@@radscorpion8 Alex Malpass supersedes all other possible gifts. One might say he transcends beyond the category of giftness it’s self and enters the higher platonic realm, morphing into the abstraction of pure and absolute happiness its self.
I can't stomach Craig's voice and affect for more than a few minutes at a time. He's always in a kind of performing mode. Doesn't talk like a normal person.
I'm not surprised it seemed baffling. It's important to note that WLC by his own admissions (in other comments and videos) apparently starts from the following positions... 1) That his concept of his god *must* exist and cannot be incorrect. 2) That any evidence or arguments which contradicts his concept of his god *must* therefore axiomatically be wrong/false. His arguments therefore seem to be a reflection of this bias.
Jephthah a General in the Old Testament did sacrifice his daughter. So yeah. He made a deal with Yahweh that if he won the battle he would sacrifice the first thing that came out his house.
One of the insults that Hamlet throws at Polonius, calling him Jephthah. Hamlet implies that Polonius will use his daughter as bait, indeed is willing to marry her to one he thinks is mad, for his own advantage. Such abuse of daughters in dynastic marriage was common enough: in 1617 (after Shakespeare’s death) Lady Frances coke was married off to John Villiers, 1st Viscount Purbeck, to please James I, and thus to advantage Frances’s father. Villiers suffered mental illness, and treated her cruelly and violently.
Thanks for this. Both great guests. I couldn't help but feel that Craig's comments about the Amalekites simply needing to flee in the face of genocide to be shocking and extremely timely. It kinda reminded me of that Golda Meir quote, something like "we will never forgive the Arabs for forcing us to kill their children" . Wild stuff...
One thing that I find difficult is the glib way that many apologists, Craig amongst them, throw out some version of the " God gives life so has the right to take it away if he ( I would ask why "he", but we know why) chooses". They do so as if this was a self evident fact but it is far from being so. Why does the act of creation give one absolute power over the "created"? This is far from obvious. No-one ever argues , for example, that parents have the right to torture their children, or to simply kill them off if they get fed up with them. They do so only when the parent in question is a "sky father ". I can't even see the basis for making such a claim.
Parents do not have absolute rights over their children because parents are not the primary cause of their children. Instead, they are an extremely precarious, secondary, and accidental cause (they have no control over the generation of a single cell). In addition to being the voluntary first cause, God is the providential Lord of the acts in natural and human history that led to each birth. And not only that: God is the best of creators, without moral imperfection or any mutation. He is not like a father who, in his inconstancy, could be indicted by the guardianship council. Thinking that what God did with cananites was evil requires the premise that God is evil in causing each and every death in history. After all, what is the difference between ordering someone to kill and causing the carrion larva of myiasis to enter the tracheostomy incision of a hospitalized elderly person? That's why all this fuss about the subject is just noise. Guys have to have something to talk about.
@@caiomateus4194If we assume that (1) God is perfectly good, perhaps as a matter of definition, (2) God is all-knowing, again perhaps as a matter of definition, and that (3) God ordered the slaughter of the Canaanites, then we get the trivial conclusion that ordering the Canaanite genocide must have been good. But why should one start with assumption (3)? Some theologians - such as Randal Rauser - do not begin with assumption (3) and the view that they offer appears more plausible. As far as whether God has the right to destroy God’s creation, that view appears to be based on the assumption that if x created y, then x has the right to destroy y. I see no reason to think such a principle is true. And that’s so regardless of whether God’s taking of life is always morally exemplary. It could be that God taking lives is always morally exemplary, even though the reason God taking lives is always morally exemplary has nothing to do with God’s role as a creator. Furthermore, on Craig’s view that God has no moral obligations - including no moral obligations that God could either fulfill or violate - it doesn’t really make any sense to say that God has the *right* to destroy God’s creation. Instead, Craig should say that God destroying God’s creation does not contravene God’s nature.
@@daniellinford9643 I do not define God as the greatest conceivable being. I'm talking about the God of the Bible, and saying that this God (the one who ordered the death of the Canaanites) is not evil. When I said that God is the best of creators, I was talking about his care for his creatures, which the Bible talks about. The reason we have for attributing this right to God is the same reason we have for attributing the right to parents that they actually have over their children. The utilitarian "intuition" (that this right is derived from the supposed fact that children develop better in a family, instead of being an inherent right) is certainly in the minority among people.
@@caiomateus4194 I never attributed to you the view that God is the “greatest conceivable being”. Do you disagree with assumptions (1) and (2)? As far as parents having a right over their own children, I don’t think parents do have a right over their own children. I certainly don’t think that parents have the right to take the lives of their children. Instead, I think parents have an obligation to their children. Moreover, I think that’s what people generally think - that parents do not own their children but instead have a number of obligations to their children. From a legal perspective, parents are generally thought of as guardians, as distinct from people with pet, who are generally thought of as pet owners.
I don't have the qualifications as these guys, but as a human being that has thought and experienced for almost 37 years and explored many different substances, perspectives, and hallucinogens, survived suicide attempt with a full on NDE hallucination, drug addiction, and have since moved beyond and transitioned to my authentic self and now live as female. I've now sought to spend my time fulltime in organizing and attempting to get people to wake up and realize the importance of caring for all people in society, permitting all to go to school or college and achieve higher education and reach their full potential. The only thing we can't create is human thought, it feels insane to me that we're not attempting to elevate as much intelligence as possible for the well-being of society by aiming to fulfill the needs of people so that may realize higher actualization and thought instead of being forced to slog through mundane labor for the sake of having such a capitalist economy.
@@PhysiKarlz That 's what all humans do (we're all "biased"); I don't know how else to argue/prove things except to generate/originate our observations via the human self. How does noticing this human tendency demonstrate any kind of "proof" about what atheists/agnostics/theists claim?
@@TheFourlom The point isn't that we generate answers from the human self. It's that he employs confirmation bias but he pretends he is trying to be unbiased by using sources external to the bible. When one looks closer it becomes obvious that the external sources also used confirmation bias. Hopefully you understand why confirmation bias is bad.
@@PhysiKarlz No, not really; I don't think you made your point clearly. You seem to be drawing on phrases, such as "confirmation bias," as if that is a neutral, objective "thing" that one can appeal to for evidence. "Confirmation bias" seems to be invented in order to advance a particular argument. At some point, people will make judgments and then (as you rightly point out), support their judgments by appealing to sources (either external or internal, such as the innate hardwiring for morallity and language use that humans possess). All we can do is appeal to something, but the desire to appeal is always coming from the human perspective. . .
"Yes, it is true, that I ate a bucket of ice cream half an hour before dinner. But the burden of proof is on you to show, that I didn't have sound reasons to do so. The burden is in fact so heavy, that no atheist ever tried to lift it." It amazes me, that the apologists apply logic on this topic, that they themselves would never apply on literally any other topic in life. Mind blowing.
I completely disagree with Alex about WLC. There are a lot of other things to disagree with when it comes to WLC. WLC may be a philosopher, but he's an apologist too.
God, being all powerful, could just have stopped the evil by supernaturally changing all of their minds. It’s deeply depressing to think that an all powerful being couldn’t do better than to exterminate the entire society.
Do they really think that everyone in the tribe, or world, including children and babies, was so evil that they all had to be killed? I’ve heard of tough love, but that seems more like sadism
Hey Phil, One suggestion for a video you could do is on Christian atonement if you’re interested. As a Christian myself, I think this topic isn’t handled often or carefully enough by apologists and is open to some serious critiques. Specifically the confusion around what exactly the crucifixion achieved and all the disagreement on it over the last 2000 years. I’d love to see the dialogue move forward on this.
There are multiple peer-reviewed articles and monographs published over the past 10 years on the Atonement - including an excellent one from Craig. Where have you been?
@@TBOTSS That’s completely beside the point. I’m more than familiar with Craig’s work on this but my point is the amount of disagreement on the matter among the major Christian traditions.
@@TBOTSS *"the Atonement "* I love that! It's SO silly. But in the interest of curiosity, can you provide a link to Craig's "peer-reviewed" article or monograph?
I commented this on the live chat, but I love the snark on this video. Sometimes we get too caught up on the decorum and it takes away the human aspect from these conversations
You probably need to check the specialized literature on the Canaanites thing, because as far as I know, scholars don't hold the view that the Canaanites were committing child sacrifice, at least not more than the Israelites themselves and the worshipers of Yahweh back then. I remember reading that from Dr. Joshua Bowen's book An Atheist Handbook to the Old Testament.
did you see our long film on fine tuning ? We discuss the interaction of the fine tuning argument with argument from evil. Turns out they are related th-cam.com/video/jJ-fj3lqJ6M/w-d-xo.html
Before one can demonstrate *fine* tuning, one must demonstrate *tuning at all* . Put simply, we do not know if the universal constants *can* be anything but what they are. You can't just assume that *tuning must be possible* . You have to *show* it, and since we have no other universes to observe, that is a literal impossibility with what we have at hand.
About the 57:00 mark, Malpass inquires about the notion of an absolutely good god commanding a genocide. Naturally, we contemplate the victims of the genocide first. But also we should consider the consequences of genocide on the perpetrators and their “spiritual descendants”. We cannot have pity in our hearts for them, of course. But we can comprehend that they participated in a grisly mass murder with edged weapons, and unless they were sociopaths (psychopaths? whichever applies), they must feel remorse, or ethical confusion, or self-doubt or something. We no longer pretend that soldiers walk away unscathed in mind. And also, this god’s commands, and its “chosen people’s” compliance communicate to religious adherents that genocide in the name of god is justified. (I am unclear exactly how one knows that God has commanded a genocide: could Hitler have earnestly believed he was so commanded, even if he were mistaken? How could he know?) Christians would object to the Islamic concept of jihad, of wars conducted to force conversion. I don’t see how the Canaanite genocide is different.
Not trying to _ad hominem_ Craig, but I don’t trust a guy who looks like he’s already been embalmed (not to mention the permanent smile plastered on his face).
WLC lives in this weird middle ground between normal apologists and real philosophy. He's bound to support and defend the evangelical vision of the bible, but he's one of the few evangelicals who is good at adopting the structure and verbiage and scholarly appearance of real philosophy. This puts him in the position of having to defend the undefendable, because if you take the christian bible at face value as evangelicals insist, it's HORRIFIC...unless you cherry pick, which evangelicals do, but claim they don't. WLC's strategy when surrounded by evangelicals is to just use big words and sound professorial, and that's good enough. But when he has to get checked by professionals, he's out of his depth. The fact that he's TRYING to elevate the apologetics game is nice, but as long as he can't sever that chain to the anchor that is the bible, he can't go very far. He HAS to try to obfuscate.
Wlc does a lot of hand waving of arguments. Canaanite children who were killed immediately went to heaven says wlc which he says is part of his theology. More like his constant moralising. What wlc is saying is history is wrote by the winner. Love this discussion. They say all the things that i find crazy about this story.
It's good the remember when these talk about an explanation or a cause, they mean in "as a human motive". Descriptive explanations like that there are equal number of protons and electrons in an atom can never satisfy them.
Craig seems to be lacking a bit in self awareness when he says the reason to not take some views seriously is because they are under contention by other. His views on presentism, simultaneous causation, Molinism, and others aren’t exactly “mainstream” in the philosophical world. Also, I think Alex has a bone to pick with Craig’s view on infinites. Just seems he tries to hand wave away issues when he has a more accepting audience
1. The Israelites were not held in bondage in Egypt 2. They did not wander the Sinai for 40 years. 3. The Canaanites were not slaughtered. 4. There is no evidence the Canaanites committed genocide as the story claims the Israelite did. The worst thing one can do. As one of the speakers noted. Why not just convert the Canaanites or at worst make them vanish painlessly. Why was the cruelty necessary? Craig is just desperate to excuse the evil done by the Israelites in these stories by claiming his god is amoral. It's a ghastly position to take under any circumstance.
Regarding idolatry... Craig has to defend idolatry as a crime punishable by death... He has no choice because Moses slaughtered thousands of his own people in the camp after seeing his people worshiping the golden calf.
Great chat. Xianity et al are so full of holes but at the end of the day if theists can handle the cognitive dissonance by isolating themselves in their bubbles, we are talking to people who have put their thumbs in their ears while repeating the mantra "I can't hear you. I Can't hear you."
