@@jimbojackson4045 Have you checked the comments there recently? Maybe they have been bad before, but at least the moment I can find nothing but cordiality there.
@@Miatpi Hmm. Maybe it was just the ones I interacted with. Very strange, since Alex is actually a relatively "smart" guy. He's not a genius like Craig, but he's smart for the avg person no doubt. The fans I've interacted with are really dumb.
Being a former atheist, most atheists are willfully ignorant, but it's not as toxic as it used to be a few years ago. There are even a few out there who have more to offer than "lol" and "spaghetti monster".
I'm still seeing some toxicity in the comments, especially in the replies, on Alex's videos, but I think it's gotten better. In fact, there were times when I noticed it's the same people criticising Christianity/religions/Craig/etc. For example, a person under the username "Rational Sceptic" is going around attacking Craig in particular, claiming that he's a "liar" or whatnot every single time. It's not just on Alex's channel, but on other videos where Craig was also in. And there're more people using usernames similar to "Rational Sceptic" but I couldn't remember the specific names. It's as if these people paint themselves as rational/smart/intelligent or as a critical thinker (to convince themselves, no less) and bring other people down, using strange and dumb "arguments".
Can you get the difference between Science and Philosophy ? Richard is demeaning because interlocutors stating Pseudoscientific ballshits like it is Science. And this is the way you HAVE to behave with someone mocking or disrespect science or scientists! Philosophy is blurred , you can't be demanding or absolute... mostly because it is not about epistemology is about ontology.
@@GeroG3N yes. Because again... science have the facts... philosophy don’t. Philosophy have hypothesis. When you contrast scientific arguments with philosophical arguments and you pretend it is in equal plane field... you respect no one... when you creat philosophical arguments based on pseudoscience... you respect no one... especially the guy who correcting you and you pretend you don’t listen!
@@AaAaAdeGiaAaAa "philosophical arguments based on pseudoscience" Lmao Five words that show that you have no idea what you are talking about, you made my day. Thanks
That was amazing! As a former atheist and now a Christian that was such a necessary and meaningful conversation. Alex is clearly brilliant and I wish the best for him on his journey. I obviously think William lane Craig is the man. I just can’t express how much I enjoyed that discussion.
@@dantheman909 Great question. I was raised essentially an athiest by my parents, was never baptized, only did church on XMAS (if that). I grew up started a family, prided myself on the "truth". Figured i had gotten that far in life was generally a "good" person by societal standards and left it at that. As i started to grow a start my family I started to explore and examine more of what underpinned what I thought was good or moral, what made it good or moral?. At the same time things around me culturally i was quite disturbed with. I feel there is a culturalism Nihilism that has taken hold so I dug into the repercussions of that viewpoint. As i started to follow the bouncing ball of where my morals came from i realized I abhor the Nihislt viewpoint and to me the natural conclusions its lays out (Basically everything is relative, why not steal or cheat if you will not get caught if you believe its right, why not hurt others if it helps you, why not, etc.. there are many such hypotheticals), basically without a source of absolute truth, all truth is relative and it was at this moment I realized how far I had strayed from GOD (specifically Jesus Christ, but we will focus on the jump from athiest to theist here). There was/is no question in my mind there is a creator behind all truth. You might ask well I was living my life prior to not beling in GOD but seemingly living a moral life. I ascribe to the cut flowers theory. A flower will retain its beauty cut in water for a period of time but without proper soil it eventually withers up and dies. To me that is an example at a micro level of myself, as my father was Catholic and mother was Methodist so the moral and value system was instilled in them (even though all religious aspects were stripped form my childhood), and on a macro level society as a whole. The United States was always a Christian county. The constitution was based off of the Bilbe, our laws and justice system based on Christianity, the divide between church adn state (which was to keep gov out of church, not church out of gov) was never that great until recently. The degeneracy of the culture the hyper-sexualization, the hedonistic principals, the lack of common decency, are now based on the fact that folks thought everything was alright without a Christian underpinning but we are getting to the stage when the flowers start to wilt.....anyways that was a bit of a tangent but that was the start of my Christian Journey. Sprinkle how quality my Christian friends and neighbors were and I had to jump feet first to understand more, thats when I found apologetics and the rest is history. Strangely enough even though he is more secular i have high esteem for Jordan Petersen, and his reverence for the meaning of scripture originally took me by surprise and also helped nudge me in the right direction. Good luck on your path
@@wattsobx Nihilism isn't the only conclusion you can arrive at via atheism. You should've looked into Schopenhauer's or Hartmann's systems. I mean, it's clear you didn't become an atheist because of critical thinking and scepticism, but because your parents were atheists and didn't bother to look at a range of consistent atheistic systems. In other words, you weren't reasoned into atheism, so you couldn't be reasoned out of it. You became a Christian for emotional reasons obviously. And Peterson leans more towards Gnosticism because of Jung, not orthodox Christianity.
@@Solbashio Not trying to change their mind, I just cringe whenever I hear a Christian say "I USeD tO bE An AtHiESt", because they never became an atheist because of critical thinking and scepticism. I encourage that person to look to a more healthy form of Christianity ie Gnosticism.
This pod cast has changed my mind of him. He’s at least honestly willing to exhaust his excuses for rejecting God. And that’s admirable. Hope he obeys the reasoning he says he admires so much.
@@9432515 I have seen Alex get less angry over time. He is going from being an emotional atheist to a philosophical one. He is realizing he doesn't have to be angry anymore. Time will tell where he lands.
What kind of Christian loves a podcast that has a primary purpose is to cause unbeliever's to be strengthened in their unbelief and that causes believer's to doubt what they believe? Why would you love something that God hates if you are a Christian?
@@OkieAllDay Probably because there’s hope for Alex it so seems. Plus...in his honest endeavors (while they remain honest) to get to the bottom of it all...it just exposes THE truth about God. And that’s where this ended up. It is ridiculous without God.
@@OkieAllDay because I think it’s critical for us to face philosophical challenges head on. Alex is the “Judge Judy” of atheist philosophers: tough but fair. I want to hear the most concise criticism of my faith; it’s called loving Christ with all my mind. Besides, the whole culture is strengthening unbelievers in their unbelief, and Alex is the very least of our problems. Besides, he addresses many other areas of philosophy that have nothing to do with religion, which I find fascinating.
Thanks Alex for never making of us straw men. You always give our best representations, and in this case, one of the best representatives of it. I thought considering the opposition Alex faced he held his ground extremely well. Thanks Dr. Craig for again representing Christianity in the way it should be. Respectful, honest and sincere. Excellent discussion 👏
So impressed by Alex for his intelligence, honesty and humility. He raised many interesting and sensible points and articulated them so clearly and respectfully. Insightful and gracious responses from Dr. Craig, as always. A totally riveting conversation.
The choices were, Netflix, Kdrama, Disney +, Prime and this episode on the Kalam. I definitely made the right choice 👌👏👍. Such a good job to both of you.
Romans 5:8 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 2 Corinthians 5:21 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. Romans 6:23 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. John 3:16 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Romans 8:38-39 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Acts 2:38-39 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” Hebrews 4:12 KJV "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 13:16 "And do not neglect doing good and sharing, for with such sacrifices God is pleased." ... These are the sacrifices that please God."
Love how Craig is always so respectful and kind 🤍 his arguments are always really clever. Great debater, apologist and person❤️ (love Alex’s accent btw XD)
It's likened to a philosophical discussion. Something that is found in Scriptures' granted. But Christ clearly states He is God, and the only way to Truth. His parables are the obvious characterization of philosophical illustrations that any philosopher would agree with. Yet Christ is the one that a barely few will openly accept as the Greatest Philosopher. I don't understand why, Gandhi stated it as a fact. He stated "I like your Christ, but not your Christianity." meaning catholicism was not Christian and he knew it. But Christ was God in flesh.
This is what discussions between Atheists and Christians SHOULD look like. Unfortunately, many people are more interested in emotionally charged rhetoric. This discussion is certainly a refreshing change!
I saw this when it first appeared on Cosmic Skeptic's channel, and was happy to see it again here. Literally my favorite Christian philosopher having a great conversation with my favorite atheist philosopher. I hope Dr. Craig speaks to Alex again. This is exactly the sort of respectful, constructive conversation we need more of. In more recent videos from Cosmic Skeptic, it seems evident to me that this conversation had a profoundly positive impact on his attitude towards theism.
Really appreciative of Alex here. He is very respectful and asks very good questions. Kudos to Dr. Craig as well for taking his time and trying to answer all his questions. Well done!
This is without a doubt one of the best examples of ‘civil discourse’ between two people with supposing positions. It was a real conversation and an wonderful example to so many other great minds out there. Thank you for showing us all that it can be done
Maybe the best interview of Dr Craig I've seen. Alex is obviously a brilliant young man. I love the way both guys showed respect for each other as they sincerely sought truth. No "gotcha" questions or answers. I could tell Dr Craig really enjoyed it. Hope they will meet again
I love Dr Craig, he’s such a delightful combination of overwhelmingly sophisticated intellect, with equal parts genuine goofy childlike glee. Where do they make guys like this??
He's an arsehole! He says there's no such thing as infinity. When Alec asks him if god is infinite, then he tap dances around the issue. The man's dishonest, at least hovind is just stupid.
@@derekallen4568 My goodness, Derek. Don't put all your good eggs into one basket. Joke aside now. Are you a secret Christian playing an online atheist to attack Dr. Craig's character in such an obviously sloppy and superficial way as to stain the atheist's side? Or are you a true, earnest (but emotionally bitter) actual atheist? The former would not be necessary (and wrong as a Christian, mind you), the latter would be just revealingly, argumentatively weak.
