William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll | "God and Cosmology" | 2014 Greer Heard Forum
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2024
- For more resources visit: www.reasonablef...
On Friday, February 21st, 2014, philosopher and theologian, Dr William Lane Craig, was invited by the Greer Heard Forum to debate Dr Sean Carroll, an atheist theoretical physicist. The topic of debate was, "God and Cosmology: The Existence of God in Light of Contemporary Cosmology." The rigorous debate was concluded by a lengthy question and answer period with the audience.
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonablef...
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel: / drcraigvideos
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Add Reasonable Faith On Facebook: / reasonablefaithorg
This is happens when the athiest debater is an actual professional scientist: Suddenly the thiest is barely arguing for the beginning of the unvierse.
What did you take to be Carroll's strongest point against Dr. Craig's position? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg God of the gaps nonsense from the theist.
Dr Carroll please😅@@ReasonableFaithOrg
Watching religious people try to explain science to a scientist is like watching a chimp try to start a fire.
😂🤣 man they are taking ridiculousness to a whole new level, they don't want to say I don't know, which is the rationale move, instead they read a few lines here and there from philosophers trying to stick it up to Carroll a frontier cosmologist who is trying to understand the universe.
@@10jeffinjoseph where is the proof that earth moves
So can you explain scientifically how the universe begin? Where do time, space and matter came from?
Every human knows that God exists.
@@terminat1I'm not human then. Why's Romans 1:19 true from your POV?
WLC doesn’t even argue for what he believes. He instead argues for something slightly more plausible as a distraction.
Motte and Bailey technique
Craig is simply outclassed on the science here. You have to be a dishonest theist to think that Craig won this.
You're lying to yourself
It’s crazy how Craig stands there and exasperated how the universe has NO evidence that it’s eternal, and yet claims an eternal, gendered, Christian god. It’s like- Do you hear yourself?!
True. But he believes that with evidence that are good enough for him and for others not. If there is good evidence for ethernal universe he would believe that I guess.
@@ArneyJ-Brosausage80 True. Trace back Christianity to Judaism to Yahwism & before, then you reach the sun god, what started it all.
@@konradpoznanski1105 The evidence that satisfies Craig is flawed. Even Vilenkin and Guth, whose BGV theorem is the cornerstone of Craig’s argument, have since come up with a model of a universe that is eternal into the past.
@@zelmoziggywhat is the name of that model? I though his eternal model came before the BGV model
Guth talks about it in this video at about the six-and-a-half minute mark.
ua-cam.com/video/YQCGmBFXc5E/v-deo.htmlsi=nuDDKXqog0P8sM09
The only debate where i witnessed Two hitchslaps in less than 5 minutes
Craig has this standard and well practiced move of putting on this sing-song incredulous voice and saying "I can't believe that atheists think that something can just pop out of nothing". Carroll gives him good reasons why the expression "something popping out of nothing" is incoherent and applies everyday intuitions to cosmological situations where we would expect those intuitions to fail. Craig's response to this is to again put on his sing-song incredulous voice and say "I can't believe that atheists think that something can just pop out of nothing". He is way out of his depth, scientifically and philosophically.
Oh and you some random guy on UA-cam has a better grasp on philosophy than someone with two masters degrees in philosophy? Imagine being that delusional... seek help! 🤣😂
I can’t believe his is a professional philosopher
@@drzaius844 have you looked at any of his work? As a Christian theist, I would say that Carrol won this debate. He’s more experienced in cosmology. However Craig has done phenomenal against others in debates. His work is recognized by many atheist philosophers. Even people like Christopher Hitchens have a high level of respect to his understanding and his work in philosophical framework.
@@LiftingGospel In what debate do you think WLC has done well? When I watch him (and yes, I'm an athiest, but former Christian) it sounds like he's either dumb or disingenious.
Let me explain. In a recent talk with Ben Shapiro, WLC claimed that slavery was a "program" and he concluded with "and anyway, they get released after 7 years."
