I’m Jewish, so I don’t share the exact apologetics, yet, William and Stephen are two of my favorite thinkers when it comes to revealing God in nature. I really appreciate the work they’ve done to expose the folly of those who chose to deny. To see them together is a blessing. I thank God for their immense contributions…
Thank you for this wonderful, wonderful discussion!!!! I am so grateful for these three gentlemen and their contributions to apologetics and the strengthening of my personal faith. What a treat to have all 3 together this evening. I will likely watch this a few times. My biggest take away when I hear Craig and Meyer is a renewed sense of wonder in the awesomeness of God the Creator. Bravo gentlemen!
Lol, what contributions? Only Craig has contributed to some extent. Turek and Meyer are a total embarrassment. Try some good theist philosophers like Richard Swinburne, Alexander Pruss, Peter Van Inwagen. Thank me later!
One of the well-known apologists should write about which is greater. For example, which is greater, a God who is lofty, or a god who is both lofty and deep? A god who must choose between mercy and justice, or a god who is merciful while fulfilling justice? A god who has unfulfilled need for relationship, or a god who has always had relationship? A god who is limited by the universe, or a god who has such creative power that He can enter the universe three times simultaneously and exist alongside Himself? I would ask such questions myself, but I am a nobody.
Also, skeptics often cite the words of David Hume as an objection to the proofs of the existence of God, so I think it would be advisable to provide answers to his objection. "A great number of men join in building a house or a ship, in rearing a city, in framing a commonwealth: why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?" (Dialogues) Responses: "And, to jump ahead a bit, there are two further problems with polytheism as an explanation of the existence of not merely a universe but a universe governed throughout space and time by the same natural laws . If this order in the world is to be explained by many gods, then some explanation is required for how and why they cooperate in producing the same patterns of order throughout the universe. This becomes a new datum requiring explanation for the same reason as the fact of order itself. The need for further explanation ends when we postulate one being who is the cause of the existence of all others, and the simplest conceivable such-I urge-is God. And, further, the power of polytheism to explain this order in the world is perhaps not as great as that of theism. If there were more than one deity responsible for the order of the universe, we would expect to see characteristic marks of the handiwork of different deities in different parts of the universe, just as we see different kinds of workmanship in the different houses of a city. We would expect to find an inverse square of law of gravitation obeyed in one part of the universe, and in another part a law that was just short of being an inverse square law-without the difference being explicable in terms of a more general law." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God") "If the physical universe is the product of intelligent design, rather than being a pure accident, it is more likely to be the handiwork of only one rather than more than one intelligence. This is so for two broad reasons. The first reason is the need for theoretical parsimony. In the absence of any evidence for supposing the universe to be the handiwork of more than one intelligence rather than only one, then, faced with a choice between supposing it the handiwork of one or of more than one intelligent designer, we should choose to suppose it to be the creation of only one. For it is not necessary to postulate more than one to account for the phenomena in question. The second reason for preferring the hypothesis of there being only one designer of the universe to supposing more than one is that the general harmony and uniformity of everything in the universe suggest that, should it be the product of design, it is more likely to be the handiwork of a single designer, rather than a plurality of designers who might have been expected to have left in their joint product some trace of their plural individualities." (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")
When "the best" simply isn't good enough. The Kalam argument is logical fallacy bingo. And it isn't even an argument for the existence of god. At best it's an argument for a cause for the existence of the universe.
The BGV theorem holds for any universe that is expanding ( if I remember right ). So it would hold for a young earth view as well , as long as the young earth view believes that while young , the universe is expanding
@@fievelnole The BVG theorem is pretty weak. All it says is new physics is needed to describe the past boundary. Inflationary physics is not sufficient. Also the quantum vacuum does not expand.
I appreciate that both Stephen Meyer and William Lane Craig employ the cosmological argument, though they each use a different form of the argument. Meyer frames his cosmological argument as an inference to the best explanation, whereas Craig frames his (Kalam) cosmological argument as a deductive argument. Also, Meyer is more reliant on the scientific evidence to infer a theistic explanation, whereas for Craig (as he says in the video) the scientific evidence is "icing on the cake" since his argument is a purely logical metaphysical argument (with scientific evidence playing a supporting rather than central role). In any case, what I appreciate about both men's approaches to the cosmological argument is what Meyer pointed out in the video: their approaches aren't mutually exclusive, but in fact complementary to one another. It's far better for intellectual discussion and consideration to have a fuller-orbed cosmological argument for theism than otherwise.
CC,....But this means nothing, he still has nothing to do with the Bibles Christianity. He is an atheist and is 100% steeped in the atheist religion of scientism just like the guys in this video are.
@@seedsower678 Jason Lisle does most of his lectures in Christian church's. Are you saying all scientist practice scientism? All professing Christian scientist are fake? Can you clarify your opinion?
@@constructivecritique5191 ,...Yes, I know. This is because the churches real religion is scientism not the Bibles Christianity. The entire church is filled with atheists not Christians. Actual Christians are outside of the church not in it. I would say it is possible for there to be a scientist that is a Christian, however this scientist would be 100% against everything scientism believes and teaches. He would likely not claim to be a scientist. Science (scientism) and Christianity are two 100% opposing religions. If any Christian believes in anything science claims as it pertains to the cosmology of the earth, then they are not a Christian, they are in the false manmade ungodly religion of scientism. Anyone can claim anything, that means nothing.
@@constructivecritique5191 ,...Yes, I know. This is because the churches real religion is scientism not the Bibles Christianity. The entire church is filled with atheists not Christians. Actual Christians are outside of the church not in it. I would say it is possible for there to be a scientist that is a Christian, however this scientist would be 100% against everything scientism believes and teaches. He would likely not claim to be a scientist. Science (scientism) and Christianity are two 100% opposing religions. If any Christian believes in anything science claims as it pertains to the cosmology of the earth, then they are not a Christian, they are in the false manmade ungodly religion of scientism. Anyone can claim anything, that means nothing.
I love your work and it’s very much needed to get ppl back to God. But the Kalam cosmological argument was never forgotten to be brought back to the modern world. It’s in the Islamic theology tradition and is studied at several levels. I studied it from elementary school and after! Of course it gets more complicated as you progress through it but we never dropped the case.
Regarding 6 days of creation vs billions of years: MIT physicist Gerald Schroeder saying that at the begining each day really did reflect 24hour unit of time, but as the space began to expand and strach outward each unit by now has grown and expanded to reflect couple of billions of years each. So space/time continuum has been stratching ever since the initial point of creation th-cam.com/video/mcvj6yBEfsM/w-d-xo.html
What does Prof. Vilenkin when he says the universe came from nothing? Does he believe that it's uncaused? His point may be compatible with believing that God created the universe from nothing. When I write "nothing," I don't mean that word stands for building material. I mean that God creates something by merely wanting it to exist.
Fr. Seraphim Rose writes: "even the most mystical Fathers" such as St. Isaac the Syrian accepted without question the common understanding of the Church that the world was created "more or less" in 5,500 B.C. (Genesis, Creation and Early Man, p. 236).
Oh , but 'science' now says the earth and cosmos are much older than that. So we must reinterpret or mythologize Genesis to accommodate the science. - Most Modern evangelicals.
@@justifiedFaith209 why would God fool us into making the earth look very old but tell us it isn't in the Bible? Your church Fathers can get their interpretations Wrong!
@@davidjanbaz7728 It's been a long while since I looked into all of it (my first apologetics books were the first two in the Answers in Genesis series that I read in middle school) but I believe the simple answers would be found in the fact that there was light before stars, and the impact that the Flood would have on the earth. If God has already revealed events that contribute to why the earth would seem older, He isn't fooling anyone.
The church fathers, also were convinced the Sun is circulating the earth. It is OK to be wrong in these secondary issues and to grow up and realize that we were wrong and now we know better.
@@matthewcross7837 YEC is just bad interpretations of how God did create the Universe. God isn't fooling anyone as the Biblical text is theological statements not a Scientific history textbook of creation.
@@jackplumbridge2704 not at all. If someone says god and only god…then it is special pleading and double standards. If you want to say I’m confused then explain what I’m confused about. Don’t just say it.
@@therick363 "not at all. If someone says god and only god…then it is special pleading and double standards. " - That doesn't follow. If God is the only being that can do something then it would be true that only God can do that thing. A fact cannot be special pleading. Special pleading is when you ARBITRARILY assert that something is only true for one thing, or true for one thing but not another. "If you want to say I’m confused then explain what I’m confused about. Don’t just say it." - You don't understand what special pleading is.
Why does someone always have to ruin such important presentations with the "cutesy ", "clever" placing of flashing red lines around the speakers. Extremely distracting and annoying and certainly negates any reason for watching!!!
A really brilliant discussion and much needed. Thank you gentlemen! I do think it's problematic to posit that God can ever begin to exist in time (1:10:00). It would contradict the philosophical simplicity and perfect nature of God to enter into time since he cannot undergo change as regards his own being. I believe it can be solved if one were to make a distinction between his internal action of existence and his external works. The whole discussion really requires walking a very highly strung tightrope, a rope Thomas Aquinas lays out nicely. I would definitely recommend his material. However as one of the gentlemen pointed out, who and what God is is not really the point of the discussion, so in all fairness, the point of the conversation is very well taken. I do think it's an excellent spring board for a conversation on the why and how differences between Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. The variances, in my opinion, rest on differing conceptions of God.
What is the best rebuttal for the argument that Intelligent Design is not real science because it the lacks the ability for it's theory's to be ''tested'' ?
Why are infinite causal chains impossible? For this argument to stand, we have to have a reason why it must be the case that causal chains can only be finite in the past
First think of getting from here to a point infinitely far away. No matter how far you go, you will have farther to go to get there. Now turn it around. If there is no beginning of a causal chain because it is in an infinite past, then no matter how far you traverse the chain, you would never arrive at a fixed point on the chain. You cannot arrive “here” unless you started a finite distance away. There are other problems, too. For example, entropy would be preserved. That is, available energy would decrease with each cycle. Universes would last shorter times before collapsing, so, after just a few cycles, they wouldn’t get old enough for life to develop.
