"So why then, do they pronounce philosophy dead, and claim as scientists to be bearing the torch of discovery? Simply because that enables them to cloak their amateurish philosophizing with the mantle of scientific authority, and so avoid the hard work of actually arguing for (rather than merely asserting) their philosophical viewpoints." This needs to be a famous quote. Somebody- anybody, make that happen!
Craig at a party: (Drunk Hawking): Philoosophy is dead, God is a philosophical idea, so God is dead. Cosmology proves atheism (Drunk WLC): Hold my beer. YO, HOLD MY BEER! Stevie, your naive assertion that philosophy is dead enables you to cloak your amateurish philosophizing with the mantle of scientific authority, and so avoid the hard work of actually arguing for (rather than merely asserting) your philosophical viewpoints. (Hawking): *crickets*
All Craig has to do sound more ambiguous or rather not explain every term/subject he is so familiar with like quantum anthology and RU-vid masses will proclaim him smartest man alive or something equally distasteful usually designated to more ambiguous thinkers like some postmodernists for instance... but Dr Craig has some real wisdom to offer in his Lectures so he simply explains terms such as meta anthology so clearly for RU-vid generation he is not as great as some “greatest” minds of the century he is simply some gifted theologian at best... how sad that truly one of the greatest intellectual of our time is not appropriated properly
What else are you gonna expect from a person who says that Philosophy is dead? Don't get me wrong, I'm a big admirer of his Scientific works but like Lemaître said, it is dangerous for a Scientist to work on other fields they're not experts of just because they're Scientists
@@exoxoe7128 his" philosophical claims" throughout his book are weak!... especially when he is making the claim philosophy is dead. How embarrassing! Now let's address your omniscient powers. Lol
Finn, did WLC make any factual errors here? If not, then did he make any interpretation blunders? Or do you have problems with what he has said or written elsewhere? Are you just one of those never-Craigers? I swear...politics and theology interfere with people’s ability to think clearly and in nuance.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns there is simply no evidence of any god. If there was, you wouldn’t have to have an hour long talk “implying “ there is one. Either god is clearly hiding or doesn’t exist.
+Zulkarnain gillani That is great news! Have you watched any of Dr. Craig's debates against Shabir Ally or other Muslim debaters? They're very insightful as well.
I think you might appreciate some of the debates between Shabir Ally and Jay Smith, David Wood, etc. Perhaps the minimal facts argument for the resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas. God bless and God speed you on your search for the truth. The treasures laid along your path as you embark on your journey are worth more than gold.
This is an outstanding lecture. Lane Craig is a very credible and tremendous debater and he is at is best here debunking "postmodern" assertions about reality or "philosophical" conceptions disguised as "scientific". And he is quite right to question the competence of scientists to pronounce on theological or philosophical questions with the science authority. What is more astounding is that Lane Craig dissects the "scientific" arguments and complex ones with honesty (no straw man arguments here) and rigor, quoting and stressing the contradictions with an amazing clarity even for laymen. Now, being an unbeliever Lane Craig do not convince me about the reality of God but at least I can admit that there are "rational" arguments to believe. Anybody who listen to him carefully and with good faith can not consider such a believer as a lunatic and an ignorant. Hats off to you, Lane Craig.
William Lane Craig is an idiot with no scientific background just look up his support of the neo-Lorentz ether theory a scientifically discredited theory that he uses to substantiate his Kalam cosmological argument
Luis Mijares You are too harsh. Craig is far from being an idiot. He is known to be a strong and intelligent debater. And judging by that clip, I think is is. Now you are right to question his competence in Science above all if Craig supports the "ether theory". But Craig is right to question the competence of Hawking in philosophy and theology. I just bought the Hawking's book Craig is talking about. I was a bit amazed to read that "philosophy is dead because it didn't follow up the developments of Science "! Obviously Hawking don't read very much philosophy books for philosophy is more alive than ever!
Luis Mijares 'His' Kalam cosmological argument? Craig didn't invent the Kalam argument, it was posited in the middle ages, and is basic logic. Neo-Lorentz ether theory is not 'discredited'. but merely a hotly debated topic within special relativity. I could just as easily say that Darwinian Materialism is 'discredited' because its so full of holes and plagued by a total absence of the evidence Darwin hoped future scientists would ultimately find, like a massive fossil record showing innumerable transitions. Just because a matter is debated doesn't mean its utterly discredited.
Frances Rumbletart The Kalam cosmological argument was founded by Al-Ghazali a Islamic scholar and theologian i know that but Craig's specific argument for the Kalam cosmological argument depends on the misappropriation of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, that's why i called it his. No there is no debate over Neo-Lorentz and special relativity, special relativity is the universally accepted theory of space-time. Neo-Lorentz as proposed by William Lane Craig is also unscientific as it can't be independently verified by other scientist. I don't know if your advocating Creationism or saying that the Theory of evolution throw natural selection is false or weak but you should read a biology textbook to be more informed in regards to the false creationist argument of there being no transition fossils.
P Matzneff _"And he is quite right to question the competence of scientists to pronounce on theological or philosophical questions with the science authority."_ Unfortunately, no theologian or philosopher has ever been able to demonstrate that they have expertise about reality either, so even if he had made the point you suggest, it would not really have made much of a difference. _"Now, being an unbeliever Lane Craig do not convince me about the reality of God but at least I can admit that there are "rational" arguments to believe. Anybody who listen to him carefully and with good faith can not consider such a believer as a lunatic and an ignorant. "_ I mostly consider him to be fundamentally dishonest. In any case, all his arguments violate the parsimony requirement of rational inference. This must be the case in any argument that doesn't come supplied with evidence of manifestation of a god.
