@decemberbenjamin And after you explained the origin of those artifacts, would you need another explanation to explain your explanation? Please explain....
One problem with the lost tribe scenario is that the items that were found are items that we have never seen occur in nature. We've never seen naturally occuring clay pots or naturally occuring machinery. So we're not just assuming they have a designer, we're using our previous experience specific to the items in question. A tree is a profoundly complex thing with bark and leaves and branches and roots, far more so than a spoon, but we don't assume someone built the tree as we do the spoon.
@TinyFire1 Who said anything about stopping?? Craig specifically said that these were good subjects for "further inquiry". Did you not watch the video at all? His point isn't that we stop looking for further explanation. It's that we don't reject a good explanation just because we don't YET have an explanation of that explanation. Like the civilization in his analogy. We wouldn't reject them as an explanation off-hand, just because we haven't YET fully explained them.
D: One can not do anything without information E: One can not exist without informational value F: One can not think without information G: One can not even know one's self exists without information H: One can not reply, respond, or react without information
I cant believe the negative reaction to Criags assertion on the over anyalizing of the infinite regress in explination. Hes right! After a certain point the atheist argument halts, where they shrug their sholders and say, "we dont know". Yet they lash out at theists who say, we do know. Granted many theists use God to fill the gaps, but that does not conclude their statment is false, only their method of obtaining their conclusion. Craig uses logic as sufficient evidence for his conclusions
As always I enjoy listening/reading Dr Craig. I am new to youtube and loving getting hold of some of the information here, I particularly enjoy reading the post film comments/debates. One thing that is very apparent though is this, I notice that atheists seem to be very quick to attempt to criticise and ridicule Dr Craig and others, yet they never offer a sound intelligent rebuttal or indeed an explanation of their own understanding.....why is that?
@mike Previously you inferred I needed to define these particles I was talking about. I quote "YOUR the one who is saying that quantum particles (of which you've not even defined).." Now if I asked you to define this personal god would you? Do you think the question is pertinent to this argument. If a god is posited as the great beginner should we be able to define this being?
@Chinchilla7Man Craig's logic is perfectly sound in this video. He gave two good examples that were counter-proofs against Dawkins' argument, namely: If you insist that this complex Universe had a creator than you must answer who created the creator, etc. Dawkins says some version of thish argument all the time. Craig showed that that is an illogical argument. He also shows that the Creator is by no means more complex than its creations. What's missing in his logic?
"His argument on "you don't need to explain the explanation" is just wrong." Nice straw man:-) Craigs argument is : In order to recognize the explanation as the best you do not not to explain explanation before hand.
Let me just post a small sample of why consciousness is not uncaused: A: There can be no choice, or decision made without information B: There can be no consciousness or awareness without information C: One can not have knowledge without information D: One can not do anything without information E: One can not exist without informational value F: One can not think without information G: One can not even know one's self exists without information H: One can not reply, or react without info.
(I am imagining a flat land without mountains btw) Since things seem to move below the horizon as I move away. It would appear the ground does have a slight curve to it. How much of a curve I do not know. I also conclude that the ground is quite large since I have moved for many miles and continue to see land. Going east, I came to the ocean I turned and went back west and found another ocean. I do not see what is beyond the curvature of the ocean. I do not know what is beyond it, if anything.
I: One can not convey, send, or express a message without information J: There can be no morals, ethics, or laws without information K: One can not have or express emotions, or feelings without information L: One can not have experiences, or experience anything at all without information M: One can not have a place to exist in order to be existent without information N: One can not Create, or Design anything without information O: One can not process things without information
@Chinchilla7Man You are missing a huge point. The universe is contingent; its existence is externally causal. Therefore we must ask where this contingent universe came from. God on the other hand, by definition, must exist necessarily. Asking for the creator of God is like asking for the Bachelor's wife. It is irrelevant because God is ETERNAL. Nothing could exist before God to create God, because God is infinite, and nothing can happen before infinity. Dawkins argument is a logical fallacy.
Consciousness can not exist without first a base of inquiry that can support it. Thus consciousness requires information, with a system to which has feedback in order to achieve a function of observation A: There can be no choice, or decision made without information B: There can be no consciousness or awareness without information C: One can not have knowledge without information
It isn't the very same thing. The argument is based on the definition of matter and the universe as a tangible, measurable, finite and natural plane of existence. God is, by definition, supernatural without cause. To apply the same principles to God as one does to matter is basically Dawkins saying that he doesn't know what God actually is supposed to mean. He's fallen at the very first hurdle.
A comment on his example: If the archaeologists had found the arrow heads, pottery etc, they could assume that these artifacts where brought there from Jupiter by purple elephant-shaped aliens. This is an explanation. We don't need an explanation for this explanation, so it is valid.
@ricromo The hawking article you cited was not flattering in the least towards Hawkins argument. I would be very interested in hear how you can have a universe created from nothing, but yet have it created by physical laws, by definition thats not "nothing" that something. So either hawking is contradicting himself (he says in the article that the universe came from nothing) OR somethings not getting portrayed right. Please explain to me how that's possible. I am interested.
And we know that capacity and volume can not be created, and can not be destroyed. It's the same reason why energy and mass can neither be created or destroyed. Empty space has mass, and volume. It has energy. It is capacity with potential of producing a big bang..
You have to look at what I have said about God as a whole. 1) God must give himself the maximum amount of glory 2) God must fully express every aspect of His nature. -a) God is just, sin must be punished fully on you or Christ -b) God is mercy, He sent Christ to pay the punishment on our behalf 3)Sin is rebelling against the very Nature of God -a) We are made in the image of God are to reflect God's nature --1)love, mercy, forgiveness, generosity, patience, ect.
I: One can not convey, send, or express a message without information J: There can be no morals, ethics, or laws without information K: One can not have or express emotions, or feelings without information L: One can not have experiences, or experience anything at all without information M: One can not have a place to exist in order to be existent without information
These quotes are well understood in information theory: * Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern
@decemberbenjamin You missed the entire point of the video. The Designer is the First Uncaused Cause, in order to create the universe the Creator had to be timeless, immaterial, powerful and personal. Go watch Dr. WLC talk about the Kalam cosmological argument for more details.