A major part of this interview (towards then end) sounds like a student trying a radical worldview to escape the arguments and therefore, the conclusions of the professor. And then professor considers the radical view and breaks it down for the student to the fullest extent. Throughout this process, the professor not only notes the errors in reasoning employed by the student (to escape the conclusion using his radical view), but also notes that the professor's original arguments and conclusions still stand regardless of this radical view.
Yeah, it feels like Alex isn't so much trying to argue against the 2 premises, but to set up false comparisons and word plays. Like he's trying to nitpick about what come in to exist means and how it's different for a chair and the universe...but none of it changes or challenges the 2 premises. Granted I've never seen a debate on the Kalam so I don't know how good or bad Alex's style or questions are, but it felt like alot of following rabbit holes. The substantive portion was the concept of infinite things since an argument against the Kalam is the universe is simply infinite.
All three of you are so biased that you are not able to realize that Alex does not hold most of the positions and arguments that he develops in the conversation (not debate, CONVERSATION). Analyzing the Kalam and its premises at its fullest extent involves acting, sometime, as the devil's advocate. So it's the other way around, the only ones watching this video with a "win or lose" perspective are you, especially @Thomas Franchi.
This showed up in my feed, and before I knew anything about Cosmic Skeptic I assumed this young scholar was a Christian. Kudos for a respectful discussion through differences.
LOL CosmicSkeptic is one of the most popular Atheists. But, his refreshing humility and respect, can certainly come off as quite Christianly, at first glance. I've been listening to him, off and on, for the last few years, and certainly respect the guy.
I'm glad you enjoyed it. I think the best thing for an atheist to do is to acknowledge that there is actually evidence for God. If people can take time to just listen and not have a fighting instinct but are willing to genuinely monitor oneself as he observes the evidence, one can allow himself to find God.
@@eprd313 If you would like to have a discussion about evidence for God, then we need to set some rules so that the conversation does not go off track and remains consistent, and keeps us looking at the situation as objectively as possible. Rules: 1. No Ad Hominems 2. No assuming that the other person is trying to be "dishonest". 3. No using terms like "mental gymnastics" or a "word solid" which convey that "spirit of communication". 4. No hostility 5. No attempt to use "personal convictions" of being convinced or not convinced to attempt to justify one's rejection of evidence. The denial of the evidence is not based on whether or not a person is convinced by that evidence, but whether or not the argument or evidence logically follows. If a person no longer continues the conversation and does not present a defeating argument for the evidence for God, then this counts as a concession, and whether or not a person is personally convinced is not valid. Therefore, the person must concede that there is evidence for God, and convert to Theism. He cannot reject the evidence without a valid defeating argument which has no objection against it. 6. No repeating arguments in which it is mutually understood that the argument has been answered, *with the intent of presenting the argument as if it has not been answered.* If a person presents the same argument that has been answered, he can provide *ADDITIONAL* argumentation as to why his argument still remains. 7. Using one-liner responses (brief responses of rhetoric) do not count as valid argumentation. Each position should be mature and present actual argumentation and refrain from manipulating appearances or appealing to the crowd or audience to make it look as though one has presented a defeated argument through the use of laugh emojis (ex: 😆😋😁), laughter (ex:"lol Hahaha"), arbitrary write-offs (ex: "Whatever, I win"), or appealing to personal conviction rather than showing how the argument does not logically follow (ex: "In not convinced").* 8. The goal is not "to defeat" the evidence, *it's to take the evidence to heart.* Afterwards, after that the atheist has genuinely taken it to heart and received in himself what the Theist is conveying with an accurate perception and he still disagrees, only then will the atheist proceed to explain why. He will not express a commitment to his unbelief by trying to reject the argument above understanding and receiving the argument in good faith. His primary goal is to understand it and take in to heart the implications, and this way, if he does happen to have any objections, they will be genuine objections that come from true skepticism rather than from a commitment to unbelief. This is not a game of "who has the last word", nor is it a game of "witty comebacks". It's a true and genuine attempt at evaluating evidence objectively. 9. Please, no cursing or vulgar language. Basically, none of the typical utilizing of strategies developed by people over the internet to work around having a meaningful dialogue to discuss evidence with true objective evaluation. If the atheist cannot successfully deny the evidence with augmentation *that is stronger than* The argumentation by The Theist, then he concedes the conversation *and converts to Theism.* This avoids The Theist putting forth the manual labor of presenting evidence in vain to an atheist who is determined not to accept it, and so that both sides would be respectable, provide valid argumentation, and be legitimately evaluating evidence objectively without the use of rhetoric to deny such evidence, and to close conversational loopholes one may utilize to reject a conclusion which logically follows. If you can agree to these terms, we can have a conversation concerning whether or not atheism is rationally justified, the rationality of Theism, and or evidence for God's existence.
@@Bi0Dr01d lol dude, this is not a job interview where you get to establish biased conditions that always favour your side. I'll take this as an "I'm too insecure to debate freely because my arguments are feeble". Have a good one.
If you've never read a book by Dr. Craig, youre doing yourself a great disservice. I think iv seen most of the videos with him, but reading his books have tought me more than I thought I'd he able to understand. Thanks Dr Craig
Don't leave your reasoning at the bookshelf though. He is wrong about much more than he is right. I often think Dr. Craig is using apologetics as a means of playing "reasoning games" where the ability to defend the intellectually indefensible becomes considered a nobility. Rather than admitting that there are certain ideas being proposed in his Christianity that do tremendous harm.
@@ramoncruz1007 Slavery, Genocide, Sexism/Rape, the idea of a 'Chosen people', the fact there was no Hebrew Captivity nor liberation in or from Egypt. you know.. typical immorality from the bible disguised as "good"
@@SecretEyeSpot Even if we were to suppose all that were the case, you know very well that your issue is purely theoretical and has no impact on anything. And even Judaism which doesn't have a New Testament, isn't in favour of any of those things, other than "Chosen people", and there is nothing wrong with the concept of God choosing a people for a particular purpose. You having a problem with the concept of "chosen people" is just your own bigotry against Jews.
@@boliussa well first and foremost.. it means that this God in particular is a racist, and all who follow this type of thinking are blindly participating in a form of ethnocentrism and bigotry by default. Second, when we consider the possibility that Gods do not exist. The true motivations are exposed: If man is the Creator of such a symbol, and perpetuates it to further their own weltanschaung (worldview). It is one that causes those not privileged by it harm. Therefore it is a matter of empathy and compassion that we must question these concepts. One becomes much more of a moral person by rejecting its totalitarianism, and its preferentialism. if there is no God.. the Slavery and Genocide that came as a result was undue, and if there is one.. it surely is immoral and should not be worshipped as such. So save your accusations of me. and turn to the source from whence these things came
If nothing else, I'm incredibly impressed by CS being able to pose his objections without embarrassing himself while successfully conducting a great interview.
This was an absolute blessing to me. It may sound crazy but the 2 of you have great chemistry together and i would tune in daily to hear it. The respect and thoughtfulness allowed for a robust and deep conversation. This couldd be a great way to bring down the hostility between thiest and atheist. Please consider doing a weekly, monthly or quarterly podcast together. It would be a hit! What comes from it could be revolutionary!
What an incredible conversation!!! It shows that if both parties set aside their pride and just talk through things, then these can be very constructive conversations. No better a person to answer Alex's questions than Dr. Craig! The way Dr. Craig thinks through the others argument to identify their line of reasoning, and then use that to help them see either the logical errors or at least what repercussions it forces them to accept is just amazing! I believe if Alex will continue to challenge himself to keep looking for truth and thinking these things through to their logical conclusion, then he very well may become a theist (and hopefully a Christian one at that). Again, great conversation!
If only these kinds of discussions could happen in the market place and at the job site, and on the streets instead of trying to fire one another and rip each others heads off. Human intellect in discussion at its finest right on this video. I pray more people can be like these two in there conversational life times. 😇 Good Job !!
Dr Craig is a genius and a true gentleman, and man of wisdom. Massive respect to Dr Craig, who puts fear into the religions of secular humanist supremacism.
It's easy to find two brilliant minds that defend mutually exclusive positions on a subject. It's near impossible to find two brilliant minds who have the social skills and emotional intelligence to make a listener sympathetic to both sides. I'm a theist, but Alex is exactly the kind of person I need to hear from to keep me honest about what I can't know or explain.
I really gained a lot of respect for Alex with this. The true test of believing something is wrestling with the best arguments against it. Too often I see people on both sides of the aisle slaying strawman without really trying to come to any real understanding.
This was such a great conversation. respectfully exploring the others position instead of stomping around in the weeds looking to gain the intellectual high ground.
Its because this is an interview not a debate. I think the goal here was for alex to find out the position of WLC or atleast learn more about it. Not necessarily to defeat it. Something we all should aspire to do more.
At times I felt like Charlie Brown looking at clouds with Lucy and Linus, but what I took away was the sheer brilliance of some people's minds, and how great it is to live in a culture which values such discussions. William Lane Craig continues to impress with his humility, graciousness and evident pleasure in talking with Alex, - rather like a father pleased at his own son's enquiring mind..
Brilliant thinking together in different ways... I also liked the final comment from Dr Craig about the intellectual price tag atheists have to pay......he could see where the arguments actually lead to when you want to hold on to the atheistic viewpoint "for dear life".
- Marvelous discussion from both persons. The younger man raised arguments and questions that one rarely hears asked, but which are particularly relevant, despite their level of difficulty and because of it.
