William Lane Craig: Is God a Delusion? Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford October 2011
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 พ.ย. 2011
- Richard Dawkins was invited by the Oxford student Christian Union to defend his book The God Delusion in public debate with William Lane Craig. The invitation remained open until the last minute. However, Dawkins refused the challenge and his chair remained empty. Craig then gave a lecture to a capacity audience on the weaknesses of the central arguments of the book and responded to a panel of academics. The event, which was chaired by atheist Prof. Peter Millican, was part of The Reasonable Faith Tour 2011 sponsored by UCCF, Damaris & Premier Christian Radio.
For more information please visit:
www.bethinking.org/craig
www.premier.org.uk/craig
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0tYm41hb48o/mqdefault.jpg)
![ไม่ต้องมีที่ที่ให้ฉันอยู่ แต่ขอแค่มีฉันอยู่ก็พอ (Spaceless) - getsunova [SHORT FILM]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MuT0d_cvJkc/mqdefault.jpg)
+Stan Lee True, true. Craig is one of the greatest thinkers of our time. You know you're on the right track when all people can do in response to your arguments is insult you personally ;)
William Lane Craig is a very versatile, intelligent, and rare mind. He's awesome! I'm glad I found this!
+Stan Lee
He's a special kind of nutjob. Making profound idiocy sound smart.
+MrJeter693 No, he is not. www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2013/05/an-index-of-why-william-lane-craig-is-a-dishonest-genocide-defending-creepy-homophobe/
Smart enough to make his nonsense sound convincing and confusing. Not smart enough to realize there is no god.
+Fabian Tschopp Well, boo hoo...
+Stan Lee True, true. Craig is one of the greatest thinkers of our time. You know you're on the right track when all people can do in response to your arguments is insult you personally ;)
Fabian - I tried to follow your link - it goes nowhere. You haven't offered a SINGLE argument here. When you need insults in place of arguments, it's because you don't really have any; All you have is your precious anger. I'd lover to hear some actual argument from atheists but all I ever get is seething anger and ridicule. Makes me wonder how people actually become atheists since there are never any real arguments to convince them. Hitchen basically does the same thing - either just attacks the person or ridicules anything any religious person does, as if it's somehow bad because the religious person did it, whereas it's normal for anyone else.
I love how Dawkins was too much of a coward to show up to this event.
No. He was smart. When it is obvious he’s carrying a pea-shooter against a man with a gun - it’s better to avoid.
"Coward"???? You do not know the man your are maligning! Dawkins refuses to debate with creationists as doing so would a) give them an undeserved platform, b) give the false impression that science & religion are on an equal footing, and c) would look better on Craig's CV than on Dawkins'. You can see Dawkins himself explaining this in several TH-cam videos.
Well... How are you going to even disprove an ideology that a) you presuppose is false and b) you don't even want to consider. This seems like circular reasoning: it is false, therefore I don't have to even consider it, because it is false. You see the problem? Dawkins IS indeed either a) a coward who can't even be intellectually honest enough to see criticisms to his book or b) an idiot who can't even be intellectually honest enough to see criticisms to his book because he is so confident that he is right.
@@r.i.p.volodyaDawkins is not a philosopher and his critique of theism in The God Delusion was ridiculed even by atheist philosophers.
Look at his seven point argument from the God Delusion below. The conclusion doesn’t even logically follow from the premises. He can’t even formulate a valid argument. If you are an atheist you need to upgrade to the likes of Graham Oppy because Dawkins is a bottom-rung atheist populariser. He is a fine biologist and I do like his work in that field but he is not a philosopher and he often concedes this.
1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.
3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.
4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.
5. We don't have an equivalent explanation for physics.
6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.
7. Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.
@@r.i.p.volodyaYet he debates with John Lennoux, Francis collins etc. He said so many excuses like Dr. Craig isn't qualified. But I think the real problem is he doesn't debate with philosophers. Cause that is way out of his league. An event manager who knows Dawkins said this to Craig. If that is so. He should tell that instead of making excuses.
Its funny how many angry, bitter, resentful atheists and anti theists are roaming these forums.
