The funny part, in the beginning when he talked about the end of life and universe, is that even with a belief in God the end is the same. All belief in God does is provide comfort for the minds that can't stomach reality.
God needs to exist because how can anything exist without God because god needs to exist because how can anything exist without God because god needs to exist because how can anything exist without God because god needs to exist. I'm a sane and rational person
Even if we were to accept that a God exists, how would we know what he wants, does, etc.? Even if you prove your religion is from God, why would you follow it? In other words, how do you know God is not fooling you with it? Bc God says he is good?
Because it FEELS right The religious books are the guides to what their gods want Living the way God would like you to just feels better internally You learn to love and respect others just as much as yourself People who are truly of God bring nothing but peace and love
Because once you take all of the previous steps, you fall into the conclusion that god is righteous, and that he is just. Therefore he can’t lie. This God we’re talking about Can not be deceitful. That’s why we can firmly believe anything he says
@@nicobiggamer8338 but he can be righteous here. What about afterlife? Or myb he deceives you to achieve some higher purpose that we can't understand right now.
Your god does exist. It exists as an imaginary character. This is why after decades of just talking about it, WLC has never even atrempted to present a god in reality as real as he is.
People are not as self deprecating or deceitful as you think, billions believe in the existence of God not for some ulterior or social gain, but because despite all of the changes in our paradigms of thought in the modern age, something still persuades them of the existence of a very real God, you outright dismiss people choosing to believe in God over their own lives when they stand to gain nothing from that commitment as ignorant is to remain tone deaf to the nuance of their sacrifices.
@@zrakonthekrakon494 Gods are characters in the minds and imagination of the believer. You mistakenly perceive it outside of yourself because even though it is your perception what you think about your god is coming from your own mind.
@ Than how do you explain people who have no involvement with God but after a religious experience, despite their family or community not believing, they suddenly convert in a singular transformative moment, people don’t behave that way with fictional characters. If they did than we would have all sorts of gods, yet gods all retain these similar properties across all of the minds that conjure them. They also all derive from the same root origin, pantheons and later religions are iterations of the same foundational one.
@@atheistcommentsBut this has to do with perception, hunger, thirst, hapiness, pain are all coming from the mind, does that make them unreal or untruthful? If you tell me don't worry your pain doesn't exist it's just in your mind I would appreciate that but still I would consider that you really don't understand me and you don't know what you're talking about. Not to mention, pain and hunger and cold and happiness are all characters created in and by my mind. How would you feel if I saw you are cold and in I'd tell you ah, you are not really cold, cold is just another character created by your mind? Would you endorse that?
@Westrwjr No. I genuinely agree with 20:17. But I also see the symmetry. I am not a fan of Dawkins, nor am I a fan of WLC. And I believe in freedom of expression.
Ain't no philosophizing like Christian philosophizing... assume God magic and use metaphysics to suggest it could be true... an undetectable God that theologians claim has revealed himself to anonymous authors.
@James-ll3jb You right, Christianity is childish, like believing in Santa Claus. Some people never grow up enough to deal rationally with death. So they pretend they are immortal and will have all the comforts in a pretend afterlife that they never had in the only life they will ever have. Grow up, deal with it. Make the best of it.😁
Our minds are conditioned with dualistic thinking - beginning and ending, creation and creator, subject and object. In the calmness and stillness of meditation, one is in touch with the timeless dimension of the Universe, no beginning, no ending; always was and always will be. The Big Bang is only a theory. Theere is no creator God who is separate from the Universe, the world and nature. God is only a symbol, a mental image, of Mother Nature, Awareness and Reality and the Universe. When the Buddha was asked if there was a God or Creator, whether there was a beginning or ending of the Universe, he kept silent and smiled. Later, the Buddha would say that these questions were not important. What was important was to understand the suffering and mental delusion in your mind - fear, worry, anxiety, craving, frustration, selfishness and jealousy and hatred - and to make the effort to purify our minds towards peace, loving kindness and compassion.
I used to believe all this. Consider this though, deception exists. How do you know you are not currently deceived? If you were, what would it look like? You might think you have "the truth" but it's just a false set of beliefs. Jesus is the way the truth and the life and He loves you friend ❤
@@satepestage3599 Hello Friend, Thanks for your comment. There is a big difference between believing something and having a clear and deep understanding that comes from years of meditation practice/mind training , investigation and reflection. You don't know the story about the missing years of Jesus, between 12 and 30 years old. Apparently, he was taken by his teachers and relatives to India via Persia/Iran. There was a trade route between Palestine and India via Persia, He learned from Buddhist monks and Yoga teachers. Buddhism was already 500 years old. Interestingly, Jesus taught the same spiritual values as the Buddha - loving kindness, compassion, forgiveness, brotherhood, calmness and patience, not being judgemental, and so on. However, you are free to believe what you wish to believe. Stay humble and open-minded. Be well, be happy, be peaceful.
After reading stuff written by a philosopher called Yujin Nagasawa ive became convinced the ontological argument is indeed preety good and the convlusion inescapable. However, it is hard to grasp, you can see in the comments here, people trying to mock it, didnt fully understand it. Someone should explain it in simpler terms one day.
Indeed, logic doesnt give the answer to either the theist or atheist. Theists at least are willing to step outside of logic to make an attempt. Which is extremely admirable and frankly, our only (ironically) next logical step as a species.
@@defenestratedalien1448 And you are right. It just means theists make the attempt and atheists dont. Which would make atheists pessimistic and theists optimistic.
@@Artiscetic you are free to make an attempt, but should be intellectually honest enough to admit that your conclusion cannot be objectively verified. Every theistic argument I have encountered either smuggles an unsound premise somewhere or the conclusion is not necessarily the god they describe. Simply put, we may simply be unable to answer the question as humans and claiming to have an answer may be a mistake or just dishonest. Speaking wrt classical definitions and attributes given to god
Craig’s “objective” morality and meaning for existence are all dependent on words written on ancient scrolls by human beings. There is nothing objective about these ideas they are only the product of the human mind and personal tastes of people. Imagine three thousand years from now people will be able to say they can appeal to objective morality that was written down by the great Christopher Hitchens or William Lane Craig…😂
I love WLC for the work he has done, which I constantly learn from and God has used to help me to stay in the faith since my college dayswhen my philosophy professor tried shaking it.
Folks may argue about specific points about the natural universe, but no one argues about the existence of the natural world itself, for obvious reasons. God is not just any ol' existence, but is by definition the Most Existent Thing. If the Most Existent Thing really existed, no one would be arguing about that any more than they argue about the existence of the natural world, and for the same reasons. Why hold the Most Existent Thing to a lower standard than we apply to determining the existence of everything else? Isn't that how psychology becomes theology?
How do you explain the 10-5-6-5 pattern in histamines, and lamidae protein in the shape of a cross, or the alignment of Jupiter with the constellation signifying kingship near the historical date of Jesus’s birth, there are too many coincidences at a cosmic level that keep me believing in God.
@ very easily: with our cognitive biases towards patternicity, our desire to confirm our preexisting biases by projecting patterns and meaning into external phenomena where there may not be actual patterns or agency. One can subjectively imbue things with meaning and significance, especially if they seem to be connected with presupposed beliefs in the indemonstrable.