In the very chapter with the verses that describe the rule to free fellow Israeli slaves (the year of Jubliee if I recall my Bible) it very clearly says that foreign slaves are chattel slaves, i.e. owned for life and such that can be left to one's children as inheritance.
I can't believe that WLC doesn't know this, as the verses are stacked right next to each other. So, in that case, he's a bold faced liar.
Now, if the claim is "he didn't know about those verses," I'd have to ask how that is remotely possible?
When WLC debated Sam Harris, WLC was demolished. Destroyed. I can't see it any other way unless one had simply decided WLC is right no matter what. If that's the case, why even listen to the debate in the first place?
Unless WLC comes out and admits he lied and explains why, I'll continue to have no respect for him and consider him a charlatan.
"sing-song incredulous voice"
Be honest. Craig got his can handed to him. No contest.
“Reasonable Faith”, there’s an oxymoron! 😂
Craig didn't even understand Sean Carroll's reply or his statements. It's not about "winning" as there is no win. Apologizing for new data incoming isn't productive, and Craig's "theory' doesn't return useful data or further searches with the scientific approach. ☮💜
Dr. Craig is amazing at moving goalposts in an admittedly elegant way. His confidence and delivery of illogical false dilemmas, shows that one can accomplish anything with enough practice.
How did he move the goalposts? And what false dilemmas did he present? - RF Admin
@ReasonableFaithOrg I don't feel the need to regurgitate most of Dr. Craig's talking points (which mischaracterized many aspects of not only the models, but also the beliefs and words of many who worked on those models), I will pick a few of the low hanging fruit.
He repeatedly ignored and maneuvered around the fact that the rules that govern the inner workings of a system do not necessarily apply to the system itself (the system being the universe).
I found his insistence that arbitrarily placed arrows and the direction that they point, on simplified diagrams made for illustrative purposes, somehow lend credence to his assertion that the models in question must have a "beginning", silly. Especially taking into account that the same individuals who developed the models maintain that a "beginning" is not a necessity.
Dr. Craig repeatedly asserted that under such models, universes dominated by "Boltsman brains" would far outnumber the universes with beings such as ourselves. He was informed by Dr. Carrol that "Boltsman Brains" are actually used as a sort of litmus test to help rule out such models, yet Dr. Craig ignored the fact and kept repeating his assertion.
I will stop there. To anyone who will watch this, that doesn't already hold the belief that God created the universe, it is clear that nothing he proclaims "points to a creator" actually does so. Dr. Craig is out of his depths, and his premises rely on the same sort of misunderstandings of physics and cosmology, that leads to "woo woo" ideas such as "The Secret".
It's pure sophistry.
Apologetics is nothing but sophistry.
@@happyhappy85 What reason do you have for thinking it's sophistry? - RF Admin
I still don’t understand why WLC will debate Sean regarding cosmology😂 Sean is a full time theoretical physicist lmao
Vanity and zeal of believe in Jesus. He is blinded.
@@dagkaszlikowski8358 You are blind.
That's how ppl lyk u are fooled into believing whatever an atheist-scientist would say. Don't forget scientists in the end study a given (the universe) with a given (the mind). A lil bit of humility would be in order. And nothing beats common sense.
Additionally all the cosmological info is available for anyone interested to learn. Your assumption that Craig wouldn't have anything worthy to say on the basis of cosmology is as dumb as saying "only the car manufacturer (or worse still seller) could drive the car or fix its broken engine."
To conclude, the "god" question isn't really about science v god. Rather it's about worldviews, that's atheism v theism. This is borne out by the fact that there are scientists on either side of the divide. It might surprise you, for example, to know that 65% of physics Nobel laureates between 1900 and 2000 were actually Christians.
Because of the arrogance of religious monotheists: only they have the truth and that truth is absolute as proclaimed by an autocratic deity.
