In his History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell offers a criticism of Aquinas that could easily be levelled at modern-day speakers like Craig: ‘There is little of the true philosophic spirit in Aquinas. He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better: If he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation.’
TheraminTrees While I agree with the basic sentiment of the quote, I'm sure you realize that criticism of a person making an argument is completely irrelevant to the soundness of the argument itself. No one is beyond criticism and everyone has some sort of bias (Craig, Russel, Aquinas, Plato, Socrates, you, me - everyone). That's why we need the tools of philosophical argument and conceptual analysis to help see beyond our personal biases. (Craig, for example, has modified his theology at a number of places (stepping outside mainstream orthodoxy/dogma) as a result of his philosophical work. But even if that wasn't the case, attempts to impugn his arguments by criticizing his motivations are blatant cognitive errors.) It's the argument (not the motivations or character of the arguer) that is important philosophically. And to dismiss an argument because you find something objectionable about the person making the argument is itself a logical fallacy.
Atheist Large Yes, it's a factor in terms of how we might feel about a person - but it's not a relevant factor in the evaluation of an argument per se. It is irrational and intellectually dishonest (not too mention "sneaky" and "disreputable") to attack your ideological opponent's supposed motivations rather than focus on his arguments. Ad hominem attack is a primary tool of the _true_ con man, propagandist and dogmatist. At least WLC sticks to his arguments. But his opponents often resort to weak-minded ad hominem. It's a small-minded tribalism that delights in bifurcating the world into us-against-them. If we would not be (as you say) "lost", then we should fully embrace critical/logical/rational thinking. But if we won't commit to that, then we're already "lost." For we will have lost our (rational) mind, and not even realize it. We will then live as little more than trained chimps, with our rational human potential truncated and trapped in cages of rational and moral deficiency and underdevelopment - prisoner to our own irrational and reactionary ways - the real human tragedy....
blbphn Yep, I do realise that dismissing an argument on the basis of an objectionable characteristic of its proponent is a logical fallacy - specifically, one known as argumentum ad hominem. But since I did no such thing, I'm not sure why you felt the need to write what you've written. What I said - if you reread my comment - was that Russell's criticism of Aquinas could be levelled at speakers like WLC. And it can. WLC claims to have a self-authenticating 'witness of the holy spirit' in his heart, which allows him to 'know' christianity is true, 'wholly apart from the evidence'. This, he has stated, allows him to reject evidence that 'turns against christianity' in the firm conviction that with 'due diligence' he would eventually find that the evidence supported his faith. This is precisely in line with Russell's criticism of Aquinas - 'Before he begins to philosophise, he already knows the truth.' etc.
Apologetics is brand new to me, but what I've gathered so far is this: apologetics necessarily requires inconsistency, incredulity, hypocrisy, and flat lying. This is thorough, revealing, and highly educational, and I should also mention, entertaining.
Great to see you back Scott, always a pleasure to listen to your well-thought out and and cleverly articulated arguments. Really hope we can expect more from you in the future :-)
Maybe one day Jesus will show up with his wife and kids at a press conference, tell us his dad died years ago and he’d appreciate it if his family could be left alone.
The "god is changeless" argument from Craig has to be his most bizarre claim, out of a large menagerie of bizarre claims. There has to be some sort of change for anything to count as a thought. If god has no thoughts, then god is not sentient, but a brainless, natural force acting within the universe like electricity or gravity.
I don't think most people believe God is changeless in that His experience doesn't affect Him in some way. The same goes for His thoughts. He wouldn't be alive if that were the case. It's just a difficult area to sort through. John
John Smith it's only difficult because he chose to believe in something the facts don't support. Without that belief, he would not have to engage in such mental gymnastics trying to justify what is unjustifiable.
Paul T Sjordal, forgive me, but I'm not sure who you are referring to, most likely Craig. However, I think you are right that if we strongly believe in something, we do go to great lengths to justify it. Below I am quoting a prominent evolutionists who I think is quite honest about his view. When I have used Dr. Lewontin's assertions in my recent discussions, I have made it clear that he is a die-hard evolutionist, uncompromising in that regard. I ask people to tell me what he meant by the statement below from his quote. I am capitalizing words so you will have the focus he most certainly intended: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent ABSURDITY of some of its constructs, in spite of its FAILURE to fulfill many of its EXTRAVAGANT promises of health and life, IN SPITE OF the tolerance of the scientific community for UNSUBSTANTIATED JUST-SO STORIES, because we have A PRIOR COMMITMENT, a commitment TO MATERIALISM." This man is not stupid. He is telling us that "unsubstantiated just-so stories" are fine in science as long as their prejudice against the Supernatural can be secured. Sincerely, John
John Smith If you are an anthropologist and you are laying out the per-historical path of man, you can't dispense with 'just-so stories.' I believe this is ok, but I don't think the reason for this is to secure a prejudice against the supernatural. It's wanting to understand. Also, how can a 'scientist' have anything other than a commitment to materialism if he sets out to describe and explain events that take place in material world?
What Scott has done here is wonderful, hat's off to him! He's taken on Craig in Craig's arena and demonstrated Craig's flawed reasoning. A further point is that (and Scott would agree I suspect) the question of how the universe came to be is not a philosophical question at all. It is a Physics question. We know that our intuition (what philosophy, as Craig uses it, seems to be based out) fails us in many areas of Physics (as Scott points out). We cannot use philosophy to decide how the universe came to be as it is. But I totally see what Scott is doing. He's taking Craig's philosophical arguments and destroying them, using valid philosophical methods! Hat's off to Scott!
How have I not come across your work before now?? Thank goodness Paulogia had you on his channel recently. All of your videos I've watched have been brilliantly articulated, entertaining, extremely thought-provoking, and accessible - some of the best I've seen on the topics you've covered. Please come back to YT more frequently! We're all looking forward to it.
Welcome back, Scott! I didn't realize it had been so long, but I was glad to see you pop up in my subscription feed. I always come away from your videos feeling like I've learned something. Thanks! Hope we'll see you here again before another year has passed.
