William Lane Craig: The Evidence for God. Imperial College, London, October 2011 

Graig has the soothing voice of Morgan Freeman, the Intellectual prowess of Aristotle, the Articulation of Barack Obama all he needs now to become supremely powerful is the speed talking of Ben Shapiro

in fact most new athiests I find are not particularly smart themselves.

Wooow, atheists are going bananas with this video. Look at how they insult Dr. Craig and religion instead of refuting any argument. And now imagine what they'd do if Craig acted like Dawkins and started mocking them for their beliefs or making videos laughing about their "hate comments"... they'd be asking for the removal of this video on the basis of hate speech or sthg like that

This man is the greatest to ever defend God, God is inside him and that scares evil spirits 🙏🏾❤️😊 God bless him.

God Bless Bill Craig! We need people like him to keep the faith "reasonable"

William Lane Craig is awesome

The absurdity in an eternal universe has to do with the self-contradictions that arise in an actually infinite number of events. Craig gives arguments for this. If you want to dispute that, you must refute his arguments, as well as dispute all the evidence we have in cosmology for an absolute beginning. Writing in capital letters isn't an argument. If God exists timelessly without the universe, then He isn't "born." He is simply necessary, unlike the universe, which is contingent.

"I don't want my worldview to change so I'll close my ears"

I correct myself. I listened to him. I scoffed at him initially during his infinity coins argument but I misunderstood him. He was arguing against infinity existing in reality which is absolutely correct.

Great stuff from Dr. Craig as usual!

Excellent! My first time listening to him. I would have really liked to hear that conversation continue between him and the Muslim questioner, because he was asking some very important questions, and I bet WLC would have been very prepared to answer them if there was more time.

What a headache! Ramble on! No one knows. Period.

Wow! The students asked questions showing their shallow thinking and knowledge on the topic/field, making logical and philosophical errors, then the muslim student at the end with such a lack of theology and Christology! Get this man some David Wood! ;)

This man is a remarkable scholar and an exemplary Christian.

I have tried for years. But when i listen to bill it just sound like pure bullshit. A man invested his career into his belief and does every thing possible to uphold his delusion. I would really like to engage with somebody on the topic (not on youtube). Non of his argument make any sense to me ... Take his arguments on objective morals. He just appeals to others to convince us they exist. But if they are objective you must be able to show that independant of what people think.....no theist ever does this.

A reasonable defense of the faith with well-offered evidence

50:00 Morals is the best one. Rape is always wrong no matter if the entire world says it's ok.

Sorry, but your own Holly book and tradition says otherwise. Surah chapter 9 verse 5, the verse of the sword tells you to kill the non-believers were ever you find them. Also the text of the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, the madh'hab tells us that it is incumbent upon the Ummah to wage war against the Jews, Christian, and Pagans until they either convert or submit, this is coming from a God who supposedly loves the unbelievers?

Are you planning on substantively engaging anyone, or will you just continue the vulgarity-filled, emotionally loaded, ridicule-based tirade? I highly doubt anybody would come here, read your comments, and think that your presentation is in any way "intellectual." I'm happy to have a respectful discussion with people who disagree with me, but you seem to think that just putting a bunch of !!! at the end of your comments makes them convincing.

Because maximal greatness would be inherent and therefore unchangeable. You think I'm evading something. I'm not. The basis of your criticism is that there is something that God cannot do. You fail to see that this criticism does not do damage to God's existence, so you continue to hammer away at it, stating it in different ways and with different examples as if by doing so you will eventually refute God's existence. You are chasing your tail.

You are confusing burden of proof and the purpose of the (Euthyphro) dilemma. The dilemma is presented by atheists as proof that the moral argument for God is logically incoherent. The only thing the theist needs to do is produce a third, logical option to explain God's morality without an appeal to either a greater outside authority (Horn A) or complete arbitrariness (Horn B). God controlling his nature seems like a logical absurdity, and that he could not doesn't seem problematic.

It's unfortunately typical in the "new atheist" circles to simply appeal to ridicule and pretend you've made a substantive argument. And then they pretend to be intellectually superior. It's quite a sad display, actually.

nathan watch , How is it all randomness when we see the laws of logic work around us. Also what would satisfy you to believe in a god ? It seems many people want a certain type of evidence that suits their pleasure or else their not satisfy.Then again no matter how much evidence the theist brings, it just not good enough.What people want has no faith involved.Need that 100% fool proof.Your only hope is wait and see when you pass way.Reality is we not going to find 100% of everything.So does that say we cant come to a conclusion based on the evidence we currently have ? If the non-believer did find evidence they accept as good for god existence, what now? Does He/She just move on to something else and go on with their business?

