Tremendous irony from the Dartmouth professor- after explaining that one should listen to the arguments of others to find fallacies, he still ignores the sage wisdom of his counterpart that “he believes God is not an entity which one can experience in the way one would experience a ghost- which is essentially an intangible human” and then throws the same “belief in ghosts” argument out there.
That’s not really an irony because what you call “sage wisdom” is very much undefined. If we throw out rules of observation and evidence, then suddenly the gates are wide open for any interpretation - same reason why atheists use the crude “flying spaghetti monster” analogy. If sensory experience and evidence based approach is thrown out, then any interpretation becomes plausible and valid. There is nothing stopping god from being the Flying Spaghetti Monster in that case
Small problem. Ghosts, are apparitions of the dead. Ghosts don't exist. The supernatural, however does exist. Charisma is an example. It is a power, outside the understanding of science, and 5 natural senses, yet real. All the important events in the universe, are outside the understanding of science, yet real. The universe itself. Origin of life, origin if mind\consciousness. Miracles have occurred, Miracles are supernatural. It is the realm in which God lives.
The real question is why there should be a God? I'm not arguing one way or another, but to me that's the only question that matters concerning this subject.
With God comes Heaven - the easy living for eternity Religion has reduced these people down to shameless prostitutes/gigolos/leeches/parasites looking around for the rich Sugar Daddy to GIVE them a life of ease & comfort Down on their knees, they think all they have to do is beg & grovel a bit and nice forgiving "God" will help them cheat their victims and GIVE them an eternal life of ease & comfort AND NOT ONE IS AWARE OF WHAT THEY HAVE BECOME! AMAZING!
because the other option is total wild randomness. So reality exist or for a causation of some kind of intelligence, primordial or high, or for just some kind of very very lucky randomness. So God represent the most probable option still today.
Meanings come primarily from whole-part relationships. Without knowing the ultimate whole (God), the real meanings of things can't be correctly understood. The same is true of purposes. The purpose of each part is to perform a function for the whole, so understanding the whole is necessary for properly utilizing the parts.
Before your question comes what is god. Define that label first then you can see if its something that falls in line with reality and visa versa or not. So far, no one has given a good definition about god. Same about reality btw...ok label reality. What defines reality, what is it based on, its foundation? No answer yet.
Even if man-made, I feel the only possible answer is both. Just as we give words meaning and they give meaning back to us, or a chair makes sense through us but 'reflects' that sense back to conFORM us to it (think of how a child HAS to interact with the world to 'model' reality and learn to exist within it. He is both molded by the things around him and projects meaning unto them, even when they're man-made objects). We can only exist through our relationship with things(physical or not), and things only derive meaning through us. God(s) seem to exist in that same space. The very fact that you know of the concept of god makes you a product of it. However much importance you decide to put in one thing over another is for you to figure out
Oh, god, not another dumb diatribe I feel dissolving my brain when I watch these. So why do I even bother? Because first you have to understand the tormented mental processes all these deluded guys go through before you can attempt to quell the harms they create.
I see a pattern in this particular video and many like it, when one ponders the existence of a god and the words of wonder, beauty, perfection...etc...etc...blah..blah, pour out or their mouths as smooth as silk. Around the 20-minute mark Alvan talks about the beauty of Mozart and how this god "appreciates beauty"....and never once does he consider the horror and ugliness of Hitler...or Jeffery Dalmer. Does this god also "appreciate" and love them and their atrocities? Does he love it when an asteroid zips pass the earth?...Is he sitting on his golden throne throwing them past us just to get a chuckle when we shake in fear? Does he reach out with his mighty hands and pop volcanoes like a pimple just to see its contents pour out like puss over his precious children? Must I go on?...please...take off the rose-colored glasses. There is beauty in this world/universe but there is also ugliness. Accept it for what it is...your one life to live. Love your family...love your friends. Live your life like this is your last day. As with many infected with the coronavirus (another blessed gift from god?) this may be their last.
Agreed. The religious people who claim to be concerned with humanity are nevertheless amnesiac when it comes to the suffering in the world - much of it at the hands of monothiests.
William Lane Craig never disappoints with his word salad. But I think he outdid himself by spewing out so many non-arguments in two minutes. I appreciate your quest to keep an open mind and look at both sides of the issue, but I'm afraid this was one of your weakest episodes yet. So many platitudes, non-arguments, and fallacious arguments... While it may not be possible to deduce God's existence or non-existence logically, it is logically possible to deduce that God's existence is highly improbable. I also believe that it is absolutely clear that the God of the Bible is a man-made fantasy.
LOL! I just commented the exact opposite. Not sure how anyone can deduce that God's existence is improbable using logic, but maybe your logic is different from mine.
@@ronaldmorgan7632 is it possible that human logic can be different? Idk iam just asking.. Because if its true then.... I mean there is a fucking big problem
You do realize WLC is a highly respected published academic. Can you please cite the "non-argument" journals WLC is published in? It's truly amazing how after 2000 years of theology and philosophy of the most scrutinized religious ideology in the entire history of Man you've singlehandedly demonstrated, with nothing more than assertions and, dare I say, "platitudes", everyone is wrong but you. What's "word salad" about fine tuning? Thanks for playing way over your head.
