-xi8yx Except that he didn't really bring the cosmologist into the debate. He showed pictures of Guth holding up signs suggesting he thought it was possible (or even "likely") that the universe is eternal. But that in no way undermines the actual implications of the model. Remember that there's a difference between what a model claims versus what it implies.
What's worse is that Dr. Craig showed that Carroll's *own model* implies an absolute beginning of the universe. Given this and other major blunders Carroll made during the debate, it seems like most who thought he won this debate bit on the rhetoric rather the substance. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg on the contrary, it seems apologists immediately and frantically raced into damage control and face saving mode once the world saw how easily and completely Craig was just crushed with only his one-trick-pony and god of the gaps arguments when trying to use his tired smoke and mirrors with a competent scientist.
Keep lying to yourself
The fine tuning argument could be evidence for a multiverse.
Why are religious people so close minded?
Because if you view their model of reality from the outside it falls apart. Therefore they must remain in their model to maintain their position.
There's not a shred of evidence for a multiverse, but if you take it on FAITH it sounds pretty good.
So what he is saying in the god is an artist idea, is god is like Sims players. We all play it the same way, hours on building your house and sims, but when comes time to actually play. What do we do? We basically torture them if we play at all. Despite EA designing the game so we can’t do evil things, we still find a way with mods.
Here is a theory we are in a giant sims game, where the player was super interested a few thousand years ago, but now the player has moved up to sims universe 4, and we are in still in sims universe 1.
😂😂😂
48:34 excellent
Why do you debate debate people like this and give someone as obtuse as Dr. Craig any validation? Just stand on the stage, say "God of the Gaps" and walk off.
Whoops! Craig has debated Sam Harris, Lawrence Krauss, Roger Penrose, Christopher Hitchens, and a long list of other preeminent scientists. Seems like you're missing something.
Craig quotes someone that claims the Universe has an "absolute": beginning. That's not a scientist. Scientists (honest and accredited ones) don't speak in absolutes.
The quote is from Alexander Vilenkin who is one of the preeminent cosmologists alive today.
I suppose we might never find out the true origin of everything.
We may never know who invented the god of Israel.
People invented that tribal war deity, Yahweh.
This is the risk you take, William Craig, when you invoke cosmology as proof of God: If you go against someone that actually lives in this space, you're toast.
What do you think the defeater was and why
@@Shehatescash The common theme was that Sean showed over and over again that Craig's assumptions about cosmology and interpretations of theorems were biased towards the result he wanted and incorrect. A reasonable person would toss any cosmological data is support for either position based on this debate, and adopt a neutral position as to whether God is required. When you do this, the simpler models have the advantage based on what we've seen before. So, Craig needs to adjust his cosmology if he faces Sean again.
@@Steve-cd9ul It seems to me that this isn’t as cut and dry as you would think. Why do you take it that Sean was correct? I suspect it’s on the basis of some authority, but the problem in this particular case is that Sean has a bias AGAINST Craig’s conclusion, so naturally he’s gonna say things which contradict the conclusion in order to support himself. When checking over the facts and hearing the arguments i wonder what do you think was said that was a defeater to Craig’s position? I’ve seen this same attitude towards krauss in that debate but, krauss was actually wrong on lots of points and equivocated many philosophical terms
Craig is asserting a very, very specific explanation for the creation of the universe: A personal god, with multiple specific traits. Sean provide more than enough model possibilities to account for everything we have observed. He also showed beyond a reasonable doubt that Craig's was not a model, in that it was never submitted to scientific panels for review, and that his conclusions on theorems in fact contradicted the originators of the theorems themselves. So clearly Craig does not have a model in the same way as the many, many other actual models that actual real cosmologists like Sean have. It was clear that Craig was TRYING to find support for his presupposition rather than going where the models went.@@Shehatescash
@@Steve-cd9ul Any good explanation is very, very specific, otherwise it was lack explanatory scope, or have too much of it. Big bang is very very specific. Evolution is very very specific.
Providing a possibility for creation doesn’t mean it’s likely, or means anything. Craig was arguing against the various models brought up, and pointed out how the premises of his conclusion are more likely true than not. Sean giving a model doesn’t serve to show a defeater. Hitler would give a diff model of human rights, doesn’t make it relevant (not saying Sean is hitler)
Something doesn’t need to be submitted to scientific panels for review in order to be a model, lol. A model is just an explanation. Theism is a model of reality. I have no clue where you get your definition of model from. This definition would entail that before Einstein submitted special relativity, special relativity wasn’t a model. The submitting process didn’t change the nature of the theory.
What do you think was out of accordance with his definition of theory?