Mad respect for both of you, especially Cosmic Skeptic! I already love WLC but it's great to see an Atheist willing to just dialogue with a Theist without scoffing.
This is a perfect example of an honest conversation......loved it. As for the question of things coming into existence without a cause; if only fundamental particles come into being and all others thing do not as they are rather different arrangements of those particles, then perhaps they are at this time doing just that but are not being observed. I think that it is for exactly this reason apologetics is wanting. Perter did not say give an argument for God he said; Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every man who asks the reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear. Looking at the universe in its grandeur and complexity or life on earth, particularly now when we can look so deeply and uncover that complexity; I think it seems obvious that something, someone, a mind is behind that. It is all information and order, which only comes from a mind, but while I find a random self-perpetuating universe untenable, I do not find it imposable or any more difficult to apprehend than God would be. The honest thinker has come to a point where two paths diverge and they choose from this point which to follow. That is what Dr Craig is suggesting and that the path marked God is better marked so choose it. I would take the position that in this model neither leads to salvation. At this point we are to seek God as we are not able to reach Him, He must come and lead us from this point on. Many believes seem to think they are doing well to choose God and walk on. I say to do so leads to religion; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
Pure Pomp.. The "mind behind it" is one's own in its ability to observe! This is why attempting to deconstruct the biases that informs the perceiver is what it means to attempt to be objective. When one ceases from anthropomorphism, and instead takes a view that properties of oneself are inclusive rather than indicative of the whole to which one belongs one begins to see novel structures and patterns that can inform oneself of the way things actually are! Let's leave the influence of the Bible for those who are resigned to "anti-realism," and strive for a reasoning that adheres strictly to the evidence of reality.
@@Aurealeus The assumption being that material evidence is relevant to this topic, and REALLY assuming that material evidence would do anything to convince those requesting it.
@@browserboy1984 of course evidence is relevant. The main reason atheists do not hold a belief in a god is due to lack of evidence and is the only thing requested from theists as proof that a god exists.
@@Aurealeus Evidence matters. Material evidence is largely irrelevant when "testing" the immaterial. That is NOT the main reason, at all. Most people simply do not want to be told what to do. Daddy issues of the highest order.
@@browserboy1984 Being "told what to do" has nothing to do with belief. One either believes something or they don't. Material evidence is all that matters if WLC expects to 'sway' atheists to believe in a god, but all he's got is immaterial, feel good, word salad, theories and anecdotes which prove absolutely nothing.
Cosmic Skeptics smile at 1:10:14 is perfect, almost like it's the first time he realized how absurd his view sounds. I love this conversation. Very respectful and I learned a lot. A lot of people write off WLC but he's always prepared with arguments/knowledge/quotes/sources to defend his hypothesis.
But it is not his view. He is in many cases simply playing devil's Advocate and giving some of the many philosophical counterarguments that exist, most of which he does not hold. That is why he can laugh and agree that they are or sound absurd, but he would say the same of many of Craig's arguments. Note how he does not confirm Craig´s claim of the Intellectual price tag being too high, but instead talks about how it cost in intuitions and already held beliefs and that many arguments are given without regards to that price. That means the argument givers often disregard the consequence their argument against an opponent's world view or which backs up a part of their world view would have for their own world view as whole or how they would have to disregard intuitions they base their life on. Also note that Unless you can actually show something actually being absurd to the degree that it breaks logic, the label is just a rhetorical 'I do not think it is plausible based on my Intuitions/World View' without any substance. That is why Alex talks about the price too intuitions and world view.
@@sebastianjohnen9654 he said in the video that it's his view. The absurdity is that something has an attribute that allows it to pop into existence before it actually exists.
@@DieElect Where does he do that? Can you give me a time stamp? I have gone through it several times, and it seems they are on a tangent about possibilities that Cosmic Skeptic does not hold as part of his World View. As far as I have been aware, Cosmic Skeptic never ascribed to their being Nothing. For me, it seems they are speculations about what if scenarios, following lines of philosophical arguments regarding something from nothing being possible or impossible. He is getting Craig's view/response to the argument and Craig when he has nothing of substance falls back on his I -am to stupid not creative enough- can not even imagine the argument because it is "absurd" with lots of laughter, without ever demonstrating an actual logical absurdity. I believe there is a much higher intellectual price tag attached to using such rhetoric to dismiss arguments without putting in the work than asking absurd sounding questions (as long as the later are honest inquiries). At least in the field of philosophy and meta-physics.
@@sebastianjohnen9654 do you see the absurdity of universes having traits allowing them to come into existence prior to them existing as an absurdity? That was his argument regardless of if he was playing devil's advocate.
@@DieElect It was an argument he brought forth, but it is important to distinguish not one he holds. I also agree that it sounds absurd, but I disagree that any actual logical absurdity has been shown. It runs against our intuitions to think things that do net yet exist could have traits that allow them to come to exist. But a simple inverse by saying *things can have traits which do not allow them to come to existence even if they do not exist themselves* does not sound absurd. Even though, the step from there is just thinking that something's could lack that trait and therefore have the counter trait. "Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity or appeal to common sense, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine." From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
This is such a great conversation. Incidentally, Plank length and Plank time, in quantum physics, indicate that there are a finite number of moments in any given length of time and a finite number of points on any ruler. Dividing ad infinitum is physically impossible.
The question about space-time being discrete is still an open question in physics to my understanding. Correct me if i'm wrong but your comment seems to imply that, it has been determined that space-time is discrete.
@@segurall1 In the words of Tony Stark, "Well, you're not wrong." It's still an open open question. But the odds that spacetime is infinitesimally contiguous are, from what I've read, not good. Empirical and metaphysical evidence currently point to the existence of discrete universal quanta. I suspect that's why the "simulation theory" has been gaining so much traction in recent years. Also, I really like your reply.
@@dougcarey2233 Thanks for the prompt reply. I was reading an article earlier discussing Zeno's paradox. They mention that in Zeno's paradox the infinite series is a convergent one, as apposed to divergent infinities. The difference here that "traversing" a convergent infinity has a finite answer. Thus in the case of Zeno's paradox even though an infinite number of processes has occurred there will be a finite time where Achilles would have reached the tortoise. I think the argument there is that convergent actual infinities, even in the case that space-time is not discrete could be traversable in finite time.
@@drew2fast489 it doesn't work like that. i said how do you determine that it's supernatural. just because an experience is authentic, how does that lead you to concluding it is supernatural? can't think of anything better?
Even though I’m a Catholic, I have to applaud Alex, he is very intelligent and courteous. It’s a breath of fresh air to see how humble an upcoming atheist household name is not arrogant and condescending towards the opposing viewpoint and it’s personal holder (That is if he doesn’t find Christ before that) Much love God Bless
Alex makes a really great point here. Begining to exist, as in particles being rearranged into something we recognise, cannot be compared with beginning to exist as in particles being created, which has never been observed to happen. If talking about the creation of matter then there is no evidence to support premis one
@@thegreatcornholio7255 This is just pointing out a flaw in the first premis of the Kalam. It has no effect on what Atheists need to believe, but maybe some effect on theists, if their view is supported by the Kalam. But in response, atheists don't know how the universe came to exist. Theists don't know how God came to exist, which is their whole explanation for how the universe got here. Any explanation a theist might have for how God came from nothing can equally be used to explain how the universe came from nothing without the need for an intelligent being. Further thoughts, there may never have been such a thing as nothing. Or nothing may not even be a logically possible concept. Wondering how things came from nothing could be a paradoxical question since nothing is an idea humans came up with and may not make sense in reality.
@@j8acob1 Well that's not the argument at all, but I understand what you're trying to say. The argument is that the universe came into being, and everything that comes into being must have a cause (no matter how it comes into being). Nobody claims that God came from nothing, but that God is eternal. The whole argument from cause and effect is to demonstrate that something must exist that exists eternally and can do things like create universes and life. There are no theists who believe that God began to exist (at least not in the world's major monotheistic religions). So, that is basically the argument. Either the universe came from absolutely nothing, or something exists eternally which can do things like create universes full of matter, form life and all that stuff.
@@thegreatcornholio7255 Yes my last reply wasn't the kalam, rather I was responding to what you said about atheists needing to believe something came from nothing. My problem with the kalam is that it uses cause and effect to argue for a cause for the universe. However, cause and effect as we understand it only appiles to matter interacting and not the creation of matter. We have no insite into whether the creation of matter requires a cause or if it's even possible for matter to be created. The universe may well have a cause but I dont think any valid conclusions can be drawn from the kalam.
@@j8acob1 Ok, got it. I was just objecting to where you said we complain about any belief in matter and universes coming from nothing, but ourselves believe that God came from nothing. All monotheists (unless there's some sect out there I don't know about), believe that God existence is eternal. However, your new objection is part of Craig's argument. You're correct that matter is not something we see every day (or ever). But then your position would have to be that universes and only universes can come from absolutely nothing. If matter just randomly appears from nothing in the form of a universe, then it seems over eternity, certainly just by pure chance, random configurations of matter in the form of horses and chairs would pop into existence. If you don't think horses popping into existence is a rational thing to believe in, but universes popping into existence is perfectly rational, can you explain why you think that? However I think a lot of valid conclusions can be drawn from the Kalam, or Cosmological Arguments in general.
That was a great conversation ( Master Class really) but I appreciate the respect from Alex to Dr Crsig, I can see his hunger for truth he just needs to let go of his starting point ” God does not exist” and he eventually will find it.