Whenever someone who believes that morality comes from God, starts suddenly talking like a utilitarian consequentialist when asked to *justify* something God did in the bible, it's very telling. Why not just say "what a strange question...I mean God did it so, by definition, it was good"? They should find the question so puzzling like asking why is good good. Instead they borrow from my world view, suddenly get all secular and start talking about how much harm the Canaanites where causing. They start talking about human flourishing as if it matters.
And the Israelites probably were Canaanites. And probably the ones doing more harm, given that, going by the bible itself, they went on a rampage of destruction
For a chap who worships a god beyond human comprehension, WLC knows a great deal about the mind and intent of his god...Not surprisingly, in his Kalām cosmological argument, WLC also knows a great deal about the realm outside or prior to the universe, and even about the creative first cause that inhabits it. How he does all this with an ape mind that so evolved to comprehend a little physics. It must be unbearable to be as clever as WLC thinks he is.
@@pavld335 Certainly, that is my impression. I sat through a couple of YT talks in which WLC presents his version of the Kalām cosmological argument. I get quite like the child who observes, “But the emperor has no clothes!” At several points, even a layperson like me could see that Craig’s argument was incoherent. This incoherence combines poorly with his self-assurance, his condescension, his arrogance. Further, since I don’t think he is stupid, I must assume that he can see that his arguments are not rational, and that he is misleading his audience. One can overlook the ardent fervour of an uneducated true believer. But for a man who is paid to think to be so dishonest is truly disturbing.
@@oldpossum57 A lot of people don't know, but he also has a channel where he spews a lot of manipulative apologetic garbage like "you need god to be happy". But I remember watching him one time go through his kalam argument, and out of knowhere he just makes up this thing that the first cause has to be loving in order to create. Total made up nonsense. It's obvious that Christianity is like a blankie that a child would use to comfort themsleves.
@@pavld335 I once composed my step by step critique of WLC’s version of the Kalām cosmological argument. It runs several paragraphs, and is organized in labelled sections and subsections. If you have any interest, I can re-post it here, in three separate posts, because of YTs parameters. In any event, I think more than one of the critiques I make should hold up under scrutiny. And thus, as a layman, if I am able to show that WLC’s argument is incoherent, I wonder that he still has the gall to continue to trot it out. An honest person would have heard his critics and have abandoned the indefensible. I think his website is called “Rational Faith”. It would be better called “The Faithful Rationalize.” Really, he and other theists should not be embarrassed to admit that their faith is irrational, but that they will hold on to it because it makes them feel good. De gustibus non est disputandum. On the other hand, we do not vote or legislate on matters of aesthetic preference. He likes Jesus, I like Jayne.
I had to go back and watch the rest of the Bill Craig/Alex O'Connor debate, where Alex concisely sums it up as Bill's "morally repugnant" argument, around the 45min mark.
WLC points to the accounts in the OT to justify the genocide. He points to other historical accounts to argue that the Canaanite culture was revolting. All the same the OT Anarrative is one-sided. We do not read there the opinions of the Canaanites, what being run off their pastoral land would mean for them, what their god thought of the Israelite god. In short, the OT account seems quite one-sided to me. Conceding that the Israelite God’s commands are justified because a priori the Israelite god is the only god seems to assume the consequent as a premise.
I think when Craig says, "presumably God doesn't issue commands to himself" This is surely a huge red flag. It strikes me as a 'Craigian' reframing of semantics expressly for the purpose of providing an escape hatch by which he can dodge any accusation of his theology being inconsistent (which seems to be his main defence against the genocide problem - the 'atheists are subjectivists and so can't prove God objectively wrong' defence). My problem with this is this - what does Craig actually think a conscious agent is doing when they decide to commit to a particular action? Is it not the case that at a fundamental level, a being relays an order or 'command' to 'itself' (whatever 'itself' actually means) when deciding to raise its arm, eat an ice cream...or kill off an entire nation. And is it not a basic virtue to obey moral obligations? Isn't part of 'goodness' an intrinsic tendency to be morally obliged to act in the right way? Isn't that why we call people 'good' - because they choose to do good things 100% of the time. It seems to me that a 'moral obligation' is simply describing some aspect of a being's 'nature'. Craig is ignoring the text, ignoring the historical evidence, ignoring neurology, ignoring moral philosophy, and playing with semantics to desperately claw his way out of the hole he himself dug to catch atheists in - to cover up the fact that while he's accusing moral relativists of not being in a position to attack his position, his position too, is mere assertion grounded in emotion and personal preference.
So many ways to defeat Craig's argument. You can attack it ontologically. But let's pick it apart epistemologically here. There is no way for an ancient soldier to discern that a message is truly from God. Picture the Israelite soldier, standing at attention and dressed for battle. Then his commanding officer orders him to kill the pregnant woman over there, standing with her other children. Did this order come from God? At best, the soldier is receiving this order fourth hand. Presumably the order originates with some sort of prophet, and then proceeds to the king, and then to the head of the army, and then down through the chain of command. How is the rank and file soldier expected to ascertain the morality of this command? Other questions arise...How does he know when to stop killing? Does he ask for evidence from his commanding officer of the command's legitimacy? What if the command is to kill his own people? And what reason do we, 2500+ years later, have to believe this genocidal command is authentic?
Please, sirs. I want some more. (Not meant to be a British reference, but rather a musical one. I find them more realistic than apologetics.) Joking aside, I know you’ve covered this before, but right at the very beginning of O’Conner’s video, Dr. Craig talked about, ‘cross-disciplinary work.’ But that immediately made me think of Craig’s own misuse of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem. To what degree do many of the leading Christian metaphysical arguments inappropriately cross academic boundaries? Is this stuff ever checked in the peer review process? (I have no idea and would be happy to be wrong). Even though you’d still have to address the argument itself, it does seem telling, if the apologist is over-selling a field outside their own. Isn’t Academia intrinsically a slow, collective process? Boring, boring, boring and necessary - teamwork, right?!? Shorthand: Are they being willfully ignorant of their jobs? You know, the ones they chose?
Darwin's theory is basic but it is yet far incomplete. I will post this long narrative. Regarding the origin of things, in quantum physics it could be said that energy exists forever since the law of conservation of energy states that " energy could neither be created nor destroyed it only transforms from one to another" in which sense it means energy is there forever. Second thing is that consciousness is inherent in nature in the quantum realm as shown in the experiment of the double slit board where it seems that particles have consciousness in my view. To support that claim many experiments show that water in jars reacts to words spoken to them. Another thing is that air seems to respond to blow more when farmers whistle when they want more air, which led me to conclude that particles at quantum level have inherent consciousness or in totality the universe is conscious. The theory of multiverse also would in conjunction with this view, it relates that in any space multiverse exists. Considering it collectively, energy and consciousness are inherent in nature. With these energy and consciousness it could originate species and also made the galaxies to arrange by themselves. Being conscious they could evolve by themselves, yes? A computer could do a tremendous job with just a binary combination of gate zero and one. Compared to conscious particles, consciousness surely would be much more advanced and amazing which is the primality of genes and DNA,where particles like different sorts of electrons, protons, gamma, theta or what not clinging to it forming different kinds of species. This process underwent a billion years in the past. This is a challenge for theists and more simple than what you are speculating to prove that there is what you claim is the “all powerful and merciful God”, go to cancer hospital and look for 20 patients and ask God for complete healing, that is the way if we want scientific proof like testing a cure of covid, yes? Then repeat it ten times to clear doubt. Ok do it. If you couldn’t do it simply means you are embracing a lie your theory is incorrect. Thus there is no "all powerful and merciful God", no hell, heaven and rapture which is made to control people.
The point i wanted to press was that Craig was wrong to say he doesn't know of any physicists who think fine tuning cant be solved by Darwinian means. If thats what he meant. He knows Smollin has such a model as he critiqued it!
@@gdevelek Apologies you were so confident that Darwins theory had nothing to do with the constant of nature i assumed you knew something about this field. CNS is cosmological natural selection. We talked about it 9:27 into this very video you are commenting on, did you watch it?
It’s low bar Bill! (Yes, I am a fan of Mr. Diety!) WLC really needs to check himself. He has been digging a big hole that he will never be able to climb out of. Pretty repulsive stuff. He’s becoming low hanging fruit for rational thinkers. Great discussion, I’ll watch for more
I find it fascinating that WLC can publicly claim, with a smile on his face, the problem of evil has been solved. Does he not recall Dr. Raymond Bradley’s paper “The Free Will Defense Refuted and Gods Existence Disproved”, or the debate he had with him? He must be doing this for rhetorical purposes. Obviously there’s not enough time to confront him on such a claim. He knows that, so can get away with the audience taking it for granted. Very sneaky public speaking tactic; but then again that’s most of apologetics
The difference between being skeptical about the teleology of fine-tuning and being skeptical about the "problem" of suffering is that the second case doesn't involve some crazy scientific anti-realism, according to which for some reason all our *best-founded* theories will prove themselves. false. *Quantum field theory is confirmed with an accuracy of 1/10¹³ for electron spin, while general relativity is confirmed with similar accuracy for gravitational lensing.
@@daniellinford9643 Because all current fundamental scientific theories provide us with examples of fine tuning. Not only that: all theories (or conjunctions of them) that aim to replace current theories as final descriptions of reality and that are not dismissible due to their unacceptable degree of ad hoc or lack of explanatory scope and strength, also provide examples of fine tuning.
@@caiomateus4194 The fact that all of our current best fundamental theories are fine-tuned just means that there are parameters within those theories that have unnatural or implausible values. And all that should be taken to mean is that we ought to look for theories that are not fine-tuned. And the fact that proposals for future theories are fine-tuned - if that is a fact - means only that we have reason to continue looking for another proposal. This is a completely bog standard view among physicists and guides inquiry in, for example, particle physics and cosmology. But look: my view that fine-tuning should be understood as a feature of scientific theories is not, itself, a reason to think that there are no good fine-tuning arguments for theism. As I said, a fine-tuned theory is one that, in a specific sense, poorly predicts the values of some free parameters appearing in the theory. If we can find a theistic hypothesis that does better at predicting the values of those free parameters than our current theories, holding everything else equal, we would then have reason to accept that theistic hypothesis. For example, if someone could provide a theistic hypothesis that made a better prediction for the value of the cosmological constant than our present theories do, holding everything else equal, we’d then have reason to accept that theistic hypothesis. The trouble is that proponents of that hypothesis would need to show that their new hypothesis is at least no more fine-tuned, with respect to our total data, than our present theories are. Whether a theory is fine-tuned is a specific theoretical vice. In some sense, it’s a more specific way in which a theory can be ad hoc. So if you do think theories should be judged based upon the degree to which those theories are ad hoc, I don’t see why you think theories shouldn’t be judged on the degree to which they are fine-tuned.
@@caiomateus4194 I wrote a lengthy reply to your post. I'm not sure what happened to it. In any case, let's suppose that all of our current fundamental scientific theories provide us with examples of fine-tuning, as do all of the theories that have been proposed thus far to replace them. What this means is that our current fundamental theories include free parameters that have unnatural values, as do all of the proposals for replacing them. And surely this fact is reason enough for us to continue looking for another theory that does not include parameters that have unnatural values. In some sense, this is what you've attempted to do. You've noted that some of our current theories have parameters that have unnatural values. You think that by incorporating God into our theories, those parameters no longer have unnatural values -- instead, they have precisely the values we should expect them to have given various facts about God. Here's something crucial that I wasn't able to get to in the video. Maybe we'll get to it in a future video. The view that fine-tuning is a property of theories -- that is, a theoretical vice -- does not entail that theistic fine-tuning arguments fail. Instead, it means that we should look at theistic fine-tuning arguments in a different way. Holding everything else equal, we prefer theories that are not fine-tuned over theories that are fine-tuned. And we prefer theories with less fine-tuning over theories that have a greater degree of fine-tuning. So, given that some of our current scientific theories are fine-tuned, holding everything else equal, we would prefer a replacement theory that was not fine-tuned. Perhaps theists can produce a theory that is both less fine-tuned and that incorporates God. If they can, then, again holding all else equal, we would have reason to endorse that theistic hypothesis.
@@daniellinford9643 My comments also disappeared more than once. I don't know what's going on. While it is true that a theory with fewer parameters is better than a theory with more parameters, that is not the intuition behind fine-tuning. In fact, whenever we infer the design of human beings (in everyday life or in academic activity), we are adding parameters or "complexity". Furthermore, there are theistic hypotheses with fewer free parameters, which are unacceptable (such as Leibniz's theism, which predicts exactly this possible world because it is the best world, and therefore God could not choose another).
