One amazing reliable source of education and real faith filled person that I sincerely find in Dr. William Lane Craig. I have said opinion in reference to Dr. Craig who is truly remarkable and a person of authority in the subject of God and Jesus Christ God Himself. Thank you sir for having Dr. Craig there with this excellent Q&A with Dr. Craig who I do admire.
I have huge respect for Dr. William Lane Craig that I often listen to and truly recognize as very respectable knowledgeable and wisdom filled Godly faith filled person..
@4:50: “He has never regarded us with contempt. He has paid us the intolerable compliment of loving us, in the deepest, most tragic, most inexorable [relentless] sense.” CS Lewis
You still don't get that objection of Alex and many others, do you, Craig? If only the universe begins to exist and as such has a cause, then that cause must be a *material cause* and not an _"immaterial cause"_ just as you thought and argued the same thing for yourself and your existence and being just a moment ago. So no, the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of that God of yours doesn't go through as such even if we were to accept the first stage of it of the universe having a beginning and therefore a -inmaterial- MATERIAL CAUSE. Over 20 years of philosophy and apologetics and you, Craig, still display a zero amount of listening and understanding skills. Besides that, no physicist is stating the universe having a beginning. Maybe time had a beginning, but also quite questionable. The one and only thing, which can be said about our current data, that the universe has been once in a hot dense state in a little space. Anything beyond that is speculation and not certain.
First, the first stage doesn't say anything about what type of cause a thing has. It just says that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Of course many material things have material causes. But many things also have efficient causes. Second, the universe cannot have a material cause because all matter began to exist at the beginning of the universe. (And, yes, many, many physicists are saying that the universe had a beginning). Even on cyclical models, there are only so many cycles prior to this one, so the universe still had an absolute beginning. The implication is that the cause cannot be material since it's impossible for anything to come into existence without a cause and self-causation is also impossible. So, it's not that Dr. Craig isn't listening. It's that he rejects the claim that everything that begins to exist has a material cause. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Yes, Craig doesn't listen at all. Question for Gemini: "What do most physicist say currently? Does the universe has a beginning or was the universe once in a hot dense state?" Gemini's response: _"The prevailing view among physicists is that the universe did not have a beginning in the traditional sense, but rather underwent a period of rapid expansion known as inflation shortly after its existence began. This expansion caused the universe to grow exponentially, stretching it from an incredibly small and hot state to the vast and relatively cold universe we observe today._ _The idea that the universe once existed in a hot, dense state is supported by the Big Bang theory, which is the leading cosmological model for the early universe. This theory is supported by a wide range of observational evidence, including the cosmic microwave background radiation, the abundance of light elements in the universe, and the large-scale structure of the universe._ _However, the Big Bang theory does not explain what happened before the inflationary period, or what caused inflation to occur. Some physicists propose that the universe may have existed in a previous state before inflation, or that it may have been created from nothing. However, these ideas are still highly speculative and there is no consensus among physicists on what happened before the inflationary period._ _Overall, the current understanding among physicists is that the universe did not have a traditional beginning, but rather underwent a period of rapid expansion from a very small and hot state. While the Big Bang theory provides a good description of the early universe, there are still many open questions about its origins and evolution."_ Craig has a zero amount of knowledge of the data, that we have and what most physicist are saying about that data currently, that we have currently. More over Craig at 8:36: _"... Moreover, the claim that things that have material causes do not begin to exist is frankly preposterous. And I'm so disappointed if Alex has gone back to this objection, which we talked about in my interview with him. Uh, this objection is one of my favorite of the world's 10 worst objections to the cosmological argument, namely that if something has a material cause, then it doesn't begin to exist. That is absurd. Um, for example, _*_I began to exist, and yet I have a material cause: the sperm and the egg which united at my conception to form me. And I can confidently say I did not exist before my conception. I certainly have not existed from eternity past, and yet indisputably, I do exist._*_ That's the lesson Descartes taught us: Even in doubting that I exist, I affirm my own existence..._ Sure. SO WHAT?!? Just as Alex might have said once, that things having material causes might not begin to exist, another person might as well say, that ALL material things inluding Craig coming from a material sperm and a material egg beginning existing ALWAYS AND ONLY have material causes. And why? Because of *_"intution"._* Call it the correct intuition about not just _"nothing always coming from nothing"_ but also "something always coming from something rather than nothing". Sure, there is mereological nihilism just as other schools of thought. And Craig listens to and addresses none of which - not even himself stattering accidentally the Truth - or at least some Truth.
I don't see how anyone can think the universe began to exist. In order to conclude that, one would need to accept that there was any point in time when there was no space or time. But since space and time are two attributes of the same thing this makes no sense. There has "always" been time and space, because there is no time outside of time, and our universe has existed for all of time.
The kalam is still a garbage argument as you either dont have any examples to satisfy p.1, or you are misrepresenting p.1 and p 2 as talking about the same thing. It also doesnt get you to a god. The trinity is still nonesense. 1+1+1=3, not 1.
Thank you Dr. Craig for answering my question haha, it's an honor.
One amazing reliable source of education and real faith filled person that I sincerely find in Dr. William Lane Craig. I have said opinion in reference to Dr. Craig who is truly remarkable and a person of authority in the subject of God and Jesus Christ God Himself. Thank you sir for having Dr. Craig there with this excellent Q&A with Dr. Craig who I do admire.