Let's have Matt Dillahunty and WLC have a conversation now! It seems WLC through his recent debates (Michael Nugent) is more than open to debating non-PhDs.
There's a debate in a school (was it with Hitchens?), where this guy is trolling the debate by telling this story about God telling him to become a homosexual or something like that, to see what Craig has to say about that, and Craig doesn't appreciate that very much. He's not Dillahunty-angry, but visibly very annoyed :)
When we discuss mereological nihilism(MN), one great question to ask would be: “Do you exist?” On MN, only mereological simples exist, so if you are not a simple, you don’t exist. But surely, to deny ones own existence would be absurd, my existence is one of the few things I can hold with Cartesian certainty. But if one seeks to maintain their existence while holding to MN, they may have to postulate that they themselves are a mereological simple. But this fact doesn’t bare well for physicalism, it implies that ‘you’ are not identical to your brain, since we can certainly say that brains are not mereological simples. It seems evident to me, at least, that mereological nihilism may lead to some sort of irreducible immaterial being, apart from the physical brain. Just some food for thought. (And also for those who don’t know, there are plenty of arguments for P1 of the Kalam which aren’t effected by mereological nihilism)
I had not come across the term mereological nihilism before, but it’s clear to me the way you describe it, it’s not the view Alex was putting forward. Alex wasn’t denying the objective existence of any thing. He was saying every time we call something a thing we are relying on the subjective definition made by humans. I’ll use planets as an example. Alex recognises that when you point to something and call it a planet that you are pointing to an objectively real thing. What he’s pointing out is that the concept of a “planet” is subjective. Us humans came up with the definition. And the definition is arbitrary. We even changed the definition so Pluto no longer is one. But there’s nothing substantively different between Pluto and Mars. It’s just by definition that we say Pluto is too small to qualify. To unpack this view a little, what it means is that all macro things in this universe are just arrangement of fundamental particles that we humans have given names to... cup, door, planet. But if we want to be objective we can’t use these human-made (and arbitrary) concepts. All that leaves us being able to do is describe the arrangement of the fundamental particles. For example, instead of being able to describe something as “a water particle” we would instead need to say “the joining of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms” if we want to be objective. (I’ve ignored more fundamental particles and quantum in this example, for simplicities sake). Under this view, Craig’s reasoning (that we can use our common and scientific experience to show that premise 1 is likely true) doesn’t work. The only fact of the matter is that fundamental particles are rearranged all the time, and always have a cause for their rearrangement. And this observation can’t get you to “therefore the fundamental particles themselves must have a cause”. It’s a non-sequitur. I think Alex’s approach here is a confusing one to articulate and think about. There’s (in my opinion) a simpler way of pointing out the same underlying problem. I’ll do so by reformulating Craig’s first premise with the type of cause he’s using (as he stated in this video): P1. Whatever begins to exist has an efficient cause The problem is his justification is our common experience. But the entirety of our experiences are of things with material causes. Craig made clear in this video that he thinks the universe doesn’t have a material cause. So he is extrapolating from how things with material causes work and assuming the same must apply to things without a material cause.
@@JohnSmith-fz1ih I have qualms with what u said tho im not an expert at this stuff but i guess you would say conciousness is of material cause but i constantly hear that ppl like Wilder Pennfield did a mass study on the brain with dozens of paitents and during experimentation he was able to stimulate the brain to make ppl twitch theyre fingers dont quote me i dont remember all details but he also able to make them recall memories and other stuff but he was not able to stimulate the will itself the self concious agent aka the you. And Michael Egnor i forgot his name he is a neuroscientists stated in the list of seizures there is not one case of a rational thought seizure i think he defines conciousness as one who can conceptualize and have rational thought?? What do you think??
@@chrisyoonthefalseprophet1548 maybe you could let us know what you feel has happened? It helps enrich the discussion if you give something more concrete.
@@johncommers9597 no but really. Without rehashing the whole segment: nothing about this interaction constitutes a "checkmate". There's nothing outlandish about what Alex is saying and WLC even says its a consistent view. One could take a Van Inwagen approach and just label things as having the form of larger objects made of simples while admitting that we are doing so as convenience of language and the truth value of identifying objects becomes a non issue. And the labeling of these things would have to be mind dependent even in a theistic worldview... There's no *CHECKMATE* here on either side. This is just the same philosophical Ship of Theseus garbage that has been argued about for thousands of years. Apparently we are no closer to a satisfying answer and appealing to God doesn't even solve the problem. So in short here's what happened: What I saw happen was a person being honest and admitting they hadn't quite considered the full ramifications of their worldview. This doesn't mean they are wrong its just not fully developed. And they said they will make a effort to flesh out their ideas better. And somehow to the UA-cam viewers who like WLC took this as a massive sign of weakness and smelled blood in the water because they are so used to declarative statements and appeals to God's authority that any sense of apprehension gives them massive intellectual boners.... and the one of them decided make a comment declaring *CHECKMATE* which turned into a massive like button circle jerk. Thats what happened.
About the light bulb program at 11:30: You can write a pseudo-code that does that, but you couldn't properly execute it on any computer, because you'd need an infinitely fast processor to iterate through infinitely smaller time fragments.
One thing you might be able to do is keep an internet dictionary near or open up a web page as you listen to the UA-cam video and just search for definitions of things mentioned, or quick summaries of certain things and then continue watching the video. That might help. God bless you.
With all toxicity between atheists and theists around, genuine conversations like this really warms my heart.
Until you read the comments under Alex's version. I would be so embarrassed to have ppl like that as fans.
@@jimbojackson4045
Have you checked the comments there recently? Maybe they have been bad before, but at least the moment I can find nothing but cordiality there.
@@Miatpi Hmm. Maybe it was just the ones I interacted with. Very strange, since Alex is actually a relatively "smart" guy. He's not a genius like Craig, but he's smart for the avg person no doubt. The fans I've interacted with are really dumb.
Being a former atheist, most atheists are willfully ignorant, but it's not as toxic as it used to be a few years ago.
There are even a few out there who have more to offer than "lol" and "spaghetti monster".
I'm still seeing some toxicity in the comments, especially in the replies, on Alex's videos, but I think it's gotten better. In fact, there were times when I noticed it's the same people criticising Christianity/religions/Craig/etc. For example, a person under the username "Rational Sceptic" is going around attacking Craig in particular, claiming that he's a "liar" or whatnot every single time. It's not just on Alex's channel, but on other videos where Craig was also in. And there're more people using usernames similar to "Rational Sceptic" but I couldn't remember the specific names. It's as if these people paint themselves as rational/smart/intelligent or as a critical thinker (to convince themselves, no less) and bring other people down, using strange and dumb "arguments".
The Cosmic Skeptic demonstrates that an atheist can debate a believer without being demeaning.
This would be a good lesson for Richard Dawkins.
Can you get the difference between Science and Philosophy ? Richard is demeaning because interlocutors stating Pseudoscientific ballshits like it is Science. And this is the way you HAVE to behave with someone mocking or disrespect science or scientists! Philosophy is blurred , you can't be demanding or absolute... mostly because it is not about epistemology is about ontology.
@@AaAaAdeGiaAaAaNo. Richard Dawkins is a positivist, he is demeaning to philosophy in general.
@@GeroG3N yes. Because again... science have the facts... philosophy don’t. Philosophy have hypothesis. When you contrast scientific arguments with philosophical arguments and you pretend it is in equal plane field... you respect no one... when you creat philosophical arguments based on pseudoscience... you respect no one... especially the guy who correcting you and you pretend you don’t listen!
@@AaAaAdeGiaAaAa "philosophical arguments based on pseudoscience" Lmao
Five words that show that you have no idea what you are talking about, you made my day. Thanks
@@GeroG3N no , this is showing you that R.D.'s interlocutors have no idea about science or philosophy, most of the times.
That was amazing! As a former atheist and now a Christian that was such a necessary and meaningful conversation. Alex is clearly brilliant and I wish the best for him on his journey. I obviously think William lane Craig is the man. I just can’t express how much I enjoyed that discussion.
What made you change from atheist to Christian?
@@dantheman909 Great question. I was raised essentially an athiest by my parents, was never baptized, only did church on XMAS (if that). I grew up started a family, prided myself on the "truth". Figured i had gotten that far in life was generally a "good" person by societal standards and left it at that. As i started to grow a start my family I started to explore and examine more of what underpinned what I thought was good or moral, what made it good or moral?. At the same time things around me culturally i was quite disturbed with. I feel there is a culturalism Nihilism that has taken hold so I dug into the repercussions of that viewpoint. As i started to follow the bouncing ball of where my morals came from i realized I abhor the Nihislt viewpoint and to me the natural conclusions its lays out (Basically everything is relative, why not steal or cheat if you will not get caught if you believe its right, why not hurt others if it helps you, why not, etc.. there are many such hypotheticals), basically without a source of absolute truth, all truth is relative and it was at this moment I realized how far I had strayed from GOD (specifically Jesus Christ, but we will focus on the jump from athiest to theist here). There was/is no question in my mind there is a creator behind all truth. You might ask well I was living my life prior to not beling in GOD but seemingly living a moral life. I ascribe to the cut flowers theory. A flower will retain its beauty cut in water for a period of time but without proper soil it eventually withers up and dies. To me that is an example at a micro level of myself, as my father was Catholic and mother was Methodist so the moral and value system was instilled in them (even though all religious aspects were stripped form my childhood), and on a macro level society as a whole. The United States was always a Christian county. The constitution was based off of the Bilbe, our laws and justice system based on Christianity, the divide between church adn state (which was to keep gov out of church, not church out of gov) was never that great until recently. The degeneracy of the culture the hyper-sexualization, the hedonistic principals, the lack of common decency, are now based on the fact that folks thought everything was alright without a Christian underpinning but we are getting to the stage when the flowers start to wilt.....anyways that was a bit of a tangent but that was the start of my Christian Journey. Sprinkle how quality my Christian friends and neighbors were and I had to jump feet first to understand more, thats when I found apologetics and the rest is history. Strangely enough even though he is more secular i have high esteem for Jordan Petersen, and his reverence for the meaning of scripture originally took me by surprise and also helped nudge me in the right direction. Good luck on your path
@@wattsobx Nihilism isn't the only conclusion you can arrive at via atheism. You should've looked into Schopenhauer's or Hartmann's systems. I mean, it's clear you didn't become an atheist because of critical thinking and scepticism, but because your parents were atheists and didn't bother to look at a range of consistent atheistic systems. In other words, you weren't reasoned into atheism, so you couldn't be reasoned out of it. You became a Christian for emotional reasons obviously. And Peterson leans more towards Gnosticism because of Jung, not orthodox Christianity.