@ Nah, that seems like a stretch these patterns align exactly with scriptural symbols on multiple accounts in matters, places, and dates of symbolic significance, it makes less sense to claim our pattern seeking brains are trying to find meaning in them, than it does to accept them as intentional. The only reason you would claim otherwise is if your are already convinced of the irrationality of believing in a God and must fine some explanation for anything on the contrary, your are entrenched in your presuppositions and no evidence will change your mind.
@@zrakonthekrakon494 the patterns only seem that way to you: the willing believer desiring to believe. The things you enumerated don't point to your god in any way that can be demonstrated, they just have significance to you. Numerology exists in many faiths: Numbers can be given significance per the will of the numerologist. There are hardcore maga qanon people who apply "gematria" to the English language to prove Trump is their godking. That doesn't mean that he is, it means they've worked to fit the numeric ideas into their belief system (patternicity). Laminin is another great example. Under a microscope, it doesn't look anything like a cross, but the scientific diagram looks like two intersecting perpendicular lines (a very common shape), and so the Christian maps that idea to the symbology of the cross. A direct correlation to your faith cannot be demonstrated it can only be intuited by feelings and biases. The reason I lack a belief in what you believe is that I don't feel the evidence available is sufficient. My only presupposition is that the universe exists and we experience it. If sufficient evidence for a god, or even the specific version of god that you believe in, were available, I'd have no option in the matter but to believe. As it stands, though, I am unable to believe due to the lack of sufficient evidence and the availability of evidence to the contrary.
@@zrakonthekrakon494 [zrak]: "Nah, that seems like a stretch these patterns align exactly with scriptural symbols on multiple accounts in matters, places, and dates of symbolic significance, it makes less sense to claim our pattern seeking brains are trying to find meaning in them, than it does to accept them as intentional." Lol. Confirmation bias. You will find what you look for. []zrak]: "The only reason you would claim otherwise is if your are already convinced of the irrationality of believing in a God and must fine some explanation for anything on the contrary, your are entrenched in your presuppositions and no evidence will change your mind." Lol. The only reason you would make this claim is if you're already convinced that you must believe in God and must not find some explanation for anything on the contrary ... you are entrenched in your presuppositions and no evidence will change your mind. < < < y a w n > > >
So true!!! And my god is the one and ONLY true god!!!!! With out our Lord and Savior, life would be Impossible!!! So Praise be the one and ONLY true god. Praise be the Magic Toe Nail. AMEN!!!!! Glad you all agree.
Craig says, "Dawkins is so popular because people are so unsophisticated in their thinking. I am appalled honestly when I read the stuff that's out there on the internet. How inept and sophomoric people are. I'm afraid that many young people just have never been exposed to good, rigorous argumentation with regard to these matters, and therefore they're taken in by these Dawkins types because they've never really read sophisticated treatments of these problems." Earlier in the conversation Craig presented essentially the ontological argument for God. He then described God as a disembodied mind [a ghost] who invented the universe. Craig is also the guy who champions the Kalam cosmological argument even after having its issues described to him by a cosmologist (see Carroll vs Craig debate). I don't think Craig has ears to hear.
In my own experience with atheists (who are intellectually engaged in this debate) a majority are reasoning ‘out of’ or from a philosophical foundation forward. Lennox called ‘scientism’ on Dawkins a long time ago and the word itself is perhaps contentious but the more I think about it the clearer it is: he was dead on. If you start from 1. materialism 2. The philosophical commitment that ‘science has the only method that finds/validates the only truths there are’ 3. Our minds are (why question it?) obviously sufficient to (not insufficient to) reality… Once all of that is in place God is either an object (like a mug) or simply doesn’t exist. There’s nothing controversial _once_ we are committed physicalists about not believing in God. What Dawkins did was to say, believing 1. 2. & 3. _is_ ‘scientific’. Yet on closer examination none of these claims follow from science (as though the evident outcome of some experiment, repeated)… they are all philosophical positions requiring a justification science cannot provide.
Please correct me if I am wrong. Maybe I did not fully understand the argument. But is it not the same as saying that there has to be the greatest conceivable stinker. This stinker smells so bad, that no one can top this. And the perfect stinker would not be perfect, if you could not smell him. Therefore he must exist. I find these conclusions nonsense.
Or the greatest of all possible pizzas. Yummy! Or chocolate. Double yummy. I have a lot of human imagination. Maybe I can will them into existence and eat them. :)
It's a useful illustration. The issue is in the premises in both cases. Nobody would agree that the greatest conceivable stinker even exists so it ends right there. By contrast, many people agree that God is in reality the greatest conceivable being. Once they agree to this it's basically settled and the remaining steps are just sealing the deal.
0:49 What he means is: no matter what universe, omniverse, macroverse you can imagine, you can't imagine it without G'd. Now, you might imagine G'd to be something he is not but that's just your imagination since THAT G'd, the uncreated G'd, has to be the G'd that he is--the G'd he described himself as. The "I Am". The Alpha and Omega--a being outside of time, and therefore outside of space, speed and change--within whom all else exists, at least until he separates out that which has chosen not to be with G'd.
Logic, not to mention the scientific method, requires the offering, first, of an explicit intended definition and use of the subject term (God). Otherwise, no matter how impressive the logic, folks will not be on the same page.
Well thats your next personal dilemma isnt it? I believe its fine to "settle" on a choice, just be intellectually honest with yourself that you are agnostic and not an atheist once you realize God exists.
@@Joshua52391 He's the son of the father, son and holy spirit 1 nature and 3 persons. He lived and died on the cross and rose after 3 days and was seen by at least 500-1000 after death--enemies as well as disciples.. This is the only God that exists. Anything that doesn't include Jesus/Trinity is a cult.
He's referring to the "ontological argument". It was a bold attempt to apply logic to religion. There are multiple problems with it and of course it does not prove God, but it has been intellectually stimulating for many great thinkers.
@@erikt1713 In the little I could stand to watch he seems to me not so much "referring" to the ontological argument as trying, ineptly, to invoke it. Re: "It was a bold attempt to apply logic to religion". Well, it was one of several (long since thoroughly debunked) historical attempts to prove the existence of God with logical argument.
There is not a single argument he makes that makes logical sense. It is very telling, that when he talks about the different, and in one fell swoop he declare that Christianity is the only true religion. He just rubbish off Islam and Buddhism without attempting even to give any reasonable explanation. I can only say that he is an articulate madman. His madness comes from his total immersion and life investment in his belief and what he is doing is justifying his belief in the face of scientific logic and truth. I liken him to AI whose base learning is that god exist and that produce all the argument to support that. So the result is a very articulate cold technical presentation.
At 23-24 minutes in it sounds like he is misinterpreting what people have said about existence. of course people believe that William Craig came into existence at some point in time. I'm sure the argument that they made is that there's no reason to think that the atoms and molecules suddenly came into existence at some point. Those building blocks may have always existed, as far as we know. I think he's representing what people have said to him in response to his assertions. He says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Well of course, if it begins to exist, it has a cause. But some things may have always existed. As far as we know, the building blocks of the universe, the atoms and the molecules and elements… may have always existed.