@@utopiabuster WLC is highly respected in religious circles, but he is widely ridiculed in scientific circles because of the ridiculous, faulty, and widely debunked arguments he keeps repeating. "most scrutinized religious ideology in the entire history of Man". That's a funny one. Most scrutinized by Christian theologians and apologists maybe. Most non-christian and non-religious theologians would disagree with you. In fact, many scholars of the bible paint a very different picture. The argument from fine-tuning? Maybe you should ask physicists and cosmologists about it, you know, people who actually understand that stuff? The argument from beauty? Give me a break, what about all the ugliness and death and violence and plagues and natural disasters? What about all the death and violence that was perpetrated by "the most scrutinized religious ideology in human history"? "everyone is wrong but you". Says who? Certainly not me. But did you know that the non-religious is now the largest and fastest-growing group of people in developed countries, even in the hyper-religious USA? 93% of the elite scientist members of the prestigious AAAS are atheists. Just me? But I think you're affirming that everyone is wrong but Christians.
@@Graewulfe Yes their talking points are unoriginal and trite. Lots of intelligent theists waste time debating with atheists. The theists just don't operate on the same level of rationale. Might as well debate with your house cat, every mew means "God done it".
@@TurinTuramber, If only the Abrahamic religions existed, I wouldn't have been able to believe in God. So I'm not interested in their apologetics. However, the Vedas offer a holistic theory, including a description of matter that I find compelling. It reduces all experience to three types of meanings, called sat-cit-ānanda. Sat is the capacity for relation; cit is the capacity for cognition; and ānanda is the capacity for emotion. This is important because of the obvious existence of meanings and purposes, which depend on relationships. Classical physics treats things as independent objects, and that supposed independence contradicts the possibility of meaning. To have meaning, things must be part of something, and knowing the meaning requires understanding the whole, the parts, and the relationships. For example, to know what 11 means, it's necessary to understand whether I'm writing a decimal number (eleven) or binary (three). The possibility of various number bases shows the necessity of choice, which is motivated by a purpose. Everything, including numbers, exists in three modes that are reflections of sat-cit-ānanda, as each object is a thing, an ability, and a concept. Things map to cardinal numbers; concepts map to ordinal numbers; and abilities map to Gödel numbers. Mathematics is proved to be incomplete or inconsistent because it cannot distinguish between these three number types. That problem leads to several paradoxes in science, which arguably proves a physical theory cannot be correct. To solve this problem requires a semantic theory instead, in which parts are divisions of a whole, rather than wholes being constructed of parts. Such a whole is conceptually real and forms the space in which the parts are displayed. Parts are also wholes (my whole finger is part of my whole hand, which is part of my arm, part of my body, part of this ecosystem, part of this planet, etc.), but there must be an ultimate whole to avoid postulating an infinite regression. God simply means that ultimate whole, independent from any parts. If you want to see this all explained in depth, my teacher's site is www.Shabda.co, but I'm also happy to discuss it.
God's work is all around you, you just choose to close your eyes when you see his power. Using simple logic and reasoning you can come to the conclusion of God.
*is god willing to remove the bad stuff from nature but not able?* or why did he even create them in the first place? (diseases- for example cancer kills 9 to 10 million people every year worldwide. viruses, pestilence, congenital birth defects, natural disasters such as earthquakes from destroying peoples lives, hurricanes, tornados, deadly poisonous plants or animals- such as snakes kill 80-132k people every year worldwide or mosquitos that kill 1milion people every year) *then he is not omnipotent, is he able but not willing? then he is malevolent, is he neither able nor willing? then why do u call it god instead of just nature*
@@ShowMeYoBoob I'm an atheist but now that you've made a positive claim you bare the burden of proof. The proper answer is 'IDK" but I've seen no evidence of any god.
@@giantopinionsports6119 claim? its not a claim i always speak facts. Just saying idk implies that one doesn't have a rational, analytical and critical thinking brain. Edit: I'm not sure if i understood correctly this part "you bare the burden of proof"
Well, it's important to realise that the individual's brain power is not wasted at death, but continued in the afterlife. It will be morally tested if it is liable to do so.
Humans spend entirely too much time thinking about God and not nearly enough thinking about God’s advice. What is the point of trying to describe the destination when one has never been there and still not even sure what path to take. For the vast majority of humans who still routinely struggle with anger, jealousy, pride, etc., God’s advice should be the focus. And God’s advice is quintessentially reducible.
The top religions of the day are not spending millions pushing conversions, using threats of hell to innocents just to talk about God's advice - this is about gaining power! And the billions of converts don't care for God's advice either - they view God much the same way as any prostitute/leech view the rich Sugar Daddy - their ticket to a life of ease & comfort
Like Robert, I want to believe there is a God but struggle with belief. I find great arguments on both sides of the spectrum from studious men and women and wonder why some believe and others don't. My conclusion is "Faith". Hebrews describes it," The assurance of things hoped for,the conviction of things not seen". It is hope that directs/drives our daily activities. Similarly,we get on a plane and hope it will not crash. We send our kids to school and hope they are not abducted. We drive our cars and hope someone doesn't t-bone us and takes our life. We take chemo and hope it will destroy the cancer before it destroys us. All faith based actions. The probabilities of something going wrong outweighs the risk/result of the action and that is what gives us the assurance.To believe without seeing is difficult!!!