There is no reason to take the opinions of theistic fantasists, like "I lower the bar" Craig, seriously. To me, his uttering are nothing more than meaningless, inconsequential babble. I might just as well listen to the solution for the problem of evil, by a smurfologist, or a koboldist.
@@PhilHalper1 Agreed. That is definitely true. Also, it might help believers to free themselves from their theistic delusion. So, it is good that knowledgeable people debunk these absurd theistic fantasies.
If the bible is treated not as some kind of literal history of events it can be read very differently. And we should be interested in how it came about and what it tells us about our ancestors and the depths of our own unconsciousness as a race. The simple explanation that because we didn't have science our fearful imagination was out of control is just silly. There is such a wealth of intelligent study of religious literature that I have to ask myself seriously what the game is with these kind of arguments. I hope against hope to hear some kind of nuance.
1:00:00 there are gospels left out of the bible (gospel of judas for one) that don't fit the narrative, that is god is the bad guy and jesus is battling with him.
Drip by drip possible explanations by scientists is for sure. So many maybes and probables and no definitive answers and proof about the big questions. I guess criticizing Craig by them is good enough for now!
Why is Craig passing the burden of proof over to philosophers? The issues in relation to the Problem of Evil are purely for theologians to try to figure out. Either (a supposed) God is omnibenevolent, or 'He' is not. Using the so-called 'free will' argument won't wash either: Endowed to man (how?) by a supposedly perfect God, incapable of being free in any sense of the word (logically restricted due to an inability to err/make a mistake).
Craig has this view where as long as god has sufficient moral reasons to allow evils, then that's good enough. So his idea is that those who disagree need to explain why god doesn't have sufficient moral reasons for doing so, effectively shifting the burden of proof. The thing is that obviously that's not the end of the discussion as Craig would like to think
Craig is a philosopher (double doctorate, if memory serves) so that's his area of study, if not expertise. Also, he thinks that he can prove via philosophical logic that God exists. That and "objective morality", whatever that is.
@@treyquattroWLC: “Very often atheists themselves admit that they have no evidence of God's absence, but they try to put a different spin on it. They'll tell you, “No one can prove a universal negative”…"? So the onus on non-believers is to prove a negative, and if not, God therefore exists? I'll accept that I'm strictly incorrect insisting that the burden of proof is purely for theists, but when someone, such as he, is grounded by a positive bias 'for' the existence of God - self critique (for a start) of such is impossible. And excusing suffering because "God works in mysterious ways" is a self imposed 'get out clause'. Inventing a greater moralistic and ethical God took me less than an hour to accomplish many years ago. This is not a good sign for the perfection of a Christian God. Objective morality is something that I too believe to be true - though impossible to prove. I was a great fan of WLC in the past (learnt a lot about philosophical Time from many of his books). Now though, his bias is too overwhelming for me to accept that he is a serious critical thinker of any standing. One should critique everything, until only the truth remains.
surely when it comes to fine tuning, from nature's perspective all the numbers are "1", it's humans who assign values and significance to them, maybe those numbers can't be anything else, as i say, they are all "1". the universe _is_ weird, it's weird there is anything here at all, never mind squashing hydrogen atoms leads to brains, but possibly it's all inevitable, even if the universe isn't infinite, travel far enough and maybe there's another milky "almost" way a zillion light years from here.
well there's a lot to talk about, in terms of the nature of probability which we explore in full in this longer film on fine tuning th-cam.com/video/jJ-fj3lqJ6M/w-d-xo.html
Can we please use the word hypothesis instead of theory otherwise you are confusing people - a hypothesis is merely an substantiated proposal whereas a theory is typically based on a substantial body of evidence.
I use to think this is the right definition. but Im having second thoughts, after all was the theory of relativity not a theory before the evidence came in?
In the debate over evolution and creationism, people like to say that the word ‘theory’ refers to a broad explanation supported by a body of evidence. And certainly Darwinian evolution is a broad explanation supported by a body of evidence - as is germ theory, gravitational theory, atomic theory, and heliocentric theory. But the word ‘theory’ is used more broadly by scientists. For example, string theory is not yet supported by a broad body of evidence. So, it’s not clear to me what the correct usage of ‘theory’ is.
@@daniellinford9643I think most scientist think string theory is actually an hypothesis, possibly regretting that ST as a term became widely used. The Big Bang theory show probably didn’t help as Sheldon talked about it as such
@@dwightfitch3120 I don’t think that negates my broader point that - despite what science popularizers sometimes say - the word ‘theory’ is polysemous.
You will note that very few apologists can get jobs at real universities, but rather serve as faculty at Bible colleges. Presumably, their tenure is dependent on their orthodoxy, hardly a condition supportive of academic freedom.
One could argue in 1900s all these kjv bible kids talking about measuring Jesus left over code in life and building technological beasts was a proper orientation and direction ahead of its time. Crazy christians ✝️ vertical gradient reduction axis of time by "faith" ✝️ and the horizontal paradoxical axis where we" work " to build mythology about the past and theoretical models about the future all sounds very esoterica America. Take everything we built away, and that kjv will inspire and show isolated ppl how to rebuild it way quicker than 2024 years perhaps lol
40:00 i've said this many times, if god is all powerful and smart (!) then why not give sinners planet sin to live on, and nice people, planet nice, and neither has any idea the other exists, and if people change, just poof them over to the other planet, no need to burn anyone, everyone is happy and probably everyone will want to thank god personalty and all go to heaven. i have to say one more time, god is dumb as ditchwater. as mr malpas says, there are infinite ways to solve human problems if you can snap your fingers and poof a universe into existence.
It seems that the first philosopher to speak, Dan, is basically arguing for an anti-realist of science. Theories are fine-tuned, but not the universe. Physical theories as we have them today, could be totally different tomorrow. My question then would be why believe science has anything important to say about reality at all then?
Daniel Linford is saying that when it comes to physics fine tuning means one thing, and in philosophy it means another. There's no mention of anti-realism, it's just a disambiguation
@@ellyam991 Well, a few things. I am pretty sure that when Craig said that Dawkins' claims are "controverted" he meant that there were other models that were "cogent and plausible." I don't think Dan's criticism there holds, because if we are talking about professional philosophers of science or physicists who are controverting other professional philosophers of science or physicists, the assumption is, then, that there are several models that are "cogent and plausible," none of which, so to say, "win the day." For example, given that Craig has debated Wielenberg, and also interacted with him in the literature, I am sure he is aware of the view that Dan is referencing (after all, we all know that Dawkin's arguments stink). Second, with regard to anti-realism, Dan says that philosophers of religion assume "our understanding of physics will not change dramatically in the future," which seems to imply that he thinks our understanding of physics will dramatically change in the future, which further implies a kind of scientific anti-realism (i.e., that our scientific theories don't actually grab onto reality in any significant way). He goes on to say that these philosophers of religion have a "tremendous amount of faith in physics" which he doesn't share and which he says most physicists don't share. That certainly sounds like anti-realism. He then goes on to say there is "fine-tuning" in the "physicists sense" which doesn't refer to "a property of the universe," but is a property of scientific theories. This seems to be precisely the claim of the scientific anti-realist. The theories of fine-tuning are not really speaking about a property of the external world, i..e, a universe that exists outside the mind, but the fine-tuning is a property of the mentally constructed theory itself. This seems to place the emphasis not on correspondence but merely on coherence. If the theory seems internally consistent then it is "fine-tuned," but whether it actually relates to an external state of affairs is, at best, unknown.
@@anthonycostello6055 saying "people have a lot of faith in physics remaining the same" is not the same as saying that our understanding of physics will drastically change in the future. It's just pointing out an open question that we can't assume a conclusion for (yet), and that those using the fine tuning argument are jumping to a conclusion that seems unclear. Also, it's a non sequitur to say that because one is uncertain of the plausibility of our current models that therefore one is a scientific anti-realist. We could still believe in scientific realism, but point out the issues in our understanding of the world to argue we are far from the theories that do correspond to real properties of our universe
@@ellyam991It seems that you have stripped the meaning of the terms "realism" and "anti-realism". If our theories do not describe the REAL properties of the universe (and we are talking about theories as basic as general relativity, quantum field theory and thermodynamics, from which fine-tuning examples can be drawn), then in what sense is scientific realism true?
Craic is the champion of overwhelmed Christians who are clinging to what their parents taught them, what they taught their children and what they want to teach their grandchildren. It's hard to tell your kids, I was wrong. Thus Craig's arguments are accepted with Hallelujahs and proclamations Christ is King. Now add the political power and financial benefits reaped by American Evangelicals. It's really not complicated why people accept Craig's arguments.
Something funny to note about Dan Linford's considerations about the differences between teleological reasoning in archeology and design arguments is that he ignores the fact that we can use against them (archaeological design findings) the same class of objections as are used against the design argument. Who knows, there may be an infinite multiverse where a large number of universes with the same evolutionary history as ours resulted only by chance and by natural processes in the same archaeological finds that today we consider designed artifacts... Or perhaps it was not so unlikely that such findings would arise naturally by chance, since we do not know the full range of possibilities of how natural history would occur within each different set of possible natural laws... Well, maybe the archaeological method is only valid “just because yes”, while the design arguments are not. Very convenient.
I think you're missing the relevant sense in which those objections are presented when it comes to design arguments. When it comes to the cosmos the mention of multiverses and/or a lack of knowledge about additional factors is relevant, since proponents of fine tuning are claiming knowledge on a field that's very contested due to its difficult nature, lack of answers and plethora of live possibilities. In archeology *even though design arguments are presented*, there are criteria for when it's reasonable to assume design or not - based on a collection of methodologies and experiments that have led to improved approaches. Those two fields are vastly different and it's reasonable to doubt design in the first There
@@ellyam991The multiverse or any of these speculations is as relevant to design inferences involving archaeological artifacts as it is involving fine-tuning. This is because every valid design inference can be mapped, in its intuitive motivation, to the fact that it involves a naturally improbable and (somehow) specified pattern. If it is not unlikely (or unexpected) to occur by chance, there is no way to infer anything.
@@caiomateus4194 yes, by limiting your framework and not concerning yourself with things beyond it. Under your view yes, all areas of knowledge would be affected by the multiverse and we couldn't infer anything, which is absurd. There's a reason forensics doesn't concern itself with the multiverse, nor history, nor pedagogy, nor any other area beyond the ones that study the cosmos
@@caiomateus4194 because we limit our areas of study as a way to reach conclusions without a slow hierarchical process from the origins of the universe onwards. So for example, regardless of what goes on with cosmology, a biologist can still study an ecosystem, reach inferences and make predictions. We also have a lot of gaps between systems that vary in magnitude. We can't go from the standard model to chemistry for example, let alone biology, so why should we then burden the work of biologists with the considerations of fields so distinct to their work when many models there are robust enough as is?
A message for Alex O'Connor God made a way for His son Christ Jesus for sake of this world no matter what the cost once that price was paid on the cross and the grave was conquered there was no need for any more blood shed. So the question being asked would it be possible for God to give the order the massacre on those schools and churches and so on IS NO. The blood shed for all was on that cross that was ordered by religious law. Satan was defeated. Amen &- Those massacres were lead by these criminals own wicked religious beliefs. My God Jahova Jira is not a religious belief He is my Family my Heavenly Father the creator of all things and you, you WILL stand before Him and be held accountable for your actions.
Please understand that, to a normal person, your gibberish sounds just like you are having a psychotic break, las if you were a paranoid schizophrenic.
