Creating the universe was a choice - to do it or not to do it. That kind of decision comes from a Person, exercising free will. Why would an impersonal first cause (what could such a thing be?) create the universe we have, from nothing? Craig goes into this to a greater extent in his books and his website, Reasonable Faith.
@@gordonepema722 I suppose the answer to that would be that perhaps it is the nature of such a being to cause such things to come into being. If such a being were incapable of choosing, and therefore was compelled by its very nature to create I dont see how that logically contradicts what we know about how the universe came into being. I am not saying there is no being, the question is whether or not that being CHOOSES to create universes, or if universes are merely a byproduct of that beings nature. Waves crash on the shore. They dont choose to, they just do it. Why could it not be the same of the being who created the cosmos.
@@josephtattum6365 It is illogical to deny volition on the part of the Supreme Being. The Universe requires a cause - it could not emerge spontaneously out of nothing - so that cause must be God the uncaused Cause. It was his decision to create the universe, the Earth, and man in his own image, in the time (as we understand time,13.7 billion years ago) and the manner that He did. Those are all choices.
@@gordonepema722 Why is it illogical? I believe in the existence of a deity. The question is whether this being does have volition. My question was why does the being HAVE to have volition. Why cant it be a necessary property of such a being to cause things to exist, against their choice? That is more what I am getting at. Youcan say it was his decision, that's fine but why MUST it be that way is what I am asking. What evidence do you have that they are decisions or choices
Behold, God is great, and we know him not, neither can the number of his years be searched out. (Job 36:26) The biggest reason why we human beings will live forever after we leave this world is because knowing God never ends. If a person temporarily lives on Earth in a time zone or outside the universe He never ends knowing God. Because God is NOW and NEW to know Jesus is eternal life (john 17; 3)
How can material create material? The creator of something must be greater than its creation. If God is material then he had to create himself. “The cause of the universe must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and uncaused” is mostly non-controversial. If the universe is defined as “all matter, energy, space and time” and the universe cannot create itself, then it follows that the cause of the universe must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. If you need more info you can get it from William Lane Craig's website or his videos.
Great question! Just thinking out loud here....matter (material) has mass and takes up space. We know matter is mutable and finite, both qualities we don't associate with an immutable, infinite God. I know that is barely scratching the surface of your question but it gets the discussion off the ground.
Material beings, like human beings, obviously have creative capacity. But we create out of already existing material. God created all material itself out of nothing. Therefore, God must transcend material, which means He is an immaterial being.
Arguments are not evidence. No religion has shown any gods or the existence of a spiritual realm. Why can we not grow up as a society and throw these ideas away?
It is always comical to see WLC try to argue cosmology, especially with a cosmologist. He is a philosopher, not an Astro physicist and just sounds foolish.
Most of what they were talking about was Metaphysical, which falls under philosophy, and he’s a philosopher…so what’s the problem? If anyone is out of their depth, it would be the cosmologist.
@@brauliorobledo8781 Craig uses science and philosophy but you still haven't told me precisely what scientific cosmological argument you think he is wrong about. I will wait.
Ahem....question from the back of the room...."what about quantum physics and the understanding, that something can indeed come from nothing?" also, why does the christian god get a pass, on not been created? I love how William talks about others not providing "physical evidence" when the whole christian theology is based on 'faith'. Why does William mock current views as to the formation of our universe, when that is actual proof of science changing to match the current theories as opposed to 'god did it'. Water sitting in a puddle, "looks like this hole was fine tuned to suit me" also, why would an all powerful deity, fine tune a universe with asteroids which could wipe out all life, one killed what percentage of life on our planet. If I as a mere human, can imagine a more fine tuned universe than one created by a god, what does that say about the god. Why do theists still insist that "natural laws" were somehow 'written' down, like a recipe to create us, rather than simple observations of our universe.
A brilliant combination - FT helps to make WLC's arguments comprehensible to me and hopefully you. If we don't believe God did it, then how, or by whom did it all come into being? We can't sit on the fence because the fence is just too narrow.
It’s so sad that atheists have gone so far as to theorize a new perception of time(tenseless) just to attempt to refute the Kalam which all ultimately fail. Thank God for WLC and Turek!
@@vladtheemailer3223 No it does not, I am specifically referring to The new tenseless or B theory of time which came about in the 19th century at the earliest. The Kalam has been around since the 12th century and Christianity since the 1st century.