@@jirenthegray2904 Getting a theist to change their mind ain't that easy..
@@Solbashio Not trying to change their mind, I just cringe whenever I hear a Christian say "I USeD tO bE An AtHiESt", because they never became an atheist because of critical thinking and scepticism. I encourage that person to look to a more healthy form of Christianity ie Gnosticism.
You got to love Alex's honesty and willingness to have a sincere conversarion
As opposed to Dishonest Craig
@@mrebysan I think they're both intelectually robust and sincere. I really enjoyed this conversation.
@@mrebysan no, as opposed to toxic atheists
The catholic roots clearly have not left him entirely.
I’m a Christian, and I think Alex is terrific. I love his podcast.
This pod cast has changed my mind of him. He’s at least honestly willing to exhaust his excuses for rejecting God. And that’s admirable. Hope he obeys the reasoning he says he admires so much.
@@9432515 I have seen Alex get less angry over time. He is going from being an emotional atheist to a philosophical one. He is realizing he doesn't have to be angry anymore. Time will tell where he lands.
What kind of Christian loves a podcast that has a primary purpose is to cause unbeliever's to be strengthened in their unbelief and that causes believer's to doubt what they believe? Why would you love something that God hates if you are a Christian?
@@OkieAllDay
Probably because there’s hope for Alex it so seems. Plus...in his honest endeavors (while they remain honest) to get to the bottom of it all...it just exposes THE truth about God. And that’s where this ended up. It is ridiculous without God.
@@OkieAllDay because I think it’s critical for us to face philosophical challenges head on. Alex is the “Judge Judy” of atheist philosophers: tough but fair. I want to hear the most concise criticism of my faith; it’s called loving Christ with all my mind. Besides, the whole culture is strengthening unbelievers in their unbelief, and Alex is the very least of our problems. Besides, he addresses many other areas of philosophy that have nothing to do with religion, which I find fascinating.
This is the most positive I’ve ever seen a comment section on a video with a religious discussion, good job everyone!
Right? So rare and awesome! 🙂
Probably because it reflects how respectfulness of the conversation itself.
Thanks Alex for never making of us straw men. You always give our best representations, and in this case, one of the best representatives of it. I thought considering the opposition Alex faced he held his ground extremely well. Thanks Dr. Craig for again representing Christianity in the way it should be. Respectful, honest and sincere. Excellent discussion 👏
So impressed by Alex for his intelligence, honesty and humility. He raised many interesting and sensible points and articulated them so clearly and respectfully. Insightful and gracious responses from Dr. Craig, as always. A totally riveting conversation.
The choices were, Netflix, Kdrama, Disney +, Prime and this episode on the Kalam. I definitely made the right choice 👌👏👍. Such a good job to both of you.
Romans 5:8
8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
2 Corinthians 5:21
21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Romans 6:23
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Romans 8:38-39
38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Acts 2:38-39
38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”
Hebrews 4:12 KJV
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
Hebrews 13:16
"And do not neglect doing good and sharing, for with such sacrifices God is pleased." ... These are the sacrifices that please God."
#CancelDisneyPlus #FireKathleenKennedy #WeloveGinaCarano
@@l.quranhubbard5275 indeed 😂
I cancelled 😇
True, i really enjoyed this conversation.
Love how Craig is always so respectful and kind 🤍 his arguments are always really clever. Great debater, apologist and person❤️ (love Alex’s accent btw XD)
It's likened to a philosophical discussion. Something that is found in Scriptures' granted. But Christ clearly states He is God, and the only way to Truth.
His parables are the obvious characterization of philosophical illustrations that any philosopher would agree with. Yet Christ is the one that a barely few will openly accept as the Greatest Philosopher.
I don't understand why, Gandhi stated it as a fact. He stated "I like your Christ, but not your Christianity." meaning catholicism was not Christian and he knew it. But Christ was God in flesh.
We have to be thinking about two different Craigs.
Now let's have a respectful conversation between WLC and Matt Dillahunty!
@@malirk Billy won't do that. He's too chicken.
@@rembrandt972ify Billy would destroy Dilly.
Dr. Craig should get the award for being the politest, non-arrogant genius. Alex properly gives Craig the respect that he deserves!
This is what discussions between Atheists and Christians SHOULD look like. Unfortunately, many people are more interested in emotionally charged rhetoric. This discussion is certainly a refreshing change!
It feels like a professor teaching his student
That's actually a nice compliment to Alex.
@@brando3342 well Alex was a respectful student
@@ccpol8525 Agreed, he always is respectful in his videos
ccpo l
I didn't intend that to be sarcastic or anything. I like Alex.
Off course
I saw this when it first appeared on Cosmic Skeptic's channel, and was happy to see it again here. Literally my favorite Christian philosopher having a great conversation with my favorite atheist philosopher. I hope Dr. Craig speaks to Alex again. This is exactly the sort of respectful, constructive conversation we need more of. In more recent videos from Cosmic Skeptic, it seems evident to me that this conversation had a profoundly positive impact on his attitude towards theism.
Great post. I can't really tell which side you are on & very respectful of both. I wish all comments were as decent & kind!
Really appreciative of Alex here. He is very respectful and asks very good questions. Kudos to Dr. Craig as well for taking his time and trying to answer all his questions. Well done!
Kid is super respectful. I love it. Absolutely love it.
Not too patronising then.
Got to love Dr Craig.
How can someone not love Dr. Craig?
@i o I would agree, but rather those are biblical terms.
@Jim Merrilees And some disgust.
How could anyone love Billy (lying his ass off) Craig?
@@rembrandt972ify Millions of morons love him.
absolutely wonderful interview! God bless you all
I watched this on Alex’s channel a while back but it’s so good I watched it again here!
I thought I had heard this conversation before!
I can respect an atheist that is genuine in searching for truth, rather than being hostile and angry.. like matt dilahuntey
how refreshing, a respectful intellectual seeking of understanding. love it
This is without a doubt one of the best examples of ‘civil discourse’ between two people with supposing positions. It was a real conversation and an wonderful example to so many other great minds out there. Thank you for showing us all that it can be done
thoughtful, refreshing and mutually respectful .. the way it ought to be .. extremely well done Alex & Craig .. 10/10
"Has famously debated God"
I was just confused for a split second. 😁
So was I 🤣
Thank you Dr. Craig and Cosmic Skeptic for your humble but very confident views! Great conversation!
Always enjoy listening to WL Craig
I'm a Christian...I thoroughly enjoyed this genuine conversation and respect between Alex and Dr. William Lane Craig
Maybe the best interview of Dr Craig I've seen. Alex is obviously a brilliant young man. I love the way both guys showed respect for each other as they sincerely sought truth. No "gotcha" questions or answers. I could tell Dr Craig really enjoyed it. Hope they will meet again
In all honesty, this raises many of the "right" questions, and I'm supremely grateful for it.
Great Dr. Craig 💙
I love Dr Craig, he’s such a delightful combination of overwhelmingly sophisticated intellect, with equal parts genuine goofy childlike glee. Where do they make guys like this??
He's an arsehole! He says there's no such thing as infinity. When Alec asks him if god is infinite, then he tap dances around the issue. The man's dishonest, at least hovind is just stupid.
@@derekallen4568 My goodness, Derek. Don't put all your good eggs into one basket. Joke aside now. Are you a secret Christian playing an online atheist to attack Dr. Craig's character in such an obviously sloppy and superficial way as to stain the atheist's side? Or are you a true, earnest (but emotionally bitter) actual atheist? The former would not be necessary (and wrong as a Christian, mind you), the latter would be just revealingly, argumentatively weak.
@@derekallen4568 i think DC. CRAIG holds that infinites do not exist in our universe
@Jim Merrilees Hey, it was only 9 years.
@@paulpaluciano6162 Saying that someone is dishonest because you feel he is tap dancing around an issue is not an attack on his character.
how refresh to see a respectful conversation between people with different world views.
Yes, this is exactly what interactions between Atheists and Christians SHOULD look like!
Watching this just made my faith stronger
Alex and Dr.Craig = Perfect rational synergy of a skeptic and a believer
This may be the greatest discussion I've ever had the pleasure of listening to. I love this.
This was also just an epic sharpening of two of the brightest minds in philosophy!!!
A major part of this interview (towards then end) sounds like a student trying a radical worldview to escape the arguments and therefore, the conclusions of the professor. And then professor considers the radical view and breaks it down for the student to the fullest extent. Throughout this process, the professor not only notes the errors in reasoning employed by the student (to escape the conclusion using his radical view), but also notes that the professor's original arguments and conclusions still stand regardless of this radical view.