"Nondescript organisms, fitted with miscellaneous limbs, were once produced spontaneously out of the primeval mud, when it had not yet solidified under a rainless sky. But Time, combining this with that, brought the animal creation into order." That is a succinct summary of a Designerless biology, written in the 3rd century B.C. by Apollonius Rhodius in Argonautica. Oh, the progress of the scientific mortal mind!
Both of his points seemed valid. Can someone who disliked this video explain to me how what he said in this video was wrong please? I get the feeling that athiests spam all the Christian and pro-God videos and just dislike them without listening to their content.
"Information as a concept has many meanings, from everyday usage to technical settings. The concept of information is closely related to notions of constraint, communication, control, data, form, instruction, knowledge, meaning, mental stimulus, pattern, energy, perception, matter, and representation."
@Raymulv And no.. It would not invalidate E=MC2 because E=MC2 isn't stating that the speed of light is a literal constant. It's stating that the variance is so minute that you can take the average in a vacuum and have it represent a constant. E=MC2 is more about Mass energy Equivalence.. And since energy is the mass and the capacity of volume you will never magically invalidate E=MC2..
Just because you can't conclusively say that there does not exist a designer of the universe, you cannot conclusively say that the designer is the Judeo-Christian God
On infinite regress... the logic and strength of science is that you are required to explain your explanation... this is what publishing scientific hypothesis and subjecting them to peer review is. Dawkin's point is that you can challenge science's explanations and come to a conclusion... it is in fact only when you challenge the existence of an invisible being... that the argument fails a test of logic and is disproven due to it's inability to overcome a challenge without infinite regression.
"There were lies being said, but there was also truth being told from God through Micah" That doesn't change the fact that he used lying spirits to spread lies.
P: Intelligence can not exist without information to apply Q: No system, or process can exist without information R: Cause and effect can not exist without information Funny how this applies to everything..
Allow me to reiterate my process. Find an apparent contradiction in the text. Examine context and look for details I may have missed. Think of reasonable explanations as to why there may not be a contradiction. If no reasonable explanation can be made, conclude it is indeed a contradiction within the text. I have no bias in the process, If I found a contradiction in the Bible using this method, then that particular text may be incorrect.
That is where complex arises from simplicity. From the ground state of complex.. Hence, complexity doesn't begin from the top kids, it begins from the bottom, or the point where complexity can't regress any further.. Hence the very base of energy/information. Power is powerless without the lowest level of power (as an example)
markcaddo - It's my understanding that the ID people are not simply arguing that "The universe is complex, therefore it must have a designer" - wouldn't be fairer to say that their argument is "The universe is so improbably, specifically complex that non-deliberate processes cannot adequately account for it"?
There is a reason why you must know you exist in order to actually consciously be aware, or have knowledge *base of inquiry* in order to support things like intelligence (the ability to apply knowledge). Not only do you require to have access to knowledge(memory) in order to support a conscious state like a computer requires access to memory just to boot up and support the running OS, the memory itself requires a complex structure and collection of information to be what it is.
** Systems theory at times seems to refer to information in this sense, assuming information does not necessarily involve any conscious mind, and patterns circulating (due to feedback) in the system can be called information. In other words, it can be said that information in this sense is something potentially perceived as representation, though not created or presented for that purpose. For example, Gregory Bateson defines "information" as a "difference that makes a difference".
There can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral: Phenomenon, action, reaction, response, system, process, information, piece of information, structure, complexity, state, selection, adaptation, behavior, electric charge, equation, answer, mathematics, choice, decision, emotion, moral, ethic, sensation, function, purpose, or feeling. This includes the relativity of anything above.
@Abgef "well according to some book you have provided properties for the unicorn & you are also referring to him unknowingly...he is defined as a part of you." But I have other sources that suggest that a unicorn is a horse like creature with a horn that grows from the head. Do you have evidence that says that the soul is anything but what I said it is?
In modern information theory it is correctly stated that energy =/= information.. And that Nothing begins with consciousness and everything begins and ends with information (energy).. Energy =/= information--> Self-Oscillation --> Self-Organization (Order from Chaos) ---> to self-direction --> primitive self-cognitive dynamics --> cognitive self-direction --> to awareness --> eventually to the possibility of reaching a complex conscious state.
I think Craig's argument that Dawkins is responding to is (essentially) that "Everything needs a cause. Therefore there is a God." Dawkins is asking: "If everything needs a cause, what is God's cause?" Instead of admitting defeat (saying there is something with does not need a cause), Craig points out that Dawkins hasn't disproven God. To surmise: Craig: I have proof! Dawkins: Your proof is wrong. Craig: You haven't proven anything!
**** In 2003, J. D. Bekenstein claimed there is a growing trend in physics to define the physical world as being made of information itself (and thus information is defined in this way) (see Digital physics). Information has a well defined meaning in physics. Examples of this include the phenomenon of quantum entanglement where particles can interact without reference to their separation or the speed of light.
(continuation) The curvature of the earth I noticed earlier in my travels, seemed to be somewhat constant. The ocean curvature also seemed to have a similar constant to them although I have not venture out into the water. If this curvature remains constant beyond what I can see, then it could create some sort of circle. But I don't really care, I'm going back to farming so I can feed my family.
The fact that we have a vast amount of time to play with, indicates that we need not invoke a creator - many other explanations may do equally well and therefore are in fact logically better explanations
There can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral: Action, reaction, response, Phenomenon, information, piece of information, selection, adaptation, process, system, feedback, property, structure, state, function, emotion, ethic, moral, feeling, sensation, choice, decision, experience, observation, or relative nature of all the above.
I love how this man believes that complexity only refers to physical existence. He says that since god has no parts and no composition he is therefore a "remarkably simple entity". I'm not to sure about you, but the explanation of an entity without physical form is much harder then an explanation of an entity with physical form. Physical attributes are the very first layer of separation the human mind divides.
@ptango101 "Did it need to be caused? What was it in the first place?" Another great question but ultimately one I am not responsible for answering. Your the one who claimed WLC first premise is wrong, are you now retracting that assertion?