NONE of those things are faith-based decisions. They are decisions based on ones reasonable expectations based on actual evidence and experiences and facts and probabilities calculated based on those facts. Hope and Faith are not the same thing. When I drive a car and hope I dont get t-boned, that is not a faith based decision to drive a car and my hope to not get t-boned has nothing to do with faith I dont have "faith" that I will not get into a car crash. I hope I wont. And if I had nothing to go by regarding safety in cars before I get into a car and drive on a road, then my decision is STILL not faith based unless my decision is based on faith. Im tired of people conflating hope/confidence/trust/etc, with "faith" They arent the same thing. Also, if you dont believe in a god, why did you reference something from a specific religions book regarding a specific god? The bible has tons of diff versions and interpretations, and its weird for a non believer to use one versions definition of faith as if it can be used in an argument about how faith is the same as hope. ?
@@UnderWaterExploring I think you are using your own words and you basically repeated what I said. First, I did not say I didn't believe, I struggle with belief. I am open to the possibility. Second, hope and faith are the same.Look at the dictionary definitions,they are both used similarly. What you describe about making a decision when getting in a car and not crash, is based on a level of trust/ability of yourself, as you say, probabilities of not occurring/avoiding a crash. Agree. But that assurance comes from faith,trust.You have no idea if a drunk will come across your path and kill you. If you are on chemo, you have no way of knowing if it works until you go through it, and many don't make it. that leaves you hoping you are not one of them. That is hope,faith, my friend, and not making a decision based on evidence. Most of us, think faith and hope are only used in religious beliefs, but I conclude they are part of our everyday life. They define,confidence,conviction,optimism,reliance,expectation and so forth.
@@davidsfuntimes9899 you just said that hebrews defines faith as the assurance of things hoped for but you also say that hope and faith are the same thing... ??? you dont see the problem there?
@@UnderWaterExploring The same as being interrelated. You cannot have hope without faith. Hope speaks for the future,while faith in the present. Hebrews is saying, faith is confidence or trust on someone or something not based on proof(things unseen). Hope is an optimistic or expectation or belief it may happen in the future. Without faith you cannot have hope. Your hopeless!!!🙂
Why so much emphasis on Christianity? The Jewish religion was established 3,300 years ago. The Christian religion was founded well after death of Christ, 70 years or so by Paul. It has many contradictions and whilst I say let people have the freedom to follow their own religion, they need to follow it for good for all humanity. Looking at the history of the Christian religion, they have been very hostile to Jews, carrying out mass killings throughout the ages. Why not follow the religion you were born into, instead of those that bathed in Jewish blood throughout history?
Fascinating how limited our perspective is. We are laboring with the narrowest possible definition of God and listening to Atheists who have no explanation for anything. If I saw a ghost it would make me a believer. It would make God a certainty and my finite perspective infinite. It would also make the question of "why?" a legitimate one as there would indeed be an answer. We may well be made in God's image and that is a plausible answer. To restrict my thinking to Atheism and materialism is too local. But I can wait a billion or so years to test the science to see if evolution can produce a Porsche 911 through natural selection which can randomly land on my doorstep.
@@StallionFernando you just proved my point , you don’t need to be afraid of an imaginary Celestial friend to be a good person, most of crime and human misery exist Within religious societies , take for example Brazil almost 100% of the country believe in some sort of cosmic wizard but still the number 1 in the world for Homocide
Listen to everything that William Lane Craig says........if you are a reasonable skeptic, you would be throwing up in the back of your mouth. Says God is the best explination for everything, but doesn't mention any peer-reviewed studies to support it. "God did it, just cause"...
All this mass of becomings always changing and in motion, all these creatures, existences, things, breathing and living forms cannot contain God either in their sum or in their separate existence. He is not in them; it is not in them or by them that he lives, moves or has his being, - God is not the Becoming. It is they that are in him, it is they that live and move in him and draw their truth from him; they are his becomings, he is their being.
Another way to address the question of God work backwards. If you first accept the premise that God exists and that he created the universe so that the intelligent life that arises within that universe will love Him. There can be no question that if God does exist, he created man (and possibly other intelligent biological beings) because He needs us, not because we need him. Start by accepting the premise that God exists, and that he created a physical universe with intelligent biological beings because He needs us to love him. Then work backwards, and ask questions such as why would there be a need for three generations of quarks, or why would there be a need for neutrinos in order to produce the desired result of having intelligent biological life come in to existence to love God.
I truly enjoy your journey, and as a sojourner I too ask myself all these questions, debating these idea and debacles over and over in my mind, when I heard you say I don’t want to be guilty of believing in God because of faulty reasoning ( I’m paraphrasing) I thought to myself, wow..I have been down that road too...in fact that very thought has directed my thinking continually through out my life, I think I have given over too accepting God as real, to fill my own longing for this to be true..I long for there to be A God I who is so intimate with me that I could never be alone or lacking....so As I give myself over to this idea, I find that I see that God in everything, and there is great joy and great peace in that...and even if I am delusional, I am delusion-ally at peace and have joy.....I hope you find your peace as well my friend!
Beware your desires. They will lead you astray. Life is what it appears to be - physical, difficult, and temporary. We don't want it to be that way so we imagine that dying is no different than moving to a new zip code where all will be made right. A child's dream.
@@fr57ujf And yet your actions have consequences: has Alfred Nobel redeemed himself? Did he have to? For a "greater good"? And, what's the truth of the matter? Spirituality can be childish, it doesn't have to be.