@@ricksonora6656 your analogy doesn’t hold. Imagine a person counting down all the natural numbers. Although the natural numbers are an infinitely large set, at any given moment after the individual starts counting, there are a finite number of natural numbers to count until they count them all. For your entropy objection, I understand entropy would be increasing monotonically, I don’t understand how that means after a few cycles, universes would not have enough usable energy to develop. Feel free to elaborate though
@@user-gv8xf9ul5j The problem with your first paragraph is that the counting down doesn’t start infinitely far from zero. No matter how far away you start counting, you could have started farther away. The moment you start counting down, you’ve chosen a point finitely far away. Whether you cross from infinitely far away to here, or cross from here to infinitely far away, traversing infinity is impossible. In any universe, entropy increases (energy becomes unavailable). In a succession of universes, entropy increases until insufficient energy remains to drive universe-making processes. It’s like going to a slot machine with 90% payout. On average, you win back $0.90 on the first dollar, then $0.81 on the winnings, and so on. After a while, the coins you have left are too small for the slot machine. Due to conservation of energy/entropy during the portion of the cycle where a universe dies and a new one generates, the series dies after a small number of cycles. So, and infinite regression of causes is impossible.
@@ricksonora6656 I understand increasing entropy, what I don’t understand is your statement that only a few successive universes could support life. I’m not sure how you could come to that conclusion. How did you come to the conclusion 90% of the energy would be available in the subsequent universe? If you have math to support it, I’d be happy if you shared. It can’t be the case that you would start at a finite number and count all the natural numbers, you would not be counting all of the natural numbers. It seems your first objection is based on intuition and not logic. If you can provide a proof to kill the possibility of a past infinite causal chain, I wouldn’t have anything to push back against. Your second objection may be valid, but it requires much more evidence to support
@@user-gv8xf9ul5j A universe with insufficient energy would not spread out enough or last long enough for life to come into existence on its own. According to some calculations, even this universe hasn’t existed long enough to beat the odds. (That’s one of the arguments for the necessity of a Creator.) 90% was an random number to help you understand the principle. And it rounded off actual casino odds, which, as I recall, was the analogy I used. I don’t remember the actual number calculated for the increase in entropy in this universe SO FAR. As long as the transmitted available energy is less than 100% (entropy increases), your going to have the same problem. The exact gain in entropy, the maximum limit that would inhibit new cycles, and the number of possible cycles in a chain of causes of universes is irrelevant. Plug in any realistic numbers you want and you will get the same result, a finite number of universes. Let’s try this, since you reject an intuitive description. (Yes, I’m extremely intuitive. According to standardized tests, I should have been a detective or writer instead of an aerospace engineer.) -Traversing requires a starting point and an end point. - The infinite past has no starting point. - Therefore, traversing from an infinitely remote past to now is impossible. Please don’t tell me the argument doesn’t work because I phrased it with time instead of with cause-effect events. A third argument turns entropy upside down. The conditions needed to generate a fine-tuned universe would have to exist in the Cause. The Cause would require generative conditions to produce its own fine tuning plus the fine tuning of the subsequent universe. The limit (uppercase sigma) of an infinite chain of such Causes would be infinite organization. At some point along the way toward infinite organization, some would say, the Cause would acquire sentience, colitis, etc. Combine those attributes with all power (omnipotent) and you get something we call “God.” Ockham would laugh at the way we keep kicking the cam down the road.
The best explanation for the red shift is actually the variable speed of light hypothesis that even Einstein wrote a bit about and which Alexander Unzicker discusses in "Einstein's Lost Key". The universe isn't rapidly expanding, but light, which we all agree can be bent by gravity, is slowed the longer it travels by the effect of the gravitational pull from the galaxies.
@@steverational8615 It's an alternate theory that explains the observation that light from distant galaxies is red-shifted. Rather than assuming that the speed of light is constant, the theory recognizes that Einstein's prediction that light is bent by gravity (as shown by gravitational lensing around large stars) is correct, and that thus the red-shift of light indicates that light has a variable speed that is caused by the effects of gravity. And therefore the universe is not quickly expanding (well, the galaxies are not necessarily rushing away from each other; obviously the edge of the universe, defined as the farthest reach of photons, is expanding at the [possibly variable, depending on gravitational effects] speed of light). The Big Bang theory of the universe's beginning takes as its basis the "fact" that the universe is expanding, based on the red-shift observation. If gravity slows light, then perhaps the universe isn't 13.8 billion years old after all, and is much older. That conclusion seems supported by the alleged size of the universe (93 billion light years in diameter - how does light travel 46.5 billion light years from the Big Bang Singularity in just 13.8 billion years? We forget that the expanding universe/Big Bang theory flipped physics on its head in the 50s and 60s. Anyway, the book I reference by Unzicker, "Einstein's Lost Key," explains this much better than I can.
@@Sharkman1963 I’ve barely got a handle on this. I think. First, gravity distorts space. Distortion of space alters light’s path, whereas gravity’s effect is only indirect. So, gravity doesn’t change light’s speed. Assuming it did for sake of argument, the masses past which light travels are both behind and in front of it. So, while some masses were slowing light, other masses would be accelerating it. The effects cancel. I don’t believe light travels farther than its age. We don’t see to the edge of the universe. The age of the universe limits our light horizon. The size in light years is greater than the age in years because space itself expanded rapidly at first and is still expanding. There are physics and astronomy channels on TH-cam that can explain it better and more accurately than I can.
@@ricksonora6656 Modern physics has made absolutely no progress in properly describing the universe for about 80 years because it postulates ridiculous things that are not true as metaphors to describe reality, because we don't understand the basic forces and how they work. Example: "Gravity distorts space . . ." No, space is not a thing. Space is emptiness, without a "fabric" that can be warped or affected by forces like gravity. Space contains within it particles and physical entities that gravity can act on, though we have no idea how the force of gravity or any other force can be transfered to a physical particle without that force actually touching the particle. Likewise, time is not a physical thing. It's a concept generated in human brains to help us understand the universe. Thus this idea that there is a "fabric of space-time" that is acted upon by the four fundamental forces is just wrong. Sure, as a way of visualizing things it makes a lot of esoteric math work, but as a true way of describing the universe that exists it is inaccurate. Gravitational lensing proves that gravity can physically (somehow, through "spooky action at a distance") affect light, which in turn shows that gravity can slow light down, and most likely can speed light up as well. Though the mass of the universe almost certainly causes light to slow down more often than speed it up. I'm not a physicist or even much of a math guy but I understand concepts, and I understand that modern physics is utterly broken. Postulating increasingly fantastic, untestable theories that are just ways of avoiding the need for honest physicists to get back to basics and rethink every single one of their most basic assumptions and theories, because what physics teaches now doesn't work, is not true and does not accurately describe the universe we live in. I suggest starting with Alexander Unzicker's book "Bankrupting Physics", then reading his "The Higgs Fake" and finally "Einstein's Lost Key". Unzicker explains all this a lot better than I can. And he's not alone. A lot of mainstream physicists think their profession is ridiculous and fantastical.
@@Sharkman1963 I think even most physicist agree that, even though the standard model, quantum mechanics and relativity are exceptionally precise in describing the natural world on our planet , physics is fundamentally broken. Theology on the other hand has made ZERO progress describing either the natural world, or the supernatural.
The mishnah, an ancient Hebrew commentary, written by ancient Hebrew people, on their own ancient Hebrew scripture, shows that they understood their Hebrew creation story to be a literal 7-Days. The same interpretation can be found in the Old Testament itself! I believe their interpretation over 21st century philosophers interpretation.
@@bayesianhulk Your video only talks about what early Christians believed. Not the ancient Jews of the Tannaitic period (300 BC - 200 AD). Unfortunately, by the third century, Christians were ignorant of most ancient Jewish practices and beliefs.
@@bayesianhulk If you would like, I can show you how the ancient Hebrews translated their own Hebrew and understood their literal 7-Day creation story, even in the times of of Jesus.
I have absolutely *enormous* respect to and love for these men. They are welcome in my home anytime! However, they are not the last word on Genesis 1 and a young earth. It is grossly unfair for Bill Craig to say young earthers are an embarrassment to Christianity. Why? It hasn't been established that a young earth is false. It's a matter of interpretation, and it's okay to disagree with these fine gentlemen on theological grounds. If you're going to say that God can do anything, then it can include a young earth. I do think that certain popular proponents of a young earth are doing a poor job with supporting arguments. There are others who argue better. It's just a shame that Bill Craig rejects the view so easily. Steve Meyer's view on Day 4 is born from his understanding of and interpretation of that passage. All I'm saying is it's not the last word. And I'll say it again - I just love these guys, and I have grown so much in my faith because of them. Okay, I'm done now!!!!
Craig knows that molecular genetics has destroyed the notion of an Adam and Eve narrative. He has been forced by the empirical evidence to alter his world view and is on record admitting as much. Which simultaneously debunks the young earth postulation.
The experience of a dream for a man is a mimicry of all causes that brought the man to a time and place being able to dream. It is evidence of a repetitious reason, you need to develop a good sound mind, and have time and experience to build up a Faith , that rewards you with a sweet dream, that you wish to last forever.. This is a self evidence self revealing truth of God. You are not a machine, you are really alive, so God is your Father.
Wondering how Stephen Meyer (and WLC) brings together his intelligent design thoughts with the old age of the earth. For instance, does he believe that primates were created, then later Adam and Eve? Usually I think of old earth as going with evolution, but he doesn’t believe evoluyoccurred
@@nsp74 ,...Yes, absolutely. The world has two Christianitys. One real, and one fake. One of God, and one of the Godless world. What the entire church sells as Christianity is the Godless worlds fake version. It is a counterfeit and a replacement for the Bibles real Christianity. The Bible calls the worlds/churches counterfeit version, antichrist. Actual Christianity is completely outside of everything called the church. These guys are all false teachers and sell/teach the apostate churches antichrist christianity. Do not continue to be deceived by them. Read the Bible yourself only and do not ever listen to anyone from any church, you will only be deceived.