I have huge respect for Dr. William Lane Craig that I often listen to and truly recognize as very respectable knowledgeable and wisdom filled Godly faith filled person..
@4:50: “He has never regarded us with contempt. He has paid us the intolerable compliment of loving us, in the deepest, most tragic, most inexorable [relentless] sense.”
CS Lewis
Round and round and round we go, when will the attempts to disprove Kalam stop? Nobody knows...................😵💫
Hi Dr. Craig
You still don't get that objection of Alex and many others, do you, Craig?
If only the universe begins to exist and as such has a cause, then that cause must be a *material cause* and not an _"immaterial cause"_ just as you thought and argued the same thing for yourself and your existence and being just a moment ago.
So no, the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of that God of yours doesn't go through as such even if we were to accept the first stage of it of the universe having a beginning and therefore a -inmaterial- MATERIAL CAUSE.
Over 20 years of philosophy and apologetics and you, Craig, still display a zero amount of listening and understanding skills.
Besides that, no physicist is stating the universe having a beginning. Maybe time had a beginning, but also quite questionable. The one and only thing, which can be said about our current data, that the universe has been once in a hot dense state in a little space. Anything beyond that is speculation and not certain.
First, the first stage doesn't say anything about what type of cause a thing has. It just says that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Of course many material things have material causes. But many things also have efficient causes.
Second, the universe cannot have a material cause because all matter began to exist at the beginning of the universe. (And, yes, many, many physicists are saying that the universe had a beginning). Even on cyclical models, there are only so many cycles prior to this one, so the universe still had an absolute beginning. The implication is that the cause cannot be material since it's impossible for anything to come into existence without a cause and self-causation is also impossible.
So, it's not that Dr. Craig isn't listening. It's that he rejects the claim that everything that begins to exist has a material cause. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Yes, Craig doesn't listen at all.
Question for Gemini:
"What do most physicist say currently?
Does the universe has a beginning or was the universe once in a hot dense state?"
Gemini's response:
_"The prevailing view among physicists is that the universe did not have a beginning in the traditional sense, but rather underwent a period of rapid expansion known as inflation shortly after its existence began. This expansion caused the universe to grow exponentially, stretching it from an incredibly small and hot state to the vast and relatively cold universe we observe today._
_The idea that the universe once existed in a hot, dense state is supported by the Big Bang theory, which is the leading cosmological model for the early universe. This theory is supported by a wide range of observational evidence, including the cosmic microwave background radiation, the abundance of light elements in the universe, and the large-scale structure of the universe._
_However, the Big Bang theory does not explain what happened before the inflationary period, or what caused inflation to occur. Some physicists propose that the universe may have existed in a previous state before inflation, or that it may have been created from nothing. However, these ideas are still highly speculative and there is no consensus among physicists on what happened before the inflationary period._
_Overall, the current understanding among physicists is that the universe did not have a traditional beginning, but rather underwent a period of rapid expansion from a very small and hot state. While the Big Bang theory provides a good description of the early universe, there are still many open questions about its origins and evolution."_
Craig has a zero amount of knowledge of the data, that we have and what most physicist are saying about that data currently, that we have currently.
More over Craig at 8:36:
_"... Moreover, the claim that things that have material causes do not begin to exist is frankly preposterous. And I'm so disappointed if Alex has gone back to this objection, which we talked about in my interview with him. Uh, this objection is one of my favorite of the world's 10 worst objections to the cosmological argument, namely that if something has a material cause, then it doesn't begin to exist. That is absurd. Um, for example, _*_I began to exist, and yet I have a material cause: the sperm and the egg which united at my conception to form me. And I can confidently say I did not exist before my conception. I certainly have not existed from eternity past, and yet indisputably, I do exist._*_ That's the lesson Descartes taught us: Even in doubting that I exist, I affirm my own existence..._
Sure. SO WHAT?!?
Just as Alex might have said once, that things having material causes might not begin to exist, another person might as well say, that ALL material things inluding Craig coming from a material sperm and a material egg beginning existing ALWAYS AND ONLY have material causes.
And why?
Because of *_"intution"._* Call it the correct intuition about not just _"nothing always coming from nothing"_ but also "something always coming from something rather than nothing".
Sure, there is mereological nihilism just as other schools of thought. And Craig listens to and addresses none of which - not even himself stattering accidentally the Truth - or at least some Truth.
I don't see how anyone can think the universe began to exist. In order to conclude that, one would need to accept that there was any point in time when there was no space or time. But since space and time are two attributes of the same thing this makes no sense. There has "always" been time and space, because there is no time outside of time, and our universe has existed for all of time.
The Trinity is nowhere in the Bible.
Full stop.
The kalam is still a garbage argument as you either dont have any examples to satisfy p.1, or you are misrepresenting p.1 and p 2 as talking about the same thing. It also doesnt get you to a god.
The trinity is still nonesense. 1+1+1=3, not 1.
Your intelligence ultimately came from nonintelligence.
Keep up the good work.
@davidjanbaz7728
Did you have something relevant to say?
Or are you just here to troll today?
I agree with him- your intelligence is sub par at best
😂😂😂
The Trinity: 1x1x1=1