@mi Mike before we go on can we establish the points of the Kalm argument that WLC has made a career on. The one I'm Using as a reference is as follows 1)Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence. 2)The universe has a beginning of its existence. 3)Thus the universe has a cause of its existence.
@mike ""Yet you want to assert that YOUR particular view of reality"" I am not asserting anything. These are the philosophical arguments about the nature of reality. The more we learn the stranger it gets. ""Your philosophy can't distinguish between the two. Is that an improvement?"" What has that got to do with anything. These are the questions that DON"T have answers (yet). I can't prove, disprove, improve anything according to the philosophy of the situation.
Regarding the number of men in Judah this is a not a contradiction either, but how the Hebrews counted things occasionally. Off the top of my head, I think it was common practice for the Hebrews to round up numbers. In 2 Sam it says "the men of Judah were 500,000" while 1 Chron says "and in Judah 470,000 who drew the sword." 2 Sam gives an approximation while 1 Chron gives a more exact number, which is still probably an approximation. It's very easy to imagine this happening. (continued)
@Jman3000 I have faith that when the crosswalk says I can go it's safe to talk out into the street. This doesn't mean I'm necessarily justified in believing it is absolutely safe, and that's why I still look both ways before walking.
And here is the other problem.. No matter what reality you find yourself to be in... You will still be left with that question begging to figure out where it came from.. And that is kind of the flaw of conscious entities in this argument.. YOU NEED A "WHERE", a Place to exist! And no matter what, you will see complexity that begs you to think it requires a creator!.. Well, until you realize it's the substance of existence (energy/information) that is the source origin of it all.
@ptango101 Kalam: 1) everything that begins to exist has a cause 2) the universe began to exist 3) conclusion: therefore the universe has a cause. 1) the universe has a cause, 2) if the universe has a cause the best explanation of that cause is the God of Classical Theism 3) conclusion: therefore God exist.
That doesn't address the question of why human & self-sacrifice is necessary in the punishment to begin with? why would he punish himself & his innocent son as a form of bargaining when he could've just given a punishment that wouldn't require harming himself? is he a sadist? what was the point of that?
@mike @ 3:55 Craig tells us what god is. How does he know this? Where is the evidence that backs up that statement? Once again for the sake of expediency and clarification could you frame the argument he made for that statement to be true?
Thus you can not think, do, react, understand, convey a message, respond, make a choice, have a choice to make, comprehend, know, or even exist without information.. There is a reason why consciousness is an Observer, and it can not Create that which itself is slave to require to exist or even know that itself even exists. In information theory, this saying is the truth: "Nothing begins with consciousness, everything begins and ends with information."
@ptango101 "I am bringing into dispute the idea of intrinsic beginnings." I get that now. Which is even more simplistic than I thought. As I have said before, our inability to exactly pinpoint WHEN something exists does not mean that NOTHING BEGINS TO EXIST. Dispute intrinsic beginnings, fine but our inability to agree upon WHEN something begins to exist does not mean that NOTHING begins to exist. I'll illustrate again.
@TheJackelantern "beauty of music" is immaterial. You can measure our reaction to sound waves, you can measure sound waves themselves, but you cannot measure "beauty of music" itself. One can say that our reaction to music in the brain IS beauty of music itself, but this is a confusion. A website is a bunch of code, but what it is meant to be is different. The code is the implementation of an immaterial idea. Reaction in the brain is the implementation of beauty of music, but not beauty itself.
@mike1012199 SO wait a minute were you referring to my argument or craig's. Craig is saying god exists. I have been saying he doesn't. Are you talking about the Kalam argument for the existence of god when you say he spells it out? Is this the evidence you want to talk about. Do you think that is a good argument?
Thus purpose is to exist.. And even if I die and cease to be conscious..All that was me will never cease to exist. That which made me consciously emergent will become the emergent property of something else. I may become that star one day that twinkles back as what was once humanity. I may be the ray of light that gives birth to new life.. Purpose is never lost, it's always self-attaining.
So Ryan.. The argument is that consciousness can not exist without cause because the following is a fact of nature, and of existence: "Nothing begins with Consciousness, and everything begins and ends with information." That also means that consciousness has a cause, and could never be the source cause..Information itself or existence itself is source cause. You can read my links in my channel if you need further explanation, or insight.
So in summation: 1. Since arrowheads and machinery don't occur naturally, the universe was intelligently designed. 2. We don't need to consider theories other than intelligent design since other theories aren't "needed" to conclude that intelligent design is the best explanation. 3. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent universe-creator isn't "complex" if it doesn't have a body. Thanks Witch Doctor Craig! Way to show that heretic Dawkins what an "inept argument" is.
So existence is seen as a Phenomenal Reality of self-oscillating, and self-organizing energy that makes you, me, the stars, the Universe, or everything else possible. It is what literally contains and sustains all things. It is what capacity and volume are made of, it literally is what you are made of. And there are no boundaries to Capacity, or Volume because we can't be contained in a Nothing box to which would have no capacity to contain anything. Thus there is infinite ground state energy.
"Immaterial entity" is, by definition, a contradiction. Unless Craig is arguing that a "spirit" is a thing, a substance, and in any way analogous to a material being, it is this theological explanation that is, on the face of it, "hopeless" . As an aside, the idea of a simple, uncompounded cause of the universe did not even originate in Thomist Christian theology, it comes from the Mu'tazili Muslims who appropriated Aristotle (whose arguments were themselves refuted long ago by philosophers).
@Abgef "I am an agnostic remember?" Nowhere on this page did you say that. "Your explanation is invalid since it simply assumes that these small details are not an actual contradiction" I give the Bible the benefit of the doubt, is that wrong to do? If I was unable to think of any reason as to how it wasn't a contradiction I would then conclude that it was indeed a contradiction. That's how my thought process works, sorry if you don't agree. What is your thought process?
Did the good doctor just diss "God" by calling him simple? Anyways, his argument is valid. The best explanation for something does not necessarily need an explanation unless it is disproven. It's called a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, something intelligent design believers can't grasp because they have no evidence to back them up.