1:10:03 WLC is been deceptive here, the man just told him that "We both believe in the day of judgement" If Jesus or God of the NT is so merciful why the hell is there a judgement day then? He completely disregarded that argument and went on a tangent making false allegations again against God of the Qu'ran, which is very dishonest on his part. The love of Allah does not just extend to those who seek him, Allah is merciful, love is very subjective. Your father loves you he can also punish you for disobeying him, mercy on the other hand is to show mercy even to those who seek it by repenting and show sincere remorse for their evil deeds and truly seek forgiveness Allah is THE most merciful.

Greatest apologist alive.

I don't understand why people automatically discard his arguments. They are well constructed and we have to be open to the possibility of a Creator God (whatever religious or not).

The Kalam Cosmological Argument has profound implications for us all.

There is no such thing as unlimited as you described in mathematics. If you let a variable be a real number there is no upper limit to choose the biggest one. You can choose from (-oo, +oo). The variable you described is the limit(n) when n approaches infinity. So your calculations are wrong since you can't subtract infinities.

If you state that you must doubt the naturalists’ claim that the universe has always existed, the same doubt must apply to the claim that a god being has always existed. No explanation is ever offered by theists as to why they are unable to be satisfied by “the universe did not need to be created,” but are wholly satisfied by “god did not need to be created.”

Am I nuts, arrogant or faithless to find this compelling and irresistible?

1:07:57 WLC reaction haha

What I, as a muslim, do not like is the behaviour of athiests towards WLC. He is a genuinely nice guy who speaks logically and kindly yet you call him such things that he would never say. May Allah guide us all to the truth.

You clearly haven't actually understood the argument; claiming something does exist is not an explanation as to 'why' it exists. Secondly, history does not disprove moral realism, we have since progressed in terms of morality, which is only possible if certain moral values are better (or ought to be valued) over another, in other words Objective morality is true.

God doesnt only hates sin, but also the sinner. God wants everyone to be saved but his love is only found on the cross, everyone else is a child of Satan and the wrath of God abideth over them. God can also hate the sinner (Mal 1:3) "And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness." (Psa 5:5 KJV) "The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity." (Psa 26:5 KJV) "I have hated the congregation of evil doers; and will not sit with the wicked." (Psa 11:5) "The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth." (Lev 26:30) "And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, and cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols, and my soul shall abhor (totaly despise) you." (Psa 5:6) "Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man." (Hos 9:15) "All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters." If we dont trust in the cross and Jesus, is under Gods wrath (Joh 3:36 KJV) "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." And Islam was created by the Roman-Catholic church to conquer Jerusalem for them. If Muhammad was a prophet then where are his fulfilled prophecies ?

I would love to see a debate between his former student John Loftus and himself.

wlc is one of the best out there,even credited by many athiests so I beg to differ with most of you on here. read hitchens comments on wlc right on you tube .

Now that we have enough evidence that God exists, we don't need to discuss it any more. As Jesus once said, "It is finished" (John 19:30)

Alan Guth said in an interview in Scientific American that he believes that the universe does not have a beginning: "What was there before inflation started? That is something I have been thinking about in the context of a paper that I’m writing with Sean Carroll [at Caltech]. *The idea is that the universe is actually eternal. It existed at all times, so there is no beginning to explain.*"

It's so interesting to see to what extend a man is going to convince himself and then others with hour long complex explanations and twisting scientific facts for the single point of acting as if you can prove something that is just the product of the human imagination.

The muslim ask Christian to understand the full context while misleading, misinterperting, and in the end, mocking the Bible. God says let's create human in our image, they created human, human reproduce, and then we have children, and we become parents to our children, our children dont have to earn our love, they might be childish, they might be naughty, they might be stubborn, they might hurt our feeling again and again and again and again and again, BUT, we still love them anyway, our parents still love us anyway. Do those muslims want to say, that our love to our children is greater than God's love who are supposed to be all-loving? If our child fall to quicksand or mud, what we're gonna do is jump straight to save them, with our love we wont say "EW, there's no way I'm gonna jump, I'm clean, i'm honoured man, in fact I'm the king where I live, I own everything, I got money, I can marry again and have new child, I wont jump there its dirty place". No, with our love we jump straight to save our children, even if the cost is our own life, and that's what the God of the Bible did, we're filthy, stubborn, dispicable, unworthy because of sin, but God loves us anyway. God ask people to love one another, not ask people to earn love from others. God ask people to forgive, not ask people to forgive after they do something to earn forgiveness.