@@truthovertea the B-theory traces it's origins back to ancient Greece. The modern version has been around fow awhile. The Kalam is only impressive to those that want to believe it.
1. Well, big considering the fact that you can easily find this in textbooks on astrophysics and cosmology. 2. The only premise of this argument that depends on cosmology is the second one, so if you think he is wrong when he says that there is no viable model of an eternal universe to this day, feel free to show it.
@@kenandzafic3948 Given that theology is just made-up $h@t, it is surprising that two of Christianity's most famous advocates, compare notes on how science underpins the nonsense they are so fond of spouting. The irony of it!
I'm not saying I disagree with Craig. I would just like someone to explain why he thinks the cause must be "personal." I want to understand the logic behind that claim.
If the cause was some kind of impersonal force, then the effect would be just as eternal as the cause. But since the cause is eternal and the effect is temporally finite, this suggests that the cause must have acted spontaneously from a timeless state. The most plausible candidate for such a cause is a person, since we know that persons are capable of spontaneous causation. Dr. Craig responds to this same question in greater detail here: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/must-the-cause-of-the-universe-be-personal-redux. - RF Admin
These are great, well constructed, researched logical arguments. It would be great if atheists would do the same with their arguments. This is why Craig’s arguments are more plausible than atheism.
@@Kenneth-ts7bp no you don’t have to be. But it does come with the caveat that they may be leaving things out that they don’t like or that they don’t understand all the topics in cosmology.
What if the explanation for the formation of our universe is something which is non-intuitive and something that we can't use logic or reasoning to discover?
@@justicehiggins2963 I'm not saying that something non-intuitive is the explanation. I'm asking how you rule it out? And since we have no idea what the explanation is, how do you determine what is most probable?
@@trevorpaolone1371 1-I am an atheist. So I know it doesn’t. 2-I’ve seen his “lecture” with the same title-not impressed at all with him regarding atheism or science You have the book. Tell me how it takes faith to be an atheist.
@@therick363 When you observe the world, you see a world that screams intelligent design. The Kalam Cosmological argument draws the conclusion from nearly everything we know regarding space and the cosmos that the universe had a beginning where all matter and space as well as time began to exist. The Big Bang Theory seems to be the best explanation for that. If all matter space and time began to exist at a particular point, then whatever preceded that must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial and immensely powerful. That is a description of a god. Not necessarily the Christian God but at the very least "a" god. If not God, how did the universe come to exist? The Teleological argument explains how the universe in every observable way tells us that it has been tailor-made for human life. There are three possible conclusions: it happened by chance, the universe necessitates that these constants need to be in place in order to exist itself, or they were intelligently designed that way. There is nothing about our universe that necessitates there being life. So the universe is either intelligently designed, or it happened by chance. I don't have enough faith to believe it happened by chance. It requires a lot less faith to believe that it was intelligently designed simply by probability. In fact, there is nothing naturalistic that would imply there needs to be anything at all. Frank asks a great question frequently: "If God does not exist, why is there something instead of nothing?" I find these two arguments to be compelling but there are a multitude of others that range from scientific, philosophical, historical and many more. I welcome a well thought out and intelligent response. Typically, this is where the atheist redefines themselves as an agnostic because they don't have the means to posit a logical argument that answers these prompts. But to hold to an atheistic and naturalist worldview is a positive argument and requires evidence and support. The odds of the universe coming into being out of nothing and being tailor-made for human life are far too astronomical and require substantially more faith to believe than the contrary, which aligns with a theistic world view.
@@trevorpaolone1371 when YOU observe the world you see ID. When I observe the world I see natural causes, events and such. _the Kalam argument draws the conclusion from nearly everything we know regarding space and the cosmos that the universe had a beginning where all matter and space as well as time began to exist_ Umm sorry what? We do not know that. It’s one idea yes, but it is not at all a fact. It does seem that time “began” so to speak at the Big Bang, but we don’t Leno for sure. We also don’t know if matter/energy were created at that moment or had already existed in some other form. And space? We know hardly anything about what space is. The Big Bang says there was a moment when the hot dense state of the universe expanded outward. _if all matters space and time began to exists at a particular point then whatever preceded that must be timeless spaceless immaterial and immensely powerful_ Except that we don’t know what was before the Big Bang. So thats all conjecture.