@Jonesimedes-q6f How is it a straw man? He quotes Dawkins directly. Do you deny that Dawkins claims that the designer hypothesis creates a problem of "who designed the designer?" and that Dawkins claims the designer would have to be "complex"? It's all there in chapter 4 of Dawkins' book, and Dawkins himself says this publicly at every opportunity. Do you deny that Dawkins defines complexity as requiring the entity to have many constituent parts (if so, have you read the opening chapter of The Blind Watchmaker)? I ask all these questions, and give you all those specifics, because you did nothing at all to support your accusation (which is usually what people do when they have no argument).
Thank you for your reply. Your response employs what is known as a Gish Gallop. Read Dawkin’s book. Craig misrepresents it. Thus, the straw man fallacy.
@ I have read it, indeed I quoted from it while defending Craig’s response. I gave you just three points (what Dawkins says about “who designed the designer?”, complexity, and having parts). If you think that qualifies as an overwhelming number of points to respond to then I feel sorry for you. You are taking the lazy and cowardly option of not bothering to substantiate your objection.
I used his same arguments and came to the conclusion that their must exist a super duper meta meta God that created the God of Christianity. And now I confused.
I respect Craig’s pursuit and discovery in finding god, however his rationale in substantiation of it all is faulty. He only may keep to himself in its current format.
Atheist willingly taking time out of their day commenting and arguing about something they say doesn’t exist makes absolutely no sense. I would never waste my time arguing against Santa Claus because I know he doesn’t exist
@@markhaunert5029 Christianity is all about love sacrifice and forgiveness so to say it ruins people’s lives is just wrong. You’re literally arguing against an all-good God. It makes no sense unless you desire to do evil
@BJtheMountaineerguy well you left out the government part so I'm assuming you're in some agreement that's not a good combination and if you really haven't seen absolute horror stories done to people in the name of religion i suggest you research more about this. Thanks for responding.
@@markhaunert5029 You’re talking about Islam not Christianity.. Christianity is all-good which means it’s true because God is all-good. It teaches to love your neighbor as yourself and not to do evil
@@markhaunert5029 If I may ask what are some things that you do not like about Christianity if you’re saying it’s trying to run the government? What are those things you dislike?
@@josekmcmi My argument from ignorance is that God is atemporal, & not constrained by time, space etc. If the universe always existed, why's it a finite age 13.8Byo? Are you at least saying that it always existed in some form? Like prior state?
@@James-ll3jb bc Uncle science says so. They don't want a beginning of the universe bc theists can't be right. They eat beans a lot, & it's reflected in their answers.
Religions preach to BELIEVE in the existence of a Creator 😮 Spirituality enables true Seekers to REALISE the cause for Creation 😊 Why to BELIEVE in the existence of a Creator, when there is a possibility to REALISE the cause for Creation?😅
1st argument on why there must necessarily be a God: 'the very concept of God is a concept of a greatest conceivable being. Because "if you could conceive of a greater being then that would be God." Therefore God must be the greatest conceivable being. Think about that "logic". 1) Why does whether something can be conceived have anything to do with whether there is in fact a God? The fact that you can conceive of something certainly doesn't make that a fact or truth. 2) Why does there have to be only one God being conceived? There have been many conceptions of multiple Gods. 3) Why does God have to be the greatest thing you can conceive? Again, many Gods have been conceived that are not omnipotent. Craig doesn't address any of these things. He just makes a flimsy assertion (God is necessary) based on the flimsiest of arguments (God is the greatest thing we can conceive) and sets the foundation of his positions upon what we can "conceive." This is not logic or reason, its apologitic blather. And this guy is supposed to be brilliant?
i clearly remember a debate in which theists (don't remember if it was Craig himself) were particularly honest about this argument and actually stated that a) they don't claim to know it for sure and b) that the argument rests on a premise, so if the premise is not true, the argument falls. But in many occasions, by the proponents and even more frequently by other people like youtubers, the argument is presented as logically ironclad, like a definite proof. Sadly, similar stuff happens with some scientists when they purposely present ideas in a misleading way, like Lawrence Krauss's universe from nothing, and then you realize that's not the case, but they're not always 100% transparent about the weakness of their arguments and theories, for obvious reasons.
If God is a logically necessary being then every intelligent person who understood logic would believe in GOD and that is not the case. So, the argument is not convlusive.
0:03 Just see if you can get this phony, WLC, to address the question of the Ascension. He won't. He will just tap dance. Won't it be nice when he and his type are done and gone in a generation or two?
Just say God created the universe, could be true but adds nothing. If Jesus is God then God sacrificed God to God to save God's creation from God. The Bible's morality is terrible.
The universe is eternal. It has always been in existence. It has no beginning. It has no creator, for it wasn't created. Before the big bang, there was something.
It just doesn't make sense, why the Universe 'was and has always been' instead of not 'be' at all? What made it 'be'? And if it has always been here then how did it get here? And why? What is it's ultimate purpose? Does it have a purpose at all or it simply just is ? And if so why is it rather than not be? Because 'is' as oppossed to 'not be' is very different, and equally likely, so, does the Universe preffer to be rather than not be by its own will? Is it alive as opposed to inanimate?
It just doesn't add up, it doesn't make any sense, it's all messed up ... some scientists and people believe and say that there are laws of nature governing here, even governing the so called big bang but, they fail to prove them and explain them. Suppose there really was a big bang, what did it make it ... 'be'? Why did it make it at all? What trigerred it and why of course? If a law of nature trigerred it what is that law and why is it instead of simply just not be? Who or what made the law in the first place? And of course why was there a big bang to begin with and anything before the big bang instead of simply, just, nothing? In other words, simply put, why did it have to be a big bang at all when it could've been equally possible or probable for nothing to happen or to be at all?
Actually these are all very important questions that need to be answered somehow, if we don't answer them and don't find the truth it means that we are literally unable to understand and to discover our origins and the meaning of all this. We would be condemned to live our entire limited lives in the dark without any purpose or meaning. Because it is what it is, meaningless, let's face it. The Universe, the big bang and all are meaningless. It doesn't make any sense. If there is anybody here that says he is satisfied with that, with a meaningless Universe which magically was and always has been I would say he is either delusional, crazy or he doesn't know what he is talking about. If there was no beginning then why bother invent a theory of the big bang at all? Since the Universe was and always has been this way to begin with there's no point for the big bang which would be the ... beginning. With no beginning there is no big bang so it's all just gibberish, a nice story, but not the truth, not reality. We are far from being able to perceive all dimension, we barely perceive 3D so my best guess is that it's unlikely that we'll ever be able to understand where it all came from and how and why. But we have the Scriptures.
This is a very old trick. The definition in this is "God is the highest conceivable being" which sounds familiar and therefore seems fair to accept. Do not accept this lightly! It contains "God is" and therefore you accept his existence right with this premise. The further steps of deduction only build on this initial mistake. In reality (not in the imagination) a non-existing entity like the God of Christianity has no attributes and is nothing.
Who said anything about the God of Christianity? No tricks or mistakes from Craig, he's as logical as you can get before you are FORCED to think further philosophically, which you are forced, or you will place yourself in your overdosed-on-logic atheistic box.