This guy was absolutely right theologically physical lawisms names form & shape taxonomy ,epochs, geological strata all this was blessed but it fsils same way as evolution ..platos spiritual essence was better Darwin & lyle chose the wrong form focus. That theological thread was pulled by the peasants revolt,separatist inspired Issac Newton to create the explosion of physics & science but its a triality man made time this up rooted in ( this is classical America likeminded majority Christianity it is the real house of modern scientific explosion in concert with not against until 1945s . the dualistic world, lutheramn,Calvinism, catholic, Anglican, hindu, monarchs, even most rabbinic jews even dementei mendolov and orthodox something was lost without dualism .hierarchy needs justification. so they found a parsatic piggy backs this feedback loop into Darwin and Huxley. Back to peasants revolt, separatist, pilgrim puritan, Presbyterian, baptist later on methodist this is modern sciences while the the rest of dualistic world is in temper tantrum mode untill they finally get Einstein to be able to ( correlate space/time with a photon and now dualism is back in business. Meanwhile athiest & theistic naturalism takes the argument one way or other ww2 ends 1945 the Smith_mundt act is used on back of all Italian Jewish,protestant immigration into America feels like The Baptist ,methodist, hospitals College scientists are all unfare. This is how it all redifine what separation of church and state in America Adopted the german notions
What founders know is all human straddle scales ( physically deaf dumb & blind ). Works More intuitive senses are in tune with by faith reductionism. Newton showed 3rd spirit of God hovering over the waters of cosmos floor. Correlating with soul agency. But to maximize benefits, Ben Franklin systems work with the same atoms & elements but must rationalize them radically differently. Idealism, subjective, objective = reorientate Pragmatism world view real realism . No anti realism has to get prescribed realism to further line of measure. No need to try to play tricks or games you define it all this way but it pisses dualist & pagans off they can't stand this stuff. See neiche or others in the movement
God just is, he does not issue commands to any one. Humans have been given free will so they can use it for good or bad. What is one group’s good is another group’s bad. We are meant to choose good and not make war unless the innocent are attacked then it is justified to defend them. Genocide is evil and has nothing to do with self-defense, killing people who are not harming anyone.
We weren't addressing all possible conceptions of God. There have been, for example, deists who thought that God does not issue commands. We were addressing a conception of God on which God does issue commands and on which some of those commands are included in the Bible. If you disagree with that conception of God, there are some areas in which you agree with us!
@@daniellinford9643 how is it that God's commandments only tend to be heard by those with pre-existing psychological impairments, or who also have a pre-ordained desire, usually murderous, that just happens to coincide with God's wishes. As revealed only to them, of course. Could it be because humans have to be motivated by some - ideally invisible - authoritarian overlord to act in inhumane ways? The Milgram experiment would tend to say: yes (although the authoritarians in that case were very much of this earthly realm, albeit acting).
@@jkm9332 We introduce ourselves and explain our backgrounds at the start of the video. I have a background in both philosophy and science, but my PhD is in philosophy.
@@PhilHalper1 Well, a few things. I am pretty sure that when Craig said that Dawkins' claims are "controverted" he meant that there were other models that were "cogent and plausible." I don't think Dan's criticism there holds, because if we are talking about professional philosophers of science or physicists who are controverting other professional philosophers of science or physicists, the assumption is, then, that there are several models that are "cogent and plausible," none of which, so to say, "win the day." For example, given that Craig has debated Wielenberg, and also interacted with him in the literature, I am sure he is aware of the view that Dan is referencing (after all, we all know that Dawkin's arguments stink). Second, with regard to anti-realism, Dan says that philosophers of religion assume "our understanding of physics will not change dramatically in the future," which seems to imply that he thinks our understanding of physics will dramatically change in the future, which further implies a kind of scientific anti-realism (i.e., that our scientific theories don't actually grab onto reality in any significant way). He goes on to say that these philosophers of religion have a "tremendous amount of faith in physics" which he doesn't share and which he says most physicists don't share. That certainly sounds like anti-realism. He then goes on to say there is "fine-tuning" in the "physicists sense" which doesn't refer to "a property of the universe," but is a property of scientific theories. This seems to be precisely the claim of the scientific anti-realist. The theories of fine-tuning are not really speaking about a property of the external world, i..e, a universe that exists outside the mind, but the fine-tuning is a property of the mentally constructed theory itself. This seems to place the emphasis not on correspondence but merely on coherence. If the theory seems internally consistent then it is "fine-tuned," but whether it actually relates to an external state of affairs is, at best, unknown.
@@anthonycostello6055 "I don't think Dan's criticism there holds, because if we are talking about professional philosophers of science or physicists who are controverting other professional philosophers of science or physicists, the assumption is, then, that there are several models that are 'cogent and plausible,' none of which, so to say, 'win the day.'" I'm not sure how this is supposed to express disagreement with what I said. I agree with this. " For example, given that Craig has debated Wielenberg, and also interacted with him in the literature, I am sure he is aware of the view that Dan is referencing (after all, we all know that Dawkin's arguments stink)." I didn't bring up Wielenberg's paper to refute something Craig said. Instead, I brought up Wielenberg's paper as a resource that audience members might look to in order to learn more about this subject. "Second, with regard to anti-realism, Dan says that philosophers of religion assume 'our understanding of physics will not change dramatically in the future,' which seems to imply that he thinks our understanding of physics will dramatically change in the future, which further implies a kind of scientific anti-realism (i.e., that our scientific theories don't actually grab onto reality in any significant way)." A few things here. First, my argument does not require or entail that our understanding of physics will change dramatically in the future. Instead, my argument only requires that we don't know whether our understanding of physics will change dramatically in the future. Second, I don't understand the charge of scientific anti-realism. I did not claim that our scientific theories fail to grab on to reality in any significant way. Instead, I made a claim specifically about how we should think about fine-tuning; moreover, my claim was based on how *physicists*, themselves, typically think about fine-tuning. Why shouldn't we have the faith that some philosophers have in our theories of fundamental physics? Our current theories of fundamental physics -- the standard model of particle physics and General Relativity -- include internal indications that they will not only break down in future inquiry, but also clues about the context in which they will break down. I am a scientific realist. And my commitment to scientific realism commits me to the view that our current fundamental physical theories are only approximately true. "He goes on to say that these philosophers of religion have a 'tremendous amount of faith in physics' which he doesn't share and which he says most physicists don't share. That certainly sounds like anti-realism." It's not anti-realism. When philosophers of science endorse scientific realism, they typically also say that (1) our theories are only approximately true, (2) there are domains in which our present theories can be expected to fail, and (3) we shouldn’t accept realist interpretations of all of our theories uncritically. "This seems to be precisely the claim of the scientific anti-realist. The theories of fine-tuning are not really speaking about a property of the external world, i..e, a universe that exists outside the mind, but the fine-tuning is a property of the mentally constructed theory itself. This seems to place the emphasis not on correspondence but merely on coherence. If the theory seems internally consistent then it is 'fine-tuned,' but whether it actually relates to an external state of affairs is, at best, unknown." No, you've misunderstood. To reiterate, a parameter is fine-tuned in the physicist's sense just in case, to accommodate some set of observations, some parameters within the theory need to be fine-tuned -- by the physicists -- to unnatural values. A theory is fine-tuned just in case the theory includes a fine-tuned parameter. Understood in this sense, a fine-tuning is a theoretical vice. But as with other theoretical vices, fine-tuning needs to be weighed against the various theoretical virtues that a theory might have. And it's possible that the theoretical virtues will win out. In other words, it's possible that (1) a fine-tuned theory will turn out to be true and that (2) we have good reason to believe that a fine-tuned theory is true.
@@daniellinford9643 Thanks for your response Dan. I appreciate it. I will try to take a closer like at your points and respond in kind (assuming I have the time). But, I think you clarified your position well, and, I am no way challenging a reasonable form of critical realism (or epistemic falliblism). I think Craig would basically agree with that, that we hold on to our theories tentatively, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to hold to the theory, albeit not incorrigibly, that the fine-turning is an actual property of the universe. I do want to think more about your last paragraph though, the one that addresses the issue of a "fine-tuned parameter" that is introduced into a theory. Perhaps I am not fully tracking what you're saying there. It sounds like if the physicists artificially introduces a parameter into a theory to allow the theory to fit the empirical data, that this is a vice and not a virtue. I am perhaps not quite seeing why that is a vice though.
@@anthonycostello6055 Sure. It’s a vice because a fine-tuned parameter has an implausible value given the theory. In other words, a fine-tuned theory is one that poorly predicts at least some of our data. We would prefer a theory that more accurately predicts more of our data. I don’t see a good reason that, given our current state of knowledge, we should think that fine-tuning - in the philosopher’s sense - exists. Fine-tuning is certainly not one of the features of our current theories that is well supported by the data.
![อยู่คนเดียวกับเขา - ส้ม มารี (Zom Marie) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gq1cWAIQDLg/mqdefault.jpg)
Excellent as always Phil. Alex and Dan are bosses, any and all topics are welcome, especially when they expose Craig's unctuous charlatanry.
unctuous charlatanry. Not a fan of Craig then?
@@TBOTSS Not in any sense.
@@matsciguy-l9h Is it because you are vacuous and stupid?
Because he's right and you hate what he's right about@@matsciguy-l9h
ITS MY BIRTHDAY TODAY AND A NEW VIDEO WITH ALEX MALPASS IS ALL I COULD HAVE EVER HOPED AND DREAMED FOR, THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
happy birthday
@@PhilHalper1 THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!! BEST PRESENT EVER!!!!!!!
oh come on man at least get like a bean bag chair
@@radscorpion8 Alex Malpass supersedes all other possible gifts. One might say he transcends beyond the category of giftness it’s self and enters the higher platonic realm, morphing into the abstraction of pure and absolute happiness its self.
42:30
Such a good point. Gods omnipotence gets him into more trouble than it gets him out of.
couldn't agree more
I can't stomach Craig's voice and affect for more than a few minutes at a time. He's always in a kind of performing mode. Doesn't talk like a normal person.
His entire life is apologetics for ancient mythology, it's become his whole personality.
Snake oil pitchman. Funeral director. Used car salesman.
This video on Alex's podcast was baffling, so I appreciate some of my favorite people are addressing it 🔥
yeah I also found it baffling thanks Elyam add do get in touch
@@PhilHalper1 I just sent the email 🙌
@@ellyam991 thanks got it . Will try and review this shortly but a bit tied up right now .
No rush!
I'm not surprised it seemed baffling. It's important to note that WLC by his own admissions (in other comments and videos) apparently starts from the following positions...
1) That his concept of his god *must* exist and cannot be incorrect.
2) That any evidence or arguments which contradicts his concept of his god *must* therefore axiomatically be wrong/false.
His arguments therefore seem to be a reflection of this bias.
Jephthah a General in the Old Testament did sacrifice his daughter. So yeah. He made a deal with Yahweh that if he won the battle he would sacrifice the first thing that came out his house.
good pooint
One of the insults that Hamlet throws at Polonius, calling him Jephthah. Hamlet implies that Polonius will use his daughter as bait, indeed is willing to marry her to one he thinks is mad, for his own advantage. Such abuse of daughters in dynastic marriage was common enough: in 1617 (after Shakespeare’s death) Lady Frances coke was married off to John Villiers, 1st Viscount Purbeck, to please James I, and thus to advantage Frances’s father. Villiers suffered mental illness, and treated her cruelly and violently.
People explaining what’s wrong with WLC’s arguments is one of my favorite pastimes 😂
lol
Thanks for this. Both great guests. I couldn't help but feel that Craig's comments about the Amalekites simply needing to flee in the face of genocide to be shocking and extremely timely. It kinda reminded me of that Golda Meir quote, something like "we will never forgive the Arabs for forcing us to kill their children" . Wild stuff...
Craig's unending stream of non sequiturs and special pleading is always good for laugh after laugh!
glad you enjoyed it.
Craig was polite but he destroyed Alex Malpass a few years back.
@@TBOTSS He's still alive , I can attest to that
@@PhilHalper1 And Malpass has exchanged his faux politeness with outright hostility. Why?
What are some specific examples of these, please?
Good panel, good points, good people, good times.
thanks
Good comment
One thing that I find difficult is the glib way that many apologists, Craig amongst them, throw out some version of the " God gives life so has the right to take it away if he ( I would ask why "he", but we know why) chooses". They do so as if this was a self evident fact but it is far from being so. Why does the act of creation give one absolute power over the "created"? This is far from obvious. No-one ever argues , for example, that parents have the right to torture their children, or to simply kill them off if they get fed up with them. They do so only when the parent in question is a "sky father ". I can't even see the basis for making such a claim.
Ive always thought the same thing . In this case he inst taking life, he's ordering others to do it for him and i a very violent manner.
Parents do not have absolute rights over their children because parents are not the primary cause of their children. Instead, they are an extremely precarious, secondary, and accidental cause (they have no control over the generation of a single cell). In addition to being the voluntary first cause, God is the providential Lord of the acts in natural and human history that led to each birth.