It's good to remember that the goal of apologetics is not to increase our understanding of reality or to find "truth", rather it is finding and teaching arguments to defend the preconceived conclusion "god did it"
@@oscargr_ ,......Christianity is not being deceived by the Godless world. It is about understanding what is real and what is not real. Christianity is all about increasing our understanding from what is manmade fraud to what is reality. For example, no actual Christian is deceived by the Godless worlds/churches 100% fake manmade graven image of the spinning ball earth/globe. All actual Christians know, understand, hold to, and defend the Bibles stationary flat earth. Those few who belong to God/Jesus are not steeped in deception, those who do not belong to God/Jesus are those who are deceived. Anyone that does not know and understand that the earth is flat and stationary cannot possibly be a Christian, as their whole fake christianity is built on a manmade lie and deception. If the earth was a planet then there cannot be a God and the Bible cannot be anything but the fables of men.
I appreciate Craig's stern rebuke of YEC. The only serious YECer that I've come across is Jason Lisle. He's debated Hugh Ross several times, but I'd be curious to know of Craig's opinion on Lisle's cosmological/astrophysical arguments.
WF,.....Every single one of these guys are not Christians. They all have as their real religion the Godless worlds religion of scientism, everyone of them. Their Christianity is 100% fake.
@@bayesianhulk ,...Or I have given you the truth for your edification, and you like all those who fill all the 100% apostate churches do not want any truth? Also, how much of an abomination is it when one claiming to be a Christian receives actual Biblical truth and they call the one who has spoken truth to them ignorant or a liar? Is this not exactly what your Godless fathers did to Jesus?
@@Kenneth-ts7bp No, it's not. Even if the Big Bang theory isn't true, it wouldn't prove YEC or eliminate everything else. YEC is based on a myopic understanding of Genesis. They desperately seek to find so-called evidence and rationalization for evidence for a young Earth because of this interpretation. Having a different understanding of Genesis isn't a sin, but YECers often insinuate this as doubting the Bible and so forth.
Wow! One of my favorite discussions. As for time, AN Whitehead and Process Theology has proposed God as Di-polar, that God is BOTH eternal AND temporal. That's almost a no-brainer. I'm surprised Bill doesn't advance that. Clearly it's implied, I'd say.
"Whatever argument that is not God. We'll take that!" said the atheist. "it does not matter if it does not make any sense, we are used to it. Just add the word 'scientific' after the argument. We will cancel, silence, ban, shadow ban, and fire anyone who won't accept it because of their unbelief of the almighty science." added the atheist.
I really appreciate these men, they've all been so helpful. However I do have a problem with Bill Craig's proposition that God was a-time, becoming temporal from the point of creation. See comment at 109 minutes. Bill's answer would seem to suggest a fundamental change in the nature of God. It also seems to suggest that God, having a succession of thoughts would not be omniscient since he would have future thoughts that he presently does not know about.
Listened to a 4 hour lecture by Lawrence Krauss last night in which he somehow was inferring from the particularities of this moment in the universe as unstable and ultimately reverting back to static theories of the universe that somehow undoes the possibility of God. I don't understand this as well as he or you but I do find this demeanor fascinating. It seems he is so frustrated with what he views as certainty among theists that he generates his own form of certainty in opposition to them. Compare that to these guys who are so patient and seem uninterested in making arguments that are hinged upon reaction to other arguments and in my humble opinion in line with cosmological discoveries - I just don't understand Krauss' obstinance against hypotheticals and I find it hard to see how that is not rooted in a sort of resentment.
Thanks. The more we learn about the origins of the universe, the less credible philosophical materialism becomes. The inference to best conclusion is monotheism, at least.
Soli Deo Gloria! 2 Corinthians 4:6 “For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness ... of the knowledge of God's glory displayed in the face of Christ. Christ our Lord is the object of knowledge, the standard of knowledge and not only that our Lord Jehovah goes beyond mere knowledge but transform the soul to incline to His purpose. We believe to reason but not reason to believe... 'Knowledge is a deadly friend when no one set the rules' Christ set the rules. May we continue to study Him our Champion Lord Jesus who infuses us with zeal to study Him and what He has made. Big up fellows.
I was raised as a Christian. Therefore, I accepted the Gospels as historical records. However, what the Genesis narrative tells us of the beginning aligns differently with what science teaches. So, as a result, I accepted the story of creation on faith. Later, as an adult, I read a popular science magazine article about the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and how its data reveals that our Earth and solar system may be cosmically aligned. Then came the Planck satellite confirming the WMAP data. Could this be evidence that the book of Genesis is based on historical events? Perhaps, but unfortunately, I am not a scientist and can only understand about one percent of the science. Nevertheless, According to cosmologists, one thing is evident: the alignments somehow exist! Moreover, because the data does not fit the Standard Model of Cosmology, scientists dubbed it the Axis of Evil. But, according to Genesis, the alignments would be the Axis of Beginning. Why are theologians and scientists so silent concerning these alignments? Isn't it worth investigating? Could this data be relative to the book of Genesis, a possible cosmic model for Intelligent Design?
@@jamworthy14 not it doesn’t. A: the genealogies aren’t complete and they don’t add up to 6,000 B: Many people genesis’ theologically and not literally C: how you interpret Genesis (young or old earth) doesn’t matter as long as you believe in Jesus Christ.
I would love to see the panel pick up on what I would call the harmony/symmetry argument. We exist in a universe that displays unlikely harmony and symmetry between things and systems which can best be explained by a Omni Present loving GOD.
@@CCiPencil your faith isn’t in Jesus Christ. Your faith is in Christianities first converts that Paul described as “not wise by human standards”. You faith lies in the ability of these “not wise” to understand Paul’s claims and the world around them. Who did reject Paul? The wise, the teachers of the law, the well connected and the noble. Why? They saw the ploy of Paul and the other apostles. Believe our visions! Join our cult and pay the membership dues. And god will give you blessings. Thieves always target stupid people.
@@CCiPencil But Paul's writing confirms my claims. Your faith is based on the churches the apostles started. The people they targeted were stupid as Paul stated. Even today, the most vulnerable people, the elderly, get targeted again and again. The JW and LDS target poor neighborhoods and countries. Why? The less education and wealth the more susceptible people are. Its no wonder why Paul praised the Macedonians living in extreme poverty for giving beyond their means. When supposedly at the same time asking for money for the poor. The gospels came decades later. 2 of which plagiarizer Mark word for word and change theological problems as the cult develops.
Hahahahahaha! Amaaazing! Three Christian apologists, with the same confirmation bias, agreeing that the cosmological "argument" is "sound." Echo...echo...echo. This will go soooooo far to convince all the Christians who already believe it.
All throughout the Old Testament it is clear that the Israelites understood a literal 7-Day creation. Should I believe the ancient Israelite's interpretation of the Hebrew account of creation? Or 21st century philosophers opinions? Hmmm... 🤔
@@jamworthy14 Well, the two philosophers in this video are Christian. So it helps to know the views of their Jesus on his own Jewish literature. For example, if Jesus believed in a literal 7-Day creation, then why wouldn't Christians believe the same? Unless of course Christians are willing to admit Jesus was ignorant.
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth (matter) was without form, and void . . . Verse 9 & 10: And God said "Let the dry land appear. . . And God called the dry land Earth. If the earth was without form and void until dry land appeared and God called it Earth, how could we even measure a Day in the eyes of our Creator? Could be a billion years.
I am glad that God waited thirteen billion years, millions of years of suffering and death, and hundreds/thousands of years for science/philosophy to develop, and then the evolution from the corporeal storm god Yahweh to the philosophical OmniGod we have in this video, and then finally PhD programs to train a select few to finally understand him instead of just appearing, waving, and saying hello. Such fine tuning!
Just because you can't make sense of the moral or ethical dilemmas behind God's actions or inaction, does not make any argument about his existence true or false. You're literally complaining about a topic outside the scope of the argument, so perhaps you should consider that maybe you don't have a good reason to deny its truth?
“The corporeal storm god ‘Yahweh’” --I’m not saying no one anywhere holds to that concept, but in my now rather long corporeal existence, I have never come across anyone that holds that idea. So…… what putative god are you arguing with?
One can know God personally in this mystery we Christians call it faith. Faith inevitably tied to atoning work of Jesus Christ. It is a refuge place if you will, a stronghold one runs to and hides in. It is a place where one is shielded from God's righteous wrath towards our sin and those who do the sinning. If you want, God did show up in the person of Jesus Christ to save believers from wrath to come. If you're not hidden in Christ, you don't want God to be showing up
Theologians have traditionally done everything in reverse. They assumed that people believed that everything was created and then concentrated far too much on the rest. What atheists did was attach the underlying premise making the rest irrelevant to the point of being little more than a sick joke? The good news is that if the young can be persuaded that creation is even possible never mind essential the game changes almost instantly. What they assumed to be utterly impossible suddenly becomes at least possible. What is the point of spending hours upon hours preaching the gospels to someone who genuinely believes that this is all some kind of cosmic accident? You have a better chance of persuading a Stop Oil Cultist that CO2 is not a pollutant, but the gas of life itself, or that killing a few billion people is not the only way to save a few billion people.
I don’t think the Kalam Cosmological argument is a good argument Inspiring Philosophy adheres to the argument considering he has videos in which he gets into the definition of the word create used in the Bible Bara and it doesn’t mean Ex Nhilo. Video Title TOP TEN Biblical Problems for Young Earth Creationism skip too 15:03. The argument relies on intuition that things must come from nothing with no evidence it might be true but again no evidence.