@Raymulv The only point I was trying to make is that technically all gods worshiped can exist, since you cannot prove their nonexistence. How can anyone say for example, that Jehovah, Jesus and the holy spirit is the only real god, while Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva is an illusion. Stating that they both exist would mean that various gods are able to exist at the same time, and that people are highly misled in their beliefs. So, does only your god exist but not those of others?
@Abgef What have you done to disprove it. Not to me, but to yourself. Have you come to the conclusion that, based on your experience, you have do not have a soul? OR would you say that you do not know if you have/are a soul? I can say that based on my own experience, I am a soul, that is in desperate need of the life that is given through the work of Christ.
God created a universe by which He can fully express every attribute of His nature. Some Attributes I know He has are: Holiness (set apart or separate from creation), Good, Love, Grace, Mercy, Wrath, Justice, Anger, Independence, Self-sufficient, Sovereign, Humility, Service, Truth, Jealousy, Authority, Wise, Righteous, Long Suffering (patient), Infinite, Incomprehensible, Faithful, Foreknowing, Transcendent, Unchanging, Eternal... probably a lot more
Its also why our Universe is measured to be flat as a type of open system where heat death (not literal heat death) can occur due to expansion.. The Universe is like a flat disk floating in an expanse much larger than itself. Kind of like our Galaxy withing the limits of our Universe. Capacity and energy didn't come from the big bang, it's always been there.
@mike Epic fail??? What are you talking about? You wanted the philosophical response to craig's philosophical assertions. How am I not providing that? From this point of view I threw a spanner in the works of the Kalam argument at the first premise. We haven't even got to the other 5 yet. Unless you can provide the empirical data for this sophistry then that's what we will keep talking about. If you can provide the empirical evidence for god's existence then we can discuss it.
And the order of that can not happen in reverse.. Consciousness is an emergent property. It's a product of existence, and the very fundamental simple rules that govern everything. Itself is governed, and an effect or phenomenon from cause.. And that is why in digital physics information is regarded simply as "Cause". Substance and value to everything. Container and sustainer to all that is.
@ptango101 Your argument in essence was that the Kalam argument fails because a part of the universe cannot be the cause of the universe. The problem was you never demonstrated why God HAD to be considered a part of the universe. You just said that the being HAD to be, when I pushed you; you responded that "I don't believe God exists, therefore God must be considered part of the universe." (patently invalid argument)
@mike "Providing an alternative does not demonstrate he's wrong, it just provides an alternative. " You wanted an argument that addressed the philosophy of the first premise. I provide one that has just as much credibility. At a level of reality there are no beginnings only changes in form. Are you saying this is not the case? Is quantum physics wrong because you said so. Are the laws governing the conservation of energy wrong because you said so?
Consciousness becomes an emergent property only after information is processed.. Consciousness is essentially the end product of information processing information, or energy processing energy.. And it requires a very complex organ such as a brain or neural network in order to do so. And that doesn't even go into requiring senses to which take in information to be processed so one can be aware much less consciously aware!.. And I will just tackle just one sensory system here in my next post..
Example of Physical information and Digital Physics: A rock before you requires information to exist. This is to where itself is information, a structure of information, or source of out put and input. Hence, if there wasn't any information there to experience, perceive, or process, the rock simply would not exist!. Even empty space has information to offer!.
@ptango101 I would also like to point out that you have not responded to my demonstration of you faulty logic. Simply because we are unable to pin point exactly when something begins to exist it does not mean that nothing begins to exist. Our limited ability does not mean nothing ever begins, it means we are unclear on the process.
"Try buying a carton of gravity or a bottle of shadows?" Again a gross disconnect from physics, energy, and reality.. And gravity is a physical phenomenon of energy.
"The Kalām cosmological argument is a variation of the cosmological argument that argues for the existence of a personal First Cause for the universe." I will say it clearly once again: Nothing begins with Consciousness, everything begin and ends with information (energy).. Consciousness can not exist without cause, or a system with informational feedback from an already existing system to which it can not create, or create the rules to since it's slave to require them to exist itself!
The world must have been created, therefore there is a God. The reason you do in-fact need an explanation of the explanation is because the explanation is so specific. If the premise is "the world must have been created" is used, there are thousands of possible explanations as to how that could have happened. You could say with equal validity that Aliens did it, or space dragons, or a team of flying gorillas... You need further explanation as to why you reached the God conclusion.
@ptango101 "How does saying that god doesn't exist somehow indicate I think he is part of the universe?" that was your argument. I copied it and pasted it from your post. But if you are retracting it than fine. provide a valid reason why god must be considered part of the universe and not out side of it. Very simply
@TheJackelantern Since we do know that Capacity and Volume must be infinite, we also know that ground state energy, or energy itself is also infinite. And this brings up a well made point about closed systems.. Closed systems can only exist within open systems.. Kind of like your oven is a closed system within an open system.. AKA the oven is in the kitchen or larger volume even though the volume in the stove is a closed volume.. It's impossible to be outside of Capacity and volume..
@ptango101 " Not according to the laws I mentioned. " there is no law that says: There is no difference between me and a chair. ONLY if that is proven true. Can you prove that all we are is a jumble of quantum material? Why is it that I can ask that question and my chair cannot? If there is no difference between me and my chair than why do I have abilities that my chair does not?
Wow, Lane's apologetics sound a trifle more substantial and compelling than Atheist satirists dare to portray.
@decemberbenjamin
And after you explained the origin of those artifacts, would you need another explanation to explain your explanation? Please explain....
Having in mind atheists say they are so bright, it’s even ironic to read these comments...
One problem with the lost tribe scenario is that the items that were found are items that we have never seen occur in nature. We've never seen naturally occuring clay pots or naturally occuring machinery. So we're not just assuming they have a designer, we're using our previous experience specific to the items in question. A tree is a profoundly complex thing with bark and leaves and branches and roots, far more so than a spoon, but we don't assume someone built the tree as we do the spoon.
@TinyFire1
Who said anything about stopping?? Craig specifically said that these were good subjects for "further inquiry". Did you not watch the video at all? His point isn't that we stop looking for further explanation. It's that we don't reject a good explanation just because we don't YET have an explanation of that explanation. Like the civilization in his analogy. We wouldn't reject them as an explanation off-hand, just because we haven't YET fully explained them.