This self deluded Apologist doesn't understand it is a mainstream fact most Ancient Historians,Philosophers and Scientists know the Bible is historized Fiction based on Emulation Mythology...he is no great Philosopher,Historian, or Scientist...so his Ideas are just ideas not facts

WLC and the Kalam can only prove a cause. Neither can prove what that cause is. In fact, in his honest moments he will say as much. Of course he will quickly revert back to god is the cause. The problem is that his proof that the cause is god is coloured by his own beliefs. It’s like reality in the quantum world being created by the observer. He does not present proofs only suppositions.

A $50 bottle of omnipresent, omniscient snake oil, anyone?

People who claim there is no evidence or arguments for God are displaying a level of cras ignorance not worthy of debate. If you want to challenge these arguments that's one thing; if you want to say these arguments don't exist your just philosophically illiterate.

On second thoughts, we don't actually need to buy the book. He's already told us what's in it.

There is nothing easier to debunk than the fine tuning argument by Graig: Lets cite W.C.Craig: " The fine tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance or design." at 20:05 Lets quickly remind ourselves, that science does not rule out any of the 3, since science also has no information to conclude in favour of any. - Craig rules out physical necessity, as his god has created physics and is omnipotent, so his god simply wouldnt (have to) restrict himself into any necessities, because that would be just stupid and Craigs god is not that, as he is omniscient/infallible as well. - Craig rules also out chance, because chance doesnt exist in his worldview anyways. With his god in control of everything, there cant be any chance. That also proposes the question, whether live can have free will, but lets not bother with that, as it is not relevant for this particular question, now. Its more important to realize, that for determining chance, one would need many examples of something happening, but we simply dont have any more universes at hand, than the one we live in. Thus from the logical standpoint, chance cannot be ruled out. - Craig concludes then by (imagining of) having the other 2 options eliminated, that the only remaining one must be true. The process of eliminating all other options is a valid means of logic, however it comes with one or two necessities to be complete. Those are to proove a) the non-existence of any further options or b) to have the remaining option tested for elimination just like all others before. Craig fails to do b) (maybe he is afraid of doubting the existence of his god, maybe he thinks that this would be blasphemy? Idk) So we are left to go with either believing or thinking, that a) is met. Lets not go into a) any further and do his work at b) instead, as this is so much more fun: An omnipotent god creating the universe especcially for his other creation, the humans, would create (or fine tune, if anyone wants to stick to that phrase) this universe perfectly right for them, in case this god is also infallible (which may be concluded directly from the claim, that Craig's god is also omniscient). Therefor no human could ever think of a better fitting/adopted/"fine tuned" universe, because Craig's god is both omnipotent and omniscent, so he doesnt make errors and a less fitting/adopted/"fine tuned" universe than any which can be imagined is just that: An error of god. Lets have a quick look at the universe starting with the earth and then zoom out just a little bit, as I understand that most believers dont have it with large numbers: - A large portion of the earth is not habitable and has quite many diseases waiting for us, but maybe that was gods will (its a feature, not a bug!). - The moon, fairly important to life on earth, is often used as an example for the fine tuning theory: "Our earth has it exactly as we need it, other planets dont, so the earth was fine tuned for us, voila!" But wait, the moon is not habitable, either. But we can imagine a habitable moon. Isnt therefore this universe not perfect as we can imagine a better one? On the other hand, we might not understand, that such a moon is a necessity for human life on earth? But if so, then god would not be omnipotent, as he has to overcome necessities by making compromises. Furthermore, why dont have other planets just exactly such a moon, arnt they all supposed to be "fine tuned" as part of a "fine tuned" universe? - In fact, none of the other planets in our solar system is anywhere near beeing habitable either and going to them or even to other solar systems, where habitable planets could have formed (sorry, "been created" by this god "for us to find") is virtually impossible due to radiation. Well, travelling there can also be imagined easier. - Why are there even a vast number of (please register my efforts to not bother anyone with these inconvenient numbers going far above the simple minds of most believers, who go for the fine tuning argument without having any understanding of the large numbers involved there) other planets, solar systems, galaxies, by all we know about them (in part by crunching these numbers) inhabitable and unreachable anyways? But we can imagine that they were suited for us and reachable quite easily. Thus this universe is neither "fine tuned" nor created with humans in mind. So it either has come into existence without Graig's god as its creator or Graig's god has failed so hard to the point, that his actions are indistinguable from those of a god, that doesnt exist. Now, that would be chance or physical necessity or something we havent thought of, yet...