Yeah, it feels like Alex isn't so much trying to argue against the 2 premises, but to set up false comparisons and word plays. Like he's trying to nitpick about what come in to exist means and how it's different for a chair and the universe...but none of it changes or challenges the 2 premises.
Granted I've never seen a debate on the Kalam so I don't know how good or bad Alex's style or questions are, but it felt like alot of following rabbit holes. The substantive portion was the concept of infinite things since an argument against the Kalam is the universe is simply infinite.
I feel as though he is clearing out spiderwebs from the intellectual gaps that other debates glass over due to ego and desire to ‘win’
All three of you are so biased that you are not able to realize that Alex does not hold most of the positions and arguments that he develops in the conversation (not debate, CONVERSATION). Analyzing the Kalam and its premises at its fullest extent involves acting, sometime, as the devil's advocate.
So it's the other way around, the only ones watching this video with a "win or lose" perspective are you, especially @Thomas Franchi.
@@GeroG3N actually, I read thomas' reply and yours as implying the same thing (Projection on my part perhaps, but I guess its up to thomas to clarify)
And the cow jumped over the moon
I watched this when Alex released it. Definitely worth another watch. Great job both of you!!
I was having this very discussion the other day with my plumber
Hahaha Love it ! I feel you!
This showed up in my feed, and before I knew anything about Cosmic Skeptic I assumed this young scholar was a Christian. Kudos for a respectful discussion through differences.
LOL CosmicSkeptic is one of the most popular Atheists. But, his refreshing humility and respect, can certainly come off as quite Christianly, at first glance. I've been listening to him, off and on, for the last few years, and certainly respect the guy.
@@LoveYourNeighbour. Yes indeed. His humility and respect drew me in, and the whole dialogue was refreshing.
Most interesting conversation ever among Dr. Craig conversation so far
As an atheist i really enjoyed this discussion.
This is much better than debates where people are trying to score points.
I'm glad you enjoyed it. I think the best thing for an atheist to do is to acknowledge that there is actually evidence for God. If people can take time to just listen and not have a fighting instinct but are willing to genuinely monitor oneself as he observes the evidence, one can allow himself to find God.
@@Bi0Dr01d agreed.
@@Bi0Dr01dhmm where is the evidence?
@@eprd313 If you would like to have a discussion about evidence for God, then we need to set some rules so that the conversation does not go off track and remains consistent, and keeps us looking at the situation as objectively as possible.
Rules:
1. No Ad Hominems
2. No assuming that the other person is trying to be "dishonest".
3. No using terms like "mental gymnastics" or a "word solid" which convey that "spirit of communication".
4. No hostility
5. No attempt to use "personal convictions" of being convinced or not convinced to attempt to justify one's rejection of evidence. The denial of the evidence is not based on whether or not a person is convinced by that evidence, but whether or not the argument or evidence logically follows. If a person no longer continues the conversation and does not present a defeating argument for the evidence for God, then this counts as a concession, and whether or not a person is personally convinced is not valid. Therefore, the person must concede that there is evidence for God, and convert to Theism. He cannot reject the evidence without a valid defeating argument which has no objection against it.
6. No repeating arguments in which it is mutually understood that the argument has been answered, *with the intent of presenting the argument as if it has not been answered.* If a person presents the same argument that has been answered, he can provide *ADDITIONAL* argumentation as to why his argument still remains.
7. Using one-liner responses (brief responses of rhetoric) do not count as valid argumentation. Each position should be mature and present actual argumentation and refrain from manipulating appearances or appealing to the crowd or audience to make it look as though one has presented a defeated argument through the use of laugh emojis (ex: 😆😋😁), laughter (ex:"lol Hahaha"), arbitrary write-offs (ex: "Whatever, I win"), or appealing to personal conviction rather than showing how the argument does not logically follow (ex: "In not convinced").*
8. The goal is not "to defeat" the evidence, *it's to take the evidence to heart.* Afterwards, after that the atheist has genuinely taken it to heart and received in himself what the Theist is conveying with an accurate perception and he still disagrees, only then will the atheist proceed to explain why. He will not express a commitment to his unbelief by trying to reject the argument above understanding and receiving the argument in good faith. His primary goal is to understand it and take in to heart the implications, and this way, if he does happen to have any objections, they will be genuine objections that come from true skepticism rather than from a commitment to unbelief. This is not a game of "who has the last word", nor is it a game of "witty comebacks". It's a true and genuine attempt at evaluating evidence objectively.
9. Please, no cursing or vulgar language.
Basically, none of the typical utilizing of strategies developed by people over the internet to work around having a meaningful dialogue to discuss evidence with true objective evaluation. If the atheist cannot successfully deny the evidence with augmentation *that is stronger than* The argumentation by The Theist, then he concedes the conversation *and converts to Theism.* This avoids The Theist putting forth the manual labor of presenting evidence in vain to an atheist who is determined not to accept it, and so that both sides would be respectable, provide valid argumentation, and be legitimately evaluating evidence objectively without the use of rhetoric to deny such evidence, and to close conversational loopholes one may utilize to reject a conclusion which logically follows. If you can agree to these terms, we can have a conversation concerning whether or not atheism is rationally justified, the rationality of Theism, and or evidence for God's existence.
@@Bi0Dr01d lol dude, this is not a job interview where you get to establish biased conditions that always favour your side. I'll take this as an "I'm too insecure to debate freely because my arguments are feeble". Have a good one.
Always impressed by Alex. He is such a blessing to both sides.
If you've never read a book by Dr. Craig, youre doing yourself a great disservice. I think iv seen most of the videos with him, but reading his books have tought me more than I thought I'd he able to understand. Thanks Dr Craig
Don't leave your reasoning at the bookshelf though. He is wrong about much more than he is right. I often think Dr. Craig is using apologetics as a means of playing "reasoning games" where the ability to defend the intellectually indefensible becomes considered a nobility. Rather than admitting that there are certain ideas being proposed in his Christianity that do tremendous harm.
@@SecretEyeSpot would you care to specify?
@@ramoncruz1007 Slavery, Genocide, Sexism/Rape, the idea of a 'Chosen people', the fact there was no Hebrew Captivity nor liberation in or from Egypt. you know.. typical immorality from the bible disguised as "good"
@@SecretEyeSpot Even if we were to suppose all that were the case, you know very well that your issue is purely theoretical and has no impact on anything. And even Judaism which doesn't have a New Testament, isn't in favour of any of those things, other than "Chosen people", and there is nothing wrong with the concept of God choosing a people for a particular purpose. You having a problem with the concept of "chosen people" is just your own bigotry against Jews.
@@boliussa well first and foremost.. it means that this God in particular is a racist, and all who follow this type of thinking are blindly participating in a form of ethnocentrism and bigotry by default.
Second, when we consider the possibility that Gods do not exist. The true motivations are exposed: If man is the Creator of such a symbol, and perpetuates it to further their own weltanschaung (worldview). It is one that causes those not privileged by it harm.
Therefore it is a matter of empathy and compassion that we must question these concepts. One becomes much more of a moral person by rejecting its totalitarianism, and its preferentialism.
if there is no God.. the Slavery and Genocide that came as a result was undue, and if there is one.. it surely is immoral and should not be worshipped as such.
So save your accusations of me. and turn to the source from whence these things came
If nothing else, I'm incredibly impressed by CS being able to pose his objections without embarrassing himself while successfully conducting a great interview.
This was an absolute blessing to me. It may sound crazy but the 2 of you have great chemistry together and i would tune in daily to hear it. The respect and thoughtfulness allowed for a robust and deep conversation. This couldd be a great way to bring down the hostility between thiest and atheist. Please consider doing a weekly, monthly or quarterly podcast together. It would be a hit! What comes from it could be revolutionary!
What an incredible conversation!!! It shows that if both parties set aside their pride and just talk through things, then these can be very constructive conversations. No better a person to answer Alex's questions than Dr. Craig! The way Dr. Craig thinks through the others argument to identify their line of reasoning, and then use that to help them see either the logical errors or at least what repercussions it forces them to accept is just amazing! I believe if Alex will continue to challenge himself to keep looking for truth and thinking these things through to their logical conclusion, then he very well may become a theist (and hopefully a Christian one at that). Again, great conversation!
These is how people should hold conversations with eachother on topics such as this
If only these kinds of discussions could happen in the market place and at the job site, and on the streets instead of trying to fire one another and rip each others heads off. Human intellect in discussion at its finest right on this video. I pray more people can be like these two in there conversational life times. 😇 Good Job !!
What an incredible and polite conversation.
Yes,it's quite a refreshing change!
A nice tranquil discussion on lunacy.
The intellectual price tag argument sums it up brilliantly. Impressive interview!
Yep, you get what you pay for. Quality costs more
I really enjoyed it!!! Extremely thought-provoking, thank you Dr. Craig.
Dr Craig is a genius and a true gentleman, and man of wisdom. Massive respect to Dr Craig, who puts fear into the religions of secular humanist supremacism.
both these speakers are so nice and respectfull, i hope they have more conversations
As an ex-Christian I love Alex and how he can logically dissect everything
It's easy to find two brilliant minds that defend mutually exclusive positions on a subject. It's near impossible to find two brilliant minds who have the social skills and emotional intelligence to make a listener sympathetic to both sides. I'm a theist, but Alex is exactly the kind of person I need to hear from to keep me honest about what I can't know or explain.