D: One can not do anything without information
E: One can not exist without informational value
F: One can not think without information
G: One can not even know one's self exists without information
H: One can not reply, respond, or react without information
I cant believe the negative reaction to Criags assertion on the over anyalizing of the infinite regress in explination. Hes right! After a certain point the atheist argument halts, where they shrug their sholders and say, "we dont know". Yet they lash out at theists who say, we do know. Granted many theists use God to fill the gaps, but that does not conclude their statment is false, only their method of obtaining their conclusion. Craig uses logic as sufficient evidence for his conclusions
@TheJackelantern
Really? How do you figure that?
As always I enjoy listening/reading Dr Craig. I am new to youtube and loving getting hold of some of the information here, I particularly enjoy reading the post film comments/debates.
One thing that is very apparent though is this, I notice that atheists seem to be very quick to attempt to criticise and ridicule Dr Craig and others, yet they never offer a sound intelligent rebuttal or indeed an explanation of their own understanding.....why is that?
@mike Previously you inferred I needed to define these particles I was talking about. I quote "YOUR the one who is saying that quantum particles (of which you've not even defined).." Now if I asked you to define this personal god would you? Do you think the question is pertinent to this argument. If a god is posited as the great beginner should we be able to define this being?
@Chinchilla7Man
Craig's logic is perfectly sound in this video. He gave two good examples that were counter-proofs against Dawkins' argument, namely: If you insist that this complex Universe had a creator than you must answer who created the creator, etc. Dawkins says some version of thish argument all the time. Craig showed that that is an illogical argument.
He also shows that the Creator is by no means more complex than its creations. What's missing in his logic?
i tried to watch it... i can't believe he's publishing these videos as an opposition to irrational argumentation.
"His argument on "you don't need to explain the explanation" is just wrong." Nice straw man:-) Craigs argument is : In order to recognize the explanation as the best you do not not to explain explanation before hand.
Let me just post a small sample of why consciousness is not uncaused:
A: There can be no choice, or decision made without information
B: There can be no consciousness or awareness without information
C: One can not have knowledge without information
D: One can not do anything without information
E: One can not exist without informational value
F: One can not think without information
G: One can not even know one's self exists without information
H: One can not reply, or react without info.
Man I would love to see a full on debate between these two. Watching Dawkins squirm and dodge this argument from Craig would be priceless indeed!
(I am imagining a flat land without mountains btw) Since things seem to move below the horizon as I move away. It would appear the ground does have a slight curve to it. How much of a curve I do not know. I also conclude that the ground is quite large since I have moved for many miles and continue to see land. Going east, I came to the ocean I turned and went back west and found another ocean. I do not see what is beyond the curvature of the ocean. I do not know what is beyond it, if anything.
Dont ask who designed the designer!! Thats not part of the rules! GOD HAS ALWAYS BEEN! WE WIN!
I: One can not convey, send, or express a message without information
J: There can be no morals, ethics, or laws without information
K: One can not have or express emotions, or feelings without information
L: One can not have experiences, or experience anything at all without information
M: One can not have a place to exist in order to be existent without information
N: One can not Create, or Design anything without information
O: One can not process things without information
@Chinchilla7Man You are missing a huge point. The universe is contingent; its existence is externally causal. Therefore we must ask where this contingent universe came from. God on the other hand, by definition, must exist necessarily. Asking for the creator of God is like asking for the Bachelor's wife. It is irrelevant because God is ETERNAL. Nothing could exist before God to create God, because God is infinite, and nothing can happen before infinity. Dawkins argument is a logical fallacy.
Consciousness can not exist without first a base of inquiry that can support it. Thus consciousness requires information, with a system to which has feedback in order to achieve a function of observation
A: There can be no choice, or decision made without information
B: There can be no consciousness or awareness without information
C: One can not have knowledge without information
It isn't the very same thing. The argument is based on the definition of matter and the universe as a tangible, measurable, finite and natural plane of existence. God is, by definition, supernatural without cause.
To apply the same principles to God as one does to matter is basically Dawkins saying that he doesn't know what God actually is supposed to mean. He's fallen at the very first hurdle.
@myskosh2 how do you mean co-extensive? I haven't heard this term used before.
A comment on his example:
If the archaeologists had found the arrow heads, pottery etc, they could assume that these artifacts where brought there from Jupiter by purple elephant-shaped aliens. This is an explanation. We don't need an explanation for this explanation, so it is valid.
@ricromo The hawking article you cited was not flattering in the least towards Hawkins argument. I would be very interested in hear how you can have a universe created from nothing, but yet have it created by physical laws, by definition thats not "nothing" that something. So either hawking is contradicting himself (he says in the article that the universe came from nothing) OR somethings not getting portrayed right. Please explain to me how that's possible. I am interested.
And we know that capacity and volume can not be created, and can not be destroyed. It's the same reason why energy and mass can neither be created or destroyed. Empty space has mass, and volume. It has energy. It is capacity with potential of producing a big bang..
You have to look at what I have said about God as a whole.
1) God must give himself the maximum amount of glory
2) God must fully express every aspect of His nature.
-a) God is just, sin must be punished fully on you or Christ
-b) God is mercy, He sent Christ to pay the punishment on our behalf
3)Sin is rebelling against the very Nature of God
-a) We are made in the image of God are to reflect God's nature
--1)love, mercy, forgiveness, generosity, patience, ect.
I: One can not convey, send, or express a message without information
J: There can be no morals, ethics, or laws without information
K: One can not have or express emotions, or feelings without information
L: One can not have experiences, or experience anything at all without information
M: One can not have a place to exist in order to be existent without information
These quotes are well understood in information theory:
* Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern
@decemberbenjamin
You missed the entire point of the video. The Designer is the First Uncaused Cause, in order to create the universe the Creator had to be timeless, immaterial, powerful and personal. Go watch Dr. WLC talk about the Kalam cosmological argument for more details.