Mr. Craig is amazingly smart man God blessed him with a way to explain his message to us the best way possible in these hard times of the modern world. I honestly think no atheist he debated stood a chance against his wit and his vast knowledge. Perhaps the only atheist i respected as an opponent to Craig is Chris Hitch, he stood his ground against the wit of Dr. Craig and their debates were very deep and interesting.
Arnold Shanks //Craig bases his belief on an empty tomb...His delusion deceives him ultimately\\ With respect this does not refute anything he says. Nor can any educated atheist seem to overcome his logic.....if his belief is so unequivocally deluded, then this should not be hard to do.
Arnold Shanks Again, this does not refute anything. It could be that a completely different God than the one we worship is real....this does not make God a delusion. If it isn't hard to do, then why can't top scientists overcome his logic?? You seem to think it isn't hard to do based entirely on religious variety...this does nothing to refute whether God is real or not.
Arnold Shanks What's the point of you and me?? Ask him yourself.....bit of a weird question implying there needs to be a point for God. The point of God is whatever point He thinks necessary.
what a badass, the way he put up with that god-awful microphone swinging around on his head without even a 2-second pause in his speech. I wish I was exposed to this guy back when I was an atheist, I think I would have opened my mind to the possibility a lot sooner. instead I had to go through a pretty long process of deprogramming.
Here's a few flaws in the Kalam 1) even if there was a prime mover it wouldn't follow that it was intelligent 2) even if it was intelligent it wouldn't follow that it made our universe directly, our universe could just as plausibly be an offshoot of something else it made 3) even if it made our universe directly it wouldn't follow that it made our universe on purpose 4) even if it made our universe on purpose it wouldn't follow that it made it with humans in mind 5) even if it made it with humans in mind it wouldn't follow that it was omnipotent, it could have the power to create a universe but not have the power to do other things 6) even if it was omnipotent it wouldn't follow that it was omniscient or that it could read our minds. Saying that omnipotence entails omniscience would be like saying I can bench 400 pounds so I can read your mind.
wertytrewqa You dont understand the arguement, its logically ironclad and you are attacking strawmen. He are the responses to your objections: 1) The creation of a universe and all of its complexity isnt something a being could just make by accident, it requires intelegence. 2) Even if our universe was an offshoot of something else (which there is no proof for) it doesnt bear on the existance of a creator for the universe, or a greater multiverse. 3) This is appeal to chance, I wont even answer that its just absurd this objection is just grasping at straws. 4) Irrelevant to the purpose of the arguement its not intended to prove that God created humans with purpose. 5) Again irrelevant. So what, the purpose of the argument isnt to prove God is omnipotent, only the existance of a transcendent creator. 5) Again irrelevant to the purpose of the argument.
1) that's just an assertion. I'm still waiting for the argument. The example I use to show that the creator doesn't have to be intelligent is that when a dog takes a crap the flies that go on it can say it was intelligently fine tuned and designed for them. The creator of the universe(im not saying it has to be personal but even if I conceded that) could be unintelligent but it can be in the nature of the entity to create universes. 2-6) thay would be true if you are arguing for a deist god. Which im not against. If your a deist then that's fine. I think deism is plausible but not for any of the reasons you cited. If your a christian you are not defending the God you warship. There is a long trek you have to make to get from deism to theism which you have not even started to make.
A timeless, spaceless non physical entity, because time, space and physical matter came into being at the time of creation. And also unimaginably powerful and inteligent becuase it created the universe .
"philosophy is dead" and then we are going to affirm empirical verificationism which is a philosophy, lol. would someone make an intro course to philosophy for these physicist a required course please, lol
Outside of time, outside of space, and outside of matter. Thus making god not subject to the laws of this universe. Meaning it is never a logical argument to ask the question, "Who created God?" Because as God is the creator if the universe, the creator is not bound by the limits that he sets for that creation.
I'm sure that did dawn on Hawking, and I'm almost certain that he intentionally wants others to share his atheistic views, despite any doubts he may have about it himself. He's admitted in the past that he was theologically biased when it came to not accepting the conventional singularity model. Then again, it could have been the coauthor who wrote that part...
If God exists outside of time he is logically inconsistent. You could as well make nonsensical arguments about the beginning of the universe without God. In other words: if God can is outside of logical comprehension, we can't use the arguments to defend his existence in the first place. It's a pointless debate.
I wonder if Stephen Hawking would enjoy the same untouchable reverence and worship if he'd never been stricken with his disease. I doubt it. I, for one, think his perseverance in the face of hardship overwhelmingly outshines his brilliance. But everyone else seems to confuse the two, and lauds him accordingly.
The supposed genius discoveries that are attributed to Hawkings are superfluous to most people yet they believe he was the greatest scientist since Einstein. His worldview was similar to your average adolescent who thinks he knows what it's all about. Poor Stephen Hawkings never really grew out of this obnoxious phase of adolescence.
We have elevated scientists to the point where we accept their b.s. Would anyone elevate Hawkins’ opinion about music or art - fields where they have no experience of esoteric knowledge? Yet we are expected to trust their opinion in the fields of religion or philosophy! It is only their hubris and our misplaced respect for scientists that allows their encroachment into fields where they are ignorant.
Yeah I agree! We shouldn't accept the bullsh1t of evidence based, peer reviewed, prediction confirmed science! I would much rather put my faith and beliefs in papers written 2,000 years ago by people that didn't even witness the things they are writing about and believe in something that has loads of contradictions and won't prove itself to exist now!