Excellent discussion. Excellent attitude and character guys. Loved it
This was a delightful and thought provoking video to watch.
I really gained a lot of respect for Alex with this. The true test of believing something is wrestling with the best arguments against it. Too often I see people on both sides of the aisle slaying strawman without really trying to come to any real understanding.
The Cosmic skeptic is a class act. I pray for Dr. Craigs health.
What is wrong with him?
@@mahlatsimoroka1500 From birth he has suffered from Charcot-Marie-Tooth syndrome, a neuromuscular disease that causes atrophy in the extremities.
This was such a great conversation. respectfully exploring the others position instead of stomping around in the weeds looking to gain the intellectual high ground.
We need more discussions like this. Not the awful interactions you tend to see these days.
Its because this is an interview not a debate.
I think the goal here was for alex to find out the position of WLC or atleast learn more about it.
Not necessarily to defeat it.
Something we all should aspire to do more.
At times I felt like Charlie Brown looking at clouds with Lucy and Linus, but what I took away was the sheer brilliance of some people's minds, and how great it is to live in a culture which values such discussions. William Lane Craig continues to impress with his humility, graciousness and evident pleasure in talking with Alex, - rather like a father pleased at his own son's enquiring mind..
Brilliant thinking together in different ways... I also liked the final comment from Dr Craig about the intellectual price tag atheists have to pay......he could see where the arguments actually lead to when you want to hold on to the atheistic viewpoint "for dear life".
- Marvelous discussion from both persons. The younger man raised arguments and questions that one rarely hears asked, but which are particularly relevant, despite their level of difficulty and because of it.
Craig is such a gem. Enjoyed watching this for the third or fifth time!
One of the finest discussions on the topic.
I’ve loved every second of this video!
Great discussion between two very smart people. Throughly enjoyed it
Mad respect for both of you, especially Cosmic Skeptic! I already love WLC but it's great to see an Atheist willing to just dialogue with a Theist without scoffing.
Great conversation, thanks both of you!
This is a perfect example of an honest conversation......loved it.
As for the question of things coming into existence without a cause; if only fundamental particles come into being and all others thing do not as they are rather different arrangements of those particles, then perhaps they are at this time doing just that but are not being observed.
I think that it is for exactly this reason apologetics is wanting.
Perter did not say give an argument for God he said; Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every man who asks the reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.
Looking at the universe in its grandeur and complexity or life on earth, particularly now when we can look so deeply and uncover that complexity; I think it seems obvious that something, someone, a mind is behind that.
It is all information and order, which only comes from a mind, but while I find a random self-perpetuating universe untenable, I do not find it imposable or any more difficult to apprehend than God would be.
The honest thinker has come to a point where two paths diverge and they choose from this point which to follow. That is what Dr Craig is suggesting and that the path marked God is better marked so choose it.
I would take the position that in this model neither leads to salvation. At this point we are to seek God as we are not able to reach Him, He must come and lead us from this point on.
Many believes seem to think they are doing well to choose God and walk on. I say to do so leads to religion; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
Pure Pomp..
The "mind behind it" is one's own in its ability to observe!
This is why attempting to deconstruct the biases that informs the perceiver is what it means to attempt to be objective.
When one ceases from anthropomorphism, and instead takes a view that properties of oneself are inclusive rather than indicative of the whole to which one belongs one begins to see novel structures and patterns that can inform oneself of the way things actually are!
Let's leave the influence of the Bible for those who are resigned to "anti-realism," and strive for a reasoning that adheres strictly to the evidence of reality.
Alex O'Connor is bright truthful. And Dr Craigs answers were really good. It looks like all the questions were given beforehand, so well he answered.
I hope WLC will go back onto Alex's program, he can reach lots of souls that way and sway many to Christ.
Highly unlikely WLC could sway any atheists to believing because
he cannot present any material evidence that would "sway" them.
@@Aurealeus The assumption being that material evidence is relevant to this topic, and REALLY assuming that material evidence would do anything to convince those requesting it.
@@browserboy1984 of course evidence is relevant. The main reason atheists do not hold a belief in a god is due to lack of evidence and is the only thing requested from theists as proof that a god exists.
@@Aurealeus Evidence matters. Material evidence is largely irrelevant when "testing" the immaterial.
That is NOT the main reason, at all. Most people simply do not want to be told what to do. Daddy issues of the highest order.
@@browserboy1984 Being "told what to do" has nothing to do with belief. One either believes something or they don't.
Material evidence is all that matters if WLC expects to 'sway' atheists to believe in a god, but all he's got is
immaterial, feel good, word salad, theories and anecdotes which prove absolutely nothing.
Cosmic Skeptics smile at 1:10:14 is perfect, almost like it's the first time he realized how absurd his view sounds. I love this conversation. Very respectful and I learned a lot. A lot of people write off WLC but he's always prepared with arguments/knowledge/quotes/sources to defend his hypothesis.
But it is not his view. He is in many cases simply playing devil's Advocate and giving some of the many philosophical counterarguments that exist, most of which he does not hold. That is why he can laugh and agree that they are or sound absurd, but he would say the same of many of Craig's arguments.
Note how he does not confirm Craig´s claim of the Intellectual price tag being too high, but instead talks about how it cost in intuitions and already held beliefs and that many arguments are given without regards to that price.
That means the argument givers often disregard the consequence their argument against an opponent's world view or which backs up a part of their world view would have for their own world view as whole or how they would have to disregard intuitions they base their life on.
Also note that Unless you can actually show something actually being absurd to the degree that it breaks logic, the label is just a rhetorical 'I do not think it is plausible based on my Intuitions/World View' without any substance. That is why Alex talks about the price too intuitions and world view.
@@sebastianjohnen9654 he said in the video that it's his view. The absurdity is that something has an attribute that allows it to pop into existence before it actually exists.
@@DieElect Where does he do that? Can you give me a time stamp? I have gone through it several times, and it seems they are on a tangent about possibilities that Cosmic Skeptic does not hold as part of his World View. As far as I have been aware, Cosmic Skeptic never ascribed to their being Nothing. For me, it seems they are speculations about what if scenarios, following lines of philosophical arguments regarding something from nothing being possible or impossible.
He is getting Craig's view/response to the argument and Craig when he has nothing of substance falls back on his I -am to stupid not creative enough- can not even imagine the argument because it is "absurd" with lots of laughter, without ever demonstrating an actual logical absurdity.
I believe there is a much higher intellectual price tag attached to using such rhetoric to dismiss arguments without putting in the work than asking absurd sounding questions (as long as the later are honest inquiries). At least in the field of philosophy and meta-physics.
@@sebastianjohnen9654 do you see the absurdity of universes having traits allowing them to come into existence prior to them existing as an absurdity? That was his argument regardless of if he was playing devil's advocate.
@@DieElect It was an argument he brought forth, but it is important to distinguish not one he holds. I also agree that it sounds absurd, but I disagree that any actual logical absurdity has been shown. It runs against our intuitions to think things that do net yet exist could have traits that allow them to come to exist. But a simple inverse by saying *things can have traits which do not allow them to come to existence even if they do not exist themselves* does not sound absurd. Even though, the step from there is just thinking that something's could lack that trait and therefore have the counter trait.
"Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity or appeal to common sense, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine." From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
This is such a great conversation. Incidentally, Plank length and Plank time, in quantum physics, indicate that there are a finite number of moments in any given length of time and a finite number of points on any ruler. Dividing ad infinitum is physically impossible.
The question about space-time being discrete is still an open question in physics to my understanding. Correct me if i'm wrong but your comment seems to imply that, it has been determined that space-time is discrete.
@@segurall1 In the words of Tony Stark, "Well, you're not wrong." It's still an open open question. But the odds that spacetime is infinitesimally contiguous are, from what I've read, not good. Empirical and metaphysical evidence currently point to the existence of discrete universal quanta. I suspect that's why the "simulation theory" has been gaining so much traction in recent years. Also, I really like your reply.
@@dougcarey2233 Thanks for the prompt reply. I was reading an article earlier discussing Zeno's paradox. They mention that in Zeno's paradox the infinite series is a convergent one, as apposed to divergent infinities. The difference here that "traversing" a convergent infinity has a finite answer. Thus in the case of Zeno's paradox even though an infinite number of processes has occurred there will be a finite time where Achilles would have reached the tortoise. I think the argument there is that convergent actual infinities, even in the case that space-time is not discrete could be traversable in finite time.
@@segurall1 Do you have a link? I'd like to check it out.
Yes. Craig mentioned that on the video, it's just a thought experiment
I'm gonna try to be more like Dr. Craig. A kindhearted gentleman to all people.
What do you expect? Even Elephant Philosophy (EP) likes the demeanor of this young man. Congrats to Cosmic Skeptic.
Highly impressed by this conversation!
If this young man would just have an experience of the supernatural, he would become a formidable apologist. Pray for him.
I think the same. We need to pray for him. It very well could happen.
What if he had a Mormon experience? Or Muslim? Or Buddhist?
how can you determine that an experience is supernatural?
@@louiscyfer6944 If you have no defeaters against the occurrence being authentic you're rational to accept that it's supernatural.
@@drew2fast489 it doesn't work like that. i said how do you determine that it's supernatural. just because an experience is authentic, how does that lead you to concluding it is supernatural? can't think of anything better?
Even though I’m a Catholic, I have to applaud Alex, he is very intelligent and courteous. It’s a breath of fresh air to see how humble an upcoming atheist household name is not arrogant and condescending towards the opposing viewpoint and it’s personal holder (That is if he doesn’t find Christ before that)
Much love
God Bless
Alex makes a really great point here. Begining to exist, as in particles being rearranged into something we recognise, cannot be compared with beginning to exist as in particles being created, which has never been observed to happen.