@@fr57ujf maybe as Donald Hofmann stated, our senses aren’t designed to see reality as it is, and therefore assuming we see any form of reality and understand it, well is impossible, maybe he is wrong and a few intellectuals do grasp it in its entirety, never the less I have wrestled for a long time and I’m far more settled and have far more joy in my own deluded dream, verses say for instance, yours(no offense intended)… I find that observing life ……love, or kindness generally speaking seems to be the way in which we all maximize our experience. Maybe all the laws of physics were born into existence in order to make this possible. Maybe all the perceived harsh brutality that comes along with these laws provides a back drop for kindness to exist and in that mix I for no reason I understand…. see what I call God. Of course even a mind doesn’t exist in reality the brain does the neurons do, but the mind is a subjective thing that we can observe, perhaps God is similar, or something our sense’s just can’t grasp.
God must have done it because everyone else don't know what it is. Hmm, simply god of the gaps that plays out over and over and over. Prove god! Then claim it!
Your soft touch with William Lane Craig was sad. Earlier in the video you reference the “god of the gaps” but then don’t even discuss when Bill invokes it as one of his proofs. This video was not in the spirit of inquiry.
The longer you believe in any religion, the blinder you will become about all the objective evidence of its non-existence. You will try your very best to defend for your faith ! And this’s exactly what make you unable to see the very truth!!
Very simple question . How the first life form came to be ? Thunder bolt hit the soup of amino acids ? And by doing so created in it a DNA structure that is more complicated than any computer program known to man ?
@@willc5208 I wrote what I meant already. It’s your problem not to get it. When someone you have been trusting so much betrayed you one day, you will keep pondering excuses and reasons for what he/she did to you. You won’t instantly believe that he/she did betray you!
Robert - You aren't searching for the truth. You believe in a supernatural being. That is a non-falsifiable belief so no facts are going to change your mind. It amazes me that you talk to some of the world's brightest scientists who provide you with the most lucid arguments for physicalism, and yet you still cling to your religious ideas. Your series should be called "Ignoring Reason and Embracing Faith".
Falsifying an argument is an empirical necessity. Ontological truths are by their nature unfalsifiable. Not because the are groundless, but because they are arrived at by falsifying everything else until one arrives at a conclusion that can be no other way. It is the art of retroductive reasoning.
THEY HAVE NO EXPLANATION of anything. Did you ignore this fact. They spend their lives separating and categorizing: Light here, vibration over there, and here this is gravity, that is magnetism, and this electricity. They have quantum this, quantum that, next year they realize they have to make a new physics to fit the equation of their newely discovered revelation. Continuely dismissing their preceding beliefs and models. String theory this, theory that... theoretical science is your truth? There's no Truth in science as it's revised continuously. And you can have your belief, but why not apply Reason in though? These brightest sciencetists of today you mention cannot even comprehend the Greats of antiquity or the books of high level metaphysics..
@@TurinTuramber It pays to pretend leprechauns exists? Really? There is no knowledge to be gleaned from this fallacy, except the depth of humans imagination.
@@TurinTuramber True, although the person who made up the myth confessed upon doing so. But hey, people liked to be fooled to believing in make believe.
@@anthonycraig274 Humans are prone to thinking they are better, more functional than they are. Really most people are far more fickle, afraid, impressionable and superstitious than they would ever want to admit.
*_“… Every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”_* Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), founder of modern physics (Theory of Relativity inter alia) and 1921 Nobel prize winner
@@justahuman2244 I don’t see it as an argument. It is a reference… it points to the informed conjecture of someone who we can justifiably believe saw further and clearer than many others of us. NOT knowing what Einstein thought- to censor him, as you’d like- is nutty. Just mentioning what he thought on a topic, when relevant, is just good scholarship. Who the phulk made an argument?
Cherry picker. Well two can play at that game. *_''...They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."_* Moses (fl. c. 14th-13th centuries bc), Hebrew prophet and lawgiver, brother of Aaron.
If Einstein said this, he was obviously wrong. Because obviously everyone doesn't end up being convinced in a spirit superior to that of men from studying science. Often quite the opposite in fact.
@@longcastle4863 “obviously wrong” is arrant ignorance and arrogance. That is neither a disprovable formal hypothesis, nor a statement of empirical fact. The very nature of that surmise is conjectural, it’s purpose provocative. It appears to be of the sort one reads in forecasts, poems, and Psalms. Only a halfwit dolt will puke his ugly folderol over the suggestive communication of a mere intuition.
Even scientist must agree the world we experience is an illusion but who then is the illusion maker and why the illusion? 56. Jesus said, "Whoever has come to know the world has discovered a carcass, and whoever has discovered a carcass, of that person the world is not worthy. - Gospel of Thomas
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 1 Corinthians 13:1-6 KJV His word has the answers to truth.
Anyone seen any miracles lately? Consider what omnicience entails - to know the location and momentum of every particle in the universe. First, quantum mechanics makes that impossible and, second, it would take a mind much larger than the universe to specify it's state with that level of detail We throw words around without understanding what they really mean. And it is uncomfortable for me to see athletes crossing themselves before a game to ask god to help them win. What are we supposed to think? That god doesn't care about the other side?
@@fr57ujf Quantum mechanics as you said makes it impossible but the creator is not subject or constraint to the physical laws He created. These physical laws are His slave. If he was subject to these physical laws, then He wouldn't be God.
@@fr57ujf You are wasting your breathe. You can't use facts and logic against someone who if free to make anything up as they go along. Theists claims should be ignored until they back them up with evidence. If theists had to debate using the same standards as science, then any debate would be like clubbing seal pups.
If it makes you feel good to pray to a God and talk to a God that's great, human beings cannot comprehend death, and never will, if there is a God and you go to this after life spiritual world I'm all for it, but on the other hand if God does not exist you would go back to where you were before you were born which would be nonexistent,
Well the thing is God promises either heaven or hell after death, ceasing to exist is much more palpable then eternal punishment. So finding out if God exist could potentially be the single most important thing you do on this planet.