Great lecture. Honestly I'm more impressed than annoyed with the fact that two well known scientists dare to open themselves into relativistic ideas. I find that truly brave, although rather radical for my appetite
+The Pharaoh "The problem with Craig is how he ignores cosmology" On the contrary, Craig *appeals* to modern cosmology, for the sake of his arguments. For example, most of the evidence says the universe had a beginning. It's these anti-theists who want to argue that point who are ignoring cosmology, if anyone. "the scientists don't believe the big bang was the beginning of our universe, they would never make an absolute claim like that." Ahem. Stephen Hawking: “The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.” www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html At any rate, Craig's KCA doesn't depend on the Big Bang being the beginning. He's perfectly happy to delve into alternate theories, and has given lectures to show that these alternative models don't successfully avoid the beginning of the universe. And he's not alone, or departing from science on that point, either. To quote Alexander Vilenkin (2015), “We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed.” inference-review.com/article/the-beginning-of-the-universe "Second God is just a undemonstrated concept that possess all the "musts" Dr Craig has assigned to it." This seems to be asking for *more* evidence than what he's provided, because the KCA is an *attempt* at demonstrating that a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful and personal creator of the universe exists (whether you call it a god at this point or not).
No one can eliminate the need for an all-encompassing explanation for why things are the way they are because that's a matter of psychology, not astrology or physics or even logic.
+Mathew Steele Not psychology either really, psychology assumes there is a psyche. The answer to why something exists rather than nothing can really only be answered by theology.
Holy Spirit Activism I'm not sure what you're saying with "psychology assumes there is a psyche." Could you clarify? Being able to offer an answer to why something exists rather than nothing doesn't mean it's reasonable. The need to have an answer just for the sake of having one, regardless of whether or not it's correct, is what I mean when I say it's a matter of psychology.
Science gives us advancement. Philosophy does not. And hawking didn’t delve into theology because if you don’t believe in the supernatural. You don’t need to delve into it
I agree that if we're in a computer simulation, there's a difference between the way the world is objectively and how the simulation makes things seem. But could there be a vicious infinite regress of simulations? I doubt it because Dr. Craig convinced me that in the real world, there can't be infinitely many objects.
I think WLC exposes the assumptions made by ... all of us really; dependent on our level of intelligence and education. He does such a good job of dissecting a person’s arguments, and it is that which points to our basic unwillingness to even acknowledge that God may exist, because admitting that would expose our refusal to seek Him..
jasonatait It's proper practice to pronounce place and person names in their original form, when one can. Hence the pronunciation of George (not like the english ‘George’) LeMaitre, Kierkegaard (silent ‘d’), Einstein (with Zischlaut ‘sch’ and not ‘ss’), Galois (silent ‘s’), etc. When one is not able to do this, then one is to pronounce the word according to the best adaptation within the language being used. Here are some examples: 1. baletto (italien) -> balet (french: silent t) ~> Ballett (German recovered voiced ‘t‘) 2. Absatz (German) -> абзац (Russian: stress shifted to second syllable) 3. restaurant (french) -> restaurant (english: voiced t) ~> Restaurant (German: recovered french pronunciation) 4. MacDonalds (English) -> 麦当劳 (Chinese: mài-dàng-láo) etc.
I notice in some philosophers an inability to grasp fuzzy, incompletely defined terms. Such philosophers often settle for some precisely defined misunderstanding of their opponents terms. I see Dr. Craig do this all the time. He really helps me see how strong Steven Hawking arguments are and how stupid Hawking's opponents are. Thanks Craig for embarrassing yourself!
Let's try to keep this comment section civil, shall we? To be fair, I've only seen one person in these comments so far who I'd label as an "angry atheist."
Ti In Craig's case, no, I haven't seen anyone refute him. And that's after watching all of the debates in which he's challenged by everyone from your typical popularizer to some of the most scholarly atheists around.
It is interesting to compare Hawking’s and his coauthor’s position to the thoughtful exposition of critical realism given by the noted biologist and Roman Catholic, Arthur Peacocke.
Time, space and everything else had their beginning in the creation. They only have meaning and significance from the point of view of entities that are conscious of them. We can safely assume that the best of this "entities" is human who also has its beginning in the creation.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:33 📚 Stephen Hawking's claims about quantum physics challenging the need for a creator have gained attention. 01:32 🧐 Hawking's views are criticized by Sir Martin Rees for his limited exposure to philosophy and theology. 02:29 📜 Hawking's book "The Grand Design" questions traditional philosophy, but ironically delves into philosophical discussions. 05:18 🧪 Hawking and Mlodinow's book spends a significant portion discussing history and philosophy of science, contradicting their dismissal of philosophy. 08:10 🌌 Hawking and Mlodinow's "model-dependent realism" is akin to ontological pluralism, denying objective reality. 12:07 🌎 Hawking and Mlodinow suggest that models create their own realities, promoting ontological relativism. 17:38 🧐 Hawking's argument against a creator due to time and the Big Bang is questioned, as simultaneous causation is plausible. 23:26 🌌 Hawking's "No-Boundary" model is critiqued for not explaining the origin of the universe, merely describing its evolution. 25:47 🤨 Hawking's attempt to explain universe's origin shifts between "nothing" as quantum vacuum and non-being, causing confusion. 27:46 🤔 Hawking's treatment of the question "why is there something rather than nothing" lacks clarity and consistency. 29:14 ✝️ Despite criticism, Hawking's book inadvertently supports arguments for a transcendent creator due to its affirmation of an absolute beginning. 32:54 🌎 Our concepts shape how we perceive the world. Examples: theoretical knowledge enables understanding, like a technician recognizing an interferometer. 35:24 🏀 Understanding rules is crucial to perceiving reality, as in recognizing a home run in baseball or a checkmate in chess. 37:53 🔄 Objector's burden: Justifying the claim that causes must be chronologically prior to effects in time; simultaneous causation makes sense. 39:56 🧐 Theological motivations can lead to denying evidence, like the beginning of the universe, based on theological biases. 43:28 📚 "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow is theologically biased and not recommended for cosmological understanding. 45:51 🔬 Recommended readings: Albert Einstein's works on relativity theory, Arthur Eddington's early cosmology works, and Nick Herbert's "Quantum Reality." 49:36 🌌 Cosmological arguments persist despite alternative theories like String theory; various models fail to eliminate the need for a cosmic beginning. 52:59 🎭 Critique of self-causation and ontological pluralism; Hawking's positivism and verificationism might influence his views. 58:24 💡 Hawking's ontological relativism may be rooted in his positivist tendencies, but co-authorship raises questions about the source of certain ideas.
