William Lane Craig: Is God a Delusion? Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford October 2011 

William Lane Craig is a very versatile, intelligent, and rare mind. He's awesome! I'm glad I found this!

I love how Dawkins was too much of a coward to show up to this event.

+Stan Lee True, true. Craig is one of the greatest thinkers of our time. You know you're on the right track when all people can do in response to your arguments is insult you personally ;)

Its funny how many angry, bitter, resentful atheists and anti theists are roaming these forums.

I absolutely love listening to Dr. Craig speak. Truly brilliant!

"For the Word of the Cross is folly to those who are perishing (clearly), but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:18. In the immortal words of a Rabbi friend who, when asked why when he was in hospital quite sick and had asked to pray with a Christian Chaplain, he threw up his hands, shrugging, and answered, "What if I was wrong?".... so, to those who thumb their nose at the One who created them: what if you are wrong?

I have yet to see Dawkins in a serious one on one debate with Dr. Craig. So lets craft an argument to prove why Dawkins was MIA from a very important debate in his own backyard. 1. If Dawkins won't show for this important debate there must be an explanation. 2. If Dawkins has a plausible explanation it will be highly probable that it couches several adolescent put downs of Craigs arguments. 3. Since Dawkins feels the need to use name calling and inflammatory language in a non debate scenario then this means his arguments are weaker and he is left with only name calling and infantile school yard tactics. Instesd of arguments that hold there own in a true debate. 4. Therefore knowing he has the weaker position, and is tired of name calling; decided to just stay home and watch the T.V. Well according to this premise Dawkins will never show up for a one on one debate with the most comparable Dr. Craig. What a shame that would be a very satisfying debate to behold.

brother craig truly is an inspiration

Dawkins arguments? Destroyed...

Dawkins didn't have enough courage to face Dr. Craig. God bless them both.

Excellent response.

Craig handles everyone with ease-- such a gift to Christianity---Would have loved to see him debate Dawkins .....

William you were masterful!

Dawkins always have debate with a jock, and Dr William Lane Craig always wins with the evidences of God’s existence and strong points with the truth. God bless Dr Bill✊❤️

Fantastic!

You're a legend in your own mind

Dawkins took the money for his book and ran, away from argument

junk DNA isnt junk DNA. William lane craigs points are clear and consice who are these guys? they act like academic superstars but its easy to see none of them are the sharpest tools in the shed.

I see. Well, I still recommend that video I cited. It's pretty instructive. Cheers.

I found another quote that helped me realize your hurdles in conceptualizing infinity. "Saying the universe is eternal simply is saying that it has no beginning or end, not that it a beginning an infinite time ago"

Richard dawkins got totally Destroyed

Ha! Three atheists and Craig still won :D

Man that wasn't a debate that was school and class was in session

The series of past events cannot be infinite. Period.

Craig does not debate. He has a standard well-rehearsed set piece speech which he never deviates from regardless of who is being debated. He only debates very specific questions with a very specific format that allows hime to make his key points and set pieces. He has a team and minders who he works with and rehearses his responses to typical points that his opposition will make. His team analyses the books and writings of whoever he is debating and they spend lots of time preparing him almost like a presidential candidate. They rehearse likely opportunities for cutting remarks and humourous put downs. He has been doing this for years and it is as disgraceful as it is disreputable. That he can get away with this merely proves the Ancient Greeks were correct in their disdain for sophistry and their understanding of the dangers of its skilled practitioners.

This guy just gives off creepy vibes

The conditions are beginningless.

What's special about "now" is that it's actually happening. The future doesn't exist yet. The current moment is the terminating point of all the actual events which have occurred. I appreciate your open-mindedness. If nothing else, these are deeply interesting topics to discuss.

I'm referring of course to Craig's later reference to this debate, where he mimics Eastwood. Look it up. It's not hard to Google.

The premise is "everything that begins to exist has a cause". That leaves out ANYTHING which happens to be eternal, and without beginning. So, if something has no beginning, then it can exist with no cause and not violate that premise.

With this definition, we no longer need to use our intuition to test whether or not sets of points have different sizes; we only have to check whether or not there exists a one-to-one correspondence between the given pair of sets. If there is no one-to-one correspondence then, according to Cantor, one of the two sets must be larger than the other.