@@ultramarinechaplain88 if you believe that your god made the earth and the solar system in millions of years then you are like him, a fraud, my God can do it in a blink of an eye if he wats to
God created Adam. God healed me miraculously, He can make the earth mature just like He made Adam mature. Science would and could not explain what God did for me and for many. We are not of the world. Unless God reveals how He created everything or we can observe it, we will not be able to get enough knowledge how He created it all. That is why He is called the Creator, and the Alpha and Omega. God's Word gave us the genology for a reason! Praise God that He made us not for the world, but the world for us, for we have dominion over it. Genesis 1:26-28 King James Version 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
I would never subscribe to an old earth in order to go along to get along with non believers. I see no compelling reasons, given what we don't know, to abandon a plain reading of the biblical genesis. Let me suggest these wise gentlemen are not that wise. They got jargon and hide behind math which appears as wisdom.
Origins debate superb however following the traditional uniformitarianist timeline us suboptimal and subpar. You cannot get these massive (physical) celestial objects nearing the edges of our known universe and fit them conveniently into the natural paradigm. It was instantaneous time is not a constant. Therefore, anything within the boundaries of physics/astrophysics measured by time including the speed of light is not a constant. Furthermore there are certain resonate wavelengths that can precede the synthesis/genesis of the physical universe, even further still these resonate frequencies came out from a supercedent faculty (i.e. God Yahweh Elohim Yodhe-Vodhe) and these oscillations traversed our supposed vacuum we call our univers. The universe is necessarily not a vacuum. And super-physical hyperbolic hyper-dimensional Soundwaves can penetrate a natural barrier such as a vacuum. As WLC joins the likes of Hugh Ross and his farcical OEC model. God does not need Billions of years to create absolute perfection. Please do not impose your OE naturalistic paradigm on a limitless creator. Dr. WLC because of your immense intelligence you are incapable of self-criticism and are therefore unknowingly placing naturalistic limitations on a supernatural Being.
The cosmological argument calls for a first cause but doesn't give a valid argument that points to a specific cause. That's when apologists assert their particular "god" but provide no evidence that exclusively points to their god of choice. It also equally points to the possibility of an undiscovered natural phenomenon as the first cause but apologists tend to conveniently ignore or dismiss that fact without intelligent consideration. Apologists only seem to consider evidence that conveniently backs up their unverifiable stories regardless even if their evidence doesn't align with reality.
Hi Reno. I would like to offer some clarifying thoughts. While it's true that some Christians will argue from a first cause directly to the Christian God, that is not what Bill or Steve is doing here. Starting at 1:00:08 Frank asks this same question that Bill answers ending at 1:01:16. To summarize, both the Kalam that Bill argues for and the Inference to the Best Explanation that Steve argues for is only to show that the universe had a beginning. Up until as recently as 1963, the majority view was that the universe was past eternal. In 1965, the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered confirming one of the key missing puzzle pieces to the beginning of the universe. That's all these arguments are demonstrating. Once the beginning of the universe has been established, then other pieces of evidence must be examined and other arguments developed for what could be the best candidate for the cause of the universe's beginning, which Steve Meyer does brilliantly in his book The Return of the God Hypothesis. His approach is to use abductive reasoning to establish what is the best hypothesis out of all competing hypotheses available. Once a theistic hypothesis has been argued for, then a survey and examination of the theistic world views can commence and from there the determination can be made which one best fits with the evidence.
everything that exists has a cause universe began to exist therefore universe has a cause. whats so hard to understand, only ignorance can deny this then if universe began the first point has to be a independent being , cause infinte regress. so believing in god is more rational then believing in science. cause you can only do observational science and we only have 5 senses.
Reno, I understand that this argument alone may not be enough to bow down on your knees and confess with your heart and mind that Jesus is your Lord now but be careful not to push God away out of some selfish reasons where you do not even want God to be real and therefore reject any argument for God's existence.
who said only this argument. there is only 1 argument they have agianst god which is naturalism which is an invalid argument. even i know 10 argument for gods existence.
After all this supposed highly scientific discussion, these three guys believe that the Creator of that Universe is Jesus, who came to Earth on a suicide mission to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself. That is how sophisticated they are.
Actually it's the ontological Son of God, meaning he's literally of the *God race* since he proceeded from his Father who *is* an immaterial & eternal Spirit: The Holy Spirit. Jesus is not God the Father, he's God the son. Proceeding of the same spiritual essence and nature of God. There is no 3rd person of a trinity. They are both of the God race and they are not the same person, but one in union and in relationship. Secondly, Yeshua became the sacrifice for the sin which brought aging, disease, and mortal and spiritual death into the world. Once the eyes of man/woman were opened and the knowledge of Good & *evil* was understood, through disobedience in the Garden, mankind could now practice evil such as hate, murder, rape, lying, sexual perversion, stelaing etc. Before their disobedience they had no knowledge of these things. Only the blood of the innocent could cover a fallen sinner and take away the due penalty for sin: death. The animal sacrifices practiced by the Israelites were all a shadows of what would become reality through the lamb of God, his Son Jesus Christ, who would shed his innocent blood for mankind to have the opportunity to be redeemed from sin and mortal and Spiritual death. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever will believe in him shall not perish, but have eternal life. So to correct your statement it should read: The eternal Spirit of the creator sent his Son into the world to give mankind the opportunity to be redeemed from mortal and spiritual death by the shedding of his blood.
If you want to see macroevolution in action try this experiment: Put 8 cats in a sack and throw the sack in the sea. When you retrieve it, “Viola!” A sack of octopus. So the lightning speed evolution posed by global flood theorists and Cambrian explosion exponents alike now have a demonstrable mechanism that has at least worked in this instance.
I love WLC, but he is absolutely wrong about God being in time. Time is what is created, not God. Time is in God, not God in time. So there is no time for God as God is the being of all reality and exists in God’s own infinite and eternal present. To put God in time makes God a creature or somehow subordinate to time. Classical theism remains the far better description of God’s being and nature.
Everything was created with age and matured. Evening and morning means just that. Adam wasn't an infant left on his own to survive. The more I listen to you guys the more I believe God confounded you.
I respect these men and their intelligence but they have imposed their scientific beliefs on God and their interpretation of scripture. God clearly defined the creation days on day one when he said after day and night was one day. The 1st verse doesn’t exist by itself but is part of day one as it continues in verse 2 with the word “and”. He then creates light and darkness. The worst thing is they completely ignore the reason God created the heavens and the earth. We are the reason for everything God did so why would God create something for us only to leave it sitting for billions of years. They are limiting God to their understanding. I hope that someone a leader in the faith challenges them.
Thank you for taking a strong stance against young earth creationism. I couldn't agree more that it's unbiblical and that it's a big and unnecessary obstacle for many people.
I’m Jewish, so I don’t share the exact apologetics, yet, William and Stephen are two of my favorite thinkers when it comes to revealing God in nature. I really appreciate the work they’ve done to expose the folly of those who chose to deny. To see them together is a blessing.
I thank God for their immense contributions…
Wow, can you set the bar any lower?
@@midlander4 .🤣🤣
@@midlander4 Apparently that was your charge. Mission accomplished.
True modern heroes of the faith, what a blessing it is to be able to live in the same space they do
We stand on the shoulders of giants. These two gentlemen are among them. Thank you for your thought provoking work!
The 1 thing I absolutely take away from these discussions is: I am nowhere near as smart as I think I am.
Thank you for this wonderful, wonderful discussion!!!! I am so grateful for these three gentlemen and their contributions to apologetics and the strengthening of my personal faith. What a treat to have all 3 together this evening. I will likely watch this a few times. My biggest take away when I hear Craig and Meyer is a renewed sense of wonder in the awesomeness of God the Creator. Bravo gentlemen!
Lol, what contributions? Only Craig has contributed to some extent. Turek and Meyer are a total embarrassment. Try some good theist philosophers like Richard Swinburne, Alexander Pruss, Peter Van Inwagen. Thank me later!
Loving willful ignorance eh?
@Gerard Moloney It looks like a little Christian got triggered!
I'm a muslim and I love your work Craig. (Also Frank)
Hope you are doing better now in turkey
@@katholischetheologiegeschi1319 thanks
One of the well-known apologists should write about which is greater.
For example, which is greater, a God who is lofty, or a god who is both lofty and deep?
A god who must choose between mercy and justice, or a god who is merciful while fulfilling justice?
A god who has unfulfilled need for relationship, or a god who has always had relationship?
A god who is limited by the universe, or a god who has such creative power that He can enter the universe three times simultaneously and exist alongside Himself?
I would ask such questions myself, but I am a nobody.
Can’t wait to dine with these guys in heaven
Don't you mean "in hell"?
My head hurts 1:05 of listening to this!!!
I love these conversations!
Also, skeptics often cite the words of David Hume as an objection to the proofs of the existence of God, so I think it would be advisable to provide answers to his objection.
"A great number of men join in building a house or a ship, in rearing a
city, in framing a commonwealth: why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?" (Dialogues)
Responses:
"And, to jump ahead a bit, there are two further problems with
polytheism as an explanation of the existence of not merely a universe but a universe governed throughout space and time by the same
natural laws .
If this order in the world is to be explained by many gods, then some
explanation is required for how and why they cooperate in producing
the same patterns of order throughout the universe. This becomes a
new datum requiring explanation for the same reason as the fact of
order itself. The need for further explanation ends when we postulate
one being who is the cause of the existence of all others, and the
simplest conceivable such-I urge-is God. And, further, the power
of polytheism to explain this order in the world is perhaps not as
great as that of theism. If there were more than one deity responsible
for the order of the universe, we would expect to see characteristic
marks of the handiwork of different deities in different parts of the
universe, just as we see different kinds of workmanship in the
different houses of a city. We would expect to find an inverse square
of law of gravitation obeyed in one part of the universe, and in
another part a law that was just short of being an inverse square
law-without the difference being explicable in terms of a more
general law." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God")
"If the
physical universe is the product of intelligent design, rather than
being a pure accident, it is more likely to be the handiwork of only
one rather than more than one intelligence. This is so for two broad
reasons. The first reason is the need for theoretical parsimony. In the
absence of any evidence for supposing the universe to be the handiwork of more than one intelligence rather than only one, then, faced
with a choice between supposing it the handiwork of one or of more
than one intelligent designer, we should choose to suppose it to be the
creation of only one. For it is not necessary to postulate more than
one to account for the phenomena in question. The second reason for
preferring the hypothesis of there being only one designer of the
universe to supposing more than one is that the general harmony and
uniformity of everything in the universe suggest that, should it be the
product of design, it is more likely to be the handiwork of a single
designer, rather than a plurality of designers who might have been
expected to have left in their joint product some trace of their plural
individualities." (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")
EPIC! 👏Triple slam! Deep stuff in digestible reasoning and logic.Loved it 🙏🙏🙏
Epic!! Thank you guys😁
if there was no money to be had in book sales there'd be no sign of these snakes
Dr. Craig is looking into origin of life research. I hope he comment on Dr. Tour critiques of it.