14:38 I disagree actually, but only because I don't really understand the term non-physical substance. Are abstract objects considered non-physical substances? What about spirits or souls (which I don't think actually exist). My understanding of Catholic theology is that God somehow "willed" the universe into existence, and this sort of jives with the notion of creating the universe out of some non-physical substance (that is, he "created" the universe out of his "will"). I'm sorry if it seems like I'm babbling, but I'm trying to be charitable and give coherence to God creating the universe out of some non-physical substance, and I don't think I'm succeeding. Needless to say, I actually find the notion that the universe is "cause-less" to make more sense than God creating the universe, ex-nihilo or otherwise.
The Kalam originally started with "Everything has a cause.", but even theists finally figured out that meant their imaginary gods must also have a cause. So, they gave their imaginary gods a free pass by changing it to "Everything THAT BEGAN TO EXIST".
YOU MONSTER! HOW COULD YOU LEAVE US!? Seriously though, so glad you're back! Please make more video pertaining to recent events and other philosophical matters. So glad you're back.
Wow, I never thought of it this way. tl;dw of this would basically be that the cosmological argument can be shut down with "What did God create the universe out of?" It makes so much sense.
Its baffling to me why Craig cannot see that every one of his philosophical attempts at eliminating any "not god" cause for the universe also applies to his god....and every attempted exemption for his god also applies to a "not god" cause. This is what happens when you try to argue for something's existence that displays no observable trait of existence and can be given any trait you wish. Simply replacing the word 'god" in Craig's arguments with "unicorn" or "leprechaun" or "magical Snorfinorf" leaves his arguments equally viable for each of those things.
The Christian God, leprechauns, fairies and unicorns all have one thing in common - there exists no evidence to prove that any of them really exist. What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Is it crazy? I've watched TB for years, one of the best philosophy bloggers here, and just the other day I saw him on TV, some soap my mother was watching, ha ha, needless to say I was amazed. What an alter ego :D
Michael Stieger Yeah, but I will definitively watch a "normal" kind of a movie with him. There was a small independent movie called "the 10000 year old man", he would've been great as the leading character (a seemingly young man gathers his friends for a going away party in a small hut in the mountain, his friends learn in shock that their friend is a rare human who is practically immortal and is very very old. He moves from town to town every 10 years so that he can keep his secret as people generally think of him as a freak or a demon when they learn. very good indie movie)
Michael Stieger He's on the Bold and The Beautiful...he's an Emmy award winning actor. It's not that I don't think he's great...because he's honestly a brilliant actor (and a brilliant blogger)...but he needs to be in movies, not just daytime tv.
Ahhh, it's so nice to be intellectually stimulated by your videos again. I know this is a late comment, but I'm super glad you're back. I very much missed your wisdom and ability to dumb down philosophy to a level that laymans, like myself, can follow. Keep these videos coming, I feel that my addiction to them shall never be filled.
Your unexpected return was a ray of philosophical sunshine in my otherwise uneventful and tedious day! I do hope you're here to stay ^.^ PS You unpacked the Kalam argument beautifully. Nice work!
Scott!! I missed your witty and profound video uploads. I'm glad to see you back. Well I hope you are back. LOL I know life can take it's course and YT isn't your life's work. However know that you were missed, and you have many talents, one of them being a voice of reason here on YT. I hope you enjoyed your holidays and Happy New Year to you and your family! All the best.
Philosophy is revving the engine of the mind, generating an impressive range of noises but without any rubber actually meeting the road to get us where we need to go. For that we must add the brute torque of empirical observation and testing. Perhaps I ran the automotive metaphor into the ditch there =/
Theoretical Bullshit You are too *goddam* good at this to stop. Handle your business and take care of life's priorities ......., but for *christ's* sake, man ...... don't stop making these videos.
Wow. Can’t believe I’ve never heard of this channel until now, and I only did because of a comment on one of Paulogia’s 4yo videos (this one is now 9yo as I find it). Superb argumentation against the KCA, and my favorite part is that Scott uses WLCs own arguments against him quite effectively.
Huge fan! You ridicule Lane with such ease, it's uncanny, but you shouldn't limit yourself to philosophy, just share your thoughts on anything of interest to you, I'd watch it!
I was delighted to find your site, as well as several others, taking Dr. Craig to task. After watching so many of his debates, I believe that I could spew out his spiel verbatim (as could a trained seal and differently tuned bicycle horns.) Thanks for making my day!
Glad you are back!!! Keep up the excellent work!! We will be watching! Thank you for your words that may help some people think rationally in this world!!!
Particles popping in and out of existence spontaneously within the framework of an already existing universe is one thing. Proving that spontaneously popping particles created the universe and life and intelligence and capacity for critical thinking and ethics and morality (within only one species!)is another matter entirely. And it is a curious thing that we don't see any spontaneous self-creation happening within the already existing universe. Why don't we see rabbits creating themselves or dogs creating themselves or people creating themselves?
+Agaperion Rex Only a small number of theoretical physicists and cosmologists believe that the universe created itself out of nothing, and those who do have to redefine nothing so that nothing doesn't include the quantum vacuum and empty space and laws and forces of nature and physics. But as Jim Holt observes, those things are not nothing, they are something. Life as we know it on this planet is probably about 2 billion years old. That is not nearly enough time for natural selection to weed out what is unfit and retain what is fit. This universe was designed, it doesn't just have the appearance of design, it has the appearance of design because it is designed
First off: life has been around for longer than 2 billion years. Just look it up. Secondly, all the evidence from modern physics points to the universe -physical reality- existing throughout all since the first moment of time. There isn't a time when the universe doesn't exist, and it wasn't created. The idea of creation involves the universe not existing at some time and beginning to exist later on. However, that is inconsistent with the facts from modern physics.
+The Immortal Great Heathen Army I OK, but not longer than 4.5 billion years, which is nit nearly enough time for natural selection to do everything proponents propose it can do (with no supporting evidence). And there are plenty of scientists who disagree and would say the universe probably had a beginning, and at the very least, the big bang caused the expansion of the universe and one thing led to another which allowed for the fine tuning of this particular planet for life, a miracle and an unlikelihood no matter how you look at it
"+The Immortal Great Heathen Army I OK, but not longer than 4.5 billion years, which is nit nearly enough time for natural selection to do everything proponents propose it can do (with no supporting evidence)." How did you come to this conclusion? "And there are plenty of scientists who disagree and would say the universe probably had a beginning," I also think the universe has a past-finite history. In fact, I argue against fellow atheists who lean toward the view that the universe has a past-infinite history.