@@Artiscetic The argument was originally invented by a Christian and applied to the God of Christianity, who he believed to be the only true God. It's a nice thought experiment and it shows that you have to be careful with definitions and premises, not only with steps of deduction. There are more problems with it. Check the "ontologigal argument".
@@erikt1713 "The argument was originally invented by a Christian" source? This revelation has been present for millenia. Christians just make a claim on *who* God is, they did not "invent" God *is* Edit: i tried to put dashes and it made a strike-through?
@Artiscetic I meant the written proof of God in an essay by St Anselm of Canterbury. It is true that some Greek philosophers thought about the gods and their nature already thousands of years before Anselm but the thought Craig is quoting is Anselm's. Let's give this Christian pioneer the recognition he deserves.
@@erikt1713 the revelation being recognized by greeks (and im sure many "monk" type cultures hundreds of years before hand) doesnt make it invented by the first person to orient it into and essay though.
I'm only six minutes in and I've heard so much nonsense it's painful. Morality is not objective. "Meaning" and "purpose" (whatever that means when applied to life) are subjective. He starts off trying to define God into existence by saying the nature of the God I have defined is that he had no beginning or creation and is the maximally great being. I can conceive of all sorts of things but it doesn't mean they are real. I'm going to keep listening but I'll take it in chunks so my brain doesn't fall out of my head.
@@philb4462 which is fine as long as you are intellectually honest and acknowledge that if that is the case, all morality is permitted, especially morality you dont agree with subjectively.
@@philb4462 and i meant in terms of moral behavior. The opinion of the judiciary system on the subjective moralists behavior is irrelevant. The moralist is free to believe his behavior was completely morally good, if that is his subjective opinion
he doesnt , he says its one of the arguments but its not weak at all with jus a tad of reasoning-- Let me know which part you find hard and i maybe able to help😁
Lot of proud atheists here who think they know what they're talking about. As if theists are necessarily any less scientifically or philosophically sophisticated than they are. You guys have no idea how inane your views are to anyone whose educated and got over themselves enough to genuinely think these things through 🤦♂
God is a banana because there is no greater banana than the greatest banana. Bananas exist without any human intervention ∴ God is objectively a banana as well as subjectively a banana...
Incoherent. Bananas cannot exist in all possible worlds (they're material entities) so they cannot be maximally great. Tell me you've never bothered studying Craig's arguments without telling me you've never bothered studying Craig's arguments.
Christianity is easy to test. Honestly ask God/Jesus to show himself to you and wait---He showed himself to me many times and answered prayers and Ive witnessed many miracles. If Jesus shows himself to you you need to be ready to commit tho--He knows when youre genuine and if you are just being a clown
"If God exists, He must exist by necessity." ... Okay.... 'IF God exists...' I.e., "If God exists it is because He must." That is a far cry from, "God must exist because He does, therefore He does."(!)
There aren’t “endless possibilities” and polytheism is nothing more than superhero worship, it offer no justification for the world or our conscious mind experience.
@justchilling704 and I can just as easily reduce yahweh to a human with superhero powers; but I guess it wouldn't really be much of a reduction because he really does read like a super human with super powers. Anyways, for all we know there could be several lesser gods and one supreme being who rules over all them.
@@Joshua52391 It’s impossible to reduce the name to a mere superhuman, the name was never born, has always exited, and will always exist, is all knowing, all good, etc. the name is a ontologically distinct being to polytheistic God’s bc The Name is non-contingent. The gods of all polytheistic religions are contingent, and are not the source of metaphysical realities. At any rate, ironically the biblical teaching is what you suggested, many lesser God’s one Supreme God.
The funny part, in the beginning when he talked about the end of life and universe, is that even with a belief in God the end is the same. All belief in God does is provide comfort for the minds that can't stomach reality.
If God is a necessary being, I'm going to worship whoever designed necessity.
Because if he doesn't, I have wasted my whole life saying he does.
God needs to exist because how can anything exist without God because god needs to exist because how can anything exist without God because god needs to exist because how can anything exist without God because god needs to exist. I'm a sane and rational person
Word salad and circular. Bam. nailed it.
Its either that or the atheistic view which doesnt have an answer for existence 🤷♂️
@@Artiscetic There is an answer to existence. Existence has no alternative.
@@alajos-derek1669 that would be nothing. And existence is something.
@@Artiscetic We got many steps to get from deism to theism to a certain religion.
Even if we were to accept that a God exists, how would we know what he wants, does, etc.? Even if you prove your religion is from God, why would you follow it? In other words, how do you know God is not fooling you with it? Bc God says he is good?
Because it FEELS right
The religious books are the guides to what their gods want
Living the way God would like you to just feels better internally
You learn to love and respect others just as much as yourself
People who are truly of God bring nothing but peace and love
Because once you take all of the previous steps, you fall into the conclusion that god is righteous, and that he is just. Therefore he can’t lie. This God we’re talking about Can not be deceitful. That’s why we can firmly believe anything he says
@@nicobiggamer8338 I never heard God say anything.
Just ppl speaking on his behalf claiming he said X.
@@nicobiggamer8338 I've only seen ppl _claiming_ to speak for God.
@@nicobiggamer8338 but he can be righteous here. What about afterlife? Or myb he deceives you to achieve some higher purpose that we can't understand right now.
Your god does exist. It exists as an imaginary character.
This is why after decades of just talking about it, WLC has never even atrempted to present a god in reality as real as he is.
How can the ynimaginable be imaginary?
People are not as self deprecating or deceitful as you think, billions believe in the existence of God not for some ulterior or social gain, but because despite all of the changes in our paradigms of thought in the modern age, something still persuades them of the existence of a very real God, you outright dismiss people choosing to believe in God over their own lives when they stand to gain nothing from that commitment as ignorant is to remain tone deaf to the nuance of their sacrifices.
@@zrakonthekrakon494 Gods are characters in the minds and imagination of the believer.
You mistakenly perceive it outside of yourself because even though it is your perception what you think about your god is coming from your own mind.
@ Than how do you explain people who have no involvement with God but after a religious experience, despite their family or community not believing, they suddenly convert in a singular transformative moment, people don’t behave that way with fictional characters. If they did than we would have all sorts of gods, yet gods all retain these similar properties across all of the minds that conjure them. They also all derive from the same root origin, pantheons and later religions are iterations of the same foundational one.
@@atheistcommentsBut this has to do with perception, hunger, thirst, hapiness, pain are all coming from the mind, does that make them unreal or untruthful? If you tell me don't worry your pain doesn't exist it's just in your mind I would appreciate that but still I would consider that you really don't understand me and you don't know what you're talking about. Not to mention, pain and hunger and cold and happiness are all characters created in and by my mind. How would you feel if I saw you are cold and in I'd tell you ah, you are not really cold, cold is just another character created by your mind? Would you endorse that?
God must exist because the word ‘god’ is defined as ‘god must exist’ and furthermore, god must exist so that existence can exist.
20:17 “Dawkins is so POPULAR because people are so unsophisticated in their thinking.”🙌🏼🎯🎯🎯
I agree. And WLC is so popular because people confuse sophistry with sophisticated reasoning...
@@YAWTon Your sarcasm is too evident, tone it down a bit..