Another approach in the search for God is starting from looking at what the attributes of God are. It's kind of important to start from describing what you're looking for to begin with. Then consider what signs would be expected to be evident of those attributes. I do respect Dr. Craig in that he is clear that proof is not what he presents. But arguments that might present some plausible convincing aspects. But then I don't believe I've seen any arguments on this that he presents that aren't fallacious.
The search for truth requires an unbiased approach. When you are looking for something you are apt to find it. I don't respect Craig just because he admits that he has no proof for his claims.
Not a theist, but wholly smokes it’s crazy to me just how many things in our human existence could go wrong and how many instead go right and just how amazingly privileged and lucky we are. I mean if I have been popped into existence and given this so very fortunate life I lead, it’s becomes hard to believe that all happened through sheer chance. Feels so utterly, oddly improbable, but hey, what do I know? Also, the fact that we are essentially floating in a black expanse of nothingness. It’s just so hard to picture being on a rocky ball suspended in seemingly nothing. So much wonder!
@@BuddyLee23 The improbability of any given sequence of actions happening can easily grow astronomically huge. If you look at almost anything in any detail, everything is improbable. It's hard to think of anything that can't be shown in some way to be extremely improbable. That improbable things happen incredibly frequently, in no way demonstrates a controlling force. I do agree there's a lot to find wonder at though. And plenty to be grateful about.
@@stevewebber707 Fine-Tuning in Cosmology The Anthropic Principle An Overview of the Fine tuning argument. For many, the regularity of the universe and the precision with which the universe exploded into being provides even more evidences for the existence of God. This evidence technically known as the Teleological argument, derives its name from the Greek word telos, which means "design." The Teleological argument goes like this: 1. Every design has a designer 2. The universe has high- complex design 3. Therefore, the universe has a designer The Anthropic Principle . Scientists are finding the universe is like that watch ( anology of William Paley ), except even more precisely designed. These highly-precise and interdependent environmental conditions (called "anthropic constants") make up what is known as the "Anthropic Principle"-- a title for the mounting evidence that has many scientists believing the universe is extremely fine tuned (designed) to support human CONSCIOUSNESS on earth (Thats why some notorious atheists including Antony Flew later believed in God). Some Anthropic constants example include: 1. birth date of the star-planetary system * if too early: quantity of heavy elements would be too low for large rocky planets to form * if too late: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; ratios of potassium-40, uranium-235, -238, and thorium-232 to iron would be too low for long-lived plate tectonics to be sustained on a rocky planet 2. flux of cosmic-ray protons (one way cloud droplets are seeded) * if too small: inadequate cloud formation in planet's troposphere * if too large: too much cloud formation in planet's troposphere 3. rotation period * if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great * if shorter: atmospheric jet streams would become too laminar and average wind speeds would increase too much 4. fine structure constant (a number, 0.0073, used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines) * if larger: DNA would be unable to function; no stars more than 0.7 solar masses … * if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields … * if smaller: DNA would be unable to function; no stars less than 1.8 solar masses 5. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere * if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly * if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly 6. Jupiter's mass * if greater: Earth's orbit would become unstable; Jupiter's presence would too radically disturb or prevent the formation of Earth * if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth
@@dongshengdi773 Perhaps you could provide a fine tuning argument in the format of an actual argument. I've heard versions presented a number of times, but mostly in broad strokes, rather than actual arguments. But I can perhaps address some of the general issues I've seen with such presentations. In short, what exactly is the fine tuning argument arguing for? And the word tuned, is seemingly left rather vague, despite it being the central point of the argument. So far we have a lot of facts indicating that if certain things were different, there would be potentially dramatic differences and consequences. And apparently some implied assumptions that we can know all those things actually could be different. And no actual knowledge of how such things actually could be different. I'm not particularly bothering with the part implying fine tuning of our solar system for supporting life. Because in our massive universe, there's enormous numbers of planets matching the general characteristics typically listed. If I can summarize a bit: If attributes of the universe could be and were different, the universe would be different. Why is the universe being different a problem exactly? Is it supposed to be implying the purpose of the universe is to create and support humanity? I honestly don't know. As far as I've been able to tell, the fine tuning argument seems to entail a necessary intent and goal of supporting intelligent life, preferably humanity. Which means that the argument seems to begin with major assumptions of the attributes and goals of a creator. Which I hope you could see would be a problem. Life, and the universe is complex of course. But it's complexity does not particularly share elemental properties that we would identify in any items we know to be designed. If anything, the excessive complexity of life, or the natural world, implies it wasn't designed. In a nutshell, there's no reason to assume complexity requires design. We can observe properties of watches and the ways people make them. We can't observe God creating life or the universe. On top of which we have one universe to examine and consider. It's not a large sample size to making such assertions about. As to the teleologic argument you posted a brief version of, you included: 2. The universe has high- complex design Asserting that the universe is designed within a premise, is entirely begging the question. Using the word designed, by definition requires a designer. The entire argument is about whether the universe is designed. Which is perhaps why you followed with the fine tuning stuff.
This was quit possibly his best episode. It is quite correct to say that you can not absolutely prove the existence of God using experimentation, nor can you disprove. I find that using the "best explanation" method works best for me, while others won't believe anything that they can't prove. Seems to me that they already have their minds made up from the start.