The KCA has nothing to do with God. You set up a strawman and then tore it down. TH-cam videos are fine for amateurs but I'd love for you to challenge WLC to a debate since TH-cam debates aren't really his style. Set it up. We'll all be watching.
The reason WLC does not do youtube debates, or written debates, or the like and does more live debates is because of the time constraints. it allows him to use debating "styles" like shotgunning, Gish Gallop etc. The live debate also lets him get away with the majority of his arguments because it takes too much time to refute them in an understandable way to a laymans audence. As well as misrepresent his opponents arguments forcing the opponent to waste more of his time explaining how he got it wrong. There is good reason WLC's arguments look good in live debate, but those same arguments are not taken seriously academically. Because they fail, just very difficult to show it in 20 minutes.
Mark Totten HAHAHAHA!!! Oh man....that's too funny. It's obvious you've never actually watched a debate with WLC. Watch his latest debates with Lawrence Krauss and then tell me that WLC 'Gish Gallops' people. What a completely ignorant remark.
Equestions the evidence for god debate or the 3 part discussions. you have to be kidding me if you think this is a good example of WLC showing good debate skills. He out right lies to prove his point. Something he can get away with in a debate with Laurence Krauss. The outright lie. Where is tries to prove that everything that exists had a cause, and the universe began to exist. Then he gives himself as an example he began to exist to Krauss. It is a lie because he is trying to prove creation from nothing, and gives examples of creation from something. Something he would not get away with in a written debate and why he is not taken seriously outside the debating ring. Actually listen to the arguments instead of reapplying the lip chap for the next ass kissing session.
the KCA has nothing to do with God? really? KCA goes out of its way to say the the uncaused cause is God. Maybe not KCA in and within its simplest, most basic interpretation. But saying that it has NOTHING to do with God seems a tad disingenuous.
I would actually agree that the KCA has nothing to do with a god. It has to do with the need for an uncaused cause and prime mover (which may or may not be a god). That being said god comes into play because people usually assert that their god is this uncaused cause. Well god also comes into play because KCA is an ad hoc way to come to the desired conclusion. So I agree with you that it involves a god like entity, but does not involve any specific god. Anyways, just a different perspective.
With the universe being an eternal material caused thing, how to you get from a static state to an in time, universe creating state? I mean the argument usually hinges on that idea, that "personal" causes could have free will and non personal causes do not, so a material cause for the universe from a timeless static state would remain timeless and static wouldn't it?
I just found a diamond in the rough and that twinkle in your eye struck me like love at first sight. Your such a beautiful man inside and out. Your arguments are so fluid and simple, I'm starstruck with wonder and find myself locked in your entrancing tidal field. Your logic and exquisite form put WLC to shame. I've never felt so thirsty on this site, but then I found your channel. Boy am I glad I stayed up and boy you are just the most magnificent *squeals* honest-to-cathulu-handsome, perfect- *deep breath* You have another subscriber! :3
Welcome back! Great discussion. My contribution would be that the entire world of cause and effect is a way of apprehending reality according to human concepts, which includes the entire scope of pairs of opposites. Beginning and ending are of course one of those. My answer to "what is the universe" would be that "the universe" is our current concept of reality. In the world of concepts, there has to be a beginning, and everything that begins must have an ending, every "effect" must have a "cause". If time began, it has to end, and it never will until we no longer see reality through concepts. Talking about this becomes very difficult because words and thoughts spring from human concepts so they can only take us to the brink of realization of that which simply is, beyond words and thoughts. This is what I would term the "boundary" of time and timelessness. The moment we try to put reality into words, we lose sight of it. So, in my opinion, what we call the universe is produced or "created" if you will by our limited, finite view of an unlimited, infinite reality, which is changeless, but our view does change as our awareness of reality grows. We have reached the point where the scientific world is approaching the boundary where the mind "boggles." It is exciting.
I have been a journalist for 40 years, and I have rarely come across anyone who can communicate complex ideas so economically, lucidly and humorously. Thank you. By the way, about a year ago I posted this comment on the CosmicSkeptic channel after his chat with Lane Craig. I think it more or less echoes some of what you say here: " I felt (Alex) might have taken his position a tad further by pointing out that Kalam actually shoots itself in the foot. Premise One suggests a pattern of beginnings and causes, and Premise Three concludes that that pattern was echoed at the beginning of the universe. But as Alex pointed out, the true pattern is not one of beginnings at all; it is a pattern of reconstitution and rearrangement - a continuum, in fact. Doesn't this mean that a more fitting conclusion for Kalam is that the Big Bang is more likely to have been part of the same continuum?"
Please keep making videos, pretty please with a cherry on top. I'm African and I'm using an american saying, that's how important it is to me for you to keep making videos.
One of my issues is that, the idea that 'nothing comes from nothing' i.e. 'matter/energy does not spontaneously exist' is that it applies to the rules of this Universe. It has no bearing on whatever (if the statement has a sense in the was we can understand such a thing) existed before there was 'anything/something' ironically, it is WLC's world view that it would be acceptanble for a horse to spontaneously appear in the lecture hall., In fact, in WLC's world view rational thought, and the creation of predicatable models' is worthless because the existance of God makes the world simple chaotic, as anything could actually happen. heck.. he could even argue that the Cold Fuision debacle a few years back, was not in fact an error of interpretation and being pushed to publish results too quickly and in favourably way, but was in fact God providing proof of his existance by stirring the Laws of Physics for a bit. Wow... did I just p[rove God exists???? (joking). Maybe I should send it to WLC? BTW... Love it when old feeds like this pop up in the suggested
Although you clarify your terms, generally speaking, "top down" is a phrase commonly used to describe deductive reasoning. This may confuse viewers. However, this is another stellar video! Thanks, Scott!
Is it safe to assume that after the fiasco you just dealt with in GMan's hangout you'll be coming back to make more videos? You have the patience of a bloody angel.
Excellent! Best breakdown of Craig's argument I have encountered. Using his words directly! Nicely done! Please start making more videos. I really appreciate your reasoning skills. You can branch out to politics and social topics, like the plague of fake news. But please come back to activity!