@Westrwjr No. I genuinely agree with 20:17. But I also see the symmetry. I am not a fan of Dawkins, nor am I a fan of WLC. And I believe in freedom of expression.
Nothing comes from nothing!
Not even an imaginary god!
Nothing doesn't exist, if it did that would be something.
Ain't no philosophizing like Christian philosophizing... assume God magic and use metaphysics to suggest it could be true... an undetectable God that theologians claim has revealed himself to anonymous authors.
😅childish
@James-ll3jb You right, Christianity is childish, like believing in Santa Claus. Some people never grow up enough to deal rationally with death. So they pretend they are immortal and will have all the comforts in a pretend afterlife that they never had in the only life they will ever have. Grow up, deal with it. Make the best of it.😁
Human imagination can bring it into being. There's a lot of New Age thought in Christianity, apparently.
He basically makes up a definition of a god therefore he says god exists.
Our minds are conditioned with dualistic thinking - beginning and ending, creation and creator, subject and object. In the calmness and stillness of meditation, one is in touch with the timeless dimension of the Universe, no beginning, no ending; always was and always will be. The Big Bang is only a theory. Theere is no creator God who is separate from the Universe, the world and nature. God is only a symbol, a mental image, of Mother Nature, Awareness and Reality and the Universe. When the Buddha was asked if there was a God or Creator, whether there was a beginning or ending of the Universe, he kept silent and smiled. Later, the Buddha would say that these questions were not important. What was important was to understand the suffering and mental delusion in your mind - fear, worry, anxiety, craving, frustration, selfishness and jealousy and hatred - and to make the effort to purify our minds towards peace, loving kindness and compassion.
I used to believe all this. Consider this though, deception exists. How do you know you are not currently deceived? If you were, what would it look like? You might think you have "the truth" but it's just a false set of beliefs. Jesus is the way the truth and the life and He loves you friend ❤
@@satepestage3599 Tell mr eggs that
I am that I AM
@@satepestage3599 Hello Friend, Thanks for your comment. There is a big difference between believing something and having a clear and deep understanding that comes from years of meditation practice/mind training , investigation and reflection. You don't know the story about the missing years of Jesus, between 12 and 30 years old. Apparently, he was taken by his teachers and relatives to India via Persia/Iran. There was a trade route between Palestine and India via Persia, He learned from Buddhist monks and Yoga teachers. Buddhism was already 500 years old. Interestingly, Jesus taught the same spiritual values as the Buddha - loving kindness, compassion, forgiveness, brotherhood, calmness and patience, not being judgemental, and so on. However, you are free to believe what you wish to believe. Stay humble and open-minded. Be well, be happy, be peaceful.
He is trying to avoid, god of the gaps
I really thought I could learn something new, perspective wise
After reading stuff written by a philosopher called Yujin Nagasawa ive became convinced the ontological argument is indeed preety good and the convlusion inescapable. However, it is hard to grasp, you can see in the comments here, people trying to mock it, didnt fully understand it. Someone should explain it in simpler terms one day.
It still has its flaws.
Almost like trying to define god into existence
You don't accept the argument? It's not because it's invalid or sound, you didn't understand it. Ok, bro. Nice mansplain.
Indeed, logic doesnt give the answer to either the theist or atheist. Theists at least are willing to step outside of logic to make an attempt. Which is extremely admirable and frankly, our only (ironically) next logical step as a species.
@@defenestratedalien1448 And you are right. It just means theists make the attempt and atheists dont. Which would make atheists pessimistic and theists optimistic.
@@Artiscetic you are free to make an attempt, but should be intellectually honest enough to admit that your conclusion cannot be objectively verified.
Every theistic argument I have encountered either smuggles an unsound premise somewhere or the conclusion is not necessarily the god they describe.
Simply put, we may simply be unable to answer the question as humans and claiming to have an answer may be a mistake or just dishonest.
Speaking wrt classical definitions and attributes given to god
Best philosopher in the world
love from india ❤
Craig’s “objective” morality and meaning for existence are all dependent on words written on ancient scrolls by human beings. There is nothing objective about these ideas they are only the product of the human mind and personal tastes of people. Imagine three thousand years from now people will be able to say they can appeal to objective morality that was written down by the great Christopher Hitchens or William Lane Craig…😂
Right. It's all human, too, too human.
I love WLC for the work he has done, which I constantly learn from and God has used to help me to stay in the faith since my college dayswhen my philosophy professor tried shaking it.
We can understand everything when we sleep and begin to confuse when we awake.
Folks may argue about specific points about the natural universe, but no one argues about the existence of the natural world itself, for obvious reasons. God is not just any ol' existence, but is by definition the Most Existent Thing. If the Most Existent Thing really existed, no one would be arguing about that any more than they argue about the existence of the natural world, and for the same reasons. Why hold the Most Existent Thing to a lower standard than we apply to determining the existence of everything else? Isn't that how psychology becomes theology?
All "proofs" for God contain at least one logical fallacy. This doesn't mean there's no God, but the proofs are all fallacious.
Actually, fallacious is the onething they are not😅
has Craig ever considered therapy?
Have you?
For Craig, god must exist because it helps him with his existential angst. That is according to his own words.
How do you explain the 10-5-6-5 pattern in histamines, and lamidae protein in the shape of a cross, or the alignment of Jupiter with the constellation signifying kingship near the historical date of Jesus’s birth, there are too many coincidences at a cosmic level that keep me believing in God.
@ very easily: with our cognitive biases towards patternicity, our desire to confirm our preexisting biases by projecting patterns and meaning into external phenomena where there may not be actual patterns or agency. One can subjectively imbue things with meaning and significance, especially if they seem to be connected with presupposed beliefs in the indemonstrable.
@ Nah, that seems like a stretch these patterns align exactly with scriptural symbols on multiple accounts in matters, places, and dates of symbolic significance, it makes less sense to claim our pattern seeking brains are trying to find meaning in them, than it does to accept them as intentional. The only reason you would claim otherwise is if your are already convinced of the irrationality of believing in a God and must fine some explanation for anything on the contrary, your are entrenched in your presuppositions and no evidence will change your mind.
@@zrakonthekrakon494 the patterns only seem that way to you: the willing believer desiring to believe. The things you enumerated don't point to your god in any way that can be demonstrated, they just have significance to you. Numerology exists in many faiths: Numbers can be given significance per the will of the numerologist. There are hardcore maga qanon people who apply "gematria" to the English language to prove Trump is their godking. That doesn't mean that he is, it means they've worked to fit the numeric ideas into their belief system (patternicity). Laminin is another great example. Under a microscope, it doesn't look anything like a cross, but the scientific diagram looks like two intersecting perpendicular lines (a very common shape), and so the Christian maps that idea to the symbology of the cross. A direct correlation to your faith cannot be demonstrated it can only be intuited by feelings and biases. The reason I lack a belief in what you believe is that I don't feel the evidence available is sufficient. My only presupposition is that the universe exists and we experience it. If sufficient evidence for a god, or even the specific version of god that you believe in, were available, I'd have no option in the matter but to believe. As it stands, though, I am unable to believe due to the lack of sufficient evidence and the availability of evidence to the contrary.