@@CesarClouds Truth is always absolute. Your comment makes zero sense.
W.L.Craig says at 1.34.20 and 1.13.55 he finds it too fantastic to believe the universe came out of nothing, yet he still believes God created the universe out of nothing ! duh.
On atheism, the universe lacks both a material and and efficient cause. On theism, the universe merely lacks a material cause, since God serves as the efficient cause. The universe's having such a cause is the *conclusion* of a deductive argument, the premises of which are more plausible than their negations. If you want to avoid the conclusion, you'll need to reject one of the premises and explain why. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Thank you for your reply. Your staterment is however, flawed. You say, the theistic point of view accepts a creator and therefore is "more plausible" than an atheistic stand which lacks material and efficient cause. Here's the problem if you already have a creator .. you have to accept the entity called God is eternal, and so without beginning but the big problem with an ever existing entity is that you are required to believe it has always existed. Now, let's get real here. No person on this planet can comprehend eternal .. no matter how far back you push the boundary [million, billion, trillion years, etc. ], the entity is there ! To accept theism, you are asking for someone to comprehend something he CANNOT. This sort of evidence would not stand up in a law of court would it ? It is untestable and therefore invalid as factual evidence. God is not a fact, it is a belief based on logical fallacy and illusion. The very concept of a creator began a long time ago in someone's mind. That's exactly where it came from. So many logical fallacies and illusions everywhere .. somewhere on U Tube there is a video where information was given to a large computer and it concluded there must be a creator !! You know, some people may believe this sort of thing but no computer could conclude such a thing. It simply does not make sense, but the theist will keep on trying anything to prove there is a creator. It cannot be done. So I hope to have explained why God is hardly a good starting point to go one step ahead of the atheistic viewpoint. To conclude, not one person has a damn clue as to how the universe is here. End of.
@@wynlewis5357 Note that in the final conceptual analysis of what it means to be a cause of the universe, the attributes do not include this cause existing infinitely in the past, since time began with the moment of creation. So, Dr. Craig's position has always been that God is timeless without creation and then entered into temporal relations at the moment of creation. And while this may seem strange to us as finite, temporal creatures, it is the most rational conclusion based on the plausibility of the premises (none of which you've so far denied). A great many aspects of reality are strange, so it's not a very good rebuttal to a formal argument to say that it's entailments are weird.
You complain that the evidence adduced is "untestable and therefore invalid." First, the scientific evidence supporting the second premise *is* testable. In fact, it *has* been tested. That's why the premise is so strong! Second, you seem to be tacitly assuming a position of scientism, where science is the only source of true knowledge. The problem is that such a claim fails its own criterion and so is self-defeating. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Well, I get the impression here that you are engaging in semantics to endeavour to give strength to your position[which is based on faith]. You are now implying that God is timeless. And there's me thinking that all religions accepted God to be eternal, existing without beginning. You say that Dr Craig's position has always been that God is timeless. Exactly from where did he get this information to say God is outside time and not eternal ?? It seems to me, he has come up with this hypothesis to try and prove other points in which he believes. It is merely a guess on his part or a guess from someone else. There is no need to convince me the universe is weird, I have concluded that all by myself ! If quantum physics is weird[the stuff you, I and everything else is made of], and not one person has a clear understanding of it, then what chance do we have of understanding reality ? If there is such thing as a creator, then the evidence for it is entirely on the theist. As you have to accept, there is no good evidence to support it. And much less so called evidence for Christianity[which counts for only 25% of the world's religions]. In my reply, I said "Eternal" is an untestable thing but you say it has been tested. What ?! WHERE on earth did you get this information ? The infinity[set theory] branch of mathematics have driven some maths professors crazy as there are no real or natural numbers to play with. And here you are saying it has been tested. Where and when ? Oh, and btw, I wasn't "complaining" about anything .. I simply put forward factual statements. So, your premise is NOT strong, it seems that you have misused and misunderstood something along the line and used it to try and support your God theory. And for the last part of your reply, you have attempted to put words into my mouth .. a below the belt tactic I've noticed many theist debaters engage in. So I will make clear for you then, I do NOT think science has all the answers and they have been wrong in many things over the centuries. However, that is the way science works .. attempts are made to falsify postulations. That said, science has given us a great deal in so many ways and we would be at a loss in todays world without it. Don't knock it. Supply me with some proper evidence for the existence of a creator and I will consider it with an open mind.