Hey TB I wanted to know what you think the role of emergent phenomena has to play, like consciousness coming from none conscious material. For example we can't say that the brain has no material cause but the mind (being the thoughts the brain produces) seem less physical. Another example would be the oxygen molecule, when helium atoms smash together they make oxygen, which has a material cause but, the properties of the oxygen atom, don't come from the material of the helium atom. I feel this is wrong but I wanted to hear your thoughts on it.
+Airbloom Amplifiers After watching this many times for brain exercise, I don't value all the minutia specifics attributed to Lane's arguments. It's just noise to me now. Your arguments I still value a lot and try to keep up with.
Like your explanation I agree with you 100% but I have tried the same scientific method and philosophical reasoning to the " faithful " and almost all of them seam to thing I am speaking a different language. Should I try and " dumb down " the explanation ?
I'm not sure if this is actually an example of confirmation bias, but since I recently learned that Scott is an actor, I enjoyed the intro probably a little more than I should have. ;)
Great video! Thank you. I "discovered" you yesterday on the Atheist Experience, and I really enjoyed listening to you. I am glad you have a channel, because now you have a new sub :-) I hope to see you soon on the AE again.
Welcome back TB your mind is just as magnificent now as it was in the past. You have always inspired me to use reductio absurdum it is always quite interesting where it goes. I hope you keep staying I love to see the greatness of your mind and very much wish you would end up making it a carrier like Christopher Hitchens.
Scott, Has Craig written to you about these insights? The last of your videos I watched on these matters was "William Lane Craig Is Not Doing Himself Any Favors." I would hope you have been respected for your obvious love of philosophy and truth, and for the very intelligent presentations that accompany your enthusiasm. John
Please come back and do some more.... You are one of the few who can actually get through the youth of today. Would be interesting to hear you take on the gun control debate.
How do I get Scott's Albums without going on ITunes. My grandmother and me really wanna order them but we can't find anyone who sells them. Please help.
At 18:36 the entire argument becomes quantum and unverifiable beyond guessing that with further research we will always find that quantum scale objects are materially and efficiently uncaused. Infinite regress stops right there, forever, because that's my presupposition. We all are in the same "start from a presupposition" boat ie: materialism vs immaterial cause. We all start from our ending.
Excellent summary, man! Many of us, rational thinkers know this stuff, but you got some mad skill explaining it in an easy-to-digest form. Yeah, the biggest problem with religious apologists is that they tend to start debates by dumping a steaming pile of *unsupported and baseless assumptions* in front of your house and they expect you to clean it up before you can even start debating in earnest. Essentially, trying to force you to prove negatives, when the burden of proof is really on them. I guess they hope you'd get tired by the time you clean it up? Whenever I watch Craig or others, after their opening, I always go: whoa! Where did that come from, other than your behind? Or : that's *not* what science *actually* says... I guess, it's the mindset of starting with an "explanation" (gods) and trying to fit the evidence to it, rather than the *sane* way of: evidence -> hypothesis -> verify -> publish -> peer-review -> Nobel prize -> CAKE!
+Theoretical Bullshit Is there a third alternative to both creation ex nihilo and creation ex materia? I say "yes." (and I am not referring to just "out of infinite power and order)
William Lane Craig is one of my favorite comedians; he’s still out there tearing it up.
Did you hear Bill and Scott on the Capturing Christianity channel just today?
In his History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell offers a criticism of Aquinas that could easily be levelled at modern-day speakers like Craig:
‘There is little of the true philosophic spirit in Aquinas. He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better: If he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation.’
Atheist Large yeah, ridiculous isn't it :)
Atheist Large though honestly, he doesn't need to "follow" Aquinas in order to make the same mistakes :)
TheraminTrees While I agree with the basic sentiment of the quote, I'm sure you realize that criticism of a person making an argument is completely irrelevant to the soundness of the argument itself. No one is beyond criticism and everyone has some sort of bias (Craig, Russel, Aquinas, Plato, Socrates, you, me - everyone). That's why we need the tools of philosophical argument and conceptual analysis to help see beyond our personal biases. (Craig, for example, has modified his theology at a number of places (stepping outside mainstream orthodoxy/dogma) as a result of his philosophical work. But even if that wasn't the case, attempts to impugn his arguments by criticizing his motivations are blatant cognitive errors.)
It's the argument (not the motivations or character of the arguer) that is important philosophically. And to dismiss an argument because you find something objectionable about the person making the argument is itself a logical fallacy.
Atheist Large Yes, it's a factor in terms of how we might feel about a person - but it's not a relevant factor in the evaluation of an argument per se. It is irrational and intellectually dishonest (not too mention "sneaky" and "disreputable") to attack your ideological opponent's supposed motivations rather than focus on his arguments. Ad hominem attack is a primary tool of the _true_ con man, propagandist and dogmatist. At least WLC sticks to his arguments. But his opponents often resort to weak-minded ad hominem. It's a small-minded tribalism that delights in bifurcating the world into us-against-them. If we would not be (as you say) "lost", then we should fully embrace critical/logical/rational thinking. But if we won't commit to that, then we're already "lost." For we will have lost our (rational) mind, and not even realize it. We will then live as little more than trained chimps, with our rational human potential truncated and trapped in cages of rational and moral deficiency and underdevelopment - prisoner to our own irrational and reactionary ways - the real human tragedy....
blbphn Yep, I do realise that dismissing an argument on the basis of an objectionable characteristic of its proponent is a logical fallacy - specifically, one known as argumentum ad hominem. But since I did no such thing, I'm not sure why you felt the need to write what you've written. What I said - if you reread my comment - was that Russell's criticism of Aquinas could be levelled at speakers like WLC. And it can.
WLC claims to have a self-authenticating 'witness of the holy spirit' in his heart, which allows him to 'know' christianity is true, 'wholly apart from the evidence'. This, he has stated, allows him to reject evidence that 'turns against christianity' in the firm conviction that with 'due diligence' he would eventually find that the evidence supported his faith. This is precisely in line with Russell's criticism of Aquinas - 'Before he begins to philosophise, he already knows the truth.' etc.
Apologetics is brand new to me, but what I've gathered so far is this: apologetics necessarily requires inconsistency, incredulity, hypocrisy, and flat lying. This is thorough, revealing, and highly educational, and I should also mention, entertaining.
2013! I kinda forgot how long Craig has been flogging the KCA, and how diligently he has avoided addressing its defects.