+Ti Craig's analysis is perfectly sound. You just keep claiming that the analysis is mere assertion, without pointing out where the assertion is or why you don't think some of the steps logically follow. "I told you that god is not an explanation," Now *that* is just an assertion! That is what it looks like, when a person just makes a claim and can't explain why it's correct. "all you've essentially done is explain Y by X (god) because you think this X contains all the attributes that is required to create all this," I myself am not a theist. But the attributes mentioned in Craig's analysis *are* part of what people mean by "god" (and I think you know that, you're just trying to be difficult). "The universe already exists we can't contrast it with any examples of a created universe.." So what? If the argument goes through (which it seems like it does, giving the utter lack of a successful refutation of it), then it just *is* the evidence for such a being as a god. "Craig can't think of any other possibility besides a thinking agent which is an argument from ignorance fallacy." No, that part follows from the deductive argument. Since only abstract objects and unembodied minds could fit the timeless, spaceless requirement, then these are the live options. Since abstract objects don't stand in causal relations, then an unembodied mind is the conclusion. "God did it, doesn't explain how god did it," Nor does it have to. Consider the following analogy: While flying over an undiscovered island of primitive villagers, a man drops his cell phone out of his helicopter unawares. The people have no concept of electronics whatsoever. They find the cell phone, however and, after considerable time toying with it, they push a button on the side and presto! A screen appears. These people would be perfectly rational to accept that the button is the cause of the screen lighting up, even though they have absolutely no idea how this is happening. "The best this argument can do is prove a deistic concept, but it still doesn't even prove that." Two things about this: 1. Craig doesn't *argue* for certainty/proof, he argues for plausibility. 2. When in conversation with someone and comparing belief in god to disbelief in god, the terms are typically "theism vs. atheism". It's simply not an aspiration of the argument to conclude anything more than "a god of some kind plausibly exists".
+Ti "By claiming that he didn't demonstrate his assertion in his argument that means I can't defend my objection?" Well yes, because I gave you the logic by which each of the steps in the analysis were taken. It's not enough to just repeat "Nah, he didn't demonstrate it". "You just shifted the burden of proof on me that's not how this works." The burden of proof *started* with you, because you claimed all of Craig's arguments have been refuted. And kicking back and saying "I'm not convinced" ad nauseam is not how it works either. "You make the positive claim that a god is the cause" No I do not. I'm not even a theist to begin with. I'm just pointing out that no one's been able to refute Craig yet (despite claims to the contrary).
+Ti "it's like you have so much pride you can't accept ignorance." Right, exactly! :P "I object to his conclusion precisely because the Kalam argument doesn't conclude a god" That's nonsensical. You reject his analysis of what the cause of the universe must be, because it isn't technically part of the Kalam cosmological argument? "It's like saying Z,Y,X, GOD because he doesn't know what happened before X it's just based on ignorance period." Oh not at all. The conclusion of "GOD" results from the aforementioned analysis, which is indeed logically sound. All of these premises are based on what we *know* and/or sound logic, there is no appeal to ignorance whatsoever.
+Ti Well, I said that the theory that it may be logically impossible to *appreciate* heaven without having experienced suffering is logically sound, but close enough. "whatever happens after you die is irrelevant it's not something I'm going to worry about precisely because there is no evidence for life after death period" While I agree that there is no direct evidence for an afterlife, it's just plain foolish to say the question of one is irrelevant. It's *hugely* significant, whether or not we continue on existing after we die. As for not "worrying about" it, I don't think *anyone's* asking you to *worry* about it. "This hypothesis about something better after wards is actually dangerous because not only does that cheapen life, it makes you take this life for granted." I disagree. It's a rather indisputable fact that if we (collectively, as a species) cease to exist in every possible sense of the word, then *that's* the cheapest value a life could have! If we continue to exist, on the other hand, then every single thing we do continues to have meaning and value. And so when it comes to not "taking this life for granted", I would simply point out that even if I do completely waste my life and regret how I lived it while I'm on my death bed, there's really no significant risk because it's not like I'll regret it *afterward.* "We have a reason to improve this life, theism doesn't give a shit because it's all about Jesus and the after life." Christianity most certainly does encourage and command people to "give a shit" about this life. But it's *logically* the case that whatever you do in this life will either haunt or comfort you in the afterlife, if the Christian story is true. Finally, you mention "bad evidence". But no one's been able to refute any of Craig's arguments, so I'm not sure how you can slap that label on them (if that is what you're doing).