@@zrakonthekrakon494
[zrak]: "Nah, that seems like a stretch these patterns align exactly with scriptural symbols on multiple accounts in matters, places, and dates of symbolic significance, it makes less sense to claim our pattern seeking brains are trying to find meaning in them, than it does to accept them as intentional."
Lol. Confirmation bias. You will find what you look for.
[]zrak]: "The only reason you would claim otherwise is if your are already convinced of the irrationality of believing in a God and must fine some explanation for anything on the contrary, your are entrenched in your presuppositions and no evidence will change your mind."
Lol. The only reason you would make this claim is if you're already convinced that you must believe in God and must not find some explanation for anything on the contrary ... you are entrenched in your presuppositions and no evidence will change your mind. < < < y a w n > > >
That is how Philosophers speak and give an explanation! Dr. Craig is brilliant.
What are you talking about? He’s a pinhead.
@@DummyAccount-f1q on what basis can you elaborate?
Lol. He's as brilliant as Jordan Peterson.
@ the only pinheads are the one’s who insult people when presenting an argument in good faith
@dougsmith6793 LMAO
So true!!! And my god is the one and ONLY true god!!!!! With out our Lord and Savior, life would be Impossible!!!
So Praise be the one and ONLY true god. Praise be the Magic Toe Nail. AMEN!!!!!
Glad you all agree.
Craig says, "Dawkins is so popular because people are so unsophisticated in their thinking. I am appalled honestly when I read the stuff that's out there on the internet. How inept and sophomoric people are. I'm afraid that many young people just have never been exposed to good, rigorous argumentation with regard to these matters, and therefore they're taken in by these Dawkins types because they've never really read sophisticated treatments of these problems."
Earlier in the conversation Craig presented essentially the ontological argument for God. He then described God as a disembodied mind [a ghost] who invented the universe.
Craig is also the guy who champions the Kalam cosmological argument even after having its issues described to him by a cosmologist (see Carroll vs Craig debate). I don't think Craig has ears to hear.
Or the arguments against his are just really weak
In my own experience with atheists (who are intellectually engaged in this debate) a majority are reasoning ‘out of’ or from a philosophical foundation forward.
Lennox called ‘scientism’ on Dawkins a long time ago and the word itself is perhaps contentious but the more I think about it the clearer it is: he was dead on.
If you start from 1. materialism 2. The philosophical commitment that ‘science has the only method that finds/validates the only truths there are’ 3. Our minds are (why question it?) obviously sufficient to (not insufficient to) reality…
Once all of that is in place God is either an object (like a mug) or simply doesn’t exist. There’s nothing controversial _once_ we are committed physicalists about not believing in God.
What Dawkins did was to say, believing 1. 2. & 3. _is_ ‘scientific’. Yet on closer examination none of these claims follow from science (as though the evident outcome of some experiment, repeated)… they are all philosophical positions requiring a justification science cannot provide.
A disembodied mind is not a ghost. Read Don Hoffman and Bernardo Kastrup
GOD EXISTS! Praise Jesus Christ
Please correct me if I am wrong. Maybe I did not fully understand the argument.
But is it not the same as saying that there has to be the greatest conceivable stinker. This stinker smells so bad, that no one can top this. And the perfect stinker would not be perfect, if you could not smell him. Therefore he must exist.
I find these conclusions nonsense.
Or the greatest of all possible pizzas. Yummy! Or chocolate. Double yummy. I have a lot of human imagination. Maybe I can will them into existence and eat them. :)
It's a useful illustration. The issue is in the premises in both cases. Nobody would agree that the greatest conceivable stinker even exists so it ends right there. By contrast, many people agree that God is in reality the greatest conceivable being. Once they agree to this it's basically settled and the remaining steps are just sealing the deal.
Why must it be God? Why not God's?
Human nature. It is what it is.
0:49 What he means is: no matter what universe, omniverse, macroverse you can imagine, you can't imagine it without G'd.
Now, you might imagine G'd to be something he is not but that's just your imagination since THAT G'd, the uncreated G'd, has to be the G'd that he is--the G'd he described himself as. The "I Am". The Alpha and Omega--a being outside of time, and therefore outside of space, speed and change--within whom all else exists, at least until he separates out that which has chosen not to be with G'd.
Logic, not to mention the scientific method, requires the offering, first, of an explicit intended definition and use of the subject term (God). Otherwise, no matter how impressive the logic, folks will not be on the same page.
Which god
Jesus Christ.
@@phoenixgamer1565is Jesus christ God himself? Or is he God's only begotten son?
Well thats your next personal dilemma isnt it? I believe its fine to "settle" on a choice, just be intellectually honest with yourself that you are agnostic and not an atheist once you realize God exists.
Don’t you mean, “Jesus Christ!”
@@Joshua52391 He's the son of the father, son and holy spirit 1 nature and 3 persons. He lived and died on the cross and rose after 3 days and was seen by at least 500-1000 after death--enemies as well as disciples.. This is the only God that exists. Anything that doesn't include Jesus/Trinity is a cult.
"...And none knows the forces of your Lord except He." (Qur'an 74:31)
Does anyone know what on earth he's talking about?
Gobbledygook is a word that springs to mind.
He's referring to the "ontological argument". It was a bold attempt to apply logic to religion. There are multiple problems with it and of course it does not prove God, but it has been intellectually stimulating for many great thinkers.
So you dont understand?
its philosophy-high level philosophy.
@@Artiscetic So you don't understand apostrophes?
@@erikt1713 In the little I could stand to watch he seems to me not so much "referring" to the ontological argument as trying, ineptly, to invoke it. Re: "It was a bold attempt to apply logic to religion". Well, it was one of several (long since thoroughly debunked) historical attempts to prove the existence of God with logical argument.
There is not a single argument he makes that makes logical sense. It is very telling, that when he talks about the different, and in one fell swoop he declare that Christianity is the only true religion. He just rubbish off Islam and Buddhism without attempting even to give any reasonable explanation. I can only say that he is an articulate madman. His madness comes from his total immersion and life investment in his belief and what he is doing is justifying his belief in the face of scientific logic and truth. I liken him to AI whose base learning is that god exist and that produce all the argument to support that. So the result is a very articulate cold technical presentation.
😂😂😂🤡🤡🤡😂😂😂😂🤡🤡🤡🤡😂😂😂rehashing Anselm and Kalam 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
too many AI bot comments in this comment section, they need to be purged from youtube.
Biochemistry determines human nature.
Psychology understands human nature.
At 23-24 minutes in it sounds like he is misinterpreting what people have said about existence. of course people believe that William Craig came into existence at some point in time. I'm sure the argument that they made is that there's no reason to think that the atoms and molecules suddenly came into existence at some point. Those building blocks may have always existed, as far as we know. I think he's representing what people have said to him in response to his assertions.
He says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Well of course, if it begins to exist, it has a cause. But some things may have always existed. As far as we know, the building blocks of the universe, the atoms and the molecules and elements… may have always existed.
15:10 Craig absolutely shreds Dawkins' central argument from The God Delusion (no wonder Dawkins ran scared!)
At 15:10, Craig employs a straw man argument, a common logical fallacy.