Great to see you back Scott, always a pleasure to listen to your well-thought out and and cleverly articulated arguments. Really hope we can expect more from you in the future :-)
I just found you today and I love you. Please make more videos or I will be sad.
Ditto that, my friend.
Agreed :)
come back and talk about anything!
please dude...
can't you see, we miss you?
GOD IS REAL AND HIS NAME IS JESUS!!!
BE BAPTIZED IN JESUS NAME!!! ACTS 2:38
Maybe one day WLC comes out and says: yeah it was all just bullsh!t
Maybe one day Jesus will show up with his wife and kids at a press conference, tell us his dad died years ago and he’d appreciate it if his family could be left alone.
The "god is changeless" argument from Craig has to be his most bizarre claim, out of a large menagerie of bizarre claims.
There has to be some sort of change for anything to count as a thought. If god has no thoughts, then god is not sentient, but a brainless, natural force acting within the universe like electricity or gravity.
*****
Then god is not omnipotent.
I don't think most people believe God is changeless in that His experience doesn't affect Him in some way. The same goes for His thoughts.
He wouldn't be alive if that were the case. It's just a difficult area to sort through.
John
John Smith it's only difficult because he chose to believe in something the facts don't support.
Without that belief, he would not have to engage in such mental gymnastics trying to justify what is unjustifiable.
Paul T Sjordal, forgive me, but I'm not sure who you are referring to, most likely Craig.
However, I think you are right that if we strongly believe in something, we do go to great lengths to justify it.
Below I am quoting a prominent evolutionists who I think is quite honest about his view. When I have used Dr. Lewontin's assertions in my recent discussions, I have made it clear that he is a die-hard evolutionist, uncompromising in that regard.
I ask people to tell me what he meant by the statement below from his quote. I am capitalizing words so you will have the focus he most certainly intended:
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent ABSURDITY of some of its constructs, in spite of its FAILURE to fulfill many of its EXTRAVAGANT promises of health and life, IN SPITE OF the tolerance of the scientific community for UNSUBSTANTIATED JUST-SO STORIES, because we have A PRIOR COMMITMENT, a commitment TO MATERIALISM."
This man is not stupid. He is telling us that "unsubstantiated just-so stories" are fine in science as long as their prejudice against the Supernatural can be secured.
Sincerely,
John
John Smith If you are an anthropologist and you are laying out the per-historical path of man, you can't dispense with 'just-so stories.' I believe this is ok, but I don't think the reason for this is to secure a prejudice against the supernatural. It's wanting to understand. Also, how can a 'scientist' have anything other than a commitment to materialism if he sets out to describe and explain events that take place in material world?
You, my dude, are talented as hell. Many thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.
Much appreciated
16:49 It amazes me how, with the right delivery, dry philosophy can sound like an epic villain reveal.
Thanks for shining some light into some dark corners, Scott. Always a pleasure listening to your logic.
What Scott has done here is wonderful, hat's off to him! He's taken on Craig in Craig's arena and demonstrated Craig's flawed reasoning.
A further point is that (and Scott would agree I suspect) the question of how the universe came to be is not a philosophical question at all. It is a Physics question. We know that our intuition (what philosophy, as Craig uses it, seems to be based out) fails us in many areas of Physics (as Scott points out). We cannot use philosophy to decide how the universe came to be as it is.
But I totally see what Scott is doing. He's taking Craig's philosophical arguments and destroying them, using valid philosophical methods! Hat's off to Scott!
Please come back! You're probably the most intelligent TH-camr in the area of philosophy and religion, please don't stop making videos!
completely agree. It's too bad we only see him pop up about once a year or so.
He’s a Soap Opera actor now.
How have I not come across your work before now?? Thank goodness Paulogia had you on his channel recently. All of your videos I've watched have been brilliantly articulated, entertaining, extremely thought-provoking, and accessible - some of the best I've seen on the topics you've covered. Please come back to YT more frequently! We're all looking forward to it.
Welcome back, Scott! I didn't realize it had been so long, but I was glad to see you pop up in my subscription feed. I always come away from your videos feeling like I've learned something. Thanks! Hope we'll see you here again before another year has passed.
14:38 I disagree actually, but only because I don't really understand the term non-physical substance. Are abstract objects considered non-physical substances? What about spirits or souls (which I don't think actually exist). My understanding of Catholic theology is that God somehow "willed" the universe into existence, and this sort of jives with the notion of creating the universe out of some non-physical substance (that is, he "created" the universe out of his "will"). I'm sorry if it seems like I'm babbling, but I'm trying to be charitable and give coherence to God creating the universe out of some non-physical substance, and I don't think I'm succeeding. Needless to say, I actually find the notion that the universe is "cause-less" to make more sense than God creating the universe, ex-nihilo or otherwise.
The Kalam originally started with "Everything has a cause.", but even theists finally figured out that meant their imaginary gods must also have a cause. So, they gave their imaginary gods a free pass by changing it to "Everything THAT BEGAN TO EXIST".
Scott could make a straight man go gay with his looks and intelligence.
I have no shame in saying that.
Hahahaha...good one! : )
He's not joking.
When i look at Scott and hear him speak... I feel burning, almost passionate jealousy.
Beyond me but whatever !
Are you suggesting that Scott is DIO?
YOU MONSTER! HOW COULD YOU LEAVE US!?
Seriously though, so glad you're back! Please make more video pertaining to recent events and other philosophical matters.
So glad you're back.
You have been sorely missed. Welcome back. Please make 2000 more videos. You can start anytime now. Also, I want some spongy metaphysical cake now.
I miss videos and channels like this one. Nowadays, most of the emphasis is on production value with nifty intro graphics & music.
Wow, I never thought of it this way. tl;dw of this would basically be that the cosmological argument can be shut down with "What did God create the universe out of?" It makes so much sense.
This reinvigorated my hopes that there are good, philosophical minds on TH-cam. Thank you.
EverydaySkeptic Lol dude. InspiringPhilosophy would destroy this dude lmao
Are they some sort of TH-cam Christian apologist?
EverydaySkeptic They are the guy who was debating CosmicSkeptic.... you already forgot mate? Lol
CosmicSkeptic is not who made this video. This video was made by TheoreticalBullshit. What are you talking about?