+Damian Tharcisius Only logical. Moronic arguments and statements should get any reasonable person to be even a little angry.
Yeah, anti-theists are a humorous bunch ;)
Except you never offer any arguments. Just insults. Atheism is a beef, not a belief. you have a beef with something that you have no legitimate argument against, so you have to make everything the person or group you have a beef with wrong somehow.
I am so full of rage right now. My non belief in god is making me so angry.
How can a person "lack belief" in powerful people, those of us with exceptional talents, and all the other definitions of gods we're all aware of?
I absolutely love listening to Dr. Craig speak. Truly brilliant!
brother craig truly is an inspiration
"For the Word of the Cross is folly to those who are perishing (clearly), but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:18. In the immortal words of a Rabbi friend who, when asked why when he was in hospital quite sick and had asked to pray with a Christian Chaplain, he threw up his hands, shrugging, and answered, "What if I was wrong?".... so, to those who thumb their nose at the One who created them: what if you are wrong?
Christian Vegan then naturally there are going to be very serious consequences to those atheists getting it wrong ..
You people are deluded 😂 Pascal’s wager is ridiculous by the way
I have yet to see Dawkins in a serious one on one debate with Dr. Craig. So lets craft an argument to prove why Dawkins was MIA from a very important debate in his own backyard.
1. If Dawkins won't show for this important debate there must be an explanation.
2. If Dawkins has a plausible explanation it will be highly probable that it couches several adolescent put downs of Craigs arguments.
3. Since Dawkins feels the need to use name calling and inflammatory language in a non debate scenario then this means his arguments are weaker and he is left with only name calling and infantile school yard tactics. Instesd of arguments that hold there own in a true debate.
4. Therefore knowing he has the weaker position, and is tired of name calling; decided to just stay home and watch the T.V.
Well according to this premise Dawkins will never show up for a one on one debate with the most comparable Dr. Craig. What a shame that would be a very satisfying debate to behold.
Not trying to be a dick, but I've honestly heard Craig say one thing and then contradict himself with the very next sentence. Dr. Craig is an ass hat.
Usually when you open with a disclaimer the reality is you are being that which you are dismissing. Whether Dr.Craig contradicts himself or not the debate would still be very satisfying. Dawkins' positions are weak and contradictory. His philosophical positions are elementary and have drawn criticism from good atheist philosophers and scientists. Dawkins' understanding of theology is no better than a first year seminary student. He resorts to gross carciture rather than good scholarship. If you will reread my statement you will find that I never insulted Dawkins' personally I only take exception with his work. When one resorts to name calling (like ass hat) it is a debating truth that the one calling names feels they have the weaker position.
Most ordinary believers don't have their philosophy or theology all worked out either. If that is good enough for them, then why shouldn't Dawkins be allowed to discuss religion at a basic level? He is a bit of a prick though.
He claims he won’t debate Dr. Craig because of his “beliefs”. The truth is he would be backed into a corner that he wouldn’t be able to get out of. Dawkins is frowned upon by his fellow atheist because of his name calling tactics. A waste of an incredible mind in my opinion.
Hi Paradox, Dawkins knows something about bats, but his ideas on mindless drift have been replaced by a sound providential evolution. Dawkins isn't even smart in his own chosen field.
Dawkins arguments? Destroyed...
William you were masterful!
Yes, the most masterful exposition of pseudo-scientific bunkum I have ever heard.
@@richardmooney383 Most of the arguements Dr. Craig uses are based on philosophy and logic, using science to prove or establish certain points in the arguements. What has Craig said here that is psuedoscientific?
Masterfull at lying...and deceiving. ..old fart....
WLC...has nothing but his own conviction. ..no arguments...no proof...no brains...a??hole...
U r broken..
That is why u need this GOD of yours...grow some balls man...
Craig handles everyone with ease-- such a gift to Christianity---Would have loved to see him debate Dawkins .....
How can WLC be a gift to a cult like craptianity....wasn't "hesus"the so called gift... to the foreskinless ..and he handles nothing...he just beats around his pubebush...