So, if the view that any 2 opposite statements are true is as radical, what would WLC say about the view that they both - and any other possible and impossible value - are true and untrue at the same time? Claims like this do exist as well after all.
nathan wach Why do things change tho? If And yes even if time is only the measure of change (entropy?), that still works with the Bible. As the Bible says that God 'never' changes, and is always the same. He's outside of time, or simply unaffected by time. I'm not 100% sure on all this yet. "Isa 57:15 For thus says the high and lofty One that 'inhabits eternity', whose name is Holy;"
nathan wach I feel you. And likewise, I think this deeply too. But His thought's and the information in His mind could have existed the same exact way that whatever atheists believe existed first could have. Why can dust, and universes be eternal, but not 'neuron firing tissue' (if God's brain is even physical)? Moreover, our law's of logic and physics may not even apply to the Spiritual realm? So maybe even trying to figure it out is moot? After all, the Bible says 'no mind can conceive of the things The Lord has waiting for those who love Him." Anyways, Even Richard Dawkins said biology points to a creator. He only believes it may be Aliens. We'll see.
nathan wach The Bible does say God is changeless, but I find it odd you would consider that attribute as machine like. Machines arent necessarily changeless. Is God's eternity to be construed as timeless or temporal? Given that the universe began to exist, a relational view of time suggests that time also began to exist. God's existence "prior to" or sans creation would not entail the existence of time if God in such a state is changeless. But if God sustains real relations with the world, the co-existence of God and the world imply that God is temporal subsequent to the moment of creation. Given the superiority of a relational over a non-relational (Newtonian) view of time, God ought to be considered as timeless sans creation and temporal subsequent to creation.
Hawking said that there was no scientific necessity for a creator. The religious begin by believing in a creator and then twisting the data to fit their beliefs.
Eh, most experts know that the sign of a true expert is someone who can simplify an idea to its most simplest (and no simpler). So then: * Knowledge requires evidence * So if truth is our goal, we must only believe things we know are true (things we have evidence of). * We don't have strong, logical evidence of a god. * So we shouldn't believe in them.
yeah, actually- if there were life out there we should have found it already. It's been demonstrated it is extremely unlikely that ANY planet should be able to support life, the planet earth itself defies everything we've come to learn about the universe- the fact we are here is amazing. The fact anything else is out there, would, too, be amazing. In our own galaxy is it highly unlikely that any life exists besides us, there is only a small ring in the galaxy where life could be supported and most of the planets within it have been seen to hold no life or probably wouldn't be able to. This shrinks the amount of habitable planets out there by a vast amount.
+Roper122 "Depends what you mean by " fine tuning "" So you don't even know what "fine-tuning" *refers* to, and you're here implying that it doesn't exist? Wow. "And yeah there is another alternative ( if that's what you want )" Let's hear it! "As I pointed out on the other thread, we can't even be sure that " fine tuning " as you put it," As the *physicists* put it, you mean. Again, this is not an invention of Christian apologists; Craig gets this information directly from science itself. "As for another option. Well, evolution is the perfect example." Unfortunately, it isn't, because these are the *initial* constants and quantities given in the Big Bang, not a product of a long duration of time.
+Roper122 Well you have already been given a description of what god is. And an explanation as to how god exists isn't necessary either. This was Craig's whole point. "Craig is trying to pretend that he can decide what the “ best “ explanation is," Through deductive logic, anyone can. ME: "One doesn't have to explain where a cause came from to deduce that it is the cause of something else" YOU: "Yes," Alright then, so "What caused god?" is not a good objection to Craig's cosmological argument. "when choosing which is the “ best “ you must take into account a variety of things.. including whether they have explanations of their own." Obviously if there were an alternative that worked and also had an explanation of its own, that would be better. But there *isn't* another alternative that works, to be the cause of spacetime itself. None have been offered, and if one were, it's almost guaranteed that it would have the same "problem" as Craig's god hypothesis - namely, we couldn't answer the question "What caused it?" either. So like I said, we (collectively) don't treat hypotheses that way, and so we've no reason to start with Craig's god hypothesis (unless we're just biased anti-theists). "But in the sense that, nothing “ immaterial “ has ever been shown to have any sort of consciousness at all," Which has nothing to do with considerations of simplicity. You're going off on a totally different argument now. "we are forced to assume that if you want this thing to be a “ mind “ then mind’s are complex." What makes *you* think minds are complex? The human *brain* is complex, but that doesn't mean a mind itself (if such a thing exists) is complex at all. As Craig said, I think you're confusing a thing's capabilities with the thing itself. But if we were to say that due to the thing's *capabilities* it's either simple/complex, then the entire consideration goes out the window because there's no such thing as "The cause should be simpler than the effect" when the effect is what we consider to determine the cause's simplicity ;) And just because you can't refute Craig's arguments doesn't mean they're "word games". YOU: "it is an imaginary creature." ME: "So now you have made your assertion. Do you have any arguments or evidence to support this claim?" YOU: "Sure.. show me another example aside from the one you assert." ME: "That's not an argument" YOU: "I told you that this is an imaginary feature," Right, that's just an assertion on your part, not an argument. "and you can’t show me any examples of one existing in reality??? And that’s not a na argument??" Of course not! That'd be like me saying "There are no planets outside the reach of our strongest telescope" and then when you challenged that claim I just said "Well can you *show* me such a planet? No? Okay then, that's evidence I'm right." "That's you asking me for an argument in favor of the opposite claim (when I haven't made any claims regarding the reality of a god)." You called him "an imaginary creature". That means you're saying he's not real, lol. "How do you propose someone proves an argument that Santa is imaginary?" Well they could say "We should expect to have seen him or his sleigh at least once", perhaps. But even if that argument fails, the point is you shouldn't make truth claims you can't support. "My point is that the ting being proposed has no previous examples at all." And my point is that that's not needed. If the argument's follow deductively, they're evidence for their conclusions. "So.. no one knows. Bottom line no one knows." Lol, that's not the bottom line because that's not how philosophical debate works. No one's going to know these answers, but some people like to use logic to try and figure out what is the more *likely* answer. "And no the majority of physicist hasn’t turned dramatically to theism." Absolutely no one has claimed that they have. But the majority of physicists may very well agree with one of Craig's premises in his arguments, which is all we need them for anyway, quite frankly. Whether or not the majority of them agreed with his purely *philosophical* premises isn't all that significant, because they're not usually trained very well in philosophy. "Krauss says something that is his best guess..." Basing it on "the physics that I know" (which, you know, is a lot!) "And you are asking me for someone who disagrees, but has evidence???? Vilenkin disagrees with Alan Guthe," Right, and Alan Guth didn't attribute his position to any evidence at all (he just asserted it; sound familiar?), whereas Vilenkin has given lectures and written papers saying that "all the evidence we have says the universe had a beginning". You may be confusing evidence with a sort of outright *proof,* though. I would agree that no one knows for *sure.* "Only because you assume that the universe began and god did not." No, because there is no *evidence* that if god exists he had a beginning.