EverydaySkeptic lol you already forgot about our previous encounter? XD it's okay anyway, see ya next time I run into to you
Dude, welcome back. Feel free to shut down any pre supp arguments that have been floating about lately. Keep them coming!
Welcome back! It's nice to have a nice smacking of logic and reason after some of the stuff I resorted to watching on TH-cam.
Its baffling to me why Craig cannot see that every one of his philosophical attempts at eliminating any "not god" cause for the universe also applies to his god....and every attempted exemption for his god also applies to a "not god" cause.
This is what happens when you try to argue for something's existence that displays no observable trait of existence and can be given any trait you wish.
Simply replacing the word 'god" in Craig's arguments with "unicorn" or "leprechaun" or "magical Snorfinorf" leaves his arguments equally viable for each of those things.
The Christian God, leprechauns, fairies and unicorns all have one thing in common - there exists no evidence to prove that any of them really exist. What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
DO MORE STUFF!!!
Is it crazy? I've watched TB for years, one of the best philosophy bloggers here, and just the other day I saw him on TV, some soap my mother was watching, ha ha, needless to say I was amazed. What an alter ego :D
He's like one of those old Chinese Taoist philosophers hiding in the mountains when things get interesting... Only he's hiding in a soap opera lol
What was the name of that soap?
Michael Stieger Something like Beauty and the beast? yeah something like it but I am not sure, I don't watch those kind of movies
Michael Stieger Yeah, but I will definitively watch a "normal" kind of a movie with him.
There was a small independent movie called "the 10000 year old man", he would've been great as the leading character (a seemingly young man gathers his friends for a going away party in a small hut in the mountain, his friends learn in shock that their friend is a rare human who is practically immortal and is very very old. He moves from town to town every 10 years so that he can keep his secret as people generally think of him as a freak or a demon when they learn. very good indie movie)
Michael Stieger He's on the Bold and The Beautiful...he's an Emmy award winning actor. It's not that I don't think he's great...because he's honestly a brilliant actor (and a brilliant blogger)...but he needs to be in movies, not just daytime tv.
Ahhh, it's so nice to be intellectually stimulated by your videos again. I know this is a late comment, but I'm super glad you're back. I very much missed your wisdom and ability to dumb down philosophy to a level that laymans, like myself, can follow. Keep these videos coming, I feel that my addiction to them shall never be filled.
Your unexpected return was a ray of philosophical sunshine in my otherwise uneventful and tedious day! I do hope you're here to stay ^.^
PS You unpacked the Kalam argument beautifully. Nice work!
ARGGHH !!
Whence = from where.
From whence = from from where.
Shit, I never knew that - and were it not for my insane pedantry, I'd have been happily ignorant of this.
Cheers. ;)
Come back man!
The intro is awesome :D
Scott!! I missed your witty and profound video uploads. I'm glad to see you back. Well I hope you are back. LOL I know life can take it's course and YT isn't your life's work. However know that you were missed, and you have many talents, one of them being a voice of reason here on YT. I hope you enjoyed your holidays and Happy New Year to you and your family! All the best.
Welcome back. You've been missed.
See, now this is why I never use philosophy as evidence. It can be literally be sued to argue for or against anything, even its own premise.
Philosophy is revving the engine of the mind, generating an impressive range of noises but without any rubber actually meeting the road to get us where we need to go.
For that we must add the brute torque of empirical observation and testing.
Perhaps I ran the automotive metaphor into the ditch there =/
Theoretical Bullshit
You are too *goddam* good at this to stop. Handle your business and take care of life's priorities ......., but for *christ's* sake, man ...... don't stop making these videos.
Mmm. Metaphysical cake.
+Erik Apologists have metaphysical type 2 diabetes.
Locutus Borg thanks for your comment I had to lough really really hard!!!!
@@amanofnoreputation2164
With mint frosting!
Nice to see another video after such a long time. You obviously put a lot of thought and work into these videos. Nice job, and thanks!
Wow. Can’t believe I’ve never heard of this channel until now, and I only did because of a comment on one of Paulogia’s 4yo videos (this one is now 9yo as I find it). Superb argumentation against the KCA, and my favorite part is that Scott uses WLCs own arguments against him quite effectively.
Google's new comment system does not facilitate discussion in the slightest.
Huge fan! You ridicule Lane with such ease, it's uncanny, but you shouldn't limit yourself to philosophy, just share your thoughts on anything of interest to you, I'd watch it!
It's pretty bad if you're a professional theologian/philosopher when an amateur like TBS can rip them apart.
i agree, mat.
it must require a great deal of energy, on w.l.c.'s part, to maintain arguments so easily refuted. i wonder if he will respond directly?
He one did a written reply to TBS which then TBS ripped apart. Hilarious.
Absolutely correct.
Agree, and welcome back!
I was delighted to find your site, as well as several others, taking Dr. Craig to task. After watching so many of his debates, I believe that I could spew out his spiel verbatim (as could a trained seal and differently tuned bicycle horns.) Thanks for making my day!
Glad you are back!!! Keep up the excellent work!! We will be watching! Thank you for your words that may help some people think rationally in this world!!!
Particles popping in and out of existence spontaneously within the framework of an already existing universe is one thing. Proving that spontaneously popping particles created the universe and life and intelligence and capacity for critical thinking and ethics and morality (within only one species!)is another matter entirely. And it is a curious thing that we don't see any spontaneous self-creation happening within the already existing universe. Why don't we see rabbits creating themselves or dogs creating themselves or people creating themselves?
+Agaperion Rex Only a small number of theoretical physicists and cosmologists believe that the universe created itself out of nothing, and those who do have to redefine nothing so that nothing doesn't include the quantum vacuum and empty space and laws and forces of nature and physics. But as Jim Holt observes, those things are not nothing, they are something.
Life as we know it on this planet is probably about 2 billion years old. That is not nearly enough time for natural selection to weed out what is unfit and retain what is fit. This universe was designed, it doesn't just have the appearance of design, it has the appearance of design because it is designed
First off: life has been around for longer than 2 billion years. Just look it up.
Secondly, all the evidence from modern physics points to the universe -physical reality- existing throughout all since the first moment of time. There isn't a time when the universe doesn't exist, and it wasn't created. The idea of creation involves the universe not existing at some time and beginning to exist later on. However, that is inconsistent with the facts from modern physics.