He demonstrated the absurdity of the concept of a literally infinite anything. But god is infinite. OK, suuuure. Ask Mr. Craig about god’s wisdom, intellect, age, lifespan, or power. Would he not claim them to be infinite?

All too often nonbelievers throw crap at believers that they need to provide evidence of God because, from their perspective God is all in our heads, but likewise so is the mult-verse and big-bang theory in heads of the atheists. Therefore they need to provide empirical proof to support their own "strawman" anti-theist theories. Dr Craig always does a good job of destroying the atheist position, pity he wasn't more like Dawkins or Hitchens in his methodology, but he unlike those two is a gentleman.

Craig can't even define what existence means let alone God,yet he thinks his ridiculous Apologetics proves God ha

1:09:40 The muslim in describing the names of Allah and their meanings, says [Allah is] the thief, and subtly merciful with his slaves!!

The Moslem wasnt disciplined in the art of argumentation. or debate.You make your point,uninterrupted,then let the other person make their point uninterrupted.The listeners believe what they will.

There maybe necessary causes but why are they necessarily intelligent or personal..let alone omniscient or omnipotent!?

When did David Lee Roth convert?

No; I haven't and if I have you have to show that from a Qu'ranic stand point. Claiming the adherents don't kill non-believers (and clearly you haven't looked into the origin of Islam--or any largely Islamic country), therefore the Qu'ran doesn't teach it, is as non-nonsensical as saying because reformed Jews don't have payots, therefore it is not taught in the Bible (In: Leviticus 19:27)

First of all it really takes the sting out of your "insult", when you can' even put it together, in a coherent sentence that makes sense. Secondly, you're wrong, yet again, the verse says "...slay the idolaters wherever ye find them...", it is the open-ended, for-all-time, it does not refer specifically to a time of war. Nice to see you don't try to defend the madh'hab.

I think Dr. Craig was accurate. I've read from the Quran myself and could repeat the same thing, I suppose. You'd have to read it yourself to see it in a definitive way.. On creation [dot] com/article/6399 you get a list of results by typing the word "Islam" in the box. It will highlight other differences between Christianity and Islam.

Question to the last argument: It seems that the student is adamant about the God of the Quran contains equal mercy to all humans regardless of their belief, but Dr. Craig claims that the God of the Quran only shows mercy to his believers, well, my questions lies which one correct in regard to the Islamic scriptures?

Any, and all claims are open to testability, regardless of what or who is the source of them. To test the nature of God, such as infinitude, is not acceptable, but to test a metaphysical claim about the nature of existence, which upon that God does exist, is open to a test based upon the claim which it makes, and typically many things said about God, are indeed within the limits of the scientific method, although not entirely explore, but enough to permit science as a method to test this.

People who want to propose the philosophy of immaterialism, they need to create a coherent theory about it, along with the ways to test it. If God wants us to believe in it, and to follow its guidelines, it would give us a method to explore its nature, and if that is immaterialism, then philosophers, theologians, etc., must provide a new model outside of faith, as faith is a belief, not a way to debate the nature of the universe.

Even if we accept immaterialism, it does not necessarily equate the existence of the gods, it just shows that entities outside of physical matter, are present, but afterwards we fail to characterize these objects, due to the inevitable nature of testing them, via the natural sciences, that would require us to create a new methodology for such, and until we do so, nothing can really be said about these objects, but that they might exist.

The problem with asserting that a God does exist, is if that God is involved with the physical world, which is within the fields of science. Anytime a God does any kind of intervention, you can explore this scientifically, rather it be with the historical sciences, or history itself. If a person wants to assert Deism, then there is not much to debate, as a God might have designed the observable universe, but to say it is a theistic god, then we can debate that concept.

Let's keep in mind when ever we are exposed to information we have a tendency to lean to a bias perception of how we interpret the information we receive. It's all about level of conciousness.