"Special pleading, AKA stacking the deck, ignoring the counterevidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment, is a form of spurious argument where a position in a dispute introduces favourable details or excludes unfavourable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption."

A flaw in design doesn't disprove a designer, and if the designer's purposes aren't limited to our present life on this planet, then it doesn't even disprove that He is a perfect designer. So long as His ultimate goal (which is not limited to our present life) is realized, the design is perfect.

Of course it's an argument of contrast: You can contrast the things for which a design inference is warranted from those for which it is *not* warranted, by giving criteria (as I've done repeatedly). You can call it "refuted" all day, but you have to actually present a refutation.

If someone has "The God Delusion" on their bookshelf, I feel embarrassed for them.

I have lots to say about what's possible or impossible in a situation without anything. And I do not just assume that such a situation never existed. I've given reasons to think that that situation could never give rise to anything; and yet clearly there are things that exist now, so there must never have been a total lack of things.

Every time he mentions "conjuring up a Terminator" I picture the Terminator from the movies.

We have two infinities sets 1 being all positive integers 2 being all positive and negative integers. What you are saying is that infinity is impossible because for every 1 number in the first set there are 2 in the second?

Imagine two concentric circles. Each circle contains infinitely many points along its circumference, but since the outer circle has a greater circumference, it has more points than the inner circle. Now take any point A on the outer circle, and draw a line from A to the circle’s center. This line must intersect some point B on the circumference of the inner circle. Hence, for every point A on the outer circle, there is a corresponding point B on the inner circle, and vice versa.

Exactly! That's why I used the "counting man" analogy originally (switched to the planets later in our conversation). Consider the present moment to be 0. That means that any actually infinite sequence of past events (one following another) would have to have COMPLETED prior to this moment. You agree that that is absurd. So the past cannot be infinite.

Infinite sets do not require identical values. We don't even have to address unequal infinities. These ones are on a 1-to-1 correspondence and of the same magnitude.

Your response to my analogy of machinery on Pluto (which would indeed warrant a design inference) is that Craig also used it? That's it? My analogy shows that design inferences can be valid. Who cares if someone else also uses the same analogy??

Physical reality contains time as an essential feature! In physical reality, events are always occurring (even if just quantum fluctuations), and they occur one-after-another. You can't get away from this fact. One of the essential properties of a physical reality is that it is NOT changeless.

Just fyi: Begging the Question is when a person accepts a premise in an argument only because they already accept the conclusion. So, if I had an argument in which one of the premises is "non-physical realities can interact with physical ones", and the conclusion was "therefore, God interacts with physical reality", and the only reason I had to accept that premise was that I already accepted the conclusion, then that...

The idea of a time loop has strong metaphysical objections to it. You can always ask how many cycles have occured, which means that the actual concept of "duration" is external to the loop. Anyway, the point is that, by definition, all of the past events had to complete before this present moment. So, each of them had to be "counted" in the sense that each one had to come about and then the next one and then the next one. But this could have happened prior to now.

The review is mostly about the Krauss' severe misrepresentation of what quantum fields are and how particle creation works. Albert is both a philosopher and a quantum physicist. His review is very well-written and informed.

Each event has to have elapsed prior to now, in a sequence, one after the other. That's what "past" means. So, either an actually infinite series can finish, and then afterward you have "now" (which you and I both agree is ludicrous), or else sequence of past events is finite. Which will it be?

1:05:12 guy in blue heavily invested in this discourse

The argument has a C1 and a C2. And the use of the word "Universe" is just shorthand for "all of physical reality" in this argument.

Cantor’s definition tamed infinity. It provided a rigorous method by which infinite sets could be compared. He used this idea to prove that there are just as many integers as even integers, since the function f(x)=2x provides the required one-to-one correspondence. He showed that there are just as many lattice points on the plane as there are integers. And Cantor even proved that there are as many rational numbers as there are integers.

The fact that a given event can be given a specific place in the sequence relative to the present moment. Event X is directly prior to the present. Event Y is directly prior to X. And so on, for eternity. Each event has a position relative to the others, and relative to the present one, and therefore is sequential and ordered, not random.