Biology vs mythology...evolution vs fairytales ..genius vs idiot...truth vs your silly fear of death..the god who offered his son as a price to himself to buy back what he "created" from who again???? Oh yes...from himself...what a awesome idiot u serve.....
@@mhah21 cool story. one day you will mature and understand that at the very essence of life there has to be an unmoved mover. we know for a fact that the universe began to exist (big bang) what makes more sense? nothing created everything or a Creator? no need to answer because it will be some drivel about " we dont know yet" or " multiverse" or some other crap created to explain away your meaningless less. God gives our lives meaning because we have eternal life through him? would you be a Christian if it was 100% true?
@@Gatorbeaux no....no...no....no....no...I will not bow to a Jewish guy who got in trouble with the authorities and got himself crucified. ..I really wish the roman method of execution was rather burning him at the stake...wonder how the myth would have followed after that...
@@mhah21 oh you will bow one day, we all will. Its just where you go after you bow thats the difference! take care and God Bless!
Dawkins always have debate with a jock, and Dr William Lane Craig always wins with the evidences of God’s existence and strong points with the truth. God bless Dr Bill✊❤️
Evidence. ...really...evidence. ..fuuuuck
Dawkins didn't have enough courage to face Dr. Craig. God bless them both.
Dawkins doesn't have to debate every idiot on the face of the planet, does he? :-)
@@lepidoptera9337 excuses
@@sandmantheman There are no excuses for idiocy. Either you measure up or you don't. ;-)
Dawkins took the money for his book and ran,
away from argument
Except for the time he was involved in a debate featuring Craig, and Craig's side lost so badly that they complained that the other side were bigots.
Excellent response.
Fantastic!
junk DNA isnt junk DNA. William lane craigs points are clear and consice who are these guys? they act like academic superstars but its easy to see none of them are the sharpest tools in the shed.
+brad cummings indeed, over the last few years, geneticists have discovered all sorts of "switches" in DNA that turn sections off or on, making "junk" into active sections, etc. Instead of being junk, we now are beginning to understand that it's an even more dizzyingly complex and layered system of code than we ever imagined. It's incredible that the professional scientist is so dismissive of the implications and wonder of his own science. He doesn't really get in there and deal with any actual arguments either.
The physicist is just as bad, the cosmic bounce? Bounce once or twice? If it bounced less than an infinite number of times than it still have a beginning, wow... that was a waste of time, it proved nothing. If it supposedly did bounce, then what of the wasted mass through heat decay and "lost" energy over time to to entropy? It's been fairly well established that our universe's mass vs acceleration cannot support a coming crunch which could facilitate another bounce, so if we did bounce, we're not going to ever do so again (at least it looks that way, the most respected astrophysicists agree, the crunch is old hat and never had good proof but was always the stubborn infinite universe materialists refusing to give up). Thus we DID have a beginning and before it, no universe existed.
Infinite negative numbers are okay therefore the past is infinite? Wow. Infinite negative number regresses are just as impossible as positive number regresses, because, if the time experienced (the events in concurrence) is REAL and not just theoretical (in math, like finance, negative numbers aren't REAL numbers, it's not just measuring back to a real past, since that's not a negative number, it was positive and only SEEMS negative now because it's past, but it's not a time deficit, like my credit card balance, that's a deficit, it could theoretically be infinite, it can't really be because I can't spend that much, but mathematically, it could be so by virtue of hacking the bank so that I never run out of debt. That's just it, it's a math equation for potentiation, I have potentially infinite debt)... but there can't be an infinite past because the past isn't potential the future is, the past happened and things that happened were definite concrete things and can't have happened infinitely, there can't be an infinite past "nows" in this chronology. Theoretically you could have an infinite concurrent "now"s in a multiverse, but there's no reason to postulate this.
The Pharaoh
Aaand let me guess, you don't believe there are very very educated biologists with decades of experience in their field who nonetheless still believe very profoundly in God?
Richard dawkins got totally Destroyed
I see. Well, I still recommend that video I cited. It's pretty instructive.
Cheers.