Regarding his point on God being the source for objective morality, does Craig believe God wills this to be because it is objective or is it objective because God wills it to be. It's a simple question I rarely get answered

So much of what this guy says is just common sense to me. Actually, I think it is pretty much all common sense. The things this guy says even a small child can figure out, like it really does not take brains to figure out. So, in a sense, it is like, just another kindergarten lesson to me. Hahahahaha! Maybe I should watch a video which teaches something new. Idiots, leave my reply button alone, or I may give you a severe verbal thrashing like you would never imagine!

Craig obviously doesnt know about Islam and Qur'an. When God says he doesn't like unbelievers he means those who know islam is true but they Arrogantly refuse to believe in him and his religion however in the other hand God doesn't hate those unbelievers who never know or heard about islam but they will be tested and judged in the judgement day God love the children of the unbelievers and those children who died while their childhood they will be in heaven

At 10:00 Craigs shows his weakness at mathematics. There is no such a number called infinity that can equals an infinity derived from another way. It simply goes like this: let n be the number of coins and n can be bigger than any other number you can think of, (n is unlimited rather than infinite) then n-n/2 = n/2 for any n n-(n-3) = 3 also for any n but n/2 ≠ n-3 except when n=6 So, no mathematician says that infinity/2 = (or ≠) infinity-3. The concept of unlimited is used not infinity.

Yes, and anyone can logically think of why there lacks evidence for a nonmaterial world. What tool would you use to understand this world, and how would you know you're even interacting with this one? Bottom line is that you don't go assuming there is one without evidence for it, and if you honestly think what craig said constituted as evidence then we'd be believing in a lot more nonsense than we currently do

Unfortunately, all we can conceive of is the material world. No evidence dictates that there IS a nonmaterial world, and therefore no reason so far to believe in one. worse yet, making claims for the nonmaterial are useless, as a nonmaterial object we would have no way of discovering it, being material beings, and therefore cannot distinguish our proposed being with a nonexistant being; both share the same qualities of nonprovability!

You are incorrect. According to the BGV, even in a multiverse scenario, the world ensemble itself has to have an absolute beginning. Nature means inherent qualities. So if a being is necessary, its inherent qualities must be necessary. CoCo was objecting by saying that if God is maximally great, He must control his nature. I interjected and explained that If there is a maximally great being, then his nature can't be contingent, by definition, for his inherent qualities would be necessary.

You are clearly not seeing the context of my comment and what I was responding to. CoCo and Chipk were discussing ontology. Asking "does God dictate His own nature" is nonsensical. It's a logical absurdity. It's like asking why water is wet. It's because that's what its nature is. “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” - Vilenkin. You can posit a speculative multiverse if you want, but the BGV Theorem proves it too would have to have an absolute beginning.

You clearly don't understand the meaning of the word "nature." "Our universe has always been here" Have you read any contemporary cosmology? And by contemporary, I mean from the last, ohhhh, 85 years? Get with the times, man. There are these new terms like the Big Bang, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem, singularity, absolute beginning... I highly recommend you read about them before you start making comments on cosmology.

(cont.) Instead of using empirical evidence to prove God, you're using philosophy to try and prove God. You're trying to use logic to prove God. The problem with the logic in which you use is that it's all fallacious, or straight up wrong. For example, to assume there must be an intelligent designer because everything we know that's been designed, was designed, is a huge fallacious statement.

If the bigbang was caused by God, then shouldn't we go further and try to explain that event? Would it be just waste of time? Of course, everyone agrees the science should keep going further. In this case, if in the future, science finds out that the bigbang can be explained without God (as in the case of evolution of life), and that the fining tune is also shown to be a natural phenomena (as in the case of planets orbits), would Craig then admit there is no evidence for God?

"There is no evidence that "other universes" exist". There is also no evidence that god exists. Get over it. Believe what you want to believe. Don't pretend that believing in an invisible all-powerful god is in any way logical. God endorses slavery in the bible. Does that make it "objectively moral"? Human morality is not objective - history proves this. If Craig's god has "objective moral values" he sure doesn't use his all-powerful power to enforce them.