Tell me what is energy and where it came from? You can't. Oh you can speculate sure. Doesn't mean a thing. You should be out living it up instead of worrying about what Christians think. Waste of your precious time. You don't have much time left do you. Fascinating Atheists fight God so much. If I were an Atheist I sure wouldn't be wasting my time. But you don't even know what light is or gravity is. Or consciousness. Tough life being an Atheist. You have to prove all these things so you can live your pagan lives. But you can't even get off first base...lol
I am perfectly happy to admit that the universe has changed.
It was very small and now it is very big. Why ? I don't know.
But I don't think my ignorance is evidence for God.
I agree that we dont know and will probably never know. Imagine being so arrogant that you think you know how the universe came into existence just because a book said so loool these people are either incredibly dumb or just mistaken
Your ignorance is not evidence for God. Plenty of other phenomena is, though.
@@terminat1
___Quickly now, while God’s Spirit is moving upon you, release your best financial seed-gift. Don’t let satan hold you back any longer. This is your opportunity to take the best action of faith that you can. Right now, give Him your best gift of $97.00. There’s something about $97.00 that so often releases your faith.
Dr. Craig lost
Shane Carol lost
@@macysondheim at least get his name right
@@betsalprince How about this instead
🖕🏼😁
😂😂@@betsalprince
I disagree.
Craig disagreeing with the author of the guth velanken theorem strikes me as profoundly dishonest. He has been corrected and still references it smh
I'm still waiting for William Lane Craig to demonstrate his magic in a lab.
@gerardmoloney433 Classic Craig-esque straw man.
You are still waiting for some non-causal magic in Carrols lab.
I'd like to see Craig demonstrate a single simple math formula, whether it's his OR anybody else's. Oh, and I like the strawman reply with "Darwinian Evolutionists", I'm surprised of the computer use to type out a reply. ☮💜
Fraser… this is a classic fallacy… should I reject the fact that George Washington crossed the Delaware because I can’t repeat that event in a lab? No
Should I reject theism (a hypothesis grounded in theology and philosophy) because it can’t be assessed like scientific hypotheses can be? No
@@levi5073eh. Some of it was kind of right
1:20:50 Carroll explains why the phrase "the universe pops into existence out of nothing" does not make sense.
1:34:14 Craig is flabbergasted that someone could believe the "universe pops into existence out of nothing."
1:41:16 Craig is still going on about it.
1:42:28 Craig thinks causes and effects can be simultaneous. They can't.
1:44:00 Carroll has to explain again why the phrase "pops into being" is problematic.
1:54:08 Craig insists the universe's beginning does not "tenselessly exist," rather it "comes into being" and thus must have a cause.
2:10:00 To Carroll: "How do you explain the first moment of time without invoking super powers" -- "I don't."
For something to begin requires two states: one state of non-being and another of being. The transition from a state of non-being to a state of being is what it means to "begin." A change of state is time. It's nonsensical to say that "time begins," because you'd be saying that time transitioned from a state of non-being to a state of being, providing the contradiction where time is in a state where it both exists and does not exist. To get around this you must instead refer to it as "the first moment of time," sometimes referred to (confusingly) as the "beginning of time." Causes precede effects in time, as the cause is the prior state that brings about the later state of effect. The first moment of time doesn't have a cause, there's no time prior to the first moment of time! This is why the causal principle does not apply to time (the universe) itself.