"Nondescript organisms, fitted with miscellaneous limbs, were once produced spontaneously out of the primeval mud, when it had not yet solidified under a rainless sky. But Time, combining this with that, brought the animal creation into order."
That is a succinct summary of a Designerless biology, written in the 3rd century B.C. by Apollonius Rhodius in Argonautica.
Oh, the progress of the scientific mortal mind!
Both of his points seemed valid. Can someone who disliked this video explain to me how what he said in this video was wrong please?
I get the feeling that athiests spam all the Christian and pro-God videos and just dislike them without listening to their content.
"Information as a concept has many meanings, from everyday usage to technical settings. The concept of information is closely related to notions of constraint, communication, control, data, form, instruction, knowledge, meaning, mental stimulus, pattern, energy, perception, matter, and representation."
@ptango101 "The natural explanations address these things much better." Ok so what is your criteria to determine which explanation is a better one?
@Raymulv
And no.. It would not invalidate E=MC2 because E=MC2 isn't stating that the speed of light is a literal constant. It's stating that the variance is so minute that you can take the average in a vacuum and have it represent a constant. E=MC2 is more about Mass energy Equivalence.. And since energy is the mass and the capacity of volume you will never magically invalidate E=MC2..
Just because you can't conclusively say that there does not exist a designer of the universe, you cannot conclusively say that the designer is the Judeo-Christian God
On infinite regress... the logic and strength of science is that you are required to explain your explanation... this is what publishing scientific hypothesis and subjecting them to peer review is. Dawkin's point is that you can challenge science's explanations and come to a conclusion... it is in fact only when you challenge the existence of an invisible being... that the argument fails a test of logic and is disproven due to it's inability to overcome a challenge without infinite regression.
"There were lies being said, but there was also truth being told from God through Micah"
That doesn't change the fact that he used lying spirits to spread lies.
@RetSquid well documented by whom?
This guy is completely right, the arguments in the god delusion are very weak and do nothing to actually disprove god in the slightest.
P: Intelligence can not exist without information to apply
Q: No system, or process can exist without information
R: Cause and effect can not exist without information
Funny how this applies to everything..
Allow me to reiterate my process.
Find an apparent contradiction in the text. Examine context and look for details I may have missed. Think of reasonable explanations as to why there may not be a contradiction. If no reasonable explanation can be made, conclude it is indeed a contradiction within the text.
I have no bias in the process, If I found a contradiction in the Bible using this method, then that particular text may be incorrect.
Bottom line: No one is right, not me you or anyone else.
no wonder dawkins wants no piece of WLC...he would get absolutely destroyed!!!
That is where complex arises from simplicity. From the ground state of complex.. Hence, complexity doesn't begin from the top kids, it begins from the bottom, or the point where complexity can't regress any further.. Hence the very base of energy/information. Power is powerless without the lowest level of power (as an example)
@Abgef "I got a whole lot of list of verses showing God lying to people"
such as?
markcaddo - It's my understanding that the ID people are not simply arguing that "The universe is complex, therefore it must have a designer" - wouldn't be fairer to say that their argument is "The universe is so improbably, specifically complex that non-deliberate processes cannot adequately account for it"?
There is a reason why you must know you exist in order to actually consciously be aware, or have knowledge *base of inquiry* in order to support things like intelligence (the ability to apply knowledge). Not only do you require to have access to knowledge(memory) in order to support a conscious state like a computer requires access to memory just to boot up and support the running OS, the memory itself requires a complex structure and collection of information to be what it is.
** Systems theory at times seems to refer to information in this sense, assuming information does not necessarily involve any conscious mind, and patterns circulating (due to feedback) in the system can be called information. In other words, it can be said that information in this sense is something potentially perceived as representation, though not created or presented for that purpose. For example, Gregory Bateson defines "information" as a "difference that makes a difference".
There can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral:
Phenomenon, action, reaction, response, system, process, information, piece of information, structure, complexity, state, selection, adaptation, behavior, electric charge, equation, answer, mathematics, choice, decision, emotion, moral, ethic, sensation, function, purpose, or feeling. This includes the relativity of anything above.
@Abgef "well according to some book you have provided properties for the unicorn & you are also referring to him unknowingly...he is defined as a part of you."
But I have other sources that suggest that a unicorn is a horse like creature with a horn that grows from the head. Do you have evidence that says that the soul is anything but what I said it is?
In modern information theory it is correctly stated that energy =/= information.. And that Nothing begins with consciousness and everything begins and ends with information (energy)..
Energy =/= information--> Self-Oscillation --> Self-Organization (Order from Chaos) ---> to self-direction --> primitive self-cognitive dynamics --> cognitive self-direction --> to awareness --> eventually to the possibility of reaching a complex conscious state.
I think Craig's argument that Dawkins is responding to is (essentially) that "Everything needs a cause. Therefore there is a God."
Dawkins is asking: "If everything needs a cause, what is God's cause?"
Instead of admitting defeat (saying there is something with does not need a cause), Craig points out that Dawkins hasn't disproven God.
To surmise:
Craig: I have proof!
Dawkins: Your proof is wrong.
Craig: You haven't proven anything!
**** In 2003, J. D. Bekenstein claimed there is a growing trend in physics to define the physical world as being made of information itself (and thus information is defined in this way) (see Digital physics). Information has a well defined meaning in physics. Examples of this include the phenomenon of quantum entanglement where particles can interact without reference to their separation or the speed of light.
(continuation)
The curvature of the earth I noticed earlier in my travels, seemed to be somewhat constant. The ocean curvature also seemed to have a similar constant to them although I have not venture out into the water. If this curvature remains constant beyond what I can see, then it could create some sort of circle. But I don't really care, I'm going back to farming so I can feed my family.
The fact that we have a vast amount of time to play with, indicates that we need not invoke a creator - many other explanations may do equally well and therefore are in fact logically better explanations
There can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral:
Action, reaction, response, Phenomenon, information, piece of information, selection, adaptation, process, system, feedback, property, structure, state, function, emotion, ethic, moral, feeling, sensation, choice, decision, experience, observation, or relative nature of all the above.