And not only that: God is the best of creators, without moral imperfection or any mutation. He is not like a father who, in his inconstancy, could be indicted by the guardianship council.
Thinking that what God did with cananites was evil requires the premise that God is evil in causing each and every death in history. After all, what is the difference between ordering someone to kill and causing the carrion larva of myiasis to enter the tracheostomy incision of a hospitalized elderly person?
That's why all this fuss about the subject is just noise. Guys have to have something to talk about.
@@caiomateus4194If we assume that (1) God is perfectly good, perhaps as a matter of definition, (2) God is all-knowing, again perhaps as a matter of definition, and that (3) God ordered the slaughter of the Canaanites, then we get the trivial conclusion that ordering the Canaanite genocide must have been good. But why should one start with assumption (3)? Some theologians - such as Randal Rauser - do not begin with assumption (3) and the view that they offer appears more plausible.
As far as whether God has the right to destroy God’s creation, that view appears to be based on the assumption that if x created y, then x has the right to destroy y. I see no reason to think such a principle is true. And that’s so regardless of whether God’s taking of life is always morally exemplary. It could be that God taking lives is always morally exemplary, even though the reason God taking lives is always morally exemplary has nothing to do with God’s role as a creator.
Furthermore, on Craig’s view that God has no moral obligations - including no moral obligations that God could either fulfill or violate - it doesn’t really make any sense to say that God has the *right* to destroy God’s creation. Instead, Craig should say that God destroying God’s creation does not contravene God’s nature.
@@daniellinford9643
I do not define God as the greatest conceivable being. I'm talking about the God of the Bible, and saying that this God (the one who ordered the death of the Canaanites) is not evil. When I said that God is the best of creators, I was talking about his care for his creatures, which the Bible talks about.
The reason we have for attributing this right to God is the same reason we have for attributing the right to parents that they actually have over their children. The utilitarian "intuition" (that this right is derived from the supposed fact that children develop better in a family, instead of being an inherent right) is certainly in the minority among people.
@@caiomateus4194 I never attributed to you the view that God is the “greatest conceivable being”. Do you disagree with assumptions (1) and (2)?
As far as parents having a right over their own children, I don’t think parents do have a right over their own children. I certainly don’t think that parents have the right to take the lives of their children. Instead, I think parents have an obligation to their children. Moreover, I think that’s what people generally think - that parents do not own their children but instead have a number of obligations to their children. From a legal perspective, parents are generally thought of as guardians, as distinct from people with pet, who are generally thought of as pet owners.
I don't have the qualifications as these guys, but as a human being that has thought and experienced for almost 37 years and explored many different substances, perspectives, and hallucinogens, survived suicide attempt with a full on NDE hallucination, drug addiction, and have since moved beyond and transitioned to my authentic self and now live as female. I've now sought to spend my time fulltime in organizing and attempting to get people to wake up and realize the importance of caring for all people in society, permitting all to go to school or college and achieve higher education and reach their full potential. The only thing we can't create is human thought, it feels insane to me that we're not attempting to elevate as much intelligence as possible for the well-being of society by aiming to fulfill the needs of people so that may realize higher actualization and thought instead of being forced to slog through mundane labor for the sake of having such a capitalist economy.
What I like about WLC is that he uses non biblical reference to validate his bias, not realizing that his references are biased within themselves.
"his references are biased within themselves"? What does this mean exactly?
@@TheFourlom That he is using bias to validate biases.
@@PhysiKarlz That 's what all humans do (we're all "biased"); I don't know how else to argue/prove things except to generate/originate our observations via the human self. How does noticing this human tendency demonstrate any kind of "proof" about what atheists/agnostics/theists claim?
@@TheFourlom The point isn't that we generate answers from the human self. It's that he employs confirmation bias but he pretends he is trying to be unbiased by using sources external to the bible. When one looks closer it becomes obvious that the external sources also used confirmation bias.
Hopefully you understand why confirmation bias is bad.
@@PhysiKarlz No, not really; I don't think you made your point clearly. You seem to be drawing on phrases, such as "confirmation bias," as if that is a neutral, objective "thing" that one can appeal to for evidence. "Confirmation bias" seems to be invented in order to advance a particular argument. At some point, people will make judgments and then (as you rightly point out), support their judgments by appealing to sources (either external or internal, such as the innate hardwiring for morallity and language use that humans possess). All we can do is appeal to something, but the desire to appeal is always coming from the human perspective. . .
I loved this! Looking forward to more of these!
thanks
What Craig says about the Canaanite children makes him a sociopath.
Yes, indeed it does.
"Yes, it is true, that I ate a bucket of ice cream half an hour before dinner. But the burden of proof is on you to show, that I didn't have sound reasons to do so. The burden is in fact so heavy, that no atheist ever tried to lift it." It amazes me, that the apologists apply logic on this topic, that they themselves would never apply on literally any other topic in life. Mind blowing.
I completely disagree with Alex about WLC. There are a lot of other things to disagree with when it comes to WLC. WLC may be a philosopher, but he's an apologist too.
WLC is what occurs when attempting to defend a fiction.
It's his entire life, the same way Kent Hovind is stuck being a con-man; they even have similar personalities.
I felt ill at Craig justifying killing children.
was it Voltaire that said if you believe in absurdities you'll commit atrocities
virtue signal harder
@@navigator687 Troll harder.
but they instantly go to Heaven, so it's a big win for them! Saved from the privations of 70-odd years of toil. Lucky bastards...
@@donnievance1942Cripes on a stick. If you think that’s just virtue signaling…
God, being all powerful, could just have stopped the evil by supernaturally changing all of their minds. It’s deeply depressing to think that an all powerful being couldn’t do better than to exterminate the entire society.
yep
Do they really think that everyone in the tribe, or world, including children and babies, was so evil that they all had to be killed? I’ve heard of tough love, but that seems more like sadism
I think Alex is still too nice to Craig. He's an apologist, not a philosopher.
Hey Phil,
One suggestion for a video you could do is on Christian atonement if you’re interested. As a Christian myself, I think this topic isn’t handled often or carefully enough by apologists and is open to some serious critiques.
Specifically the confusion around what exactly the crucifixion achieved and all the disagreement on it over the last 2000 years. I’d love to see the dialogue move forward on this.
thanks for the suggestion , Ill throw it in the mix
There are multiple peer-reviewed articles and monographs published over the past 10 years on the Atonement - including an excellent one from Craig. Where have you been?
@@TBOTSS That’s completely beside the point. I’m more than familiar with Craig’s work on this but my point is the amount of disagreement on the matter among the major Christian traditions.
@@TBOTSS *"the Atonement "* I love that! It's SO silly. But in the interest of curiosity, can you provide a link to Craig's "peer-reviewed" article or monograph?
@@MACHO_CHICO "amount of disagreement" Well keep away from philosophy of physics or philosophy of mathematics, the disagreements are far, far bigger.
I commented this on the live chat, but I love the snark on this video. Sometimes we get too caught up on the decorum and it takes away the human aspect from these conversations
thanks for your comment
You probably need to check the specialized literature on the Canaanites thing, because as far as I know, scholars don't hold the view that the Canaanites were committing child sacrifice, at least not more than the Israelites themselves and the worshipers of Yahweh back then. I remember reading that from Dr. Joshua Bowen's book An Atheist Handbook to the Old Testament.
We did mention that there was possibly child sacrifice in ancient Israel
That’s a good point.
@@PhilHalper1 I noticed! I watched the video in two parts. Thank you.
@@enio17 cool, glad you got through it
Fine tuning and genocide. Now There's two discussion topics you didnt often see side by side in the past. Thank god for youtube
did you see our long film on fine tuning ? We discuss the interaction of the fine tuning argument with argument from evil. Turns out they are related th-cam.com/video/jJ-fj3lqJ6M/w-d-xo.html
Before one can demonstrate *fine* tuning, one must demonstrate *tuning at all* . Put simply, we do not know if the universal constants *can* be anything but what they are. You can't just assume that *tuning must be possible* . You have to *show* it, and since we have no other universes to observe, that is a literal impossibility with what we have at hand.
yeah i agree the argument is too quick in assuming the constants could have been different, where do they get this knowledge from?
About the 57:00 mark, Malpass inquires about the notion of an absolutely good god commanding a genocide. Naturally, we contemplate the victims of the genocide first. But also we should consider the consequences of genocide on the perpetrators and their “spiritual descendants”. We cannot have pity in our hearts for them, of course. But we can comprehend that they participated in a grisly mass murder with edged weapons, and unless they were sociopaths (psychopaths? whichever applies), they must feel remorse, or ethical confusion, or self-doubt or something. We no longer pretend that soldiers walk away unscathed in mind.
And also, this god’s commands, and its “chosen people’s” compliance communicate to religious adherents that genocide in the name of god is justified. (I am unclear exactly how one knows that God has commanded a genocide: could Hitler have earnestly believed he was so commanded, even if he were mistaken? How could he know?)
Christians would object to the Islamic concept of jihad, of wars conducted to force conversion. I don’t see how the Canaanite genocide is different.
yep
Stop the genocide in Gaza.
Listening to Craig talk about the Canaanites draws some very weird parallels with current events.
Indeed
Great video as always, Phil!
thanks
I don't know how can Craig be taken seriously anymore. His thinking is so much biased and skewed, that there is no rational anymore.
Not trying to _ad hominem_ Craig, but I don’t trust a guy who looks like he’s already been embalmed (not to mention the permanent smile plastered on his face).
WLC lives in this weird middle ground between normal apologists and real philosophy. He's bound to support and defend the evangelical vision of the bible, but he's one of the few evangelicals who is good at adopting the structure and verbiage and scholarly appearance of real philosophy. This puts him in the position of having to defend the undefendable, because if you take the christian bible at face value as evangelicals insist, it's HORRIFIC...unless you cherry pick, which evangelicals do, but claim they don't.
WLC's strategy when surrounded by evangelicals is to just use big words and sound professorial, and that's good enough. But when he has to get checked by professionals, he's out of his depth. The fact that he's TRYING to elevate the apologetics game is nice, but as long as he can't sever that chain to the anchor that is the bible, he can't go very far. He HAS to try to obfuscate.
Wlc does a lot of hand waving of arguments. Canaanite children who were killed immediately went to heaven says wlc which he says is part of his theology. More like his constant moralising. What wlc is saying is history is wrote by the winner. Love this discussion. They say all the things that i find crazy about this story.
It's good the remember when these talk about an explanation or a cause, they mean in "as a human motive".
Descriptive explanations like that there are equal number of protons and electrons in an atom can never satisfy them.
Craig seems to be lacking a bit in self awareness when he says the reason to not take some views seriously is because they are under contention by other.
His views on presentism, simultaneous causation, Molinism, and others aren’t exactly “mainstream” in the philosophical world.
Also, I think Alex has a bone to pick with Craig’s view on infinites.
Just seems he tries to hand wave away issues when he has a more accepting audience
1. The Israelites were not held in bondage in Egypt 2. They did not wander the Sinai for 40 years. 3. The Canaanites were not slaughtered. 4. There is no evidence the Canaanites committed genocide as the story claims the Israelite did. The worst thing one can do. As one of the speakers noted. Why not just convert the Canaanites or at worst make them vanish painlessly. Why was the cruelty necessary? Craig is just desperate to excuse the evil done by the Israelites in these stories by claiming his god is amoral. It's a ghastly position to take under any circumstance.
Regarding idolatry... Craig has to defend idolatry as a crime punishable by death... He has no choice because Moses slaughtered thousands of his own people in the camp after seeing his people worshiping the golden calf.
yep
Can someone make an AI cover song of Bobby Brown’s “My Prerogative” sung by Dr. Craig please 😂
Yes. More like this, please.
ok will do
A world history book with the thesis that the driving force of history is overtaking and holding on to land would be interesting... 🤔
Reminds me of Marx’s view that history is the history of class struggle
@@daniellinford9643 Yeah, good point
WLC is still a thing, eh? Been a lot of years.
He still is yes
Great chat. Xianity et al are so full of holes but at the end of the day if theists can handle the cognitive dissonance by isolating themselves in their bubbles, we are talking to people who have put their thumbs in their ears while repeating the mantra "I can't hear you. I Can't hear you."
thanks
May the algo Gods pay attention!