If talking about the creation of matter then there is no evidence to support premis one
Right, which would mean, as he stated, to be an atheist you'd need to believe it came from absolutely nothing.
@@thegreatcornholio7255 This is just pointing out a flaw in the first premis of the Kalam. It has no effect on what Atheists need to believe, but maybe some effect on theists, if their view is supported by the Kalam.
But in response, atheists don't know how the universe came to exist. Theists don't know how God came to exist, which is their whole explanation for how the universe got here. Any explanation a theist might have for how God came from nothing can equally be used to explain how the universe came from nothing without the need for an intelligent being.
Further thoughts, there may never have been such a thing as nothing. Or nothing may not even be a logically possible concept. Wondering how things came from nothing could be a paradoxical question since nothing is an idea humans came up with and may not make sense in reality.
@@j8acob1
Well that's not the argument at all, but I understand what you're trying to say. The argument is that the universe came into being, and everything that comes into being must have a cause (no matter how it comes into being).
Nobody claims that God came from nothing, but that God is eternal.
The whole argument from cause and effect is to demonstrate that something must exist that exists eternally and can do things like create universes and life.
There are no theists who believe that God began to exist (at least not in the world's major monotheistic religions). So, that is basically the argument. Either the universe came from absolutely nothing, or something exists eternally which can do things like create universes full of matter, form life and all that stuff.
@@thegreatcornholio7255 Yes my last reply wasn't the kalam, rather I was responding to what you said about atheists needing to believe something came from nothing.
My problem with the kalam is that it uses cause and effect to argue for a cause for the universe. However, cause and effect as we understand it only appiles to matter interacting and not the creation of matter. We have no insite into whether the creation of matter requires a cause or if it's even possible for matter to be created.
The universe may well have a cause but I dont think any valid conclusions can be drawn from the kalam.
@@j8acob1
Ok, got it. I was just objecting to where you said we complain about any belief in matter and universes coming from nothing, but ourselves believe that God came from nothing. All monotheists (unless there's some sect out there I don't know about), believe that God existence is eternal.
However, your new objection is part of Craig's argument. You're correct that matter is not something we see every day (or ever). But then your position would have to be that universes and only universes can come from absolutely nothing. If matter just randomly appears from nothing in the form of a universe, then it seems over eternity, certainly just by pure chance, random configurations of matter in the form of horses and chairs would pop into existence. If you don't think horses popping into existence is a rational thing to believe in, but universes popping into existence is perfectly rational, can you explain why you think that?
However I think a lot of valid conclusions can be drawn from the Kalam, or Cosmological Arguments in general.
I learned a lot here. Thank you to both.
That was a great conversation ( Master Class really) but I appreciate the respect from Alex to Dr Crsig, I can see his hunger for truth he just needs to let go of his starting point ” God does not exist” and he eventually will find it.
Polite conversation between people with differing points of view. Very enjoyable
Let's have Matt Dillahunty and WLC have a conversation now! It seems WLC through his recent debates (Michael Nugent) is more than open to debating non-PhDs.
One thing I can applaud Dr. Craig for! Leaving comments on. That & I have never seen him angry. Kudos
There's a debate in a school (was it with Hitchens?), where this guy is trolling the debate by telling this story about God telling him to become a homosexual or something like that, to see what Craig has to say about that, and Craig doesn't appreciate that very much. He's not Dillahunty-angry, but visibly very annoyed :)
Beautiful discussion. Thank God for William Lane Craig!
This is how intellectuals have conversations, rather than screaming “sky daddy sky daddy” .
Much respect for both 👍🏾
This will be interesting 👍
Agreed!
Such a good conversation. I really enjoyed it!
When we discuss mereological nihilism(MN), one great question to ask would be: “Do you exist?”
On MN, only mereological simples exist, so if you are not a simple, you don’t exist. But surely, to deny ones own existence would be absurd, my existence is one of the few things I can hold with Cartesian certainty. But if one seeks to maintain their existence while holding to MN, they may have to postulate that they themselves are a mereological simple. But this fact doesn’t bare well for physicalism, it implies that ‘you’ are not identical to your brain, since we can certainly say that brains are not mereological simples.
It seems evident to me, at least, that mereological nihilism may lead to some sort of irreducible immaterial being, apart from the physical brain.
Just some food for thought.
(And also for those who don’t know, there are plenty of arguments for P1 of the Kalam which aren’t effected by mereological nihilism)
which paper/video does rasmussen discuss this "do you exist?" type objection to mereological nihilism? link please? thanks!
MN sounds similar to idealism
@@mnmmnm925 I remember him bringing up the question in this video: ua-cam.com/video/ZSjNzLndE_w/v-deo.html
I had not come across the term mereological nihilism before, but it’s clear to me the way you describe it, it’s not the view Alex was putting forward. Alex wasn’t denying the objective existence of any thing. He was saying every time we call something a thing we are relying on the subjective definition made by humans. I’ll use planets as an example. Alex recognises that when you point to something and call it a planet that you are pointing to an objectively real thing. What he’s pointing out is that the concept of a “planet” is subjective. Us humans came up with the definition. And the definition is arbitrary. We even changed the definition so Pluto no longer is one. But there’s nothing substantively different between Pluto and Mars. It’s just by definition that we say Pluto is too small to qualify.
To unpack this view a little, what it means is that all macro things in this universe are just arrangement of fundamental particles that we humans have given names to... cup, door, planet. But if we want to be objective we can’t use these human-made (and arbitrary) concepts. All that leaves us being able to do is describe the arrangement of the fundamental particles. For example, instead of being able to describe something as “a water particle” we would instead need to say “the joining of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms” if we want to be objective. (I’ve ignored more fundamental particles and quantum in this example, for simplicities sake).
Under this view, Craig’s reasoning (that we can use our common and scientific experience to show that premise 1 is likely true) doesn’t work. The only fact of the matter is that fundamental particles are rearranged all the time, and always have a cause for their rearrangement. And this observation can’t get you to “therefore the fundamental particles themselves must have a cause”. It’s a non-sequitur.
I think Alex’s approach here is a confusing one to articulate and think about. There’s (in my opinion) a simpler way of pointing out the same underlying problem. I’ll do so by reformulating Craig’s first premise with the type of cause he’s using (as he stated in this video):
P1. Whatever begins to exist has an efficient cause
The problem is his justification is our common experience. But the entirety of our experiences are of things with material causes. Craig made clear in this video that he thinks the universe doesn’t have a material cause. So he is extrapolating from how things with material causes work and assuming the same must apply to things without a material cause.
@@JohnSmith-fz1ih I have qualms with what u said tho im not an expert at this stuff but i guess you would say conciousness is of material cause but i constantly hear that ppl like Wilder Pennfield did a mass study on the brain with dozens of paitents and during experimentation he was able to stimulate the brain to make ppl twitch theyre fingers dont quote me i dont remember all details but he also able to make them recall memories and other stuff but he was not able to stimulate the will itself the self concious agent aka the you. And Michael Egnor i forgot his name he is a neuroscientists stated in the list of seizures there is not one case of a rational thought seizure i think he defines conciousness as one who can conceptualize and have rational thought?? What do you think??
Love for Dr. Craig
Look at the "Arab Spring" a "dead end" and hopeless paradox started revolutions!
God Bless the patience of Dr. Craig
I feel like I'm getting smarter through osmosis of the ear drums
Man this was a real treat
I love the point around 57.15 where Alex realises how Dr Craig has him check mate.
Not even close to what happened.
Yeah Alex does I think. He can't ground objective truth value for any objects in the universe except particles themselves.
@@chrisyoonthefalseprophet1548 maybe you could let us know what you feel has happened? It helps enrich the discussion if you give something more concrete.
@@johncommers9597 no but really. Without rehashing the whole segment: nothing about this interaction constitutes a "checkmate".
There's nothing outlandish about what Alex is saying and WLC even says its a consistent view. One could take a Van Inwagen approach and just label things as having the form of larger objects made of simples while admitting that we are doing so as convenience of language and the truth value of identifying objects becomes a non issue. And the labeling of these things would have to be mind dependent even in a theistic worldview... There's no *CHECKMATE* here on either side.
This is just the same philosophical Ship of Theseus garbage that has been argued about for thousands of years. Apparently we are no closer to a satisfying answer and appealing to God doesn't even solve the problem.
So in short here's what happened:
What I saw happen was a person being honest and admitting they hadn't quite considered the full ramifications of their worldview. This doesn't mean they are wrong its just not fully developed. And they said they will make a effort to flesh out their ideas better. And somehow to the UA-cam viewers who like WLC took this as a massive sign of weakness and smelled blood in the water because they are so used to declarative statements and appeals to God's authority that any sense of apprehension gives them massive intellectual boners.... and the one of them decided make a comment declaring *CHECKMATE* which turned into a massive like button circle jerk.
Thats what happened.
I love the point ( to be expected ) where Craig fans just watch this, ignore where he goes wrong and read it as a Checkmate ... pretty standard.
About the light bulb program at 11:30:
You can write a pseudo-code that does that, but you couldn't properly execute it on any computer, because you'd need an infinitely fast processor to iterate through infinitely smaller time fragments.
If only I could understand half of what's being said 🥺
One thing you might be able to do is keep an internet dictionary near or open up a web page as you listen to the UA-cam video and just search for definitions of things mentioned, or quick summaries of certain things and then continue watching the video. That might help.
God bless you.