Even with the multiverse theory where does the information and matter come from that the system works on? Random chance does not seem likely as it goes against everything we see.
@@ryanrevland4333 Resurrection requires a miracle to take place from a higher power and higher intelligence, not just random chance within the laws of nature.
@@ryanrevland4333 Yes, miracles would be metaphysical not just physical that's the point. It would take something outside of the laws of nature to make a miracle happen. To rely on random chance to create anything let alone the complexities we see in our Universe takes a lot of faith IMO.
@@bfhandsomeface409 I hear you. Humans have long placed God in the gaps of their knowledge. When pressed with a difficult question it's tempting to say " God did it!" And then close the book on that chapter of inquiry. It wasn't long ago we thought leprosy was caused by sin or demon possession. Jesus himself was casting out demons to heal lepers. Then science came along and discovered it was bacterial. Within a generation leprosy was non-existent due to antibiotics. We may not have all the answers today...but we're getting there
To understand read til the end. To change your mind understand. Science study how God's Life functions in the Miracle of Infinite Possibilities of God's Life and Death. God is as easy and impossible to understand as a miracle by nature. To understand only to want to understand is required. I was created by my parents, that are also the creation. My parents are creator and creation, like me. The creation was created from nothing or something. Until this point religious people agree with me and for atheists the logical proposition is all kind of fallacies. That something is God, the eternal intelligent metaphysical entity that created the creation from Self, because nothing existed before Time. To avoid excuses i repeat loud and clear that God is a metaphysical entity, not a personal god. I am God and I don't know how to talk anymore because I am not understood, and i am doing my best. I think atheists and religious people are fools. Am i making clear enough that God is a metaphysical entity? God is not a person like you to worship. God is not a person with a bad temper like you living in the sky. Humanity have misunderstood the nature of God personifying a metaphysical entity and the misunderstanding of reality has devastating eternal consequences for God. I am infinitely serious because atheism and religion are misunderstandings of reality harmful to God's Life and the importance of the truth can not be overestimated. I am talking about the Only Purpose, Absolute Meaning, Common Good, Only that Matters, All Eternal Reality, Mind Healer. I challenge humanity on the debate claiming that I have discovered the nature of God and I can prove it, if only I wasn't censored like the lives of your children depended on knowledge not being known. I am doing my best to persuade humanity that knowledge is good and nobody benefits censoring ideas or understandings of reality. To discover the nature of God you have to think a lot for yourself being honest, it is not easy addiction recovery, the greatest achievement of all eternal time, to live for God by God doing what is right regardless of law. Why I am being censored? I am tired to death and resurrections are God's business. A contradiction is an impossibility and a miracle is an impossibility that God makes possible, an act of God. I want my truth shared and challenged because it is the truth that stands victorious against the lie and I reward for doing what should be done without reward. I reward for being virtuous.
I had an encounter with an Atheist and he argues that the timeless, spaceless is the singularity itself but I find it a flaud conclusion since the singularity contains all the condensed matter. And matter doesn't exist eternally and I continue to argue it and then he ended up blocking me, just want to share. These two guy really helped me to give reason for the hope that we have in Jesus. Thank you and God Bless your ministry Dr. Frank and Dr. WLC!
@@typhonofrivia No, what I argue is that singularity doesn't exist eternally, but the atheist argued that the universe came from singularity, he's trying to say that singularity itself created the universe but singularity is a physical thing that still needs a cause but he seems to not understand it.
@@midlander4 How'd you come to that conclusion my friend? Lying for Jesus? I can't do that, I would rather accept defeat in debate than to lie for my Saviour.
@Denim Gubantes so why do you make up imaginary 'conversations with theists' to make some pathetic point? It's a standard xtian device, and you're fooling nobody except your in-group.
@@midlander4 I'm not getting your point first of all I really did a discussion with an "Atheist" not a "Theist" I don't see anything wrong with that. God Bless, bro.
Wow, I am surprised that Frank Turek has the audacity to show his face in public after getting thoroughly destroyed in a debate against Jeffery Jay Lowder back in 2016. Jeffery Jay Lowder is by far the best atheist debater there is (check out his debates with Turek and Fernandes where he absolutely destroys both of them). Given how good of a debater Lowder is, I can see why William Lane Craig has been scared of debating him since the late 1990s. I bet William Lane Craig is shitting his pants at the thought of debating Jeffery Jay Lowder.