But the problem is that the infinite sequence argument has no flaws. "I don't buy it" is not a refutation. Indeed, the very definition of an infinite sequence includes "does not terminate". So, since we only have two options for the sequence of past events (finite or infinite), and infinite is out of the question (since the past terminates at the present), we're stuck with a finite past. And it really is that simple.

The multiverse doesn't explain the fine-tuning as well (again, I cite Penrose's book, as well as the fact that the multiverse would itself need to be fine-tuned), and it violates Occam's Razor to choose infinite extra entities over one.

It keeps us from overeating (gives us time to gestate properly). That's one.

Well, I'm not disputing what you mention above. The original question of this thread was "I have a challenge for WL Craig: Name one thing that has only one cause!" To which I responded that the universe itself had to have a cause (ie, the big bang)

Well, just call it "beginningless", it still follows that the actualization of the instability should likewise be beginningless if the instability is always present in the system. Virtual particles don't behave like anything in a timeless domain. Nothing behaves or acts at all in such a domain, or else there'd be a sequence of the behaviors. The sequence would begin with the first behavior or action.

The exact sequence of events in a given black hole will vary. What is the point of the question?

BA, for the third time, I did not present the "machinery on distant planet" analogy as a support for the design argument. I presented it as a counter to the objection which was made "if you have to infer a designer for this Universe that appears designed, then who designed the designer?". The answer is that that's a separate question, just as it would be if we found machinery on a planet and inferred an alien civilization. We wouldn't need to know their origins in order to make that inference.

Dawkins wouldn’t have stood a chance...

Special pleading doesn't mean "having only one example". I've told you this numerous times.

Your choosing an arbitrary point does nothing negate infinity prior to or after that point. I'm saying the infinity doesn't end hence it being infinite.

If we are in the midst of potential infinity, rather than at the end point of a completed infinity, then past is finite.

Life is categorically different. A computer is a great example, since it is also categorically different, and we infer a designer when we look at a computer.

First off, we're talking about whether physical reality (which INCLUDES time) can be infinite in the past. Secondly, calling them "past events" means that they precede the present. They have transpired prior to the present moment. As such, we again have a temporal relation. And since a given event transpired farther back from the present than some other, more recent event, we have an ordered sequence.

That an infinite sequence of successive additions does not terminate isn't just "proven", it's definitive.

The number of instances IS equivalent it's only the values that are not.

Time is a property of any system in which one event follows another. The fact that they have already happened, means they are "past" events. They are not happening now; they already happened. Nothing could be more basic and obvious.

I know you can't count time before that event, because the state prior to the first event is "eventless" and changeless. However, if there is an instability that exists eternally within that changeless moment, then it should either always manifest itself (in which case the Universe would be eternally old), or it should never manifest itself (in which case the Universe would not ever exist). It cannot just manifest itself a finite time ago.

I have presented a deductive argument. You have three options: Defeat one of the premises, accept the conclusion, or admit to being irrational. Since you have yet to present any defeaters for any of the premises, and you clearly don't accept the conclusion, are you ready to take option 3?

Cause = "necessary and sufficient conditions". So, even if it is X is an emergent property, it is still the case the it only happens when the necessary and sufficient conditions are met. Therefore X only happens when it is caused.

Therefore, both circles must have the same number of points, despite the fact that the outer circle appears to have more points than the inner circle. Many thinkers tried to unravel this apparent paradox, including Galileo Galilei, but it wasn’t until the late 1800s that Georg Cantor brought it to a successful resolution. Cantor’s idea was simple: infinite sets of objects are so far removed from our everyday experience that they may follow rules that seem counterintuitive.

I have read plenty in mathematics and physics. They are among my strongest points. And, as I've already said, many interpretations of quantum effects have them being completely deterministic. But even in the indeterministic models, there are still causes for the effects, we just can't possibly predict when they'll come about. You can't see your league from here.

What do you mean by "not necessary"? The series of past events actually has a sequence (one event follows another, all the way up to the present moment). That's not something I'm adding in or that we judge as "necessary" or not; it's just a fact about past events. They follow one after another.

I've seen that lecture, and I was already aware of everything he covers in it. This has all been addressed, and there's a reason why Vilenkin wrote in his paper (which he delivered at Hawking's 2011 birthday party) that ALL the evidence we have indicates a cosmic beginning.