+The Immortal Great Heathen Army I OK, but not longer than 4.5 billion years, which is nit nearly enough time for natural selection to do everything proponents propose it can do (with no supporting evidence).
And there are plenty of scientists who disagree and would say the universe probably had a beginning, and at the very least, the big bang caused the expansion of the universe and one thing led to another which allowed for the fine tuning of this particular planet for life, a miracle and an unlikelihood no matter how you look at it
Or gods creating themselves?
"+The Immortal Great Heathen Army I OK, but not longer than 4.5 billion years, which is nit nearly enough time for natural selection to do everything proponents propose it can do (with no supporting evidence)." How did you come to this conclusion?
"And there are plenty of scientists who disagree and would say the universe probably had a beginning," I also think the universe has a past-finite history. In fact, I argue against fellow atheists who lean toward the view that the universe has a past-infinite history.
"Not looking to follow rationality."
Well duh, Craig is a theologian.
The KCA has nothing to do with God. You set up a strawman and then tore it down. TH-cam videos are fine for amateurs but I'd love for you to challenge WLC to a debate since TH-cam debates aren't really his style. Set it up. We'll all be watching.
The reason WLC does not do youtube debates, or written debates, or the like and does more live debates is because of the time constraints. it allows him to use debating "styles" like shotgunning, Gish Gallop etc.
The live debate also lets him get away with the majority of his arguments because it takes too much time to refute them in an understandable way to a laymans audence. As well as misrepresent his opponents arguments forcing the opponent to waste more of his time explaining how he got it wrong.
There is good reason WLC's arguments look good in live debate, but those same arguments are not taken seriously academically. Because they fail, just very difficult to show it in 20 minutes.
Mark Totten HAHAHAHA!!! Oh man....that's too funny. It's obvious you've never actually watched a debate with WLC. Watch his latest debates with Lawrence Krauss and then tell me that WLC 'Gish Gallops' people. What a completely ignorant remark.
Equestions the evidence for god debate or the 3 part discussions. you have to be kidding me if you think this is a good example of WLC showing good debate skills. He out right lies to prove his point. Something he can get away with in a debate with Laurence Krauss.
The outright lie. Where is tries to prove that everything that exists had a cause, and the universe began to exist. Then he gives himself as an example he began to exist to Krauss. It is a lie because he is trying to prove creation from nothing, and gives examples of creation from something. Something he would not get away with in a written debate and why he is not taken seriously outside the debating ring.
Actually listen to the arguments instead of reapplying the lip chap for the next ass kissing session.
the KCA has nothing to do with God? really?
KCA goes out of its way to say the the uncaused cause is God. Maybe not KCA in and within its simplest, most basic interpretation. But saying that it has NOTHING to do with God seems a tad disingenuous.
I would actually agree that the KCA has nothing to do with a god. It has to do with the need for an uncaused cause and prime mover (which may or may not be a god). That being said god comes into play because people usually assert that their god is this uncaused cause.
Well god also comes into play because KCA is an ad hoc way to come to the desired conclusion. So I agree with you that it involves a god like entity, but does not involve any specific god.
Anyways, just a different perspective.
With the universe being an eternal material caused thing, how to you get from a static state to an in time, universe creating state? I mean the argument usually hinges on that idea, that "personal" causes could have free will and non personal causes do not, so a material cause for the universe from a timeless static state would remain timeless and static wouldn't it?
You need to make another video soon! Your little skit at the beginning...priceless. So interesting...love watching your videos.
Fittingly I sat with a cup of very cold coffee at the beginning of this video. Cold coffee cheers and welcome back! Good video!
Haven't unsubbed since I found you, always held out hope that you'd come back to your viewers with something worthwhile. Glad you're back.
Great to have you back. Thought you were gone off YT forever..
I just found a diamond in the rough and that twinkle in your eye struck me like love at first sight. Your such a beautiful man inside and out. Your arguments are so fluid and simple, I'm starstruck with wonder and find myself locked in your entrancing tidal field. Your logic and exquisite form put WLC to shame. I've never felt so thirsty on this site, but then I found your channel. Boy am I glad I stayed up and boy you are just the most magnificent *squeals* honest-to-cathulu-handsome, perfect-
*deep breath* You have another subscriber! :3
Glad to see another video TBS :)
Hope to see more from you in the future, have also been following the last year waiting!
Welcome back! Great discussion. My contribution would be that the entire world of cause and effect is a way of apprehending reality according to human concepts, which includes the entire scope of pairs of opposites. Beginning and ending are of course one of those. My answer to "what is the universe" would be that "the universe" is our current concept of reality. In the world of concepts, there has to be a beginning, and everything that begins must have an ending, every "effect" must have a "cause". If time began, it has to end, and it never will until we no longer see reality through concepts. Talking about this becomes very difficult because words and thoughts spring from human concepts so they can only take us to the brink of realization of that which simply is, beyond words and thoughts. This is what I would term the "boundary" of time and timelessness. The moment we try to put reality into words, we lose sight of it. So, in my opinion, what we call the universe is produced or "created" if you will by our limited, finite view of an unlimited, infinite reality, which is changeless, but our view does change as our awareness of reality grows. We have reached the point where the scientific world is approaching the boundary where the mind "boggles." It is exciting.
I have been a journalist for 40 years, and I have rarely come across anyone who can communicate complex ideas so economically, lucidly and humorously. Thank you. By the way, about a year ago I posted this comment on the CosmicSkeptic channel after his chat with Lane Craig. I think it more or less echoes some of what you say here: " I felt (Alex) might have taken his position a tad further by pointing out that Kalam actually shoots itself in the foot. Premise One suggests a pattern of beginnings and causes, and Premise Three concludes that that pattern was echoed at the beginning of the universe. But as Alex pointed out, the true pattern is not one of beginnings at all; it is a pattern of reconstitution and rearrangement - a continuum, in fact. Doesn't this mean that a more fitting conclusion for Kalam is that the Big Bang is more likely to have been part of the same continuum?"
So glad to see you back in the saddle! Keep the good stuff coming, I always learn something.
Why do you wait so long between videos? You are so interesting and make so much sense. Also I like looking at you!
Welcome back, and what a great new video.
YESSSS YOU'RE BACK OMG YOU'RE MY FAVE AND A 26 MIN VIDEO I'M HAPPY
Thank you. Saw you on Atheist Experience and looked you up. Glad I did. Best wishes to you.