You're a legend in your own mind
Ha! Three atheists and Craig still won :D
Craig does not debate. He has a standard well-rehearsed set piece speech which he never deviates from regardless of who is being debated. He only debates very specific questions with a very specific format that allows hime to make his key points and set pieces. He has a team and minders who he works with and rehearses his responses to typical points that his opposition will make. His team analyses the books and writings of whoever he is debating and they spend lots of time preparing him almost like a presidential candidate. They rehearse likely opportunities for cutting remarks and humourous put downs. He has been doing this for years and it is as disgraceful as it is disreputable. That he can get away with this merely proves the Ancient Greeks were correct in their disdain for sophistry and their understanding of the dangers of its skilled practitioners.
***** This is a statement of fact based on watching his speeches over the last 20 years. He insists on the same format and set piece structure. He makes the same points rehearsed like a script. When he occasionally gets a response he hasn't considered or rehearsed with his team, such as occurred on several occasions during a debate with Shelly Kagan, Professor of Philosohy at Yale, then in subsequent debates you see newly rehearsed responses for those areas he was hammered by Kagan. This is a disingenuous and legalistic approach. Yes he is a good debater and so he should be as this has been his focus for the last 30 years. He and his team receive funding and support for the express purpose of christian apology.
***** I can refute his ideas in one paragraph…
Absolute morality: Morality is not Absolute as it depends on our conscious state.
Cosmological argument: The philosophical nothing never existed.
Fine tuning: Anthropic principle/ Not fine tune for life to begin with.
Historic evidence for Jesus: hahahahah
Here 20 years …...
Jan Aike I do not disagree on your last point about Dawkins, whose breadth of knowledge outside of his areas of special interest on evolution and directly related subjects is poor. Search out Craig's debates with the moral philosopher Shelly Kagan and the Physicist Sean Carroll for rather more grown-up debates. His debate with Carroll is particularly good as it refutes Craig's statements that modern Physics and Cosmology suggests the Universe has a beginning and therefore a creator.
***** See Craig's debate with Sean Carroll, easily found on youtube. He shows that Craig's intepretation of the Guth/Linde and Verlinken theory of inflation DOES NOT state the universe had a beginning.
Or maybe he just knows what atheists are going to say before they say it? That is what it sounds more like to me. When I debate an atheist, I generally know every argument they are going to make, so I just sit back and wait for them to get there and make their arguments.
I found another quote that helped me realize your hurdles in conceptualizing infinity.
"Saying the universe is eternal simply is saying that it has no beginning or end, not that it a beginning an infinite time ago"
I'm referring of course to Craig's later reference to this debate, where he mimics Eastwood. Look it up. It's not hard to Google.
This guy just gives off creepy vibes
Well *that's* a new one I haven't heard before. When are you guys going to get around to refuting his arguments instead of attacking him personally? Just curious.
I disagree seems like a nice guy who would be easy to get alone with.
Every time he mentions "conjuring up a Terminator" I picture the Terminator from the movies.
With this definition, we no longer need to use our intuition to test whether or not sets of points have different sizes; we only have to check whether or not there exists a one-to-one correspondence between the given pair of sets. If there is no one-to-one correspondence then, according to Cantor, one of the two sets must be larger than the other.
I have lots to say about what's possible or impossible in a situation without anything. And I do not just assume that such a situation never existed. I've given reasons to think that that situation could never give rise to anything; and yet clearly there are things that exist now, so there must never have been a total lack of things.
The idea of a time loop has strong metaphysical objections to it. You can always ask how many cycles have occured, which means that the actual concept of "duration" is external to the loop.
Anyway, the point is that, by definition, all of the past events had to complete before this present moment. So, each of them had to be "counted" in the sense that each one had to come about and then the next one and then the next one. But this could have happened prior to now.
What's special about "now" is that it's actually happening. The future doesn't exist yet. The current moment is the terminating point of all the actual events which have occurred.
I appreciate your open-mindedness. If nothing else, these are deeply interesting topics to discuss.
Man that wasn't a debate that was school and class was in session
We have two infinities sets 1 being all positive integers 2 being all positive and negative integers. What you are saying is that infinity is impossible because for every 1 number in the first set there are 2 in the second?