Do these otherwise intelligent people really think that the universe simply popped into being from nothing? This is so unscientific that I feel like I'm misunderstanding their claim. Some are just blatantly dishonest (Lawrence Krauss comes to mind) but so many others seem to really believe this.
Honestly _"popped into being from nothing"_ is mostly a dishonest theist straw man. Most commonly it's used when the theist is asked to justify their belief in a god with evidence. Theists _at some level_ (usually subconsciously) know they don't have sufficient evidence of a god to justify belief. So changing the topic (from justifying their belief to attacking another) is a common technique they use to ignore the fact that their position is baseless. To be clear, there's no Theory of the Universe's Origin. Science doesn't claim to know how the universe originated. Many (possibly most) atheists don't either. * We don't have evidence of how the universe originated. * Knowledge requires evidence. * Therefore we don't know how it originated. * Therefore the only honest, rational position is admitting "I don't know". Theists don't admit they don't know. They claim a god did it. On extremely bad evidence (often just one book saying something with no outside evidence proving it and many problems with that book's claims, like how the Genesis account contradicts itself on the order of creation, and how reality contradicts Genesis in terms of how long it took for various things to be created). So yeah, it'd be unscientific if people said they knew how the universe originated without evidence _mainly theists_ are doing that.
One thing I have to criticize William on aside from his genius in the rest of the lecture.@43:40 He states, "The first 3rd of the book is pure philosophy. Its not about science." Yet earlier he states how relevant science philosophy is. Doesn't make much sense to me why he would say this.
What WLC said is although they proclaimed philosophy dead they engage in philosophy in the first third of their book without even understanding it. Importance or non importance of philosophy of science have nothing to do with that.
Yokai Innorruk Your question was implied by your statement. If you were to formulate it you basically asked "Why would Bill Craig talk about the relevance of science philosophy but then later say the first third of the book was pure philosophy? Isn't that a contradiction?"
Why would anybody be interested in the opinion of a philosopher on the origin of the universe? They perform no experiments, gather no data, hardly interact with scientists, and know little about the field that studies the origin of the universe. They hardly - most of them - know or do any mathematics and probably couldn't solve a chapter 1 physics problem from a college textbook.
The "origin of the universe" is incomprehensible, and immeasurable certainly by any material tools. Even top physisists can only do "thought experiments" re: extremely advanced theories. What other avenues do we have, then? I say it's impossible to imagine something existing outside of time, or before time,or the beginning of linear time. This is why, to me, atheists don't have a leg to stand on. "God" is the word we use for the incomprehensible source.
@@businessenglishteacherus It's not meaningful to assign the word "God" to a natural pattern that we observe in the universe. You might as well call gravity "God" or any of the other fundamental forces we observe "God". But that of course would just be ridiculous because theists literally think of God as a trumped up human mind that interacts with us personally, not a force of nature. Scientific theories just describe predictable and persistent patterns that we observe in the universe and that's all they do. Theists say nothing like this and instead say there's a literal "boss of the universe" that they derive a picture of based on human social and psychological tendencies. If you're going to argue there is "some force" out there that is an aspect of nature that gave rise to the universe, you're really nothing more than a deist at best, i.e. someone who denies literally every religious claim ever made. The moment you start assigning things like "preferences" and "desires" and emotions to that force you enter into the incoherence of religious theology. Atheists don't engage in this kind of incoherence nor do they purport to have total knowledge of the universe's origins - at least, no person I'm willing to share the naturalist title alongside. A naturalist is a scientist, and a scientist is someone who thinks observation is the reliable method for understanding the world. I don't see why that's a controversial position just because it doesn't purport to hold an answer for every question anyone could possibly ask about every single thing that exists, which is what theists want to have.
@@businessenglishteacherus Nobody has ever seen the "origin of the universe". Why are you talking bullshit about something that nobody has ever seen? :-)
Would like to see Dr. Craig do more impersonations of Dr. Hawking. This was the high point of this presentation and could add tremendous value to future presentations. LOL
most popular scientist since Einstein... till you realize Kim Kardashian is more famous than both. i need to head desk till i am no longer aware of my surroundings.
If Hawking believes in ontological pluralism, how can he say that cosmology proves that atheism is true when there's no right answer about whether a theistic ontology is true. They seem to believe that atheism is true when they imply that an atheistic ontology is neither true nor false.
@@williammcenaney1331 Honestly, I don't know. I cannot comprehend how an intelligent person can say "reality is created by a person's perception" and then claim that atheism is objectively true. But then again, Hawking also said "the universe can and will create itself" which doesn't make any sense either... perhaps my expectations are just too high.