Vilenkin was referring to the multiverse as well. You should try reading his paper, if you have the requisite knowledge. Or, if not, you should read his book, "Many Worlds in One", where he makes it clear that the physical reality had a beginning, and lays out his theory (and the theories of others) as to how that beginning happened.

I am not starting from the conclusion, I am starting from the criteria for a proper design inference. And the chemistry needed for ANY physical life is my consideration (as well as the consideration of the scientists I've quoted). I never said they supported the idea that the Universe was designed. But they do support the idea that it is fine-tuned in an extraordinary way. They just posit other explanations (like multiverses, for which there isn't a shred of evidence).

like i said glad u asked questions nothing wrong with that

Let's call this point 0 everything in the past is negative and everything in the future is positive. What is the finite amount of negative numbers?

The part which infers explanations based on repeated occurence (induction, which is at the heart of science). If the repeated occurrences can be just as well explained by being in the one Universe out of the infinite collection which has those happen by chance, then it follows that the inference is totally unwarranted. And probability is an important part of rational thinking. We need to be able to estimate probabilities (especially in chaos systems).

An agent's choice is explainable in terms of past events and which set of reasons impressed the agent, but no, it's not totally determined by previous physical events.

2) BA, why didn't read my posts #3 and #3 continued? They're right there for anyone to see. I gave the specific steps of how you get from "all of physical reality has a cause" to " the cause must be a non-physical person (or agent with free will)". The steps are all there. Which of them do you disagree with?

1) A beginningless random generator would produce its effect without beginning. So the Universe would be beginningless also. An agent with free will could hold back from creating and then create a finite time ago. Since we observe a Universe with a beginning, we are obliged to take the second option. 2) I totally agree with this. But a situation which has always been present within that timeless dimension, and which is sufficient to cause X, will cause X eternally and without beginning.

If the past weren't composed of one event following another, then your objection might make sense. But one event DOES follow another, and does so in a sequence up to the present moment.

"I agree that an infinite amount of things could happen within an infinite series." So if we are just one of these "things" within an infinite series where does the problem lie?

Is it just me or does the chair of the event look like an older Brian Regan?

Agent causation is free. It has explanatory factors, but it is itself a causal mechanism.

2) I don't need to assert that everything is perfect in order to carry the cosmological argument. This is (once again) a red herring, since the cosmological argument doesn't say the cause or the effect are perfect. It's a question for later inquiry, after we resolve the cosmological argument itself. Why would mutations be called "defects"? Often they help the species survive! What are you talking about?

You don't have to use the word "Universe" in the Kalam at all, if you don't like it being shorthand for "all physical reality". Just replace the uses of it with "all physical reality". P2 is supported for all of physical reality by both philosophical argument and modern cosmological findings about Inflation.

Transfinite arithmetic 101. Any infinite set can be put in 1-1 relation to any other.

If the changeless situation has instability to it, then it could not be changeless eternally. If the situation has always been unstable, then it should have broken down an infinite amount of time ago, not just 13 billion years (or any other finite amount of time) ago.

Any infinity can be placed on a one-to-one correspondence with any other infinity. That is only sense in which I mean "equal", and it is sufficient to bear out the utter absurdity of the scenario. It should not ever be possible to put the number of their orbits in a one-to-one relation, since the difference between them is always increasing.

Besides, if you're trying to say there was "sort-of nothing", but still something, and that it happened to spark a multiverse a finite time ago, then you are still committed to the cause having free will. Otherwise the changeless "almost-nothing" would remain changeless eternally. Those are your options. A fully-sufficient set of causal conditions will ALWAYS have its effect, unless the cause has free will to choose.