Enjoyed this a lot, really great guests 👌 The way WLC and other apologists deal with these atrocities is religious belief showing its ugly face.
thanks , glad you liked it.
Science is a self correcting mechanism where it is always checking itself. Religion on the other hand is a self gratifying mechanism.
Whenever someone who believes that morality comes from God, starts suddenly talking like a utilitarian consequentialist when asked to *justify* something God did in the bible, it's very telling.
Why not just say "what a strange question...I mean God did it so, by definition, it was good"? They should find the question so puzzling like asking why is good good.
Instead they borrow from my world view, suddenly get all secular and start talking about how much harm the Canaanites where causing. They start talking about human flourishing as if it matters.
And the Israelites probably were Canaanites. And probably the ones doing more harm, given that, going by the bible itself, they went on a rampage of destruction
Awesome
thanks
How does Craig know the babies go to Heaven?
For a chap who worships a god beyond human comprehension, WLC knows a great deal about the mind and intent of his god...Not surprisingly, in his Kalām cosmological argument, WLC also knows a great deal about the realm outside or prior to the universe, and even about the creative first cause that inhabits it. How he does all this with an ape mind that so evolved to comprehend a little physics.
It must be unbearable to be as clever as WLC thinks he is.
@@oldpossum57 yeah where does he come up with this bs? That's why I don't get Alex's push back against the criticism towards WLC. WLC is a bs machine.
@@pavld335 Certainly, that is my impression. I sat through a couple of YT talks in which WLC presents his version of the Kalām cosmological argument. I get quite like the child who observes, “But the emperor has no clothes!” At several points, even a layperson like me could see that Craig’s argument was incoherent. This incoherence combines poorly with his self-assurance, his condescension, his arrogance. Further, since I don’t think he is stupid, I must assume that he can see that his arguments are not rational, and that he is misleading his audience. One can overlook the ardent fervour of an uneducated true believer. But for a man who is paid to think to be so dishonest is truly disturbing.
@@oldpossum57 A lot of people don't know, but he also has a channel where he spews a lot of manipulative apologetic garbage like "you need god to be happy". But I remember watching him one time go through his kalam argument, and out of knowhere he just makes up this thing that the first cause has to be loving in order to create. Total made up nonsense. It's obvious that Christianity is like a blankie that a child would use to comfort themsleves.
@@pavld335 I once composed my step by step critique of WLC’s version of the Kalām cosmological argument. It runs several paragraphs, and is organized in labelled sections and subsections. If you have any interest, I can re-post it here, in three separate posts, because of YTs parameters.
In any event, I think more than one of the critiques I make should hold up under scrutiny. And thus, as a layman, if I am able to show that WLC’s argument is incoherent, I wonder that he still has the gall to continue to trot it out. An honest person would have heard his critics and have abandoned the indefensible.
I think his website is called “Rational Faith”. It would be better called “The Faithful Rationalize.” Really, he and other theists should not be embarrassed to admit that their faith is irrational, but that they will hold on to it because it makes them feel good. De gustibus non est disputandum. On the other hand, we do not vote or legislate on matters of aesthetic preference. He likes Jesus, I like Jayne.
@32:03 for a good laugh
I had to go back and watch the rest of the Bill Craig/Alex O'Connor debate, where Alex concisely sums it up as Bill's "morally repugnant" argument, around the 45min mark.
Morality is based upon consequences.
Even a god can't escape that!
As soon as someone says “ought,” it’s obvious they can’t be trusted as an objective source.
53:00 Craig is literally admitting to being a moral relativist here.
Right
WLC points to the accounts in the OT to justify the genocide. He points to other historical accounts to argue that the Canaanite culture was revolting. All the same the OT Anarrative is one-sided. We do not read there the opinions of the Canaanites, what being run off their pastoral land would mean for them, what their god thought of the Israelite god. In short, the OT account seems quite one-sided to me. Conceding that the Israelite God’s commands are justified because a priori the Israelite god is the only god seems to assume the consequent as a premise.
25:00 you can't go from appearance of design to conclusion of design. See puddle argument.
I think when Craig says,
"presumably God doesn't issue commands to himself"
This is surely a huge red flag. It strikes me as a 'Craigian' reframing of semantics expressly for the purpose of providing an escape hatch by which he can dodge any accusation of his theology being inconsistent (which seems to be his main defence against the genocide problem - the 'atheists are subjectivists and so can't prove God objectively wrong' defence).
My problem with this is this - what does Craig actually think a conscious agent is doing when they decide to commit to a particular action? Is it not the case that at a fundamental level, a being relays an order or 'command' to 'itself' (whatever 'itself' actually means) when deciding to raise its arm, eat an ice cream...or kill off an entire nation.
And is it not a basic virtue to obey moral obligations? Isn't part of 'goodness' an intrinsic tendency to be morally obliged to act in the right way? Isn't that why we call people 'good' - because they choose to do good things 100% of the time. It seems to me that a 'moral obligation' is simply describing some aspect of a being's 'nature'.
Craig is ignoring the text, ignoring the historical evidence, ignoring neurology, ignoring moral philosophy, and playing with semantics to desperately claw his way out of the hole he himself dug to catch atheists in - to cover up the fact that while he's accusing moral relativists of not being in a position to attack his position, his position too, is mere assertion grounded in emotion and personal preference.
So many ways to defeat Craig's argument. You can attack it ontologically. But let's pick it apart epistemologically here.
There is no way for an ancient soldier to discern that a message is truly from God. Picture the Israelite soldier, standing at attention and dressed for battle. Then his commanding officer orders him to kill the pregnant woman over there, standing with her other children. Did this order come from God?
At best, the soldier is receiving this order fourth hand. Presumably the order originates with some sort of prophet, and then proceeds to the king, and then to the head of the army, and then down through the chain of command. How is the rank and file soldier expected to ascertain the morality of this command?
Other questions arise...How does he know when to stop killing? Does he ask for evidence from his commanding officer of the command's legitimacy? What if the command is to kill his own people?
And what reason do we, 2500+ years later, have to believe this genocidal command is authentic?
Please, sirs. I want some more.
(Not meant to be a British reference, but rather a musical one. I find them more realistic than apologetics.)
Joking aside, I know you’ve covered this before, but right at the very beginning of O’Conner’s video, Dr. Craig talked about, ‘cross-disciplinary work.’ But that immediately made me think of Craig’s own misuse of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem. To what degree do many of the leading Christian metaphysical arguments inappropriately cross academic boundaries? Is this stuff ever checked in the peer review process? (I have no idea and would be happy to be wrong). Even though you’d still have to address the argument itself, it does seem telling, if the apologist is over-selling a field outside their own. Isn’t Academia intrinsically a slow, collective process? Boring, boring, boring and necessary - teamwork, right?!?
Shorthand: Are they being willfully ignorant of their jobs? You know, the ones they chose?
Thanks for your comment, iweve just decided to do the moral argument next . Maybe in a week or so
for good people to believe in atrocities, that they are good and moral, you need religion!
it certainly helps
We still exist!
lol
Darwin's theory is basic but it is yet far incomplete.
I will post this long narrative.
Regarding the origin of things, in quantum physics it could be said that energy exists forever since the law of conservation of energy states that " energy could neither be created nor destroyed it only transforms from one to another" in which sense it means energy is there forever. Second thing is that consciousness is inherent in nature in the quantum realm as shown in the experiment of the double slit board where it seems that particles have consciousness in my view. To support that claim many experiments show that water in jars reacts to words spoken to them. Another thing is that air seems to respond to blow more when farmers whistle when they want more air, which led me to conclude that particles at quantum level have inherent consciousness or in totality the universe is conscious. The theory of multiverse also would in conjunction with this view, it relates that in any space multiverse exists.
Considering it collectively, energy and consciousness are inherent in nature. With these energy and consciousness it could originate species and also made the galaxies to arrange by themselves. Being conscious they could evolve by themselves, yes?
A computer could do a tremendous job with just a binary combination of gate zero and one. Compared to conscious particles, consciousness surely would be much more advanced and amazing which is the primality of genes and DNA,where particles like different sorts of electrons, protons, gamma, theta or what not clinging to it forming different kinds of species. This process underwent a billion years in the past.
This is a challenge for theists and more simple than what you are speculating to prove that there is what you claim is the “all powerful and merciful God”, go to cancer hospital and look for 20 patients and ask God for complete healing, that is the way if we want scientific proof like testing a cure of covid, yes? Then repeat it ten times to clear doubt. Ok do it. If you couldn’t do it simply means you are embracing a lie your theory is incorrect.
Thus there is no "all powerful and merciful God", no hell, heaven and rapture which is made to control people.
6:00 You cannot debunk the fine-tuning argument by saying "hey, our understanding of physics may change in the future!". That is pure nonsense.
The point i wanted to press was that Craig was wrong to say he doesn't know of any physicists who think fine tuning cant be solved by Darwinian means. If thats what he meant. He knows Smollin has such a model as he critiqued it!
@@PhilHalper1What does Darwin's theory of evolution have to do with the values of fundamental Physics constants? Nothing at all.
@@gdevelek In CNS they have everything to do with Darwins theory . We explained this
@@PhilHalper1I'd love to hear all about it, but, am I supposed to know what CNS is?
@@gdevelek Apologies you were so confident that Darwins theory had nothing to do with the constant of nature i assumed you knew something about this field. CNS is cosmological natural selection. We talked about it 9:27 into this very video you are commenting on, did you watch it?
It’s low bar Bill!
(Yes, I am a fan of Mr. Diety!)
WLC really needs to check himself. He has been digging a big hole that he will never be able to climb out of. Pretty repulsive stuff. He’s becoming low hanging fruit for rational thinkers.
Great discussion, I’ll watch for more
Hamza published a video where you debate him. Will you publish it too (i dont want to give him any view)?
I dont have a copy of that
@@PhilHalper1 Ok, you were always holding a camera so I wondered.
Malpass is the goat of internet theist/atheist discussions
Who made God, Mr Craig?
I find it fascinating that WLC can publicly claim, with a smile on his face, the problem of evil has been solved. Does he not recall Dr. Raymond Bradley’s paper “The Free Will Defense Refuted and Gods Existence Disproved”, or the debate he had with him? He must be doing this for rhetorical purposes. Obviously there’s not enough time to confront him on such a claim. He knows that, so can get away with the audience taking it for granted. Very sneaky public speaking tactic; but then again that’s most of apologetics
He means he thinks it's been solved, but it sounds like everyone thinks it's been solved.
The difference between being skeptical about the teleology of fine-tuning and being skeptical about the "problem" of suffering is that the second case doesn't involve some crazy scientific anti-realism, according to which for some reason all our *best-founded* theories will prove themselves. false.
*Quantum field theory is confirmed with an accuracy of 1/10¹³ for electron spin, while general relativity is confirmed with similar accuracy for gravitational lensing.
Can you elaborate on why you think that skeptical about fine-tuning, in the philosopher’s sense, involves a “crazy” form of scientific anti-realism?
@@daniellinford9643 Because all current fundamental scientific theories provide us with examples of fine tuning. Not only that: all theories (or conjunctions of them) that aim to replace current theories as final descriptions of reality and that are not dismissible due to their unacceptable degree of ad hoc or lack of explanatory scope and strength, also provide examples of fine tuning.
@@caiomateus4194 The fact that all of our current best fundamental theories are fine-tuned just means that there are parameters within those theories that have unnatural or implausible values. And all that should be taken to mean is that we ought to look for theories that are not fine-tuned. And the fact that proposals for future theories are fine-tuned - if that is a fact - means only that we have reason to continue looking for another proposal. This is a completely bog standard view among physicists and guides inquiry in, for example, particle physics and cosmology.
But look: my view that fine-tuning should be understood as a feature of scientific theories is not, itself, a reason to think that there are no good fine-tuning arguments for theism. As I said, a fine-tuned theory is one that, in a specific sense, poorly predicts the values of some free parameters appearing in the theory. If we can find a theistic hypothesis that does better at predicting the values of those free parameters than our current theories, holding everything else equal, we would then have reason to accept that theistic hypothesis. For example, if someone could provide a theistic hypothesis that made a better prediction for the value of the cosmological constant than our present theories do, holding everything else equal, we’d then have reason to accept that theistic hypothesis. The trouble is that proponents of that hypothesis would need to show that their new hypothesis is at least no more fine-tuned, with respect to our total data, than our present theories are.