@@friedrichrubinstein2346 Maybe some people ignore his relativism to believe the "realist" theories Hawking proposes. Have you heard Dawkins's "What if you're wrong?" speech? After a woman asks that question, he commits an obvious example of the genetic fallacy. The audience's cheers probably embarrassed the questioner. But the professor's "cult" never noticed his blunder.
@@williammcenaney1331 I haven't heard of that speech unfortunately, I will have to look for it :D I do know though that Dawkins claims that everything is the result of "mindless, unguided natural processes", including the human brain. If that is true though then there is no reason to trust the human brain, because evolution is about surviving, not about truth. This Dawkins' worldview calls all of our philosophy into question, including Dawkin's atheism. As atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel says: "Evolutionary naturalism implies that we shouldn’t take any of our convictions seriously, including the scientific world picture on which evolutionary naturalism itself depends."
you know...listening too things like this I'm happy too not really be that smart. Sometimes intelligent people take things too far regardless of their personal worldviews or beliefs, if Stephen Hawkings felt confident enough too publicly dismiss an entire discipline, no multiple disciplines of study like come on! I am a christian myself and with that comes some biases and predispositions about reality and it's underlying nature. Some I'm very aware of but there has too be bias blindspots too because everyone else has them, why would I be the exception, right? Anyway I'm neither well read enough or intelligent enough even I was too understand a lot of advanced concepts in physics, philosophy or even christian theology so too hear someone like Hawkins claim that God is dead because high level physics I don't understand but I know others...do? try too?, fair enough this makes sense because it's not in his accepted world view too begin with. It's intellectually honest and I respect that. But then he also says the same about philosophy and I'm thinking too myself "what do they even have in common? there's like zero overlap in their respective fields purpose and functions. Is there an overlap I'm too stupid too see? Maybe." But then he argues against objective observable reality in PHYSICS with an extreme philosophy argument without even realizing it and I have too pull the plug. How high on your own farts, how arrogant and dismissive do you have too be to get here? As I wrote earlier I'm a devout christian but if I ever where too become an atheist this is the last thing that would convince me I'll take being an atheist that believes the five element theory any day of the week over what I just heard. There's no way I'm the only one. I have hardcore atheist friends that I am convinced would happily accept christianity as their world view on a purely logical basis if (my current understanding 10 minutes into a video) the theory proposed here was the other option. If any atheist/agnostic got this far down in this word salad, would you chose christianity/a creator behind reality over whatever Schrödinger analogy Hawkins presented here if those where the only options you had in how too see reality? why? why not? I'm genuinely curious, we're talking philosophy only here because in my mind there's nothing in science today that goes against that God wouldn't be the author of every physical law, chemical element, or most theories of evolution. Excluding neo-Darwinism but AFAIK that particular branch isn't that credible today compared too other evolutionary theories, feel free to correct me
I like what you wrote. I am an atheist and as such am totally evidence based. For me WLC's 'philosophy' is conjuring 'evidence' for God where no evidence exists. A creator may exist, but one from the bible, that craves worship and has allowed evil into the world makes absolutely no sense to me. If there is a God that wants me to worship it out there, then why is it not abundantly clear to me that it wants that? Happy to elaborate if you want, but those are my basic thoughts and reasons.
Okay obviously I'm on your side Dr. Craig, but maybe mimicking his computer voice was a bit much, no wonder all the atheists are all flared up. But clearly that's emotional rather than intellectual. Because claiming that Philosophy is dead and then continue to ramble on like an amateur about philosophy is just Tom foolery.
I agree. His contortions of the truth of science is mind boggling. The fact that he uses quotes out of context to support any claims he makes is an insult to anyone with half a brain.
Hawking regarded "the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail", and the concept of an afterlife as a "fairy story for people afraid of the dark."
Dogma Slayer they are Creationists, neither one is a scientist. They won't debate WLC and I doubt he wants to get into a debate with them as it wouldn't look good for christians to do. I am a biologist and an old earth creationist based on the works of some medieval hebrew scholars and quantum theory that as the mass/energy/space universe expanded so time expanded as well. I believe in a guided evolution, but not until the recent discovery that DNA reengineers its programing to adapt to new situations did I find the clue I needed to show why some animals suddenly seem to just appear or evolve faster than Neo Darwinian theory could allow for. Like whales evolving in only 10 million years, that's impossible under the old paradigm as it is too short for the massive changes that occurred. Neo Darwinian theory only accounts for the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest and even atheist scientists say as much, well some do. It's going to change, the laboratory evidence is irrefutable and so as the old guard die off it will change. Apparently DNA is intelligent, Who put intelligence in there? How can a molecule that's two meters long when stretched out fold itself up and the DNA elements all end up next to the ones it needed to work with? It answered a lot of questions and Darwinists are fighting it tooth and nail trying to explain it away because their A-theology tells them too. The next twenty years is going to be fun to watch, but I doubt I will live to see it as I'm retired now.
who told you these things ? what's your source for this version of history ? sky fairy ? what's that ? haha . oh god , your maker . yeh, you should definitely mock your maker . makes perfect sense .
I have long since determined that Stephen Hawking epitomises the age old truth that there is a fundamental difference between intellect and wisdom. His cup is overflowing with respect to the former. But it is largely empty with respect to the latter.
Why doesn't anything just pop into the universe at any time? Because things don't.So craig ,gives logical inferences that an all powerful being that always existed an never had a cause,an is outside of time, space,an all we know. I agree with that an it makes sense to me after 50 years in the sciences and religion. Also god, best explains moral objective values an reasons for living.