Imagine two concentric circles. Each circle contains infinitely many points along its circumference, but since the outer circle has a greater circumference, it has more points than the inner circle. Now take any point A on the outer circle, and draw a line from A to the circle’s center. This line must intersect some point B on the circumference of the inner circle. Hence, for every point A on the outer circle, there is a corresponding point B on the inner circle, and vice versa.
The exact sequence of events in a given black hole will vary. What is the point of the question?
Exactly! That's why I used the "counting man" analogy originally (switched to the planets later in our conversation). Consider the present moment to be 0. That means that any actually infinite sequence of past events (one following another) would have to have COMPLETED prior to this moment. You agree that that is absurd. So the past cannot be infinite.
Each event has to have elapsed prior to now, in a sequence, one after the other. That's what "past" means. So, either an actually infinite series can finish, and then afterward you have "now" (which you and I both agree is ludicrous), or else sequence of past events is finite. Which will it be?
Cantor’s definition tamed infinity. It provided a rigorous method by which infinite sets could be compared. He used this idea to prove that there are just as many integers as even integers, since the function f(x)=2x provides the required one-to-one correspondence. He showed that there are just as many lattice points on the plane as there are integers. And Cantor even proved that there are as many rational numbers as there are integers.
Physical reality contains time as an essential feature! In physical reality, events are always occurring (even if just quantum fluctuations), and they occur one-after-another. You can't get away from this fact. One of the essential properties of a physical reality is that it is NOT changeless.
Do you have a link to a credible source that supports your assertion? I certainly can't find one. The only thing I find absurd so far is your requirement that these sets be the same after admitting not all infinities are equal.
Your response to my analogy of machinery on Pluto (which would indeed warrant a design inference) is that Craig also used it? That's it? My analogy shows that design inferences can be valid. Who cares if someone else also uses the same analogy??
Of course it's an argument of contrast: You can contrast the things for which a design inference is warranted from those for which it is *not* warranted, by giving criteria (as I've done repeatedly).
You can call it "refuted" all day, but you have to actually present a refutation.
Where does exactly our consciousness come from. If it is a byproduct of the physical universe where is it and what is it exactly?
Vilenkin was referring to the multiverse as well. You should try reading his paper, if you have the requisite knowledge. Or, if not, you should read his book, "Many Worlds in One", where he makes it clear that the physical reality had a beginning, and lays out his theory (and the theories of others) as to how that beginning happened.
How about Planet Y, if it behaves the same way as Planet X (i.e. 1 orbit completes, then another)? Would the number of its orbits be the same as the natural numbers too?
"I agree that an infinite amount of things could happen within an infinite series."
So if we are just one of these "things" within an infinite series where does the problem lie?
Is it just me or does the chair of the event look like an older Brian Regan?
The review is mostly about the Krauss' severe misrepresentation of what quantum fields are and how particle creation works. Albert is both a philosopher and a quantum physicist. His review is very well-written and informed.
You still can't come up with any supporting documentation eh?
The conditions are beginningless.
It keeps us from overeating (gives us time to gestate properly). That's one.
The series of past events cannot be infinite. Period.
When you say "so", you make it seem as though you're question follows from something that someone said. What did I (or anyone else) say that prompted this question?
The multiverse doesn't explain the fine-tuning as well (again, I cite Penrose's book, as well as the fact that the multiverse would itself need to be fine-tuned), and it violates Occam's Razor to choose infinite extra entities over one.
First off, we're talking about whether physical reality (which INCLUDES time) can be infinite in the past. Secondly, calling them "past events" means that they precede the present. They have transpired prior to the present moment. As such, we again have a temporal relation. And since a given event transpired farther back from the present than some other, more recent event, we have an ordered sequence.
The premise is "everything that begins to exist has a cause". That leaves out ANYTHING which happens to be eternal, and without beginning. So, if something has no beginning, then it can exist with no cause and not violate that premise.
Well, just call it "beginningless", it still follows that the actualization of the instability should likewise be beginningless if the instability is always present in the system.