Yes, that is true. I have made my mind up from the start, that I will not believe something to be "a Truth" without evidence. I believe there is a lot of evidence to show that humans "feel" more content when they aren't burdened with doubt. So If you cling to a strong conviction, even if it is false, you will "Feel" as if "Truth" is on your side. Religions are just comfortable illusions. I choose to put my faith in the outcomes of the Scientific Method, which is designed to help reduce the influences of my own biases and increases the odds of learning something new and beneficial to the survival of the human species. You can go to your church and pray, I'm going to go fill sandbags and reinforce the levee.
I feel like we are still in the dark ages when it comes to understanding "God". I consider myself an atheist by definition, but I also "believe" in "God". I quote "believe" and "God" because my definition is outside the standard definition of them. I loosely define God as "the source of all that is" and "believe" as "I have a theory on". I've given a great deal of thought on "God", reality, and the meaning of life, and have concluded that "what is", seems perfectly imperfect. Too perfect to be a mere coincidence. Now, I think more about the imperfections, and the why(s). "Why must there be imperfections?", "Why is life so short?", "Why is life kinder, more generous to some, and not others?", etc. I do this by considering the "what ifs". "What if life was perfect??" (What would my idea of a perfect reality be.), "what if I lived for ever?", "What if every one were equal?", and I seem to always arrive at the same answer. I would get bored, I would not appreciate what we have, etc. Life really is perfectly imperfect. Whether we believe in God or not, it does not change the truth about "what is". It is the "what is", that is not always definable and provable, ... that I refer to as God. The "what" is, that is definable and provable, I refer to as reality which can understood with our intellect, and through science.
@@charlesbruno990 I think that is perfect. You have a belief yet you do not "feel" it as a truth that is unquestionable. For myself, I find the theory of evolution to fit very closely to what you believe, That we were created by those forces and pressures of nature. I believe we are watching evolution play out with the virus as it mutates and gains new functions. And I don't feel the need to add an Unknown to an already complicated equation in order to fit my own narrative. What does god need Pearly Gates for, gold paved streets, many mansions, an eternal life of bliss? These are all man-made desires and they are the same ones humans have always had.
@@StephenLewisful In your last paragraph, you are defining God in line with theists. Their God never made sense to me either. I, too, have found no evidence that evolution and nature are not in line with reality, but atheists seem to be short sighted in its significance. The reason being is, I am having a great deal of difficulty with the meaning of terms, (definitions). Definitions were intended to quantify and qualify/give meaning to individual aspects of our reality in order to understand them better, and to be able to communicate with others. They are just a tool. It has proven to be a very important/effective tool in mans evolution, but definitions can also be mis-used, mis-understood, and limiting. You say, (quote) "I believe that we are watching..." as if that should be clear to me. It is not. Your term "believe" has much more meaning to you than to me. It seems to me, and this is just a guess, that you are affected by what is going on in the world. I as well. Who is right, and who is wrong? Should Rogan be dropped from Spotify? (Rhetorical) We all have our ideals. We want the perfect world. Is there a perfect world? I'm guessing not, and that's probably why E.T.s have not made contact with us. 8o) They do not want to influence us. They are just observing to see how it all plays out.
*_“The more I study science, the more I believe in God.”_* --- Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), founder of modern physics (Theory of Relativity inter alia) and 1921 Nobel prize winner
lol you diss Science whenever you can but take advantage of any quote as long as it suits you - shameless hypocrite FYI The "God" of Einstein is NATURE - the world as it is - not some magic King/Dictator in the sky rewarding his loyal supporters
Oh please. Not again. This trope has been so overused. When Einstein said "god" he was referring to nature. He even said so. This misrepresentation is dishonoring his memory and misleading others. Shame on you.
Why do people cling with such ferocity to the belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism." ～ Richard Conn Henry is an Academy Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, author of one book and over 200 publications on the topics of astrophysics and various forms of astronomy.
I always get a good laugh when solipsists try to engage with people in the real world and present their ideas about the other things they claim to "know" aside from "the mind"
@@UnderWaterExploring It is kind of strange that while it would be perverse to declare that only you exist and all else is illusion, it would be equally perverse to imagine that your acceptance of the existence of reality means anything once you no longer exist. Maybe a better way to phrase it would be that no man who lives should doubt existence, and no dead man cares.
Or you can understand that God is with those who are in pain & suffering and need His help Where would you find Rama or Jesus? Look for them in the Leper Colony But that's the problem right? We don't want to go into a leper colony But ah sit and meditate? Sure, easy breezy
Good to know you're on a first-name basis with the creator of the universe. You know, back when we thought that stars were little pin pricks of light and the Earth was the center of the universe, that position was a little more understandable. Today when we know that the observable universe has maybe a trillion galaxies and that each galaxy has billions of stars and that we live on a planet orbiting one rather middling star in an average galaxy, the idea of having a personal relationship with god seems pretty strange to me.
The wises thing mentioned here. They think looking outside will they find truth, when in truth it's only division, dualistic. They have not the eye or Intuition or intellect.
The consciousness of all sentient beings is hardwired to the spirit world. Brains do not run on software. The spirit world therefore dwells within sentient beings.