Craig states that there is a beginning of the universe and in that same moment God causes it, suggesting that effects can be simultaneous with their cause. But with this definition you can also equally state that the beginning of the universe causes God, since now cause-effect is a symmetric relation. Carroll doesn't touch this, and I don't blame him. Cause-effect is an asymmetric temporal relation. It is because causes precede effects that we can infer the beginning of the universe.
I wish I could have put it as clearly as you. Great points!
Alternative title: What Happens when a Rational Honest Person Debates an Irrational Dishonest Person.
What does a debate like this on deism really accomplish for theists? Fine. There’s a clockmaker god who built the universe and started the ticking. Now what? Clockmaker god or infinite universe? There are no implications to either answer. That must be very depressing for theists. All that energy and you’re no closer to proving the clockmaker is YOUR favorite god.
“You cannot get from deism to theism except by a series of extraordinarily generous-to yourself-assumptions. The deist has all his work still ahead of him to show that it leads to revelation, to redemption, to salvation or to suspensions of the natural order; in which, hitherto, you'd be putting all of your faith-all your evidence is on scientific and natural evidence.” -Hitchens
^^^This👆
Its necessary to call out the incoherency of naturalism
@@jarskiXD Then you should. Your post right now proves Christopher's point. If you can demonstrate the "incoherence" of Naturalism, you still "have all your work ahead of you" to show us: (1) any god exists, (2) YOUR god exists, (3) your interpretation of YOUR God's text is the right interpretation, and finally (4) the specific text in YOUR God's book resolves the "incoherence" of Naturalism that you have yet to convince us exists.
Of course, you won't do the necessary "work" because you know deep down you lack credible evidence to make it through all 4 steps.
Ps. Anti-evolution dolts have the same problem. Disproving Darwin's Theory gets them not one inch closer to proving any god, let alone their god, exists.
Getting a god is better than getting no gods I guess. Every little helps for theists, if they can convince you that a God exists, then they can move on to their other metaphysical ramblings. If they can't even get to god, then they can't get to anything close to their religion.
@@jarskiXD Give us a falsifiable model of the universe that requires a god. I know you won't because apologetics is all about using misleading claims and out of context quotes to sow doubt, instead of actually demonstrating evidence that god exists.
♦"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
♦"Religion allows fools by the millions to believe what only lunatics could believe on their own."
♦"Only fools revere the supernatural myths & fictions just because a book claims itself to be the holy truth."
♦"The delusional religious fools are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt."
♦"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
♦"It's difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."
As Alvin Plantinga often says, "Why think that?" - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Go read Voltaire's works if you want to know why he thought that. The OP is not your research assistant.
It's like atheists are naturally dead to politeness. This is clear from your obnoxious, uncouth, uncultured and unmeasured comments and that of many other atheists. At least, common sense should let you know one can be polite and still pass his comment.
WLC is great, thump up to him, funny how people who have already taken entrenched position as regards this debate make it seem as though WLC has completely lost his bearing and footing. Funny! Sad that, the numerous loopholes in that of the opponents arguments are peppered over. How can the whole orderly universe come about by cosmic accident,.a kind of, order coming out of disorder? Terrible! This is only make sense to only those who have already taken an entrenched position. If not, I see know reason why people should lash out WLC who logical draws on the Kalam Cosmological arguments in establishing the existing of God will be seen as lost at sea.
@@AdizaDawuni
WLC is one of the best scoundrels out there milking the fools by preaching religious bs.
This video should start with a health warning. I have been head-desking for 27 mins as Craig fails physics again and again.
Where did he fail?
@@Shehatescash he talks for too long for me to listen again and give specifics, so I will generalise.
He claims the fine tuning of the universe is evidence of a fine tuner. But there is no evidence that the universe is fine tuned.
He claims that the universe having a beginning is evidence of a conscious beginner. But the evidence that the universe has a beginning is very shaky.