Virtual particles don't behave like anything in a timeless domain. Nothing behaves or acts at all in such a domain, or else there'd be a sequence of the behaviors. The sequence would begin with the first behavior or action.
I've seen that lecture, and I was already aware of everything he covers in it. This has all been addressed, and there's a reason why Vilenkin wrote in his paper (which he delivered at Hawking's 2011 birthday party) that ALL the evidence we have indicates a cosmic beginning.
Infinite sets do not require identical values. We don't even have to address unequal infinities. These ones are on a 1-to-1 correspondence and of the same magnitude.
Each one of them says that even basic chemistry could not have occurred if the fine-tuning had not been there.
I fully agree. The events preceding time are simultaneous and the situation is changless until the first change, which ushers in the beginning of time. You've got it all right... except one point. That changeless situation would have remained changeless unless free will were involved.
Laws don't cause things, they describe them. The law just says "if you have something, then it will be unstable"; it doesn't magically produce the unstable things themselves.
I have strong reasons to doubt, that you perceive word "cause" with it's original content, or as Craig himself understands it. Can you give me your definition of 'cause' please ?
The fact that a given event can be given a specific place in the sequence relative to the present moment. Event X is directly prior to the present. Event Y is directly prior to X. And so on, for eternity. Each event has a position relative to the others, and relative to the present one, and therefore is sequential and ordered, not random.
like i said glad u asked questions
nothing wrong with that
Let's call this point 0 everything in the past is negative and everything in the future is positive. What is the finite amount of negative numbers?
What do you mean by "not necessary"? The series of past events actually has a sequence (one event follows another, all the way up to the present moment). That's not something I'm adding in or that we judge as "necessary" or not; it's just a fact about past events. They follow one after another.
Your choosing an arbitrary point does nothing negate infinity prior to or after that point. I'm saying the infinity doesn't end hence it being infinite.
I have read plenty in mathematics and physics. They are among my strongest points. And, as I've already said, many interpretations of quantum effects have them being completely deterministic. But even in the indeterministic models, there are still causes for the effects, we just can't possibly predict when they'll come about. You can't see your league from here.
But the problem is that the infinite sequence argument has no flaws. "I don't buy it" is not a refutation. Indeed, the very definition of an infinite sequence includes "does not terminate". So, since we only have two options for the sequence of past events (finite or infinite), and infinite is out of the question (since the past terminates at the present), we're stuck with a finite past. And it really is that simple.
1:05:12 guy in blue heavily invested in this discourse
If someone has "The God Delusion" on their bookshelf, I feel embarrassed for them.
You just need to conceptualize that we could very well be one of those events. If infinite things can happen in a series and we are one of the those things there is no problem.
This whole termination issue only arrises if you are trying to count things as best I can tell. If an event is a terminator to you then there is also an infinite amount of those.
He did answer that question quite well to my satisfaction. By the way, Hitchens, et al have great respect for Craig, you can find this video by searching Hitchens on Craig, and the feeling is mutual. Craigs debating schedule is quite full and so I don't get your 'he can't get debates'. Let's stick with the arguments. :)
"Special pleading, AKA stacking the deck, ignoring the counterevidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment, is a form of spurious argument where a position in a dispute introduces favourable details or excludes unfavourable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption."
I know you can't count time before that event, because the state prior to the first event is "eventless" and changeless. However, if there is an instability that exists eternally within that changeless moment, then it should either always manifest itself (in which case the Universe would be eternally old), or it should never manifest itself (in which case the Universe would not ever exist). It cannot just manifest itself a finite time ago.
The argument has a C1 and a C2. And the use of the word "Universe" is just shorthand for "all of physical reality" in this argument.
So you disagree that the term "past" means "prior to now"?
Do you agree that all past events have elapsed prior to the present moment? Isn't that what it means to be a "past" event?
A flaw in design doesn't disprove a designer, and if the designer's purposes aren't limited to our present life on this planet, then it doesn't even disprove that He is a perfect designer. So long as His ultimate goal (which is not limited to our present life) is realized, the design is perfect.