I love how this man believes that complexity only refers to physical existence. He says that since god has no parts and no composition he is therefore a "remarkably simple entity". I'm not to sure about you, but the explanation of an entity without physical form is much harder then an explanation of an entity with physical form. Physical attributes are the very first layer of separation the human mind divides.
@ptango101 "Did it need to be caused? What was it in the first place?" Another great question but ultimately one I am not responsible for answering. Your the one who claimed WLC first premise is wrong, are you now retracting that assertion?
@mi Mike before we go on can we establish the points of the Kalm argument that WLC has made a career on. The one I'm Using as a reference is as follows
1)Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
2)The universe has a beginning of its existence.
3)Thus the universe has a cause of its existence.
@mike ""Yet you want to assert that YOUR particular view of reality"" I am not asserting anything. These are the philosophical arguments about the nature of reality. The more we learn the stranger it gets. ""Your philosophy can't distinguish between the two. Is that an improvement?"" What has that got to do with anything. These are the questions that DON"T have answers (yet). I can't prove, disprove, improve anything according to the philosophy of the situation.
Regarding the number of men in Judah this is a not a contradiction either, but how the Hebrews counted things occasionally. Off the top of my head, I think it was common practice for the Hebrews to round up numbers. In 2 Sam it says "the men of Judah were 500,000" while 1 Chron says "and in Judah 470,000 who drew the sword." 2 Sam gives an approximation while 1 Chron gives a more exact number, which is still probably an approximation. It's very easy to imagine this happening.
(continued)
@Jman3000
I have faith that when the crosswalk says I can go it's safe to talk out into the street. This doesn't mean I'm necessarily justified in believing it is absolutely safe, and that's why I still look both ways before walking.
And here is the other problem.. No matter what reality you find yourself to be in... You will still be left with that question begging to figure out where it came from.. And that is kind of the flaw of conscious entities in this argument.. YOU NEED A "WHERE", a Place to exist! And no matter what, you will see complexity that begs you to think it requires a creator!.. Well, until you realize it's the substance of existence (energy/information) that is the source origin of it all.
@ptango101 Kalam: 1) everything that begins to exist has a cause 2) the universe began to exist 3) conclusion: therefore the universe has a cause. 1) the universe has a cause, 2) if the universe has a cause the best explanation of that cause is the God of Classical Theism 3) conclusion: therefore God exist.
@TheJackelantern
You mean I should just copy your posts? Make a claim but not back it up with anything?
That doesn't address the question of why human & self-sacrifice is necessary in the punishment to begin with? why would he punish himself & his innocent son as a form of bargaining when he could've just given a punishment that wouldn't require harming himself? is he a sadist? what was the point of that?
oops double post.. sorry Stupid TH-cam refresh error. :)
@mike @ 3:55 Craig tells us what god is. How does he know this? Where is the evidence that backs up that statement? Once again for the sake of expediency and clarification could you frame the argument he made for that statement to be true?
Thus you can not think, do, react, understand, convey a message, respond, make a choice, have a choice to make, comprehend, know, or even exist without information.. There is a reason why consciousness is an Observer, and it can not Create that which itself is slave to require to exist or even know that itself even exists. In information theory, this saying is the truth: "Nothing begins with consciousness, everything begins and ends with information."
@ptango101 "I am bringing into dispute the idea of intrinsic beginnings." I get that now. Which is even more simplistic than I thought. As I have said before, our inability to exactly pinpoint WHEN something exists does not mean that NOTHING BEGINS TO EXIST. Dispute intrinsic beginnings, fine but our inability to agree upon WHEN something begins to exist does not mean that NOTHING begins to exist. I'll illustrate again.
@TheJackelantern "beauty of music" is immaterial. You can measure our reaction to sound waves, you can measure sound waves themselves, but you cannot measure "beauty of music" itself. One can say that our reaction to music in the brain IS beauty of music itself, but this is a confusion. A website is a bunch of code, but what it is meant to be is different. The code is the implementation of an immaterial idea. Reaction in the brain is the implementation of beauty of music, but not beauty itself.
You DO need an explanation for an explanation if said explanation is equivalent to: "Because it did".
@mike1012199 SO wait a minute were you referring to my argument or craig's. Craig is saying god exists. I have been saying he doesn't. Are you talking about the Kalam argument for the existence of god when you say he spells it out? Is this the evidence you want to talk about. Do you think that is a good argument?
Thus purpose is to exist.. And even if I die and cease to be conscious..All that was me will never cease to exist. That which made me consciously emergent will become the emergent property of something else. I may become that star one day that twinkles back as what was once humanity. I may be the ray of light that gives birth to new life.. Purpose is never lost, it's always self-attaining.
So Ryan.. The argument is that consciousness can not exist without cause because the following is a fact of nature, and of existence:
"Nothing begins with Consciousness, and everything begins and ends with information."
That also means that consciousness has a cause, and could never be the source cause..Information itself or existence itself is source cause. You can read my links in my channel if you need further explanation, or insight.
So in summation: 1. Since arrowheads and machinery don't occur naturally, the universe was intelligently designed. 2. We don't need to consider theories other than intelligent design since other theories aren't "needed" to conclude that intelligent design is the best explanation. 3. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent universe-creator isn't "complex" if it doesn't have a body. Thanks Witch Doctor Craig! Way to show that heretic Dawkins what an "inept argument" is.
So existence is seen as a Phenomenal Reality of self-oscillating, and self-organizing energy that makes you, me, the stars, the Universe, or everything else possible. It is what literally contains and sustains all things. It is what capacity and volume are made of, it literally is what you are made of. And there are no boundaries to Capacity, or Volume because we can't be contained in a Nothing box to which would have no capacity to contain anything. Thus there is infinite ground state energy.
"Immaterial entity" is, by definition, a contradiction. Unless Craig is arguing that a "spirit" is a thing, a substance, and in any way analogous to a material being, it is this theological explanation that is, on the face of it, "hopeless" . As an aside, the idea of a simple, uncompounded cause of the universe did not even originate in Thomist Christian theology, it comes from the Mu'tazili Muslims who appropriated Aristotle (whose arguments were themselves refuted long ago by philosophers).
@Abgef "I am an agnostic remember?"