@Jonesimedes-q6f How is it a straw man? He quotes Dawkins directly. Do you deny that Dawkins claims that the designer hypothesis creates a problem of "who designed the designer?" and that Dawkins claims the designer would have to be "complex"? It's all there in chapter 4 of Dawkins' book, and Dawkins himself says this publicly at every opportunity. Do you deny that Dawkins defines complexity as requiring the entity to have many constituent parts (if so, have you read the opening chapter of The Blind Watchmaker)?
I ask all these questions, and give you all those specifics, because you did nothing at all to support your accusation (which is usually what people do when they have no argument).
Thank you for your reply. Your response employs what is known as a Gish Gallop.
Read Dawkin’s book. Craig misrepresents it. Thus, the straw man fallacy.
@ I have read it, indeed I quoted from it while defending Craig’s response. I gave you just three points (what Dawkins says about “who designed the designer?”, complexity, and having parts). If you think that qualifies as an overwhelming number of points to respond to then I feel sorry for you. You are taking the lazy and cowardly option of not bothering to substantiate your objection.
Now we’re getting somewhere: the ad hominem. Nonetheless, you’re right. I yield. Thank you. Take care and have a lovely day.
you can have logic on an unlogic issue
god is necessary to your beliefs WLC so he MUST exist
What logic when 3 is 1??🤔🤔🤔
I used his same arguments and came to the conclusion that their must exist a super duper meta meta God that created the God of Christianity. And now I confused.
It by definition wouldn’t be the God of Christianity because it can’t be. The God of Christianity claims that he is the most of everything.
@Polisart-05 yea but the super duper meta meta god created the god of Christianity.
It spoke to me in a dream last night.
Very silly comment meant to be funny but really only illustrates ignorance from the person writing.
@@Kramer-tt32man, the worst part is that you actually think you’re making a serious point.
@@Kramer-tt32the cringe is painful 🤦♀️ 🤦♂️ 🤦
Boring dude with ridiculous arguments for...nothing. He.s just making a living from others stupidity.
I respect Craig’s pursuit and discovery in finding god, however his rationale in substantiation of it all is faulty. He only may keep to himself in its current format.
Atheist willingly taking time out of their day commenting and arguing about something they say doesn’t exist makes absolutely no sense. I would never waste my time arguing against Santa Claus because I know he doesn’t exist
On the surface I get it but Santa's little helper's aren't trying to run governments and ruining peoples lives with unproven beliefs.
@@markhaunert5029 Christianity is all about love sacrifice and forgiveness so to say it ruins people’s lives is just wrong. You’re literally arguing against an all-good God. It makes no sense unless you desire to do evil
@BJtheMountaineerguy well you left out the government part so I'm assuming you're in some agreement that's not a good combination and if you really haven't seen absolute horror stories done to people in the name of religion i suggest you research more about this. Thanks for responding.
@@markhaunert5029 You’re talking about Islam not Christianity.. Christianity is all-good which means it’s true because God is all-good. It teaches to love your neighbor as yourself and not to do evil
@@markhaunert5029 If I may ask what are some things that you do not like about Christianity if you’re saying it’s trying to run the government? What are those things you dislike?
Let me repeat that, he forgot his recitation 😊😊
How can God exist in eternity because every existence is temporal.? This universe existed always.
@@josekmcmi My argument from ignorance is that God is atemporal, & not constrained by time, space etc.
If the universe always existed, why's it a finite age 13.8Byo?
Are you at least saying that it always existed in some form? Like prior state?
Proof?
@@James-ll3jb bc Uncle science says so.
They don't want a beginning of the universe bc theists can't be right.
They eat beans a lot, & it's reflected in their answers.
Religions preach to BELIEVE in the existence of a Creator 😮
Spirituality enables true Seekers to REALISE the cause for Creation 😊
Why to BELIEVE in the existence of a Creator, when there is a possibility to REALISE the cause for Creation?😅
Only in your head
Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris would be great democratic politicians.
I thought Alex was Macedonian.
All this shows is philosophy, like statistics, can "prove" anything. You can't define something into existence.
1st argument on why there must necessarily be a God: 'the very concept of God is a concept of a greatest conceivable being. Because "if you could conceive of a greater being then that would be God." Therefore God must be the greatest conceivable being. Think about that "logic". 1) Why does whether something can be conceived have anything to do with whether there is in fact a God? The fact that you can conceive of something certainly doesn't make that a fact or truth. 2) Why does there have to be only one God being conceived? There have been many conceptions of multiple Gods. 3) Why does God have to be the greatest thing you can conceive? Again, many Gods have been conceived that are not omnipotent. Craig doesn't address any of these things. He just makes a flimsy assertion (God is necessary) based on the flimsiest of arguments (God is the greatest thing we can conceive) and sets the foundation of his positions upon what we can "conceive." This is not logic or reason, its apologitic blather. And this guy is supposed to be brilliant?
i clearly remember a debate in which theists (don't remember if it was Craig himself) were particularly honest about this argument and actually stated that a) they don't claim to know it for sure and b) that the argument rests on a premise, so if the premise is not true, the argument falls.
But in many occasions, by the proponents and even more frequently by other people like youtubers, the argument is presented as logically ironclad, like a definite proof.
Sadly, similar stuff happens with some scientists when they purposely present ideas in a misleading way, like Lawrence Krauss's universe from nothing, and then you realize that's not the case, but they're not always 100% transparent about the weakness of their arguments and theories, for obvious reasons.
I am the Truth, follow me
If God is a logically necessary being then every intelligent person who understood logic would believe in GOD and that is not the case. So, the argument is not convlusive.
That doesn't follow
the 'worlds smartest man' believes in God, I know the truth
0:03 Just see if you can get this phony, WLC, to address the question of the Ascension. He won't. He will just tap dance.
Won't it be nice when he and his type are done and gone in a generation or two?
Just say God created the universe, could be true but adds nothing. If Jesus is God then God sacrificed God to God to save God's creation from God. The Bible's morality is terrible.
This word salad was actually posted by Kamala Harris @bevanbasson4289 happens to be her screen name
Our great modern education system pushes people like this through when they would’ve been held back a grade or two in years passed.
Haha because he evolved eh buddy
God may exist but it doesn't have to be the God of the Old Testament. That guy is not nice. I prefer the Great Spirit of the American Indians.
The universe is eternal. It has always been in existence. It has no beginning. It has no creator, for it wasn't created. Before the big bang, there was something.
Prior state of affairs and sausage 🌭
@Rootimachus what,???,
It just doesn't make sense, why the Universe 'was and has always been' instead of not 'be' at all? What made it 'be'? And if it has always been here then how did it get here? And why? What is it's ultimate purpose? Does it have a purpose at all or it simply just is ? And if so why is it rather than not be? Because 'is' as oppossed to 'not be' is very different, and equally likely, so, does the Universe preffer to be rather than not be by its own will? Is it alive as opposed to inanimate?
It just doesn't add up, it doesn't make any sense, it's all messed up ... some scientists and people believe and say that there are laws of nature governing here, even governing the so called big bang but, they fail to prove them and explain them. Suppose there really was a big bang, what did it make it ... 'be'? Why did it make it at all? What trigerred it and why of course? If a law of nature trigerred it what is that law and why is it instead of simply just not be? Who or what made the law in the first place? And of course why was there a big bang to begin with and anything before the big bang instead of simply, just, nothing? In other words, simply put, why did it have to be a big bang at all when it could've been equally possible or probable for nothing to happen or to be at all?