I dont think it matter if some numbers tell you that Atheism dies. I think what matters more is that religion dosent matter to the people anymore. Although, as far as i know what the people in America think doesnt matters in general, because in many cases esp. the more religous ones, it is just hilarious to listen to them. The world moves on and amerika stants still, mostlikly because of relgious fantaics. I think you waste your time arguing with athist. As same as i do right now, but i am bored

Do you mean to say whether when you say rather? How can a mortal creature test an immortal God? Do you think an omnipotent, omniscient being would allow Himself the indignity of being tested by His creation? The Bible warns agains putting God to the test. When you refer to historical sciences, do you mean medieval science? Science believed the world was flat then. Is that what you mean? You're a windbag talking in circles. A babbling brook. One day you will stand in judgement like the rest of us

I would be very interested in finding out if you maintain the same stance on your death bed, before you breath your last..That is, to deny the very existence of the Lord who spoke everything into being. Just looking around at creation screams with logic and common sense that God exists. Most importantly, that He loves us...Turn to Him in complete faith today..Call upon Jesus Christ in faith...Not one word escapes from your lips that He doesn't hear. Repent and believe in Him today...

The aleprechaunist is burdened in debate for proving that leprechauns doesn't exist...period. I had a personal experience yesterday with a wise leprechaun. It for sure prove leprechauns do exist. Quantities, constants and perceived patterns such as equilateral shapes points to quantities, constants and equilateral shapes. Your ignorance about the ultimate nature of these things is evidence of your ignorance about the nature of these things, not for your imaginary friend.

Oh it only takes a moment, and to be fair, it is important that people know what nonsense is being peddled. I didn't take time away from my family... As for my " hateful mind "... nice name calling... but ultimately pointless. Just think how much more people could enjoy their time with family and friends, without people feeling threatened by reality and branding others " hateful ". Just a thought

She may have heard the doctors and her mind created an image of it. She may have been partly awake with knowing (this can happen). There are many explanations. Also, if she were seeing heaven and all that, how does that prove, Not only that God is real, but that it is the Christian god. Why could you not also use this exact same evidence to prove that Allah is real, or any other Gods?

When a person dies, the brain can remain active for around 5 minutes. After that, nobody knows what would happen. But when the brain dies, there is no reason to believe that your personality will live on. In fact, there is good reason to believe that when the brain dies, everything about you will also die. It's a sad thought but at least it's true. William Lane Craig always does this; he subtly says that Atheism is depressing and this persuades a lot of emotional people.

No, you cant understand my point. If you think about what may happen when you die, you may see it if you are near death. If an atheist keeps thinking about the prospect of heaven being a place after death, they may see it when they get near death. If you think of something that may happen when you die, a near death experience may cause you to see it. This is supported by neuroscience. Also, how would someone know what heaven looks like? People would see what they imagined a heaven to be.

Firstly, there are many prophecies which came true in Greek mythology as well. The Greeks predicted some of the attacks in WW2, including the fact that metal boats with guns would be used, that doesn't mean that Greek mythology is accurate. Also, Muhammad was also a real person who had many followers and predicted the future. Finally, near death experiences are false because only Christians saw Jesus, others saw their God instead. It's all based upon a person's mind, and what they want to see.

well we still believe in the same god we just have different styles but i guess i belive in my god and not greek mythology or buddhist gods might be because it makes more sense to me and jesus really did came in the flesh also a lot of prophecies in the bible have come true also if you evered watch the documentary called afterlife the people with near death experience reported that they met jesus so that would be my reason

The point is an eternal universal that needs a limitless number of events in the past is not contradictory or impossible as WLC tries to prove philosophically (and making math mistakes :) ). Well, it seems that the universe is not, although it's not intuitive. But I don't think WLC understands the reasons which led to this conclusion. His argument against a possible limitless number of events in the past is not consistent in my opinion.

science may predict an end to the universe, but maybe the universe isn't all there is. What's outside it. But all that aside. Let's say by universe we could mean All. There could be a last moment in the universe, or the universe could go on endlessly into the future.But it's only a problem if the future an infinite number of events away, has happened in the future, how can we reach it.....

Let's suppose you are right. Let's do the same thing with the future then. Do you think there will be a last moment in the Universe? A moment when there will be no more future moments to expect? A last year. That may be the real case. But is it intuitive? Isn't that more problematic than admitting that there will always be a moment after any moment? It's the same reasoning. Intuitively, I think there should a moment one year before any moment. That's the concept behind limitless or infinity.