Designer argument or kalam cosmological argument is my best argument for god existence.thiesm is still win.
It merely elucidates the vacuity of your perspicacity.
When "the best" simply isn't good enough.
The Kalam argument is logical fallacy bingo.
And it isn't even an argument for the existence of god. At best it's an argument for a cause for the existence of the universe.
@@oscargr_ 😮😮😮😮i think you are right but we go to the philosophy,I think is the best argument.
new argument is from maths
My heroes on apologetics!
Your heroes are con artists, especially Turek and Meyer. Try some good theist philosophers like Richard Swinburne, Alexander Pruss.
Brilliant host. Bill and Stepehn just awesome
Love the conversation going from joking to deep discussion....👍
...and Stephen's support for the Zags! 🏀
If anybody knows that intro music track please reply
intellectual level of all 3 combined 🔥
Brilliant interview!!!
Thank you so much for the knowledge and research.
Thank you very much!
Does the BGV theorem hold for a young earth creationist worldview? Or is it only an old earth support?
The BGV theorem holds for any universe that is expanding ( if I remember right ). So it would hold for a young earth view as well , as long as the young earth view believes that while young , the universe is expanding
@@fievelnole thank you!
@@fievelnole The BVG theorem is pretty weak. All it says is new physics is needed to describe the past boundary. Inflationary physics is not sufficient. Also the quantum vacuum does not expand.
I appreciate that both Stephen Meyer and William Lane Craig employ the cosmological argument, though they each use a different form of the argument. Meyer frames his cosmological argument as an inference to the best explanation, whereas Craig frames his (Kalam) cosmological argument as a deductive argument. Also, Meyer is more reliant on the scientific evidence to infer a theistic explanation, whereas for Craig (as he says in the video) the scientific evidence is "icing on the cake" since his argument is a purely logical metaphysical argument (with scientific evidence playing a supporting rather than central role). In any case, what I appreciate about both men's approaches to the cosmological argument is what Meyer pointed out in the video: their approaches aren't mutually exclusive, but in fact complementary to one another. It's far better for intellectual discussion and consideration to have a fuller-orbed cosmological argument for theism than otherwise.
They're all lying for cash.
@@midlander4 So true.
Cool!
Just brilliant!
Dr Jason Lisle can defend young earth cosmology!
The Gen. creation was about 6k yrs ago.
CC,....But this means nothing, he still has nothing to do with the Bibles Christianity. He is an atheist and is 100% steeped in the atheist religion of scientism just like the guys in this video are.
@@seedsower678 Jason Lisle does most of his lectures in Christian church's. Are you saying all scientist practice scientism? All professing Christian scientist are fake? Can you clarify your opinion?
@@constructivecritique5191 ,...Yes, I know. This is because the churches real religion is scientism not the Bibles Christianity. The entire church is filled with atheists not Christians. Actual Christians are outside of the church not in it.
I would say it is possible for there to be a scientist that is a Christian, however this scientist would be 100% against everything scientism believes and teaches. He would likely not claim to be a scientist. Science (scientism) and Christianity are two 100% opposing religions.
If any Christian believes in anything science claims as it pertains to the cosmology of the earth, then they are not a Christian, they are in the false manmade ungodly religion of scientism. Anyone can claim anything, that means nothing.
@@constructivecritique5191 ,...Yes, I know. This is because the churches real religion is scientism not the Bibles Christianity. The entire church is filled with atheists not Christians. Actual Christians are outside of the church not in it.
I would say it is possible for there to be a scientist that is a Christian, however this scientist would be 100% against everything scientism believes and teaches. He would likely not claim to be a scientist. Science (scientism) and Christianity are two 100% opposing religions.
If any Christian believes in anything science claims as it pertains to the cosmology of the earth, then they are not a Christian, they are in the false manmade ungodly religion of scientism. Anyone can claim anything, that means nothing.
We stand on the shoulders of giants and these are two of them.
I love your work and it’s very much needed to get ppl back to God. But the Kalam cosmological argument was never forgotten to be brought back to the modern world. It’s in the Islamic theology tradition and is studied at several levels. I studied it from elementary school and after! Of course it gets more complicated as you progress through it but we never dropped the case.
1:08:55 😂😂 even best philosophers had a seizure figuring that question out 😂
when someone trying to figure gods infinite attributes 😂😂😂
Fascinating discussion, but is that a skull on William Lane Craig's bookshelf? Spooky! Lol
Everyone should have a memento mori. - RF Admin
Regarding 6 days of creation vs billions of years: MIT physicist Gerald Schroeder saying that at the begining each day really did reflect 24hour unit of time, but as the space began to expand and strach outward each unit by now has grown and expanded to reflect couple of billions of years each. So space/time continuum has been stratching ever since the initial point of creation
th-cam.com/video/mcvj6yBEfsM/w-d-xo.html
Or… the people who invented the creation myth believed that it was days… but were wrong.
@@ramigilneas9274 what do you think it was, how did it all happened?
What does Prof. Vilenkin when he says the universe came from nothing? Does he believe that it's uncaused? His point may be compatible with believing that God created the universe from nothing. When I write "nothing," I don't mean that word stands for building material. I mean that God creates something by merely wanting it to exist.
Re the 'red shift', any of you ever hear of Halton Arp? Or Prof Pierre Marie Robitaille?
I am an Atheist but respect Dr Graig
PH,...That is because he also is an atheist. All three of them are atheists.
@@shadowbannedforspeakingtru1436 deluded
@@paulhaynes3688 ,....I told you the truth.
@@shadowbannedforspeakingtru1436 Deluded
@@shadowbannedforspeakingtru1436 Dr Graig would dispute that
Fr. Seraphim Rose writes: "even the most mystical Fathers" such as St. Isaac the Syrian accepted without question the common understanding of the Church that the world was created "more or less" in 5,500 B.C. (Genesis, Creation and Early Man, p. 236).
Oh , but 'science' now says the earth and cosmos are much older than that. So we must reinterpret or mythologize Genesis to accommodate the science. - Most Modern evangelicals.
@@justifiedFaith209 why would God fool us into making the earth look very old but tell us it isn't in the Bible?
Your church Fathers can get their interpretations Wrong!
@@davidjanbaz7728
It's been a long while since I looked into all of it (my first apologetics books were the first two in the Answers in Genesis series that I read in middle school) but I believe the simple answers would be found in the fact that there was light before stars, and the impact that the Flood would have on the earth. If God has already revealed events that contribute to why the earth would seem older, He isn't fooling anyone.
The church fathers, also were convinced the Sun is circulating the earth.
It is OK to be wrong in these secondary issues and to grow up and realize that we were wrong and now we know better.
@@matthewcross7837 YEC is just bad interpretations of how God did create the Universe.
God isn't fooling anyone as the Biblical text is theological statements not a Scientific history textbook of creation.
Would it be accurate to say that God can create “something” out of “nothing” ?
Yes. That is what creatio ex nihilo is. Creation out of nothing.
@@jackplumbridge2704 so it’s special pleading and double standards then.
@@therick363 You seem confused.
@@jackplumbridge2704 not at all. If someone says god and only god…then it is special pleading and double standards.
If you want to say I’m confused then explain what I’m confused about. Don’t just say it.
@@therick363 "not at all. If someone says god and only god…then it is special pleading and double standards. " - That doesn't follow.
If God is the only being that can do something then it would be true that only God can do that thing.
A fact cannot be special pleading.
Special pleading is when you ARBITRARILY assert that something is only true for one thing, or true for one thing but not another.
"If you want to say I’m confused then explain what I’m confused about. Don’t just say it." - You don't understand what special pleading is.
Vilenkin (one of the people involved in that theorem) says on the topic of God that no cause is needed for the universe.
Why does someone always have to ruin such important presentations with the "cutesy ", "clever" placing of flashing red lines around the speakers. Extremely distracting and annoying and certainly negates any reason for watching!!!
A really brilliant discussion and much needed. Thank you gentlemen!
I do think it's problematic to posit that God can ever begin to exist in time (1:10:00). It would contradict the philosophical simplicity and perfect nature of God to enter into time since he cannot undergo change as regards his own being. I believe it can be solved if one were to make a distinction between his internal action of existence and his external works.
The whole discussion really requires walking a very highly strung tightrope, a rope Thomas Aquinas lays out nicely. I would definitely recommend his material. However as one of the gentlemen pointed out, who and what God is is not really the point of the discussion, so in all fairness, the point of the conversation is very well taken.
I do think it's an excellent spring board for a conversation on the why and how differences between Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. The variances, in my opinion, rest on differing conceptions of God.
What is the best rebuttal for the argument that Intelligent Design is not real science because it the lacks the ability for it's theory's to be ''tested'' ?
“And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.” Revelations 21:1
Why are infinite causal chains impossible? For this argument to stand, we have to have a reason why it must be the case that causal chains can only be finite in the past
First think of getting from here to a point infinitely far away. No matter how far you go, you will have farther to go to get there.
Now turn it around.
If there is no beginning of a causal chain because it is in an infinite past, then no matter how far you traverse the chain, you would never arrive at a fixed point on the chain.
You cannot arrive “here” unless you started a finite distance away.
There are other problems, too. For example, entropy would be preserved. That is, available energy would decrease with each cycle. Universes would last shorter times before collapsing, so, after just a few cycles, they wouldn’t get old enough for life to develop.