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 08:29 🌌 The cosmological argument, specifically the version related to the beginning of the universe, indicates the existence of an uncaused, timeless, immaterial, and immensely powerful personal creator. 22:29 🎯 The fine-tuning of the universe for life supports the teleological argument. Dawkins responds with the hypothesis of a multiverse, but this raises complexities and doesn't eliminate the design argument's plausibility. 00:43 🗣️ William Lane Craig discusses the arguments for the existence of God, responding to Richard Dawkins' objections. 01:46 📚 William Lane Craig's background and expertise in philosophy and theology are highlighted, including his works on cosmological and moral arguments. 04:21 💬 The format of the event is outlined, with Bill speaking for 45-50 minutes, followed by Oxford academics' comments, his response, and audience questions. 07:12 🤝 Richard Dawkins' arguments are taken into account, even though his objections don't fully negate the arguments' conclusions. 17:49 🤔 The moral argument asserts that if God doesn't exist, objective moral values and duties are baseless. Dawkins paradoxically condemns actions while maintaining ethical subjectivism. 25:15 🎭 The argument from consciousness and the origin of life are not covered in this transcript chunk. 32:32 🌌 Professor Craig discusses Dawkins' suggested mechanisms for generating a world ensemble: Smolin's evolutionary cosmology and black holes as portals to baby universes. 34:15 🌌 Smolin's scenario of black holes and evolutionary cosmology would actually make the existence of a life-permitting universe even more improbable. 35:59 🌌 The conjecture that black holes may lead to other universes contradicts quantum physics, as information preservation in black hole formation is necessary. 36:53 🌌 Roger Penrose's argument suggests that observing an ordered universe like ours contradicts the multiverse hypothesis, favoring a single universe without a world ensemble. 38:01 🌌 Dawkins claims that a designed explanation for the universe is inferior to the many-worlds hypothesis due to the question of who designed the designer. However, this objection is flawed as it doesn't require an explanation of the explanation. 42:08 🌌 The objection that God is as complex as the universe is inaccurate; a divine mind is a remarkably simple entity without physical parts. 45:27 🕊️ Plantinga's ontological argument presents the possibility of a maximally great being (God) existing in a possible world, raising questions about whether the universe began to exist. 46:47 🕊️ Some philosophers consider the possibility that the universe might not have had a finite beginning due to alternate cosmological models, challenging the second premise of the cosmological argument. 54:01 🕊️ Counterarguments are explored against the notion that an infinite series of events is inherently problematic or incoherent, challenging the concept of a finite beginning for the universe. 58:06 🕊️ Qualitative and quantitative interpretations of Occam's razor are discussed, with Daniel suggesting that theism, not the multiverse hypothesis, is the more extravagant hypothesis in terms of types of entities postulated. 01:01:45 🕊️ Daniel presents an agnostic perspective, highlighting the limitations of knowing whether God exists or not, suggesting a position of skeptical agnosticism. 01:02:55 🌌 The debate is not merely about belief or disbelief, but rather about spiritual knowledge which is of acquaintance or experience, not propositional in nature. 01:03:34 🕊️ Misconceptions about spiritual reality and God: God is not a physical or material being, but rather an immaterial and timeless presence. 01:04:15 📚 Philosophy involves understanding questions profoundly rather than just answering them; much of modern philosophy remains rooted in outdated views. 01:05:23 🔮 The implications of quantum physics and Heidegger's thinking will revolutionize philosophical understanding, paving the way for a new era of thought. 01:06:18 ⏰ The concept of "now" is timeless; it's always now, with the past and future existing within it. This timeless "now" bears attributes similar to the concept of God. 01:07:16 🌞 Exploring the nature of being and existence reveals attributes that align with the characteristics of God, such as being immaterial and infinite. 01:09:21 👤 The mystery of individual human existence and perspective raises questions that go beyond scientific explanations and hint at something beyond the material realm. 01:10:47 🎭 Acknowledging the limitations of a scientific perspective and considering the deep resonance of religion in society, both for better and worse. 01:11:49 🌌 Complexity of the origin of the universe: caution needed in simplifying ideas about the Big Bang and the existence before it. 01:13:23 🔍 Complexity of fine-tuning: Exploring the intricacies of the universe's physical constants and questioning whether it definitively points to a creator. 01:14:20 🎨 Philosophical debate shifts from past religious focuses to cosmological considerations, potentially weakening religious perspectives. 01:15:00 ⏳ The problem of reconciling an intervening God with the observed imperfections and complexities of life, as understood through biological and genetic mechanisms. 01:18:52 🤝 Acknowledging the power and resonance of religion in human society and its ability to bring people together for both positive and negative purposes. 01:19:05 🧠 The challenge of responding to multiple panelists with differing perspectives, emphasizing the importance of open dialogue. 01:19:49 🔄 Addressing objections to the cosmological argument and clarifying why oscillating models and multiverse theories don't negate the notion of a universe with a beginning. 01:21:07 🔢 Explaining the difference between an infinite series of numbers and an infinite series of events in time, highlighting the temporal nature of events. 01:22:24 🌌 Challenging the notion of a continuous spatial continuum and explaining that continuous models are mathematical abstractions, not necessarily reflective of reality. 01:23:58 📐 The significance of fine-tuning in the universe and its potential implications, including the rejection of some physicists' conclusions against fine-tuning. 01:25:16 🧬 Analyzing the design of the genome and addressing the challenges that arise when considering the idea of a designer in the context of evolution. 01:25:54 👁️ The recognition of the limitations in Dawkins' account of religion, particularly in understanding its resonance and influence in society. 01:26:22 🤔 Craig defends fine-tuning argument against claims of ignorance, positing design as the best explanation. 01:26:53 🧠 Cosmic designer attributes: intelligent, personal, highly intelligent, creator of physics laws and constants. 01:27:36 🌌 Fine-tuning argument goes beyond evolution, relying on cosmic initial conditions and constants. 01:28:16 🤔 Design argument: physical necessity or chance explanations less plausible than design. 01:28:56 📜 Philosophy's importance affirmed in Christian view, as faith seeks understanding and influences theology. 01:29:22 ⏰ The question of "Why is it now?" offers insights into the universe's beginning and existence. 01:30:05 🕊️ God's nature as a personal being with diverse attributes, not compromising necessity or sanity. 01:30:58 ❓ "Why is something you?" relates to understanding God's providence, purpose, and plan for individuals. 01:35:26 💬 Daniel questions the moral argument's assumption of theism as sole foundation for objective moral values. 01:36:08 🧐 Causal principle (causality) discussed as metaphysical, not just physical law. 01:39:26 🤔 Stephen emphasizes the need for spiritual understanding to render philosophy redundant. 01:40:08 🤖 Craig elaborates on God's nature, changelessness, and temporal interaction with the universe. 01:42:41 👁️ Unembodied minds, consciousness, and God's existence discussed, with materialist perspectives explored. 01:45:12 😢 The problem of evil addressed, explaining God's allowance of evil as a result of human free will. 01:46:21 📖 Biblical narratives of judgment and conquest examined, clarifying the context of Canaanite displacement. 01:53:30 📜 Israel's role in Canaanite judgment seen as divine command morality, with Israel as an instrument of judgment. 01:53:58 ❓ God's command regarding children's fate addressed, highlighting God's right to give and take life, with potential for their salvation. 01:55:05 🌍 Morally sufficient reasons for extraordinary command discussed, emphasizing lesson to Israel and broader divine plan through salvation and Christ.