Aw i missed your videos. welcome back!
Please keep making videos, pretty please with a cherry on top. I'm African and I'm using an american saying, that's how important it is to me for you to keep making videos.
Just came back for some nostalgia.
One of my issues is that, the idea that 'nothing comes from nothing' i.e. 'matter/energy does not spontaneously exist' is that it applies to the rules of this Universe. It has no bearing on whatever (if the statement has a sense in the was we can understand such a thing) existed before there was 'anything/something'
ironically, it is WLC's world view that it would be acceptanble for a horse to spontaneously appear in the lecture hall.,
In fact, in WLC's world view rational thought, and the creation of predicatable models' is worthless because the existance of God makes the world simple chaotic, as anything could actually happen.
heck.. he could even argue that the Cold Fuision debacle a few years back, was not in fact an error of interpretation and being pushed to publish results too quickly and in favourably way, but was in fact God providing proof of his existance by stirring the Laws of Physics for a bit.
Wow... did I just p[rove God exists???? (joking). Maybe I should send it to WLC?
BTW... Love it when old feeds like this pop up in the suggested
Although you clarify your terms, generally speaking, "top down" is a phrase commonly used to describe deductive reasoning. This may confuse viewers.
However, this is another stellar video! Thanks, Scott!
Whoo! How funny! I was just thinking about you today and how much I missed your videos since you've been gone.
Glad to see you back, dude! :D
Is it safe to assume that after the fiasco you just dealt with in GMan's hangout you'll be coming back to make more videos? You have the patience of a bloody angel.
Yay! a new video. Welcome back TBS.
Excellent! Best breakdown of Craig's argument I have encountered. Using his words directly! Nicely done!
Please start making more videos. I really appreciate your reasoning skills.
You can branch out to politics and social topics, like the plague of fake news. But please come back to activity!
Scott no please we need you! please come back. tackle more arguments talk about more things. your arguments wrinkle my brain.
in a great way
I'm glad you're back!
This needs to be done more by you. Please. If time allows. New subscriber.
welcome back,great video!
Hey TB I wanted to know what you think the role of emergent phenomena has to play, like consciousness coming from none conscious material. For example we can't say that the brain has no material cause but the mind (being the thoughts the brain produces) seem less physical. Another example would be the oxygen molecule, when helium atoms smash together they make oxygen, which has a material cause but, the properties of the oxygen atom, don't come from the material of the helium atom. I feel this is wrong but I wanted to hear your thoughts on it.
More of these videos please. How could you even think about quitting? Do you not like youtube anymore?
You're back! YES!! I want to be angry that you've been gone so long, but... I can't hate you, man.
Thanks so much for making time. You're damn good at this. Very informative, interesting, and a great way for us who watch to learn. Bravo.
+Airbloom Amplifiers
After watching this many times for brain exercise, I don't value all the minutia specifics attributed to Lane's arguments. It's just noise to me now. Your arguments I still value a lot and try to keep up with.
I love your videos and I'd love to see you make a return. It would truly be a shame if you did not.
The opening. Priceless. Brilliant. New sub here. :-)
Like your explanation I agree with you 100% but I have tried the same scientific method and philosophical reasoning to the " faithful " and almost all of them seam to thing I am speaking a different language. Should I try and " dumb down " the explanation ?
red22alert22 For christards? You cannot dumb it enough
I'm not sure if this is actually an example of confirmation bias, but since I recently learned that Scott is an actor, I enjoyed the intro probably a little more than I should have. ;)
That was beautiful. Glad to have you back. :)
Dude, you are NOT allowed to leave youtube for this long ever again!!!!
Great video! Thank you.
I "discovered" you yesterday on the Atheist Experience, and I really enjoyed listening to you. I am glad you have a channel, because now you have a new sub :-)
I hope to see you soon on the AE again.
Welcome back TB your mind is just as magnificent now as it was in the past. You have always inspired me to use reductio absurdum it is always quite interesting where it goes. I hope you keep staying I love to see the greatness of your mind and very much wish you would end up making it a carrier like Christopher Hitchens.
So how do we they get from Kalam to a specific gid?
Welcome back, TB!
Glad you're back. Maybe
Scott, Has Craig written to you about these insights? The last of your videos I watched on these matters was "William Lane Craig Is Not Doing Himself Any Favors."
I would hope you have been respected for your obvious love of philosophy and truth, and for the very intelligent presentations that accompany your enthusiasm.
John
Please come back and do some more.... You are one of the few who can actually get through the youth of today. Would be interesting to hear you take on the gun control debate.
How do I get Scott's Albums without going on ITunes. My grandmother and me really wanna order them but we can't find anyone who sells them. Please help.
Well played, Scott. Ha WLC ever responded to one of your vids?
I love how u speak, u use big words that I don't understand but I still listen cuz what I do understand makes a lot of sense.
At 18:36 the entire argument becomes quantum and unverifiable beyond guessing that with further research we will always find that quantum scale objects are materially and efficiently uncaused. Infinite regress stops right there, forever, because that's my presupposition. We all are in the same "start from a presupposition" boat ie: materialism vs immaterial cause. We all start from our ending.
Great Scott, I do believe you have just defeated William Lane Craig. Nice to have you back!
Excellent summary, man!
Many of us, rational thinkers know this stuff, but you got some mad skill explaining it in an easy-to-digest form.
Yeah, the biggest problem with religious apologists is that they tend to start debates by dumping a steaming pile of *unsupported and baseless assumptions* in front of your house and they expect you to clean it up before you can even start debating in earnest.
Essentially, trying to force you to prove negatives, when the burden of proof is really on them.
I guess they hope you'd get tired by the time you clean it up?
Whenever I watch Craig or others, after their opening, I always go:
whoa! Where did that come from, other than your behind? Or : that's *not* what science *actually* says...
I guess, it's the mindset of starting with an "explanation" (gods) and trying to fit the evidence to it, rather than the *sane* way of:
evidence -> hypothesis -> verify -> publish -> peer-review -> Nobel prize -> CAKE!
Welcome back!!
+Theoretical Bullshit
Is there a third alternative to both creation ex nihilo and creation ex materia?
I say "yes." (and I am not referring to just "out of infinite power and order)
Welcome back!