Actually these are all very important questions that need to be answered somehow, if we don't answer them and don't find the truth it means that we are literally unable to understand and to discover our origins and the meaning of all this. We would be condemned to live our entire limited lives in the dark without any purpose or meaning. Because it is what it is, meaningless, let's face it. The Universe, the big bang and all are meaningless. It doesn't make any sense. If there is anybody here that says he is satisfied with that, with a meaningless Universe which magically was and always has been I would say he is either delusional, crazy or he doesn't know what he is talking about. If there was no beginning then why bother invent a theory of the big bang at all? Since the Universe was and always has been this way to begin with there's no point for the big bang which would be the ... beginning. With no beginning there is no big bang so it's all just gibberish, a nice story, but not the truth, not reality. We are far from being able to perceive all dimension, we barely perceive 3D so my best guess is that it's unlikely that we'll ever be able to understand where it all came from and how and why. But we have the Scriptures.
You are god
This is a very old trick. The definition in this is "God is the highest conceivable being" which sounds familiar and therefore seems fair to accept. Do not accept this lightly! It contains "God is" and therefore you accept his existence right with this premise. The further steps of deduction only build on this initial mistake. In reality (not in the imagination) a non-existing entity like the God of Christianity has no attributes and is nothing.
Who said anything about the God of Christianity? No tricks or mistakes from Craig, he's as logical as you can get before you are FORCED to think further philosophically, which you are forced, or you will place yourself in your overdosed-on-logic atheistic box.
@@Artiscetic The argument was originally invented by a Christian and applied to the God of Christianity, who he believed to be the only true God.
It's a nice thought experiment and it shows that you have to be careful with definitions and premises, not only with steps of deduction.
There are more problems with it. Check the "ontologigal argument".
@@erikt1713 "The argument was originally invented by a Christian" source? This revelation has been present for millenia. Christians just make a claim on *who* God is, they did not "invent" God *is*
Edit: i tried to put dashes and it made a strike-through?
@Artiscetic I meant the written proof of God in an essay by St Anselm of Canterbury. It is true that some Greek philosophers thought about the gods and their nature already thousands of years before Anselm but the thought Craig is quoting is Anselm's. Let's give this Christian pioneer the recognition he deserves.
@@erikt1713 the revelation being recognized by greeks (and im sure many "monk" type cultures hundreds of years before hand) doesnt make it invented by the first person to orient it into and essay though.
can't resist the easy money eh? 10% tax free eh.
This entire Aquinas argument is based on the assumed power of human imagination. A bad argument based on bad logic.
I love it if a person is delusional as this guy is it came from the god he claims exist
What a joke he is😂😂
I'm only six minutes in and I've heard so much nonsense it's painful. Morality is not objective. "Meaning" and "purpose" (whatever that means when applied to life) are subjective. He starts off trying to define God into existence by saying the nature of the God I have defined is that he had no beginning or creation and is the maximally great being. I can conceive of all sorts of things but it doesn't mean they are real.
I'm going to keep listening but I'll take it in chunks so my brain doesn't fall out of my head.
Meaning and purpose being subjective wouldnt refute objective morality.
@Artiscetic I didn't say the two were connected and that one would refute the other. Morality is subjective. There's no getting round that.
@@philb4462 which is fine as long as you are intellectually honest and acknowledge that if that is the case, all morality is permitted, especially morality you dont agree with subjectively.
@@Artiscetic Permitted? No. Not all morality is permitted. What do you think the judicial system does? Allows people to do anything they want?
@@philb4462 and i meant in terms of moral behavior. The opinion of the judiciary system on the subjective moralists behavior is irrelevant. The moralist is free to believe his behavior was completely morally good, if that is his subjective opinion
The ontological argument is one of the weakest arguments out there. It's no surprise Craig gravitates towards it.
Its not weak at all, its the best shot.
he doesnt , he says its one of the arguments but its not weak at all with jus a tad of reasoning-- Let me know which part you find hard and i maybe able to help😁
Go on how so?
Actually lately its revitalization is assured!
@@Artiscetic I thought the Kalam was the best?
🙂🌎⏳🙏♥️
Lot of proud atheists here who think they know what they're talking about. As if theists are necessarily any less scientifically or philosophically sophisticated than they are. You guys have no idea how inane your views are to anyone whose educated and got over themselves enough to genuinely think these things through 🤦♂
This florid word salad sounds profound. Yet I think it is a smoke screen that obscures a
profound, sad shallowness.
God is a banana because there is no greater banana than the greatest banana. Bananas exist without any human intervention ∴ God is objectively a banana as well as subjectively a banana...
Incoherent. Bananas cannot exist in all possible worlds (they're material entities) so they cannot be maximally great. Tell me you've never bothered studying Craig's arguments without telling me you've never bothered studying Craig's arguments.
@@Birdieupon Sounds like you listen to too much of Craig’s nonsense.
Not a refutation.
Christianity is easy to test. Honestly ask God/Jesus to show himself to you and wait---He showed himself to me many times and answered prayers and Ive witnessed many miracles. If Jesus shows himself to you you need to be ready to commit tho--He knows when youre genuine and if you are just being a clown
Bananas are contingent and cant possibly be necessary, the very notion of a necessary banana is logically incoherent lol
Sophism again. Logical fallacy, circular arguments, logically non sequitur
Noooooooooooooo
Kann hier keiner Deutsch?🤔😂😂
Klar, was geht dir durch den Kopf?
What a doofus.😂
"If God exists, He must exist by necessity." ...
Okay....
'IF God exists...'
I.e., "If God exists it is because He must." That is a far cry from, "God must exist because He does, therefore He does."(!)
I'm not buying it. There are an endless amount of possibilities. I think polytheism should have a comeback, at least that was interesting
There aren’t “endless possibilities” and polytheism is nothing more than superhero worship, it offer no justification for the world or our conscious mind experience.
@justchilling704 and I can just as easily reduce yahweh to a human with superhero powers; but I guess it wouldn't really be much of a reduction because he really does read like a super human with super powers. Anyways, for all we know there could be several lesser gods and one supreme being who rules over all them.
You havent refuted him, you just believe in multiple gods, and him one.
@@Joshua52391 It’s impossible to reduce the name to a mere superhuman, the name was never born, has always exited, and will always exist, is all knowing, all good, etc. the name is a ontologically distinct being to polytheistic God’s bc The Name is non-contingent. The gods of all polytheistic religions are contingent, and are not the source of metaphysical realities.
At any rate, ironically the biblical teaching is what you suggested, many lesser God’s one Supreme God.
@@Artiscetic If you mean I didn’t offer justification for my claim, sure, however that wasn’t the point of my reply.
Sounds like drivel to me.
What a pseudo intellectual.
You sound very misunderstanding and/or close minded. Ill chalk it up to misunderstanding.
because you maybe a simpleton WLC is considered the top Christian philosopher in the world and top 50 philosophers of all time
God must exist because the promoters and the con artist have the need to pray on fulls
And this means a big lucrative cartel
See a shrink😅
The comment of a lucrative parasite con man
I hate William Lane Craig
😂