@@nickguy8037 1) Graham oppy who’s 1 of the leading academic atheist agrees that the universe is fine tuned. He goes as far to say that the fine tuning is the best argument for god (by that he means it’s the hardest to deal with). Now oppy does think we can explain the fine tuning without god, but that’s a separate question from whether or not the universe is fine tuned. “No evidence”, when I see this phrase I just immediately ask myself whether or not this person is familiar with the debate? No evidence? That’s the true delusion. “There is now a broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is fine tuned for life” - Paul Davies. Now you can disagree with the physicists, cosmologists, and philosophers, but to say they have no evidence is just incredulous. Richard Dawkins (who I think is extremely incredulous, dishonest, and lacking in understanding of the issues) believes in the fine tuning. Do you think that’s the type of person who believes with no evidence? I think we can say that as far as we (as laymen) can declare, there is fine tuning. It’s the consensus in science.
2) The evidence that the universe has a beginning, is the Big Bang! The Big Bang theory says that the universe began about 14 billion years ago, they teach this in American middle schools! The evidence is far from shaky, it’s trivially accepted as true by scientist that the universe began about 14 billion years ago. There are countless independent studies which suggest this I mean, do you honestly think the evidence for the Big Bang is shaky?? If you remember, in this debate Sean argues for the idea that something can pop into being out of nothing, but if he thought the universe was eternal, he wouldn’t need that argument because there was no coming into being it was always there. In Sean’s own model of the universe it’s not eternal, and in the model he showed the second time Craig explained how the second model was 1 he agreed with and that it was an entropy model not a time model.
@@nickguy8037it really isn’t. It’s the consensus the universe had a beginning. So it has to have a cause.
@@Sm64wii Only the consensus of theists.
Physicists don't make that claim.
In fact, they don't even claim that the "big bang" happened.
That is the theory that provides the most explanatory power so far, but is only tentatively supported.
But, given that we cannot detect anything before the recombination epoch ended (at least until we get good at measuring gravitational waves), we can only guess what happened before that.
Note that the recombination epoch ended 300000 years after the supposed "big bang" began. Everything before that is a guess and physicists acknowledge that.
Furthermore, there is very little agreement that there was a beginning to the big bang. Given how time is affected by intense gravitational fields, it is possible that the concept of a beginning is nonsensical.
Finally, the "Big Bang" is a name given to the expansion of the universe... something that is still happening. So it is not correct to say it was a beginning that we have passed. What happened "before" expansion (if that can actually be a logical question) is entirely unknown and could include an infinite number of events.
No consensus on the beginning at all.
Craig ventured out of his wheelhouse and got punished. Carrol won it by a landslide. I applaud the attempt though, that could not have been easy.
You freeriding fishbowl kissers sure like deluding yourselves. It clearly feels good. All terms you miss from your externalizing tendencies. And I´m a progressive theist, very capable of critiquing even conservatives like Craig. Except he´s not the one desperately getting the issues backwards.
Another angle that addresses the foundational issues, touched on when Craig notes the phenomenon of a mind, is that "science" isn´t Carroll´s idealized absolute truth of "naturalism" until it proves limited. He even gets emergentism wrong in another video because of how much he overvalues "science," and mistakes it as non-philosophical in nature. That is, a human activity, humans using their minds, with various key implications, like the origins of scientific natural philosophy in Christian spiritual religious practice, having shifted ancient Greek spiritual-religious practices of the Socrates legacy......
Surprise....
On what bases did he win... he didn't hold a position. He presented 3 points that he nevered demonstrated were plausible. So, how did he win?
@@michaelreichwein3970 You sound earnest, but your sincere desire for truth in logic is misguided. Many people are ideologues and say things to feel good and powerful, not logical in seeking genuine truth.
Carroll argues within the assumptions of "science" stating his preferences and riding on the privilege of theorizing freely about complex physics subjects and the common supremacism of scientific -tech things. Craig wields the truth well in his philosophical clarity, but scientific materialists operate in denialism becsuse words are easy to use in confusion of logical systems.