Each one of them says that even basic chemistry could not have occurred if the fine-tuning had not been there.

He did answer that question quite well to my satisfaction. By the way, Hitchens, et al have great respect for Craig, you can find this video by searching Hitchens on Craig, and the feeling is mutual. Craigs debating schedule is quite full and so I don't get your 'he can't get debates'. Let's stick with the arguments. :)

I fully agree. The events preceding time are simultaneous and the situation is changless until the first change, which ushers in the beginning of time. You've got it all right... except one point. That changeless situation would have remained changeless unless free will were involved. Laws don't cause things, they describe them. The law just says "if you have something, then it will be unstable"; it doesn't magically produce the unstable things themselves.

I am answering all your points, and I am not running in circles. If you want to run away, that's your prerogative. But, if you have any confidence in your arguments, then you should respond to the responses that I just posted.

He most certainly DOES consider that the singularity is just part of a larger physical reality (such as in Inflationary or Multiverse scenarios). And he addresses these directly, using the work of leading scientists like Vilenkin, Guth, Hawking, and Krauss. ALL of the scenarios in current science have a cosmic beginning.

I'm not talking about being inspired by religion. I'm talking about *theism*; the belief that a rational God created the Universe with certain ends in mind. This is what guided most of the truly great thinkers of history (Newton, Descartes, Boyle, etc). I am not defending religion. Merely theism.

He said, providing no counter-arguments or evidence to support his case.