Whether a theory is fine-tuned is a specific theoretical vice. In some sense, it’s a more specific way in which a theory can be ad hoc. So if you do think theories should be judged based upon the degree to which those theories are ad hoc, I don’t see why you think theories shouldn’t be judged on the degree to which they are fine-tuned.
@@caiomateus4194 I wrote a lengthy reply to your post. I'm not sure what happened to it.
In any case, let's suppose that all of our current fundamental scientific theories provide us with examples of fine-tuning, as do all of the theories that have been proposed thus far to replace them. What this means is that our current fundamental theories include free parameters that have unnatural values, as do all of the proposals for replacing them. And surely this fact is reason enough for us to continue looking for another theory that does not include parameters that have unnatural values.
In some sense, this is what you've attempted to do. You've noted that some of our current theories have parameters that have unnatural values. You think that by incorporating God into our theories, those parameters no longer have unnatural values -- instead, they have precisely the values we should expect them to have given various facts about God.
Here's something crucial that I wasn't able to get to in the video. Maybe we'll get to it in a future video. The view that fine-tuning is a property of theories -- that is, a theoretical vice -- does not entail that theistic fine-tuning arguments fail. Instead, it means that we should look at theistic fine-tuning arguments in a different way. Holding everything else equal, we prefer theories that are not fine-tuned over theories that are fine-tuned. And we prefer theories with less fine-tuning over theories that have a greater degree of fine-tuning. So, given that some of our current scientific theories are fine-tuned, holding everything else equal, we would prefer a replacement theory that was not fine-tuned. Perhaps theists can produce a theory that is both less fine-tuned and that incorporates God. If they can, then, again holding all else equal, we would have reason to endorse that theistic hypothesis.
@@daniellinford9643 My comments also disappeared more than once. I don't know what's going on.
While it is true that a theory with fewer parameters is better than a theory with more parameters, that is not the intuition behind fine-tuning. In fact, whenever we infer the design of human beings (in everyday life or in academic activity), we are adding parameters or "complexity". Furthermore, there are theistic hypotheses with fewer free parameters, which are unacceptable (such as Leibniz's theism, which predicts exactly this possible world because it is the best world, and therefore God could not choose another).
There is no reason to take the opinions of theistic fantasists, like "I lower the bar" Craig, seriously.
To me, his uttering are nothing more than meaningless, inconsequential babble.
I might just as well listen to the solution for the problem of evil, by a smurfologist, or a koboldist.
If no one responds to their arguments it looks like we cant
@@PhilHalper1 Agreed. That is definitely true. Also, it might help believers to free themselves from their theistic delusion.
So, it is good that knowledgeable people debunk these absurd theistic fantasies.
1:00:48 I would add to the point made here that if God is under no moral constraints at all, then cosmic fine tuning can't count in favor of theism.
Di, did you see our videos on fine-tuning?
@@PhilHalper1 yeah, they were both great!
@@nickolashessler314 thanks
If the bible is treated not as some kind of literal history of events it can be read very differently. And we should be interested in how it came about and what it tells us about our ancestors and the depths of our own unconsciousness as a race. The simple explanation that because we didn't have science our fearful imagination was out of control is just silly. There is such a wealth of intelligent study of religious literature that I have to ask myself seriously what the game is with these kind of arguments. I hope against hope to hear some kind of nuance.
1:00:00 there are gospels left out of the bible (gospel of judas for one) that don't fit the narrative, that is god is the bad guy and jesus is battling with him.
Indeed that is considered a gnostic text
If you want another look at is Clay Jones guy look at him and his appearance on Trinity radio. 😬
what will we find?
@@PhilHalper1 poor reasoning. It’s been a while since I’ve seen it. But he was a bit cringe.
This Dan is a Hilarious clown. Watched his debate with Andrew Locke. He basically garbled nonsense.
Maybe you could offer an example of something that I said that was “garbled nonsense” in my debate with Loke.
@@daniellinford9643most probably not ☺️
Drip by drip possible explanations by scientists is for sure. So many maybes and probables and no definitive answers and proof about the big questions. I guess criticizing Craig by them is good enough for now!
Not saying you know when you don’t is a good thing. Why would you think otherwise?
Why is Craig passing the burden of proof over to philosophers? The issues in relation to the Problem of Evil are purely for theologians to try to figure out.
Either (a supposed) God is omnibenevolent, or 'He' is not.
Using the so-called 'free will' argument won't wash either: Endowed to man (how?) by a supposedly perfect God, incapable of being free in any sense of the word (logically restricted due to an inability to err/make a mistake).
Craig has this view where as long as god has sufficient moral reasons to allow evils, then that's good enough. So his idea is that those who disagree need to explain why god doesn't have sufficient moral reasons for doing so, effectively shifting the burden of proof.
The thing is that obviously that's not the end of the discussion as Craig would like to think
Craig is a philosopher (double doctorate, if memory serves) so that's his area of study, if not expertise. Also, he thinks that he can prove via philosophical logic that God exists. That and "objective morality", whatever that is.
@@treyquattroWLC: “Very often atheists themselves admit that they have no evidence of God's absence, but they try to put a different spin on it. They'll tell you, “No one can prove a universal negative”…"?
So the onus on non-believers is to prove a negative, and if not, God therefore exists?
I'll accept that I'm strictly incorrect insisting that the burden of proof is purely for theists, but when someone, such as he, is grounded by a positive bias 'for' the existence of God - self critique (for a start) of such is impossible.
And excusing suffering because "God works in mysterious ways" is a self imposed 'get out clause'.
Inventing a greater moralistic and ethical God took me less than an hour to accomplish many years ago. This is not a good sign for the perfection of a Christian God.
Objective morality is something that I too believe to be true - though impossible to prove.
I was a great fan of WLC in the past (learnt a lot about philosophical Time from many of his books). Now though, his bias is too overwhelming for me to accept that he is a serious critical thinker of any standing. One should critique everything, until only the truth remains.
Comment for algo
surely when it comes to fine tuning, from nature's perspective all the numbers are "1", it's humans who assign values and significance to them, maybe those numbers can't be anything else, as i say, they are all "1". the universe _is_ weird, it's weird there is anything here at all, never mind squashing hydrogen atoms leads to brains, but possibly it's all inevitable, even if the universe isn't infinite, travel far enough and maybe there's another milky "almost" way a zillion light years from here.
well there's a lot to talk about, in terms of the nature of probability which we explore in full in this longer film on fine tuning th-cam.com/video/jJ-fj3lqJ6M/w-d-xo.html
Can we please use the word hypothesis instead of theory otherwise you are confusing people - a hypothesis is merely an substantiated proposal whereas a theory is typically based on a substantial body of evidence.
I use to think this is the right definition. but Im having second thoughts, after all was the theory of relativity not a theory before the evidence came in?
In the debate over evolution and creationism, people like to say that the word ‘theory’ refers to a broad explanation supported by a body of evidence. And certainly Darwinian evolution is a broad explanation supported by a body of evidence - as is germ theory, gravitational theory, atomic theory, and heliocentric theory.
But the word ‘theory’ is used more broadly by scientists. For example, string theory is not yet supported by a broad body of evidence.
So, it’s not clear to me what the correct usage of ‘theory’ is.
@@daniellinford9643I think most scientist think string theory is actually an hypothesis, possibly regretting that ST as a term became widely used. The Big Bang theory show probably didn’t help as Sheldon talked about it as such
@@dwightfitch3120 I don’t think that negates my broader point that - despite what science popularizers sometimes say - the word ‘theory’ is polysemous.
@@daniellinford9643 Sorry, polysemous isn’t in my dictionary
Clay Jones is a fraud! "He holds a Doctor of Ministry from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. "
No surprise there
@@PhilHalper1 Fake degree.
You will note that very few apologists can get jobs at real universities, but rather serve as faculty at Bible colleges. Presumably, their tenure is dependent on their orthodoxy, hardly a condition supportive of academic freedom.
One could argue in 1900s all these kjv bible kids talking about measuring Jesus left over code in life and building technological beasts was a proper orientation and direction ahead of its time.
Crazy christians ✝️ vertical gradient reduction axis of time by "faith" ✝️ and the horizontal paradoxical axis where we" work " to build mythology about the past and theoretical models about the future all sounds very esoterica America.
Take everything we built away, and that kjv will inspire and show isolated ppl how to rebuild it way quicker than 2024 years perhaps lol
40:00 i've said this many times, if god is all powerful and smart (!) then why not give sinners planet sin to live on, and nice people, planet nice, and neither has any idea the other exists, and if people change, just poof them over to the other planet, no need to burn anyone, everyone is happy and probably everyone will want to thank god personalty and all go to heaven. i have to say one more time, god is dumb as ditchwater. as mr malpas says, there are infinite ways to solve human problems if you can snap your fingers and poof a universe into existence.
It seems that the first philosopher to speak, Dan, is basically arguing for an anti-realist of science. Theories are fine-tuned, but not the universe. Physical theories as we have them today, could be totally different tomorrow. My question then would be why believe science has anything important to say about reality at all then?
Daniel Linford is saying that when it comes to physics fine tuning means one thing, and in philosophy it means another. There's no mention of anti-realism, it's just a disambiguation
@@ellyam991 exactly right
@@ellyam991 Well, a few things. I am pretty sure that when Craig said that Dawkins' claims are "controverted" he meant that there were other models that were "cogent and plausible." I don't think Dan's criticism there holds, because if we are talking about professional philosophers of science or physicists who are controverting other professional philosophers of science or physicists, the assumption is, then, that there are several models that are "cogent and plausible," none of which, so to say, "win the day." For example, given that Craig has debated Wielenberg, and also interacted with him in the literature, I am sure he is aware of the view that Dan is referencing (after all, we all know that Dawkin's arguments stink). Second, with regard to anti-realism, Dan says that philosophers of religion assume "our understanding of physics will not change dramatically in the future," which seems to imply that he thinks our understanding of physics will dramatically change in the future, which further implies a kind of scientific anti-realism (i.e., that our scientific theories don't actually grab onto reality in any significant way). He goes on to say that these philosophers of religion have a "tremendous amount of faith in physics" which he doesn't share and which he says most physicists don't share. That certainly sounds like anti-realism. He then goes on to say there is "fine-tuning" in the "physicists sense" which doesn't refer to "a property of the universe," but is a property of scientific theories. This seems to be precisely the claim of the scientific anti-realist. The theories of fine-tuning are not really speaking about a property of the external world, i..e, a universe that exists outside the mind, but the fine-tuning is a property of the mentally constructed theory itself. This seems to place the emphasis not on correspondence but merely on coherence. If the theory seems internally consistent then it is "fine-tuned," but whether it actually relates to an external state of affairs is, at best, unknown.
@@anthonycostello6055 saying "people have a lot of faith in physics remaining the same" is not the same as saying that our understanding of physics will drastically change in the future. It's just pointing out an open question that we can't assume a conclusion for (yet), and that those using the fine tuning argument are jumping to a conclusion that seems unclear.
Also, it's a non sequitur to say that because one is uncertain of the plausibility of our current models that therefore one is a scientific anti-realist. We could still believe in scientific realism, but point out the issues in our understanding of the world to argue we are far from the theories that do correspond to real properties of our universe
@@ellyam991It seems that you have stripped the meaning of the terms "realism" and "anti-realism". If our theories do not describe the REAL properties of the universe (and we are talking about theories as basic as general relativity, quantum field theory and thermodynamics, from which fine-tuning examples can be drawn), then in what sense is scientific realism true?
Craic is the champion of overwhelmed Christians who are clinging to what their parents taught them, what they taught their children and what they want to teach their grandchildren. It's hard to tell your kids, I was wrong. Thus Craig's arguments are accepted with Hallelujahs and proclamations Christ is King. Now add the political power and financial benefits reaped by American Evangelicals. It's really not complicated why people accept Craig's arguments.
test
Apply 31:20 to the Nazis instead of being a boring lib
Im not sure the relevance of this, can you elaborate?
Something funny to note about Dan Linford's considerations about the differences between teleological reasoning in archeology and design arguments is that he ignores the fact that we can use against them (archaeological design findings) the same class of objections as are used against the design argument.
Who knows, there may be an infinite multiverse where a large number of universes with the same evolutionary history as ours resulted only by chance and by natural processes in the same archaeological finds that today we consider designed artifacts...