👊✌
I would say 'during' an infinity of time, but yea sure they are both increasing 1 at different speeds. Given that you are measuring them over a finite amount of time they will not have accumulated the same number of orbits respective to that time but each respective set will have the same number of orbits as numbers.
So what is your objection to an infinite sequence of random numbers?
I haven't shown what?
Dawkins wouldn’t have stood a chance...
The part which infers explanations based on repeated occurence (induction, which is at the heart of science). If the repeated occurrences can be just as well explained by being in the one Universe out of the infinite collection which has those happen by chance, then it follows that the inference is totally unwarranted. And probability is an important part of rational thinking. We need to be able to estimate probabilities (especially in chaos systems).
Well, I'm not disputing what you mention above. The original question of this thread was "I have a challenge for WL Craig: Name one thing that has only one cause!" To which I responded that the universe itself had to have a cause (ie, the big bang)
Transfinite arithmetic 101. Any infinite set can be put in 1-1 relation to any other.
Cause = "necessary and sufficient conditions". So, even if it is X is an emergent property, it is still the case the it only happens when the necessary and sufficient conditions are met. Therefore X only happens when it is caused.
Well, one could answer the universe itself had a single cause. Out of curiosity, where are you getting the idea that WLC said that there is only one cause for things? I'm thinking you may be confusing distal causation and proximate causation, but I can't say for sure
So... the possibility of ONE configuration of the Universe coming about is 1:1, but the probability of a particular one that is fine-tuned for life is extraordinarily slim. That's what you're saying?
I never asserted that everything was designed. I said that there are cases where a design inference is justified (like finding machinery on some planet). What's wrong with that?
Actually, your quote (from whatever unnamed source you copied it) doesn't contradict my point. Hilbert was referring to ALL infinities (be they sub-divisions of a finite space or extensions along a sequence). In every case, all we have is the idea of potential infinite (for example, the infinite subdivisions of a second don't actually exist, that's just a potential infinity, like the limits used in calculus). No actual infinite can be instantiated.
2) I don't need to assert that everything is perfect in order to carry the cosmological argument. This is (once again) a red herring, since the cosmological argument doesn't say the cause or the effect are perfect. It's a question for later inquiry, after we resolve the cosmological argument itself.
Why would mutations be called "defects"? Often they help the species survive! What are you talking about?
Any infinity can be placed on a one-to-one correspondence with any other infinity. That is only sense in which I mean "equal", and it is sufficient to bear out the utter absurdity of the scenario. It should not ever be possible to put the number of their orbits in a one-to-one relation, since the difference between them is always increasing.
Sequential events; sequential numbers. What's the problem?
2) BA, why didn't read my posts #3 and #3 continued? They're right there for anyone to see. I gave the specific steps of how you get from "all of physical reality has a cause" to " the cause must be a non-physical person (or agent with free will)". The steps are all there. Which of them do you disagree with?
I apologize for taking so long to respond this time. I have been sick the past few days.
Kenith, I'm not talking about relating points in time to an absolute beginning. I'm talking about a beginningless past, with an infinite number of past events. It is still the case that, for any three events, it is possible to relate them to each other as "X came before Y which came before Z". Thus, one event follows another, in a sequence {1, 2, 3}.
So? I'm not contesting that.
Do you have a point to make?
No, if you have a random generator which is beginningless, then it is inexplicable why it hasn't always performed its random generation. Nothing new could be added to the mix, and so the fully sufficient situation has always existed (beginninglessly), and so the effect should also exist without beginning. An agent with free will wouldn't require any addition, merely to decide to create at a particular time.
Therefore, both circles must have the same number of points, despite the fact that the outer circle appears to have more points than the inner circle.
Many thinkers tried to unravel this apparent paradox, including Galileo Galilei, but it wasn’t until the late 1800s that Georg Cantor brought it to a successful resolution. Cantor’s idea was simple: infinite sets of objects are so far removed from our everyday experience that they may follow rules that seem counterintuitive.
"Can't you read?" That's kind of a mean thing to say don't you think? Why did you say it?