Some unfortunate children are born without a cerebral cortex. They cannot think, but they are perfectly conscious of their surroundings and respond emotionally to it. On the other hand, damage even a tiny portion of the critical part of the brainstem and a person with a completely intact cerebral cortex goes into an irreversible coma. It is hubris to make pronouncements on a subject on which you apparently know nothing. This is what makes some of the religious so unappealing - they are willing to say anything to support their beliefs. Evidence and truth are not even considered relevant.
god the intelligent designer,we share 40% of the exact dna as lettuce,cabbage and a banana ,96% with chimpanzees ,in gods image ,of course .Humans have tails the first 8 weeks in the womb and pharyngeal gills ,we are descendants of charlie the tuna 🍣
X-Files Good (god) transforms frowns into smiles like magicians turn lead into gold and Jesus (good/god) turns water into wine. A vampire called "greed" does the exact opposite. Question. Why are the evangelical counting corpses using the bible as a springboard to perform somersaults to do the exact opposite of "love their neighbors" and "treat others like they want to be treated"? Answer. This is sick. Because these simple concepts are too far out there to grasp for vampires (greed).
Well, we'd probably do a better job for one reason: if we were Gods at least we wouldn't be believing in any other God who was going to save us and could finally start focusing on saving ourselves.
I feel RLK Is about to believe in God and I'm about to be disappointed because I kinda walked his path and reached a different conclusion. Now I feel I missed something important. I mean RLK is waaaaayyyyy smarter
Scientists and Apologists arguing about something that is completely outside of our understanding. Nice. It's like two people trying to figure out Dark Energy by playing ping pong. Lol
What is true is humans can't explain why they exist. What is false is the ideas that these imaginary gods that are contingencies of history, not truth, would exist without the primitive minds that invented them.
@@dongshengdi773 you have no explanation for that "breakfast". It could be one gods, 700 gods, something other than a god, could be a nice god, a mean god, satan... You literally have no idea. You are 100% guessing
@@dongshengdi773 Existence itself is a mystery, but gods are primitive human inventions. God is not an adult answer to the mystery of existence. It is a pretend answer for children that just want an answer.
William Lane Craig is rhe only person that I am aware of who describes MY situation. I watch everyone arguing about the existence ( or lack thereof) of God. I have no need to argue. I KNOW for sure without a shadow of a doubt that God IS - that He/She/It exists. 🙏❤️
If I love god, Then that love is god. He who loves himself becomes great in himself; He who loves others becomes great through his devotion; He who loves god becomes greater than all. The knight of faith is a dancer with high elevation
God is light of infinite space a mother and place for all creations be existed without there would never be many creations leaning in space by nature and even a human god .the sprit,nothing matter are existing inside space in boarding at some particle.The logical uncreated particle is only space of infinity which something object can expand in space without blocking them.
He is supposed to be a Journalist but when he gets to religion he becomes a blind believer and asks stupid questions that he knows there is no real answer, just pure speculations There is no diff between a Death Cult like Heaven's Gate and the Top Religions of the day but don't expect this "Journalist" to ask such questions
Please keep all the atheistic, diversity, sodomite, muslim, climate and woke ideology to yourself and out of my government and out of my consciousness. Let the Holy Spirit roam freely through our population.
What's with tolerance? Please keep all the atheistic, diversity, sod0mite, muslim, climate and woke ideology to yourself and out of my government and out of my consciousness. Let the Holy Spirit roam freely through our population.
@@grijzekijker You're a perfect example of why White Evangelical Christian in America joined forces with Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists and Qanon nuts to put a would be dictator sociopath, Donald Trump, into office in America. More than anything else Christianity is only a political Party right now, functioning to keep in power those who want to exploit the planet at the expense of our future generations and ensure that the current economic inequality continues.
William Craig's argument was less than impressive. He pointed out what he would argue but he failed to make the arguments. I understand that there is limited time during the interview, but his take just seemed lazy and dismissive of scepticism.
Please let me know where does the soul or the human spirit comes from?. It's a scientific fact that the soul exists, you just cannot capture this energy, lots have tried countries like Russia, do you believe in ghosts and poltergeist, where do they come from?.. God 🙏 is everywhere especially within. Hair is key component, which holy man ever cut his hair?. As you get closer to God and the truth, your hair will grow automatically, just as an condition, think about it.
one thing soumds funny to me, Moral arguments, It doesnt matter whether the source of morality is god or not; Biblical morality is not exactly a good morality. Another thing I want to have is in fact christians have no morality I mean they dont have concept of morality. There is only "obedience" that overwrite everything. Let me give an example, killing a man is immoral not just immoral it is one of the ten commandments, like in Abraham's story They can easily kill someone as innocent as a child. So whatever the morality they follow they wont hesitate to abandon that morality with god's order, Bible itself has full of those examples. You can easily find in the news about people who murders because they think god told them so. Obedience is not morality and morality is not obedience
There's no problem with William Lane Craig insisting on the existence of the deity. When he starts telling me what god thinks and requires, then we have a problem. Because that is damnable presumption.
God or gods may or may not exist. They can be personalised (eg in the simulation hypothesis) or impersonal, as in the pantheistic view, in which he is the world, the universe or the abstract mathematical concept on which physics is based. The search for God will never bring us closer to the truth, but it lets us know a lot about ourselves. About our desires and fears, how we socialise and where the limits of our mental freedom lie.
But there’s more logical reason to believe that there’s a creator behind the universe that there is to believe there’s a ghost in the closest and then we’re left with something that actually does exist: a straw man. The argument for the existence of God isn’t simply a “feeling”.
The origin of universe because thr universe were natured and matured inside infinite space as the elements component for varieties creations be formed.