@@ricksonora6656 your analogy doesn’t hold. Imagine a person counting down all the natural numbers. Although the natural numbers are an infinitely large set, at any given moment after the individual starts counting, there are a finite number of natural numbers to count until they count them all.
For your entropy objection, I understand entropy would be increasing monotonically, I don’t understand how that means after a few cycles, universes would not have enough usable energy to develop. Feel free to elaborate though
@@user-gv8xf9ul5j The problem with your first paragraph is that the counting down doesn’t start infinitely far from zero. No matter how far away you start counting, you could have started farther away. The moment you start counting down, you’ve chosen a point finitely far away.
Whether you cross from infinitely far away to here, or cross from here to infinitely far away, traversing infinity is impossible.
In any universe, entropy increases (energy becomes unavailable). In a succession of universes, entropy increases until insufficient energy remains to drive universe-making processes.
It’s like going to a slot machine with 90% payout. On average, you win back $0.90 on the first dollar, then $0.81 on the winnings, and so on. After a while, the coins you have left are too small for the slot machine.
Due to conservation of energy/entropy during the portion of the cycle where a universe dies and a new one generates, the series dies after a small number of cycles. So, and infinite regression of causes is impossible.
@@ricksonora6656 I understand increasing entropy, what I don’t understand is your statement that only a few successive universes could support life. I’m not sure how you could come to that conclusion. How did you come to the conclusion 90% of the energy would be available in the subsequent universe? If you have math to support it, I’d be happy if you shared.
It can’t be the case that you would start at a finite number and count all the natural numbers, you would not be counting all of the natural numbers. It seems your first objection is based on intuition and not logic. If you can provide a proof to kill the possibility of a past infinite causal chain, I wouldn’t have anything to push back against. Your second objection may be valid, but it requires much more evidence to support
@@user-gv8xf9ul5j A universe with insufficient energy would not spread out enough or last long enough for life to come into existence on its own. According to some calculations, even this universe hasn’t existed long enough to beat the odds. (That’s one of the arguments for the necessity of a Creator.)
90% was an random number to help you understand the principle. And it rounded off actual casino odds, which, as I recall, was the analogy I used. I don’t remember the actual number calculated for the increase in entropy in this universe SO FAR. As long as the transmitted available energy is less than 100% (entropy increases), your going to have the same problem.
The exact gain in entropy, the maximum limit that would inhibit new cycles, and the number of possible cycles in a chain of causes of universes is irrelevant. Plug in any realistic numbers you want and you will get the same result, a finite number of universes.
Let’s try this, since you reject an intuitive description. (Yes, I’m extremely intuitive. According to standardized tests, I should have been a detective or writer instead of an aerospace engineer.)
-Traversing requires a starting point and an end point.
- The infinite past has no starting point.
- Therefore, traversing from an infinitely remote past to now is impossible.
Please don’t tell me the argument doesn’t work because I phrased it with time instead of with cause-effect events.
A third argument turns entropy upside down. The conditions needed to generate a fine-tuned universe would have to exist in the Cause. The Cause would require generative conditions to produce its own fine tuning plus the fine tuning of the subsequent universe. The limit (uppercase sigma) of an infinite chain of such Causes would be infinite organization. At some point along the way toward infinite organization, some would say, the Cause would acquire sentience, colitis, etc. Combine those attributes with all power (omnipotent) and you get something we call “God.”
Ockham would laugh at the way we keep kicking the cam down the road.
The best explanation for the red shift is actually the variable speed of light hypothesis that even Einstein wrote a bit about and which Alexander Unzicker discusses in "Einstein's Lost Key". The universe isn't rapidly expanding, but light, which we all agree can be bent by gravity, is slowed the longer it travels by the effect of the gravitational pull from the galaxies.
Interesting theory. Is it based on any observed data?
@@steverational8615 It's an alternate theory that explains the observation that light from distant galaxies is red-shifted. Rather than assuming that the speed of light is constant, the theory recognizes that Einstein's prediction that light is bent by gravity (as shown by gravitational lensing around large stars) is correct, and that thus the red-shift of light indicates that light has a variable speed that is caused by the effects of gravity. And therefore the universe is not quickly expanding (well, the galaxies are not necessarily rushing away from each other; obviously the edge of the universe, defined as the farthest reach of photons, is expanding at the [possibly variable, depending on gravitational effects] speed of light). The Big Bang theory of the universe's beginning takes as its basis the "fact" that the universe is expanding, based on the red-shift observation.
If gravity slows light, then perhaps the universe isn't 13.8 billion years old after all, and is much older. That conclusion seems supported by the alleged size of the universe (93 billion light years in diameter - how does light travel 46.5 billion light years from the Big Bang Singularity in just 13.8 billion years?
We forget that the expanding universe/Big Bang theory flipped physics on its head in the 50s and 60s. Anyway, the book I reference by Unzicker, "Einstein's Lost Key," explains this much better than I can.
@@Sharkman1963 I’ve barely got a handle on this. I think. First, gravity distorts space. Distortion of space alters light’s path, whereas gravity’s effect is only indirect. So, gravity doesn’t change light’s speed.
Assuming it did for sake of argument, the masses past which light travels are both behind and in front of it. So, while some masses were slowing light, other masses would be accelerating it. The effects cancel.
I don’t believe light travels farther than its age. We don’t see to the edge of the universe. The age of the universe limits our light horizon. The size in light years is greater than the age in years because space itself expanded rapidly at first and is still expanding.
There are physics and astronomy channels on TH-cam that can explain it better and more accurately than I can.
@@ricksonora6656 Modern physics has made absolutely no progress in properly describing the universe for about 80 years because it postulates ridiculous things that are not true as metaphors to describe reality, because we don't understand the basic forces and how they work. Example: "Gravity distorts space . . ." No, space is not a thing. Space is emptiness, without a "fabric" that can be warped or affected by forces like gravity. Space contains within it particles and physical entities that gravity can act on, though we have no idea how the force of gravity or any other force can be transfered to a physical particle without that force actually touching the particle.
Likewise, time is not a physical thing. It's a concept generated in human brains to help us understand the universe. Thus this idea that there is a "fabric of space-time" that is acted upon by the four fundamental forces is just wrong. Sure, as a way of visualizing things it makes a lot of esoteric math work, but as a true way of describing the universe that exists it is inaccurate.
Gravitational lensing proves that gravity can physically (somehow, through "spooky action at a distance") affect light, which in turn shows that gravity can slow light down, and most likely can speed light up as well. Though the mass of the universe almost certainly causes light to slow down more often than speed it up.
I'm not a physicist or even much of a math guy but I understand concepts, and I understand that modern physics is utterly broken. Postulating increasingly fantastic, untestable theories that are just ways of avoiding the need for honest physicists to get back to basics and rethink every single one of their most basic assumptions and theories, because what physics teaches now doesn't work, is not true and does not accurately describe the universe we live in. I suggest starting with Alexander Unzicker's book "Bankrupting Physics", then reading his "The Higgs Fake" and finally "Einstein's Lost Key".
Unzicker explains all this a lot better than I can. And he's not alone. A lot of mainstream physicists think their profession is ridiculous and fantastical.
@@Sharkman1963 I think even most physicist agree that, even though the standard model, quantum mechanics and relativity are exceptionally precise in describing the natural world on our planet , physics is fundamentally broken.
Theology on the other hand has made ZERO progress describing either the natural world, or the supernatural.
Fantastic book, thank you❤
The mishnah, an ancient Hebrew commentary, written by ancient Hebrew people, on their own ancient Hebrew scripture, shows that they understood their Hebrew creation story to be a literal 7-Days. The same interpretation can be found in the Old Testament itself! I believe their interpretation over 21st century philosophers interpretation.
th-cam.com/video/RLcNTAi0Cw4/w-d-xo.html
@@bayesianhulk Your video only talks about what early Christians believed. Not the ancient Jews of the Tannaitic period (300 BC - 200 AD). Unfortunately, by the third century, Christians were ignorant of most ancient Jewish practices and beliefs.
@@bayesianhulk If you would like, I can show you how the ancient Hebrews translated their own Hebrew and understood their literal 7-Day creation story, even in the times of of Jesus.
I have absolutely *enormous* respect to and love for these men. They are welcome in my home anytime! However, they are not the last word on Genesis 1 and a young earth. It is grossly unfair for Bill Craig to say young earthers are an embarrassment to Christianity. Why? It hasn't been established that a young earth is false. It's a matter of interpretation, and it's okay to disagree with these fine gentlemen on theological grounds.
If you're going to say that God can do anything, then it can include a young earth. I do think that certain popular proponents of a young earth are doing a poor job with supporting arguments. There are others who argue better. It's just a shame that Bill Craig rejects the view so easily.
Steve Meyer's view on Day 4 is born from his understanding of and interpretation of that passage. All I'm saying is it's not the last word.
And I'll say it again - I just love these guys, and I have grown so much in my faith because of them. Okay, I'm done now!!!!
Craig knows that molecular genetics has destroyed the notion of an Adam and Eve narrative. He has been forced by the empirical evidence to alter his world view and is on record admitting as much. Which simultaneously debunks the young earth postulation.
The experience of a dream for a man is a mimicry of all causes that brought the man to a time and place being able to dream. It is evidence of a repetitious reason, you need to develop a good sound mind, and have time and experience to build up a Faith , that rewards you with a sweet dream, that you wish to last forever.. This is a self evidence self revealing truth of God. You are not a machine, you are really alive, so God is your Father.
Wondering how Stephen Meyer (and WLC) brings together his intelligent design thoughts with the old age of the earth. For instance, does he believe that primates were created, then later Adam and Eve? Usually I think of old earth as going with evolution, but he doesn’t believe evoluyoccurred
Don't recent James Webb observations significantly undermine Red Shift theory?
On thursday there will be a conversation between Craig, Mullins and Scmid about God and time.
3 giants of Christian apologetics
JP,....Three giant frauds. These men are not Christians.
@@shadowbannedforspeakingtru1436 may I know why?