Or perhaps it was not so unlikely that such findings would arise naturally by chance, since we do not know the full range of possibilities of how natural history would occur within each different set of possible natural laws...
Well, maybe the archaeological method is only valid “just because yes”, while the design arguments are not. Very convenient.
I think you're missing the relevant sense in which those objections are presented when it comes to design arguments. When it comes to the cosmos the mention of multiverses and/or a lack of knowledge about additional factors is relevant, since proponents of fine tuning are claiming knowledge on a field that's very contested due to its difficult nature, lack of answers and plethora of live possibilities.
In archeology *even though design arguments are presented*, there are criteria for when it's reasonable to assume design or not - based on a collection of methodologies and experiments that have led to improved approaches.
Those two fields are vastly different and it's reasonable to doubt design in the first
There
@@ellyam991The multiverse or any of these speculations is as relevant to design inferences involving archaeological artifacts as it is involving fine-tuning. This is because every valid design inference can be mapped, in its intuitive motivation, to the fact that it involves a naturally improbable and (somehow) specified pattern.
If it is not unlikely (or unexpected) to occur by chance, there is no way to infer anything.
@@caiomateus4194 yes, by limiting your framework and not concerning yourself with things beyond it. Under your view yes, all areas of knowledge would be affected by the multiverse and we couldn't infer anything, which is absurd. There's a reason forensics doesn't concern itself with the multiverse, nor history, nor pedagogy, nor any other area beyond the ones that study the cosmos
@@ellyam991
I didn't understand. Why would this be true "from my point of view" but not in general?
@@caiomateus4194 because we limit our areas of study as a way to reach conclusions without a slow hierarchical process from the origins of the universe onwards. So for example, regardless of what goes on with cosmology, a biologist can still study an ecosystem, reach inferences and make predictions.
We also have a lot of gaps between systems that vary in magnitude. We can't go from the standard model to chemistry for example, let alone biology, so why should we then burden the work of biologists with the considerations of fields so distinct to their work when many models there are robust enough as is?
A message for Alex O'Connor God made a way for His son Christ Jesus for sake of this world no matter what the cost once that price was paid on the cross and the grave was conquered there was no need for any more blood shed. So the question being asked would it be possible for God to give the order the massacre on those schools and churches and so on IS NO. The blood shed for all was on that cross that was ordered by religious law. Satan was defeated. Amen &- Those massacres were lead by these criminals own wicked religious beliefs. My God Jahova Jira is not a religious belief He is my Family my Heavenly Father the creator of all things and you, you WILL stand before Him and be held accountable for your actions.
Please understand that, to a normal person, your gibberish sounds just like you are having a psychotic break, las if you were a paranoid schizophrenic.
11:43 The Principle of Least Action is a rule-of-thumb, not a scientific theory.
This guy was absolutely right theologically physical lawisms names form & shape taxonomy ,epochs, geological strata all this was blessed but it fsils same way as evolution ..platos spiritual essence was better Darwin & lyle chose the wrong form focus.
That theological thread was pulled by the peasants revolt,separatist inspired Issac Newton to create the explosion of physics & science but its a triality man made time this up rooted in ( this is classical America likeminded majority Christianity it is the real house of modern scientific explosion in concert with not against until 1945s .
the dualistic world, lutheramn,Calvinism, catholic, Anglican, hindu, monarchs, even most rabbinic jews even
dementei mendolov and orthodox something was lost without dualism .hierarchy needs justification.
so they found a parsatic piggy backs this feedback loop into Darwin and Huxley.
Back to peasants revolt, separatist, pilgrim puritan, Presbyterian, baptist later on methodist this is modern sciences while the the rest of dualistic world is in temper tantrum mode untill they finally get Einstein to be able to ( correlate space/time with a photon and now dualism is back in business.
Meanwhile athiest & theistic naturalism takes the argument one way or other ww2 ends 1945 the Smith_mundt act is used on back of all Italian Jewish,protestant immigration into America feels like
The Baptist ,methodist, hospitals College scientists are all unfare.
This is how it all redifine what separation of church and state in America Adopted the german notions
What founders know is all human straddle scales ( physically deaf dumb & blind ). Works
More intuitive senses are in tune with by faith reductionism.
Newton showed 3rd spirit of God hovering over the waters of cosmos floor. Correlating with soul agency.
But to maximize benefits, Ben Franklin systems work with the same atoms & elements but must rationalize them radically differently.
Idealism, subjective, objective = reorientate Pragmatism world view real realism . No anti realism has to get prescribed realism to further line of measure.
No need to try to play tricks or games you define it all this way but it pisses dualist & pagans off they can't stand this stuff. See neiche or others in the movement
So much gets blamed on God that should be blamed on people, because it on them.
but if the god of the Bible exists then that's not quite right is it?
Of course, nobody can blame non existent gods.
@@edkostreba8796 Im happy to blame the Galactic Empire for the destruction of Alderaan
the God that humans created you mean?
God just is, he does not issue commands to any one. Humans have been given free will so they can use it for good or bad. What is one group’s good is another group’s bad. We are meant to choose good and not make war unless the innocent are attacked then it is justified to defend them. Genocide is evil and has nothing to do with self-defense, killing people who are not harming anyone.
Alas the character called God in the Bible does issue commands and they are commands to kill
We weren't addressing all possible conceptions of God. There have been, for example, deists who thought that God does not issue commands.
We were addressing a conception of God on which God does issue commands and on which some of those commands are included in the Bible. If you disagree with that conception of God, there are some areas in which you agree with us!
@@daniellinford9643 how is it that God's commandments only tend to be heard by those with pre-existing psychological impairments, or who also have a pre-ordained desire, usually murderous, that just happens to coincide with God's wishes. As revealed only to them, of course. Could it be because humans have to be motivated by some - ideally invisible - authoritarian overlord to act in inhumane ways? The Milgram experiment would tend to say: yes (although the authoritarians in that case were very much of this earthly realm, albeit acting).
Is this show a joke? Three scientist talking about the problem of evil? Ha ha.
PhD's in philosophy actually
Alex and I both have our PhDs in philosophy.
@@daniellinford9643 Oh, good to hear! I stand corrected. Thought you guys were scientists.
@@PhilHalper1 Ah, what a relief! Thanks for the correction.
@@jkm9332 We introduce ourselves and explain our backgrounds at the start of the video. I have a background in both philosophy and science, but my PhD is in philosophy.
Naturalism of the gaps here.
how so ?
@@PhilHalper1 Well, a few things. I am pretty sure that when Craig said that Dawkins' claims are "controverted" he meant that there were other models that were "cogent and plausible." I don't think Dan's criticism there holds, because if we are talking about professional philosophers of science or physicists who are controverting other professional philosophers of science or physicists, the assumption is, then, that there are several models that are "cogent and plausible," none of which, so to say, "win the day." For example, given that Craig has debated Wielenberg, and also interacted with him in the literature, I am sure he is aware of the view that Dan is referencing (after all, we all know that Dawkin's arguments stink). Second, with regard to anti-realism, Dan says that philosophers of religion assume "our understanding of physics will not change dramatically in the future," which seems to imply that he thinks our understanding of physics will dramatically change in the future, which further implies a kind of scientific anti-realism (i.e., that our scientific theories don't actually grab onto reality in any significant way). He goes on to say that these philosophers of religion have a "tremendous amount of faith in physics" which he doesn't share and which he says most physicists don't share. That certainly sounds like anti-realism. He then goes on to say there is "fine-tuning" in the "physicists sense" which doesn't refer to "a property of the universe," but is a property of scientific theories. This seems to be precisely the claim of the scientific anti-realist. The theories of fine-tuning are not really speaking about a property of the external world, i..e, a universe that exists outside the mind, but the fine-tuning is a property of the mentally constructed theory itself. This seems to place the emphasis not on correspondence but merely on coherence. If the theory seems internally consistent then it is "fine-tuned," but whether it actually relates to an external state of affairs is, at best, unknown.
@@anthonycostello6055 "I don't think Dan's criticism there holds, because if we are talking about professional philosophers of science or physicists who are controverting other professional philosophers of science or physicists, the assumption is, then, that there are several models that are 'cogent and plausible,' none of which, so to say, 'win the day.'"
I'm not sure how this is supposed to express disagreement with what I said. I agree with this.
" For example, given that Craig has debated Wielenberg, and also interacted with him in the literature, I am sure he is aware of the view that Dan is referencing (after all, we all know that Dawkin's arguments stink)."
I didn't bring up Wielenberg's paper to refute something Craig said. Instead, I brought up Wielenberg's paper as a resource that audience members might look to in order to learn more about this subject.
"Second, with regard to anti-realism, Dan says that philosophers of religion assume 'our understanding of physics will not change dramatically in the future,' which seems to imply that he thinks our understanding of physics will dramatically change in the future, which further implies a kind of scientific anti-realism (i.e., that our scientific theories don't actually grab onto reality in any significant way)."
A few things here. First, my argument does not require or entail that our understanding of physics will change dramatically in the future. Instead, my argument only requires that we don't know whether our understanding of physics will change dramatically in the future. Second, I don't understand the charge of scientific anti-realism. I did not claim that our scientific theories fail to grab on to reality in any significant way. Instead, I made a claim specifically about how we should think about fine-tuning; moreover, my claim was based on how *physicists*, themselves, typically think about fine-tuning.
Why shouldn't we have the faith that some philosophers have in our theories of fundamental physics? Our current theories of fundamental physics -- the standard model of particle physics and General Relativity -- include internal indications that they will not only break down in future inquiry, but also clues about the context in which they will break down. I am a scientific realist. And my commitment to scientific realism commits me to the view that our current fundamental physical theories are only approximately true.
"He goes on to say that these philosophers of religion have a 'tremendous amount of faith in physics' which he doesn't share and which he says most physicists don't share. That certainly sounds like anti-realism."
It's not anti-realism. When philosophers of science endorse scientific realism, they typically also say that (1) our theories are only approximately true, (2) there are domains in which our present theories can be expected to fail, and (3) we shouldn’t accept realist interpretations of all of our theories uncritically.
"This seems to be precisely the claim of the scientific anti-realist. The theories of fine-tuning are not really speaking about a property of the external world, i..e, a universe that exists outside the mind, but the fine-tuning is a property of the mentally constructed theory itself. This seems to place the emphasis not on correspondence but merely on coherence. If the theory seems internally consistent then it is 'fine-tuned,' but whether it actually relates to an external state of affairs is, at best, unknown."
No, you've misunderstood. To reiterate, a parameter is fine-tuned in the physicist's sense just in case, to accommodate some set of observations, some parameters within the theory need to be fine-tuned -- by the physicists -- to unnatural values. A theory is fine-tuned just in case the theory includes a fine-tuned parameter. Understood in this sense, a fine-tuning is a theoretical vice. But as with other theoretical vices, fine-tuning needs to be weighed against the various theoretical virtues that a theory might have. And it's possible that the theoretical virtues will win out.
In other words, it's possible that (1) a fine-tuned theory will turn out to be true and that (2) we have good reason to believe that a fine-tuned theory is true.
@@daniellinford9643 Thanks for your response Dan. I appreciate it. I will try to take a closer like at your points and respond in kind (assuming I have the time). But, I think you clarified your position well, and, I am no way challenging a reasonable form of critical realism (or epistemic falliblism). I think Craig would basically agree with that, that we hold on to our theories tentatively, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to hold to the theory, albeit not incorrigibly, that the fine-turning is an actual property of the universe.
I do want to think more about your last paragraph though, the one that addresses the issue of a "fine-tuned parameter" that is introduced into a theory. Perhaps I am not fully tracking what you're saying there. It sounds like if the physicists artificially introduces a parameter into a theory to allow the theory to fit the empirical data, that this is a vice and not a virtue. I am perhaps not quite seeing why that is a vice though.
@@anthonycostello6055 Sure. It’s a vice because a fine-tuned parameter has an implausible value given the theory. In other words, a fine-tuned theory is one that poorly predicts at least some of our data. We would prefer a theory that more accurately predicts more of our data.
I don’t see a good reason that, given our current state of knowledge, we should think that fine-tuning - in the philosopher’s sense - exists. Fine-tuning is certainly not one of the features of our current theories that is well supported by the data.
J e s u s power. starting .
N. U deny u will cry. L
O. No reversal after e
W. Eclipse. v
Hahahahahahahaha❤1
test