If you pick a moment in the past, from an infinite time, then as soon as you've picked it, there is now a finite number of years between it and the present.But if something could occur an infinite number of years ago, then no number will reach it, then starting form that point and progressing,you would not reach the present.I don't see how you resolve that. Maybe an eternal universe is possible but it has that problem that a universe with an uncaused cause doesn't.I don't see you answering it.

I think our difference is that you don't admit that we can possibly have an unlimited number of years to count backwards untill any moment in the past. Even a moment infinitely distant in the past. I don't agree with WLC. I think there would be no contradiction in having an unlimited number of past events. On the contrary, my problem would be accepting a first moment. Why couldn't we expect that there was one year before that moment?

In the case of 3:00pm and 3:01pm, the infinite number of points get closer together. But what I mean is, an infinite number of equal sized units e.g. years, That cannot happen. If you have to go through an infinite number of years before reaching year X, then you won't reach year X. (i'm no mathematician and your maths is probably better than mine, but that's what it seems to me).

yeah by let's pretend , i mean let's suppose. Your last sentence has what I mean.. in that if we do have a first moment, then sure we can count some finite number of years to 2012. But if we don't, if it were possible to have an infinite number of years going back, then that's an infinite number of past events. and I don't mean like an infinite number within an interval like there are an infinite number of numbers on a ruler between 2 points or as between 3:00pm and 3:01pm.

No. I'm sorry, I mean, I didn't understand what you meant. You said " If there were an infinite number of years going back, leading up to now, then let's pretend now hasn't happened, how would we ever reach 2012?" (maybe I didn't get it because of my bad english). "Let's pretend", does it mean "let's suppose"? But in short, I don't see why we couldn't reach any determined point in the time line. Do you mean just because we don't have any first moment?

You agree with craig that unlimited quantity is invalid, you just disagree with the maths that he used to show it. I get the jist of what you're saying regarding the Maths, but I don't have the Maths background to say whether I think you're right and craig wrong on the Maths.You have at least raised a good objection.he's talking as if the infinities as numbers are equal in size when perhaps there are higher and lower orders of infinity there so that is a bit more complex than he presents

I agree that the modern physicists say the universe had a beginning but I think WLC has not enough math knowledge to fully understand what it means. Neither do I, of course. But I dare to say that the bigbang is not something that comes from a contradiction in the idea of infinity. On the contrary, they must have used this concept many times in their calculations to come to this conclusion.

"he says that the concept of infinity leads to contradictions. I don't think it's right." I don't think he says that. He might say that infinity as a number would be contradictory no surprise since it's not a number. But where does he say infinity leads to contradictions? What's the exact quote? The thing about an infinite past being impossible? Well, his reasoning would be it'd mean an infinite number of past events - I suppose is impossible. How can you ever reach the present if that's so?

OK. But he says that the concept of infinity leads to contradictions. I don't think it's right. The concept still applies as any other math concept. What led to a contradiction was his weak math treatment. The idea of an infinite past simply mean that no matter how long you could imagine the beginning there would still be something before. That seemed perfect up to the modern theories.

"There is no contradiction until he makes the mistake of considering it a determined number." SERIOUSLY MAN.. Look up the law of contradiction. The idea is that you show an idea to be false by saying SUPPOSE IT IS TRUE , and see if that leads to contraidctions, if so, they implies it is False. It would be a mistake to believe it is true. WLC does not do that. And WLC is not saying that the concept of infinity leads to contradictions. He's saying the idea of it as a number does. READ

I really don't know what's wrong with you. I studied first order logic so I know the Law of Contradiction. You should read up on it. "Mathematicians don't take infinity as a determined number" NEITHER DOES WLC Do you understand that WLC is saying the Universe had a beginning and doesn't go back infinitely into the past? He's also not debating somebody that believes it is eternal. He's not claiming that anybody believes it is eternal.

Mathematicians don't take infinity as a determined number. That's why there is no contradiction. Considering an infinity number of past events as a determined number of events might lead to some contradiction. Number and others math concepts are not real anyway. They are just ideas to help us predict the future or say what happened in the past. Up to the development of the modern theories, the idea of an infinity past time seemed perfectly well.

Well, anyway, the idea is not contradictory, but saying that this is a number is. The fact the he gets different results from different operations involving different quantities is not absurd. On the other hand, the concept of infinity as something that has no limits (being greater than anything we can think of) is fully in accordance with a limitless time in the past. By the way, not only infinity is just an idea in our minds, any number or concept in math exists just in our minds.