@@nsp74 ,...Yes, absolutely. The world has two Christianitys. One real, and one fake. One of God, and one of the Godless world. What the entire church sells as Christianity is the Godless worlds fake version. It is a counterfeit and a replacement for the Bibles real Christianity. The Bible calls the worlds/churches counterfeit version, antichrist.
Actual Christianity is completely outside of everything called the church. These guys are all false teachers and sell/teach the apostate churches antichrist christianity. Do not continue to be deceived by them. Read the Bible yourself only and do not ever listen to anyone from any church, you will only be deceived.
It's good to remember that the goal of apologetics is not to increase our understanding of reality or to find "truth", rather it is finding and teaching arguments to defend the preconceived conclusion "god did it"
@@oscargr_ ,......Christianity is not being deceived by the Godless world. It is about understanding what is real and what is not real. Christianity is all about increasing our understanding from what is manmade fraud to what is reality.
For example, no actual Christian is deceived by the Godless worlds/churches 100% fake manmade graven image of the spinning ball earth/globe. All actual Christians know, understand, hold to, and defend the Bibles stationary flat earth. Those few who belong to God/Jesus are not steeped in deception, those who do not belong to God/Jesus are those who are deceived.
Anyone that does not know and understand that the earth is flat and stationary cannot possibly be a Christian, as their whole fake christianity is built on a manmade lie and deception. If the earth was a planet then there cannot be a God and the Bible cannot be anything but the fables of men.
I appreciate Craig's stern rebuke of YEC. The only serious YECer that I've come across is Jason Lisle. He's debated Hugh Ross several times, but I'd be curious to know of Craig's opinion on Lisle's cosmological/astrophysical arguments.
WF,.....Every single one of these guys are not Christians. They all have as their real religion the Godless worlds religion of scientism, everyone of them. Their Christianity is 100% fake.
@@seedsower678 You're either ignorant or lying.
@@bayesianhulk ,...Or I have given you the truth for your edification, and you like all those who fill all the 100% apostate churches do not want any truth?
Also, how much of an abomination is it when one claiming to be a Christian receives actual Biblical truth and they call the one who has spoken truth to them ignorant or a liar? Is this not exactly what your Godless fathers did to Jesus?
YEC is the only plausible argument. The big bang is purely a theistic postulate with no support within physics.
@@Kenneth-ts7bp No, it's not. Even if the Big Bang theory isn't true, it wouldn't prove YEC or eliminate everything else. YEC is based on a myopic understanding of Genesis. They desperately seek to find so-called evidence and rationalization for evidence for a young Earth because of this interpretation. Having a different understanding of Genesis isn't a sin, but YECers often insinuate this as doubting the Bible and so forth.
Wow! One of my favorite discussions. As for time, AN Whitehead and Process Theology has proposed God as Di-polar, that God is BOTH eternal AND temporal. That's almost a no-brainer. I'm surprised Bill doesn't advance that. Clearly it's implied, I'd say.
"Whatever argument that is not God. We'll take that!" said the atheist.
"it does not matter if it does not make any sense, we are used to it. Just add the word 'scientific' after the argument. We will cancel, silence, ban, shadow ban, and fire anyone who won't accept it because of their unbelief of the almighty science." added the atheist.
I really appreciate these men, they've all been so helpful. However I do have a problem with Bill Craig's proposition that God was a-time, becoming temporal from the point of creation. See comment at 109 minutes. Bill's answer would seem to suggest a fundamental change in the nature of God. It also seems to suggest that God, having a succession of thoughts would not be omniscient since he would have future thoughts that he presently does not know about.
Listened to a 4 hour lecture by Lawrence Krauss last night in which he somehow was inferring from the particularities of this moment in the universe as unstable and ultimately reverting back to static theories of the universe that somehow undoes the possibility of God. I don't understand this as well as he or you but I do find this demeanor fascinating. It seems he is so frustrated with what he views as certainty among theists that he generates his own form of certainty in opposition to them. Compare that to these guys who are so patient and seem uninterested in making arguments that are hinged upon reaction to other arguments and in my humble opinion in line with cosmological discoveries - I just don't understand Krauss' obstinance against hypotheticals and I find it hard to see how that is not rooted in a sort of resentment.
Thank God for these incredible men!
Which god? Zeus?
Incredible is a very good adjective here. 😅
great to see these scholars together
Thanks. The more we learn about the origins of the universe, the less credible philosophical materialism becomes. The inference to best conclusion is monotheism, at least.
Such EXCELLENT PROOFS !!!!! Thnx INFINITELY !
Xtian nutcase CAPS
Soli Deo Gloria! 2 Corinthians 4:6 “For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness ... of the knowledge of God's glory displayed in the face of Christ.
Christ our Lord is the object of knowledge, the standard of knowledge and not only that our Lord Jehovah goes beyond mere knowledge but transform the soul to incline to His purpose. We believe to reason but not reason to believe... 'Knowledge is a deadly friend when no one set the rules' Christ set the rules. May we continue to study Him our Champion Lord Jesus who infuses us with zeal to study Him and what He has made. Big up fellows.
more of these heavyweight panels! great session!
Three creepy book salesmen 🤮
Finitude of the future is only a problem if you deny a future Re-Creation of the Heavens and the Earth.
I was raised as a Christian. Therefore, I accepted the Gospels as historical records. However, what the Genesis narrative tells us of the beginning aligns differently with what science teaches. So, as a result, I accepted the story of creation on faith. Later, as an adult, I read a popular science magazine article about the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and how its data reveals that our Earth and solar system may be cosmically aligned. Then came the Planck satellite confirming the WMAP data. Could this be evidence that the book of Genesis is based on historical events? Perhaps, but unfortunately, I am not a scientist and can only understand about one percent of the science. Nevertheless, According to cosmologists, one thing is evident: the alignments somehow exist! Moreover, because the data does not fit the Standard Model of Cosmology, scientists dubbed it the Axis of Evil. But, according to Genesis, the alignments would be the Axis of Beginning.
Why are theologians and scientists so silent concerning these alignments? Isn't it worth investigating? Could this data be relative to the book of Genesis, a possible cosmic model for Intelligent Design?
whAT ALIGNMENT, according to bible universe is 6000 years old. what model does genesis give?
@@jamworthy14 not it doesn’t. A: the genealogies aren’t complete and they don’t add up to 6,000
B: Many people genesis’ theologically and not literally
C: how you interpret Genesis (young or old earth) doesn’t matter as long as you believe in Jesus Christ.
I would love to see the panel pick up on what I would call the harmony/symmetry argument.
We exist in a universe that displays unlikely harmony and symmetry between things and systems which can best be explained by a Omni Present loving GOD.
God did it. Yup. God is answer. The wrong answer.
@@rogermills2467 incredible rebuttal. The more atheist speak, the more firm my faith in Jesus Christ becomes
@@CCiPencil your faith isn’t in Jesus Christ. Your faith is in Christianities first converts that Paul described as “not wise by human standards”. You faith lies in the ability of these “not wise” to understand Paul’s claims and the world around them. Who did reject Paul? The wise, the teachers of the law, the well connected and the noble. Why? They saw the ploy of Paul and the other apostles. Believe our visions! Join our cult and pay the membership dues. And god will give you blessings. Thieves always target stupid people.
@@rogermills2467 fyi Paul didn’t write the Gospels or the letters by Peter, John, and James
@@CCiPencil But Paul's writing confirms my claims. Your faith is based on the churches the apostles started. The people they targeted were stupid as Paul stated. Even today, the most vulnerable people, the elderly, get targeted again and again. The JW and LDS target poor neighborhoods and countries. Why? The less education and wealth the more susceptible people are. Its no wonder why Paul praised the Macedonians living in extreme poverty for giving beyond their means. When supposedly at the same time asking for money for the poor. The gospels came decades later. 2 of which plagiarizer Mark word for word and change theological problems as the cult develops.
Genenis acct is a poetic story. Not a treatise in science. There is truth in this story. But dont use it for answers to your chemistry exam.
Hahahahahaha! Amaaazing! Three Christian apologists, with the same confirmation bias, agreeing that the cosmological "argument" is "sound." Echo...echo...echo. This will go soooooo far to convince all the Christians who already believe it.
BTW, most of these contemporary physical models of the universe were all postulated in seminal form by the ancient Greeks.
Best cross over ever!
All throughout the Old Testament it is clear that the Israelites understood a literal 7-Day creation. Should I believe the ancient Israelite's interpretation of the Hebrew account of creation? Or 21st century philosophers opinions? Hmmm... 🤔
i would rather listen to ancient philosophers than the so called modern. there is only lies they tell you.
@@jamworthy14 When it comes to interpreting Hebrew scripture, the ancient Hebrews of Jesus' day obviously had an upper hand.
@@KingJames-xs1tp i am talking aboutphilosophy, what is ur point even. where did jesus come from lol. i am not a christian. lmao
@@jamworthy14 Well, the two philosophers in this video are Christian. So it helps to know the views of their Jesus on his own Jewish literature. For example, if Jesus believed in a literal 7-Day creation, then why wouldn't Christians believe the same? Unless of course Christians are willing to admit Jesus was ignorant.
@@KingJames-xs1tp Christians are stupid. They don't know anything. They don't read Bible. They say Jesus is god stupid
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth (matter) was without form, and void . . .
Verse 9 & 10: And God said "Let the dry land appear. . . And God called the dry land Earth.
If the earth was without form and void until dry land appeared and God called it Earth, how could we even measure a Day in the eyes of our Creator? Could be a billion years.
Debunking atheistic foolish arguments!
I am glad that God waited thirteen billion years, millions of years of suffering and death, and hundreds/thousands of years for science/philosophy to develop, and then the evolution from the corporeal storm god Yahweh to the philosophical OmniGod we have in this video, and then finally PhD programs to train a select few to finally understand him instead of just appearing, waving, and saying hello. Such fine tuning!
Just because you can't make sense of the moral or ethical dilemmas behind God's actions or inaction, does not make any argument about his existence true or false. You're literally complaining about a topic outside the scope of the argument, so perhaps you should consider that maybe you don't have a good reason to deny its truth?