If God Could have always existed, so could matter. And the all powerfull atribute is unnecesary. The best we can do is admit that we don't know the answer yet, instead of making one. And your las sentence is called wishfull thinking. I doesn't matter what you wan't but what it is.
Tyrion Lannister Ty,according to the BB model, there was Nothing before that,Nothing (absence of anything) an there are many good reasons that the BB started it all. That's why FRED HOYLE leading atheist after grudgingly accepting the BB said ,Someone has tinkered with the universe,an whether one likes it or not that's a true statement.If you want to discard the possibility of a creator that that's your right.But after 50 years myself in the sciences(3 degrees) plus researching the Bible in the historical and archeological venue, im more that convinced that the personage of jesus Christ is true and real as he explains mankinds dilemma outside of HIM., Im a realist and I also was an agnostic for years ,so ive been there. An btw Roger Penrose, also inferred an intelligeance when talking about the bb,but rather than mention a god of any sort he wanted to believe in a multiverse model, which again there isn't a sliver of hard data on this one. Some people just don't want anything to do with a God or intelligent being,So I say it takes more Faith to be an athesist than a believer. Please search both out before you make a lifelong decision. I did an there is plenty of evidence that jesus was God for me. Whatever starts to exist must have a cause,.Matter just does not arise by itself ,there are LAWS of Physics like entropy whice means eventually all that exists will decay into what? Nothing the absence of Everything. So how does it start up again or better yet ,how did it start. by itself.Preposterous.
David King I guess you have not read what I stated. go see the movie God is NOT dead. hawking an all the arguments should clear your head up. all im saying is that you or no one can prove that God does not exist. however me or no one can prove he does. again all im saying is that God is the best explanation why thre is something rather than nothing. Nothing has no properties an does not exist. hawking says philosophy is dead ,yet spends the first part of his new book about philosophy. He also states, there was no Before the big bang -there was nothing before that. So in order to avoid gods possible existence, he then says that gravity was responsible for the universes existence while never even says where IT came from. Hoyle said that before the BB there also was nothing and hinted at A intelligeance. now go and read up befor YOU make idiotic statements. I have a masters in cosmology. an have read just about everything an I became a Christian based on evidence and the problems of good n evil.
BOBBY FREE You mean that movie where they make a strawman saying people only disbelieve for being mad at god, where none of the loving xtians cared that the atheist profesor dies and go to a party?
And your proof of this is where? My point is that to indoctrinate children into religion without showing them both sides of the issue is doing them a disservice. When they grow , move out ,and discover that all religion is a lie they may distrust everything there parents have told them.
I asked for proof that they were atheists not weather or not they killed each other. You asked what my point was and I stated it. Are your just trolling for and argument for the sake of arguing?
Of course science doesn't equal truth whatever you define that as but it does tell you how things behave in the real world. You obviously don't understand science at all, if you believe a result is false or corrupt you can challenge it and prove it's false with your own evidence and conclusions and that happens constantly, all science is provisional. It's a pity religion doesn't behave the same way.
This is fairly weird. Everybody here seems to completely misunderstand what Hawking means bye "philosophy is dead". That includes Craig (though I suppose he’s just being dishonest). When Hawking says that "philosophy is dead", he means that for nearly three thousand years philosophical enquires were the main force behind the evolution of humankind (as a civilisation). Philosophers were even kind of the first scientists really. But then, thanks to technological advancements and advancement in thought (thanks to being able to built upon the discoveries of previous generations) real science was born. And ever since man is capable of controlling magnetic fields, microwaves, is capable of landing on the moon, and take photos of black holes, science is the main force in the development of the society, civilisation, humankind, you call it. There's nothing particularly controversial here really. Notice, he doesn’t even mention religion in these passages. That’s because religion went before philosophy in this same process. It’s an evolution of the most effective manner of enquiry and the gathering of knowledge.
@@lepidoptera9337 For one, when you trace back the origins of modern science, the font at which you stop are the "philosophers of nature" from ancient Greece. Observing the world around you in order to be able to live through the next day is not "science" in the sense we use it today, and it's not the way people used in ever. Second, Plato's cave does not dismiss naturalistic descriptions of the world. It only states there is another "realm" of being, one which is "more "true" than the one we live our lives in. The point of the cave analogy is not to say that enquiries about the natural/physical world are pointless. It doesn't deal with such questions at all. The whole point is that what we see in the world (physical) are "representations" of the world of ideas (metaphysical). The idea is that everything we see in the physical world has got to have an "outline"/"stencil" in the metaphysical. And this doesn't disprove the usefulness of materialistic/naturalistic enquiries.
@@lepidoptera9337 I haven't said that Plato or Aristotle were naturalists though. No idea where you got that from. Anyway, it's not me who's full of himself in this conversation.
@@lepidoptera9337 try talking about yourself next time, there's really no need of guessing what other people think or feel, especially when you can't even see their facial expressions.
The need for a creator is not a physical one. It's a psychological need of people who have never experienced proper parental love, like WLC. Instead of dealing with his childhood loss, he demands that there be an imaginary vengeful father figure who will slay all of his imaginary emotional enemies for him. It's immature, trite and unworthy of a human being to think that way. Theists need therapy. It is that simple.
I would love to debate ANY of you William lame Craig fanboys. I want the best possible arguments you can give me for the existence of the god of religion. I'm not against Spinoza's god though.
Caleb Whittington Im waiting for him to come to my city so I can sit in the audience and ask him some questions. If he wants to debate me on the spot I would be willing.
You really have NO idea what he thinks about the Bible. He, and all educated believers know that not everything in the Bible should be taken literally. The Bible is a "collection" if individual writings that contain history, poetry, hyperbole, parallels and accounts of activity which are "supernatural".