Nowhere on this page did you say that.
"Your explanation is invalid since it simply assumes that these small details are not an actual contradiction"
I give the Bible the benefit of the doubt, is that wrong to do? If I was unable to think of any reason as to how it wasn't a contradiction I would then conclude that it was indeed a contradiction. That's how my thought process works, sorry if you don't agree. What is your thought process?
Did the good doctor just diss "God" by calling him simple? Anyways, his argument is valid. The best explanation for something does not necessarily need an explanation unless it is disproven. It's called a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, something intelligent design believers can't grasp because they have no evidence to back them up.
@Raymulv So why did God come into being? Or how?
@Raymulv The only point I was trying to make is that technically all gods worshiped can exist, since you cannot prove their nonexistence. How can anyone say for example, that Jehovah, Jesus and the holy spirit is the only real god, while Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva is an illusion. Stating that they both exist would mean that various gods are able to exist at the same time, and that people are highly misled in their beliefs. So, does only your god exist but not those of others?
@Abgef What have you done to disprove it. Not to me, but to yourself. Have you come to the conclusion that, based on your experience, you have do not have a soul? OR would you say that you do not know if you have/are a soul?
I can say that based on my own experience, I am a soul, that is in desperate need of the life that is given through the work of Christ.
God created a universe by which He can fully express every attribute of His nature. Some Attributes I know He has are: Holiness (set apart or separate from creation), Good, Love, Grace, Mercy, Wrath, Justice, Anger, Independence, Self-sufficient, Sovereign, Humility, Service, Truth, Jealousy, Authority, Wise, Righteous, Long Suffering (patient), Infinite, Incomprehensible, Faithful, Foreknowing, Transcendent, Unchanging, Eternal... probably a lot more
Its also why our Universe is measured to be flat as a type of open system where heat death (not literal heat death) can occur due to expansion.. The Universe is like a flat disk floating in an expanse much larger than itself. Kind of like our Galaxy withing the limits of our Universe. Capacity and energy didn't come from the big bang, it's always been there.
Typo correction:
"or that consciousness can exist without a system with feedback"
can not exist without a system with feedback..ect..
I'm curious to hear a response to this point. Why does the causality agument not apply to the existence of an Intelligent Designer ?
@mike Epic fail??? What are you talking about? You wanted the philosophical response to craig's philosophical assertions. How am I not providing that? From this point of view I threw a spanner in the works of the Kalam argument at the first premise. We haven't even got to the other 5 yet. Unless you can provide the empirical data for this sophistry then that's what we will keep talking about. If you can provide the empirical evidence for god's existence then we can discuss it.
And the order of that can not happen in reverse.. Consciousness is an emergent property. It's a product of existence, and the very fundamental simple rules that govern everything. Itself is governed, and an effect or phenomenon from cause.. And that is why in digital physics information is regarded simply as "Cause". Substance and value to everything. Container and sustainer to all that is.
@ptango101 Your argument in essence was that the Kalam argument fails because a part of the universe cannot be the cause of the universe. The problem was you never demonstrated why God HAD to be considered a part of the universe. You just said that the being HAD to be, when I pushed you; you responded that "I don't believe God exists, therefore God must be considered part of the universe." (patently invalid argument)
@mike "Providing an alternative does not demonstrate he's wrong, it just provides an alternative. " You wanted an argument that addressed the philosophy of the first premise. I provide one that has just as much credibility. At a level of reality there are no beginnings only changes in form. Are you saying this is not the case? Is quantum physics wrong because you said so. Are the laws governing the conservation of energy wrong because you said so?
Consciousness becomes an emergent property only after information is processed.. Consciousness is essentially the end product of information processing information, or energy processing energy.. And it requires a very complex organ such as a brain or neural network in order to do so. And that doesn't even go into requiring senses to which take in information to be processed so one can be aware much less consciously aware!.. And I will just tackle just one sensory system here in my next post..
Example of Physical information and Digital Physics:
A rock before you requires information to exist. This is to where itself is information, a structure of information, or source of out put and input. Hence, if there wasn't any information there to experience, perceive, or process, the rock simply would not exist!. Even empty space has information to offer!.
@ptango101 I would also like to point out that you have not responded to my demonstration of you faulty logic. Simply because we are unable to pin point exactly when something begins to exist it does not mean that nothing begins to exist. Our limited ability does not mean nothing ever begins, it means we are unclear on the process.
"Try buying a carton of gravity or a bottle of shadows?"
Again a gross disconnect from physics, energy, and reality.. And gravity is a physical phenomenon of energy.
"The Kalām cosmological argument is a variation of the cosmological argument that argues for the existence of a personal First Cause for the universe."
I will say it clearly once again:
Nothing begins with Consciousness, everything begin and ends with information (energy).. Consciousness can not exist without cause, or a system with informational feedback from an already existing system to which it can not create, or create the rules to since it's slave to require them to exist itself!
The world must have been created, therefore there is a God.
The reason you do in-fact need an explanation of the explanation is because the explanation is so specific.
If the premise is "the world must have been created" is used, there are thousands of possible explanations as to how that could have happened. You could say with equal validity that Aliens did it, or space dragons, or a team of flying gorillas...
You need further explanation as to why you reached the God conclusion.
@ptango101 "How does saying that god doesn't exist somehow indicate I think he is part of the universe?" that was your argument. I copied it and pasted it from your post. But if you are retracting it than fine. provide a valid reason why god must be considered part of the universe and not out side of it. Very simply
@TheJackelantern
Since we do know that Capacity and Volume must be infinite, we also know that ground state energy, or energy itself is also infinite. And this brings up a well made point about closed systems.. Closed systems can only exist within open systems.. Kind of like your oven is a closed system within an open system.. AKA the oven is in the kitchen or larger volume even though the volume in the stove is a closed volume.. It's impossible to be outside of Capacity and volume..
@ptango101 " Not according to the laws I mentioned. " there is no law that says: There is no difference between me and a chair. ONLY if that is proven true. Can you prove that all we are is a jumble of quantum material? Why is it that I can ask that question and my chair cannot? If there is no difference between me and my chair than why do I have abilities that my chair does not?