Excellent
“The corporeal storm god ‘Yahweh’” --I’m not saying no one anywhere holds to that concept, but in my now rather long corporeal existence, I have never come across anyone that holds that idea. So…… what putative god are you arguing with?
One can know God personally in this mystery we Christians call it faith. Faith inevitably tied to atoning work of Jesus Christ. It is a refuge place if you will, a stronghold one runs to and hides in. It is a place where one is shielded from God's righteous wrath towards our sin and those who do the sinning.
If you want, God did show up in the person of Jesus Christ to save believers from wrath to come. If you're not hidden in Christ, you don't want God to be showing up
@@nickverbitsky5425 Bla bla bla make believe woo woo nonsense. Say hello to all your invisible undectectable friends for me
Dr. Hovind has debated 256 times. He believes that he was victorious in every encounter....
Theologians have traditionally done everything in reverse. They assumed that people believed that everything was created and then concentrated far too much on the rest. What atheists did was attach the underlying premise making the rest irrelevant to the point of being little more than a sick joke? The good news is that if the young can be persuaded that creation is even possible never mind essential the game changes almost instantly. What they assumed to be utterly impossible suddenly becomes at least possible. What is the point of spending hours upon hours preaching the gospels to someone who genuinely believes that this is all some kind of cosmic accident? You have a better chance of persuading a Stop Oil Cultist that CO2 is not a pollutant, but the gas of life itself, or that killing a few billion people is not the only way to save a few billion people.
I don’t think the Kalam Cosmological argument is a good argument Inspiring Philosophy adheres to the argument considering he has videos in which he gets into the definition of the word create used in the Bible Bara and it doesn’t mean Ex Nhilo. Video Title TOP TEN Biblical Problems for Young Earth Creationism skip too 15:03. The argument relies on intuition that things must come from nothing with no evidence it might be true but again no evidence.
This is not about the three amigos is about the thee mafiosos lucratives
"I saw satan fall as lightning"
Stephen meyer and william craig together?? Just needed hugh ross and it would have been perfect
Hugh Ross is a moron don't include that crazy man here
@@leo-zr5zs why is he crazy?
@@ultramarinechaplain88 know him well first then come back
@@leo-zr5zs i have been following his work for 9 years and have yet to see anything thats remotely crazy
@@ultramarinechaplain88 if you believe that your god made the earth and the solar system in millions of years then you are like him, a fraud, my God can do it in a blink of an eye if he wats to
God created Adam. God healed me miraculously, He can make the earth mature just like He made Adam mature. Science would and could not explain what God did for me and for many. We are not of the world. Unless God reveals how He created everything or we can observe it, we will not be able to get enough knowledge how He created it all. That is why He is called the Creator, and the Alpha and Omega.
God's Word gave us the genology for a reason! Praise God that He made us not for the world, but the world for us, for we have dominion over it.
Genesis 1:26-28
King James Version
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
I would never subscribe to an old earth in order to go along to get along with non believers. I see no compelling reasons, given what we don't know, to abandon a plain reading of the biblical genesis.
Let me suggest these wise gentlemen are not that wise. They got jargon and hide behind math which appears as wisdom.
It wasn't "sound" to begin with....
WLC came out swinging against the 6,000 year old earth belief.
TLDW: No. Because it never was.
Exactly…
It’s like an Atheist would make a video with the title: Is Mythicism still the most rational view?
Origins debate superb however following the traditional uniformitarianist timeline us suboptimal and subpar. You cannot get these massive (physical) celestial objects nearing the edges of our known universe and fit them conveniently into the natural paradigm. It was instantaneous time is not a constant. Therefore, anything within the boundaries of physics/astrophysics measured by time including the speed of light is not a constant. Furthermore there are certain resonate wavelengths that can precede the synthesis/genesis of the physical universe, even further still these resonate frequencies came out from a supercedent faculty (i.e. God Yahweh Elohim Yodhe-Vodhe) and these oscillations traversed our supposed vacuum we call our univers. The universe is necessarily not a vacuum. And super-physical hyperbolic hyper-dimensional Soundwaves can penetrate a natural barrier such as a vacuum. As WLC joins the likes of Hugh Ross and his farcical OEC model. God does not need Billions of years to create absolute perfection. Please do not impose your OE naturalistic paradigm on a limitless creator. Dr. WLC because of your immense intelligence you are incapable of self-criticism and are therefore unknowingly placing naturalistic limitations on a supernatural Being.
I wanna see Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. John Lennox, Dr. Hugh Ross, and Dr. Stephen C. Meyer on ''Is the Cosmological Argument Still Sound?” 🤓🤓🤓🤓
The cosmological argument calls for a first cause but doesn't give a valid argument that points to a specific cause. That's when apologists assert their particular "god" but provide no evidence that exclusively points to their god of choice. It also equally points to the possibility of an undiscovered natural phenomenon as the first cause but apologists tend to conveniently ignore or dismiss that fact without intelligent consideration. Apologists only seem to consider evidence that conveniently backs up their unverifiable stories regardless even if their evidence doesn't align with reality.
Hi Reno. I would like to offer some clarifying thoughts. While it's true that some Christians will argue from a first cause directly to the Christian God, that is not what Bill or Steve is doing here. Starting at 1:00:08 Frank asks this same question that Bill answers ending at 1:01:16. To summarize, both the Kalam that Bill argues for and the Inference to the Best Explanation that Steve argues for is only to show that the universe had a beginning. Up until as recently as 1963, the majority view was that the universe was past eternal. In 1965, the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered confirming one of the key missing puzzle pieces to the beginning of the universe. That's all these arguments are demonstrating. Once the beginning of the universe has been established, then other pieces of evidence must be examined and other arguments developed for what could be the best candidate for the cause of the universe's beginning, which Steve Meyer does brilliantly in his book The Return of the God Hypothesis. His approach is to use abductive reasoning to establish what is the best hypothesis out of all competing hypotheses available. Once a theistic hypothesis has been argued for, then a survey and examination of the theistic world views can commence and from there the determination can be made which one best fits with the evidence.
everything that exists has a cause
universe began to exist
therefore universe has a cause. whats so hard to understand, only ignorance can deny this
then if universe began the first point has to be a independent being , cause infinte regress. so believing in god is more rational then believing in science. cause you can only do observational science and we only have 5 senses.
Reno, I understand that this argument alone may not be enough to bow down on your knees and confess with your heart and mind that Jesus is your Lord now but be careful not to push God away out of some selfish reasons where you do not even want God to be real and therefore reject any argument for God's existence.
who said only this argument. there is only 1 argument they have agianst god which is naturalism which is an invalid argument. even i know 10 argument for gods existence.
@@nikokapanen82 they will never listen, they are stupid.
After all this supposed highly scientific discussion, these three guys believe that the Creator of that Universe is Jesus, who came to Earth on a suicide mission to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself.
That is how sophisticated they are.
Actually it's the ontological Son of God, meaning he's literally of the *God race* since he proceeded from his Father who *is* an immaterial & eternal Spirit: The Holy Spirit. Jesus is not God the Father, he's God the son. Proceeding of the same spiritual essence and nature of God. There is no 3rd person of a trinity. They are both of the God race and they are not the same person, but one in union and in relationship.
Secondly, Yeshua became the sacrifice for the sin which brought aging, disease, and mortal and spiritual death into the world. Once the eyes of man/woman were opened and the knowledge of Good & *evil* was understood, through disobedience in the Garden, mankind could now practice evil such as hate, murder, rape, lying, sexual perversion, stelaing etc. Before their disobedience they had no knowledge of these things.
Only the blood of the innocent could cover a fallen sinner and take away the due penalty for sin: death. The animal sacrifices practiced by the Israelites were all a shadows of what would become reality through the lamb of God, his Son Jesus Christ, who would shed his innocent blood for mankind to have the opportunity to be redeemed from sin and mortal and Spiritual death. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever will believe in him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
So to correct your statement it should read: The eternal Spirit of the creator sent his Son into the world to give mankind the opportunity to be redeemed from mortal and spiritual death by the shedding of his blood.
Baked Alaska in the chat!?
??
Someone with that username, at any rate.
Watch DR Kent Hovind age of the Earth on TH-cam
If you want to see macroevolution in action try this experiment:
Put 8 cats in a sack and throw the sack in the sea.
When you retrieve it, “Viola!” A sack of octopus.
So the lightning speed evolution posed by global flood theorists and Cambrian explosion exponents alike now have a demonstrable mechanism that has at least worked in this instance.
U make atheists so ! Proud
@@davidjanbaz7728 That person is an atheist?
But cats have 4 legs. 8x4=32.
Wow, this whole thread is remarkably worthless trash.
The obvious difference is that the Cambrian Explosion took 50 million years… and when it ended there were still no land animals.😂
Hard to choose which one of these three charlatans is the biggest liar.
I love WLC, but he is absolutely wrong about God being in time. Time is what is created, not God. Time is in God, not God in time. So there is no time for God as God is the being of all reality and exists in God’s own infinite and eternal present.
To put God in time makes God a creature or somehow subordinate to time.
Classical theism remains the far better description of God’s being and nature.
Everything was created with age and matured. Evening and morning means just that. Adam wasn't an infant left on his own to survive. The more I listen to you guys the more I believe God confounded you.
It never was sound.
I respect these men and their intelligence but they have imposed their scientific beliefs on God and their interpretation of scripture. God clearly defined the creation days on day one when he said after day and night was one day. The 1st verse doesn’t exist by itself but is part of day one as it continues in verse 2 with the word “and”. He then creates light and darkness. The worst thing is they completely ignore the reason God created the heavens and the earth. We are the reason for everything God did so why would God create something for us only to leave it sitting for billions of years. They are limiting God to their understanding. I hope that someone a leader in the faith challenges them.
Too bad that our Universe probably didn't have a beginning.
Thank you for taking a strong stance against young earth creationism. I couldn't agree more that it's unbiblical and that it's a big and unnecessary obstacle for many people.