Yes they should follow their tradition, but avoid antisemitism and the type of behaviour that lead to the abuse of Jews and other peoples in the past(Of which there are many examples.) In other words, if you are Christian be a good one.
If you accept that God (whether he exists or not) is a non-physical consciousness, isn't it an exercise in foolishness to seek an answer to this question from an expert in the physical sciences? It reminds me of the story about a guy looking for his dropped quarter under a street light because that is where the light is, even though he lost the quarter at a different location.
Feelings and faith are not the same thing. I don’t feel the tires on my car will not come off while driving I have faith based on the evidence that the tires will remain on. Feeling, emotion should not drive someone to God. It can’t per the Bible. God says it is through faith. Shalom
9:00. 'God is the reason anything exists. God created the world. God created nature.' So, what's nature?-- the natural? The natural is what exists of and by itself. To say that something exists of and by itself means it was not created. So, God created that which was not created. To accept that God is the reason anything exists is to undercut the connection between language and meaning.
It is very difficult to believe in the biblical God. Just look at the world and see the suffering of people, diseases, catastrophes and so on. There is not the slightest evidence that there is a loving, omniscient or omnipresent God. The surrounding facts show the opposite. If there is a God it cannot be the one in the bible.
If 'god' were true 'argument' would not exist.. So here is one of the main problems.. People have a very poor understanding of what the word 'infinite' actually means.. This is not any kind of 'fault', but just that we have evolved within the confines of what appears to be a finite environment, and we thus try to look at things in finite ways, also justifying those 'finite' thoughts. When I first approached the 'problem' I had the same difficulties, so it takes our minds a lot of effort to reach another perspective of understanding, but it IS achievable.. Firstly, there cannot be more than one 'instance' of infinitude, otherwise a secondary 'thing' would render them both 'finite'. So we are describing a 'oneness'.. Also, it can have no 'beginning' nor 'ending' as these would also necessitate a secondary 'thing' (or the utter nonsense of a 'nothing'!). Then, we have to admit that it can only be the one thing that interconnects all other 'things', and we deduce this to be 'Space', necessarily.. All references to 'size' or 'direction' do not apply to the nature of infinitude, and thus have no relevance to our understanding of the true nature of existence. 'Measurement' has limitations.. When we point to any position in Space, we effectively create a 'beginning' to any subsequent forms of measurement, which only has relevance to the entity desiring to understand said 'measurement'. This does not make it a feature of the nature of reality, only a desire from a Human perspective. spaceandmotion
The trouble with a belief in God is its deleterious effect on the species as a whole. That we don't live in the present in a way to ensure a healthy planet for our future generations can be laid in no small part at the feet of religion. What religion often does is sap away from us the stark realization that we alone are here to care for ourselves. And when you live on a fragile planet, alone and unprotected..... Well then you better take that job seriously.
The world is plenty strange and fascinating without some fairytale god. The world needs to wake up to an atheistic form of spirituality. No supernatural woo woo pseudoscience. Just observations, evidence, and an honest preponderance of the formers.
@@longcastle4863 thanks. Yes I agree totally. Being an atheist doesn’t mean that I don’t think life is amazing and mysterious! I still feel the powerful emotions of connection and wonderment that theists do- I just make an effort to acknowledge the truth of it!
It seems to me you have to pick, God exists and the world is really supernatural or God does not exist and the world is natural. If you think that the world is both supernatural and natural at the same time, how is that supposed to work?
yes it would seem, but then you must assume and accept all that you know of this imaginatary being come to existence. For me that would loudly say 'I MUST ACCEPT THIS IMPERFECT RACIST GOD''. talk about a dour future.......
The day we will see our creator story will be over we are intellectual being the concept of GOD is in our DNA that's why atheist believe natural selection means natural selection has power to create and we believe that GOD has created natural selection He does not need any materiel to create He just use word and there you are
Define the label god beyond the old scriptures of religion and believe. What is god if god would exist? Else it is not even useful to ponder about this!
“Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic.” If that's true then God is two steps beyond logic.
Then you don't understand what "logic" is and how it is used. What you are saying is; If everything inside the quotations is True, then God is "This" (two steps beyond logic). In Logic, this is called an IF; THEN statement. The problem is that it must work in order for it to be a valid statement. Is God only two steps beyond logic? Not Three or Four steps? Is the fact that mankind does not have an answer for all questions, proof of the existence of a supreme being? No. Very Logically, No.
@@StephenLewisful Logic is a relative thing because it depends on something,. Logic depends on our senses gathering information and then it depends on our mind conceptualizing what the sense perceive, but since our senses are limited logic and intelligence will also be limited. And what makes this casual chain of knowledge exist is consciousness because without awareness the mind, senses, and logic could not perform their functions.
Just having kept the door open may have been an insufficient way of seeking the Truth. "He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for My sake shall find it". Mat.10;39
It's not about leaving the door open it's about seeking, "seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened to you" the most beautiful and important things in life don't just end up at your door, you have to go out and seek them.
The point is that non believers do not need a knock down argument. There is no obligation to demonstrate that god doesn't exist. All that is needed is to demonstrate that there is no reason to believe the god hypothesis true absent a knock down argument.
In quran saying that Earth has 7 layer and seven structure of skies which was by diamond,stell,Silver,Gold,and etc.the distance of every layers 500 light years.Heavens have 7 LAYERS and similar with Earth has layers.meaning the distance from Earth is 3,500 light years beyond the first layer of Heaven where Adam lives there.Can the voyager detect the first Heavenly sky by using telescope to proving existence ?