@@michaelreichwein3970why would you expect a random atheist to understand higher order reasoning while their "top guys" can't
@Xialrinth because sometimes the Holy Spirit is reaching out to those who listen, and not to those who speak.. lol!
This is the one debate that I think WLC struggled in. Sean was so well mannered and gave respectful attacks to theism. Didn’t lose his cool once. Rebutted the points very clearly.
Beautiful debate as a whole. One I’ve been able to listen to more than a few times.
He also lost to Shelly Kagan and Walter Sinnott Armstrong for sure. Where WLC has made his living and shined the hardest is when he gets to debate atheist scientists over philosophical topics. He comes back down to earth pretty quickly when he debates professional philosophers over philosophy, or scientists when the topic for debate is actually science based.
@@ryanedwards4758 Shelly Kagan 😍
@@Remiel_Plainview watched this one
I feel sorry for WLC. Imagine spending your whole life living under a delusion that you’ll never know to be false when the lights go out & it was all a total waste of time
//I feel sorry for WLC. Imagine spending your whole life living under a delusion that you’ll never know to be false when the lights go out & it was all a total waste of time//
Why think that he's under a delusion? - RF Admin
He’s probably made a good living going around debating and speaking.
I'm still waiting for Dr. Craig to demonstrate the supernatural.
I've been asking for that from any theist as long as I can remember. Even if something exists outside of or transcends spacetime and the material-physical realm, as physical beings, how could we perceive it? I don't see how we can. It just seems like an attempt to shoehorn religious dogma into science.
@@alankoslowski9473 We can't perceive what doesn't exist.
@CesarClouds And you can't perceive what you refuse to accept!
@michaelreichwein3970 Never in the history of humanity has science been overturned in favor of theology or philosophy.
@CesarClouds I was talking about you personally! And because of falsifiability, science can not claim to know anything! No facts! Only theories!
When i consider all the logically deductive arguments for a creator of the universes... causality... fine tuning.... probability mathematics.... that is from a cosmological standpoint. I can only conclude that there is a mind at work. The Atheist, as to my mind, as not offered a sound rebuttal. He says that we can do it without God but doesn't explain how this is possible. Only that God , as an answer, is not allowed! Why?
And God's blasphemy in science. About 15 years ago, I saw a documentary & 1 of the guesses to the universe's origin was: *"A higher power"* instantly followed by "But it's not God could've made it."
*"It isn't that the methods & institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we're forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation & a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."*
Richard Lewontin-Evolutionary Biologist
God farted reality into being like Family Guy showed. 🚶💨🌌
@@Brunosonø his flaw was to assert that we create!
@noradrenalpacifist0543 maybe... but here we are, and there are rules to follow!
Nothing Craig says could not be uttered by a muslim, a jew, or satanist.
Or by someone who just invented a brand new religion, or an infinite amount of people like this. This is really the problem of people plugging in any kind of supernatural explanation for something we have no physical explanation yet. If we accept that supernatural things exist, there is an infinite amount of possibilities of explanations for any phenomena
I'm from 10 years into the future when Dr Craig defends the Canaanite slaughter on the Within Reason podcast. 10 years ago, Sean Carroll really highlighted Dr Craig's "power of pretend" by contrast.
Oh wow, using your time-travel superpowers to contribute an irrelevant comment to the cosmology and God debate? How impressive, Einstein.
@gege8747 Ah, another faith believer, do you know how I know? Because you try to insult me by something that you do yourself. Another example is when faith believers call science or atheism 'just another religion'. The silliness is truly astounding.
@@gege8747Are you role playing a passive aggressive high school cheerleader or is that really how you talk to people?
When somebody made up the idea that one person made the universe, they didn't know how incredibly big it is. They thought the stars were little lights in a dome, just above the earth reachable with a very long ladder.
You think an omnipotent God couldn't create a big universe? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg
I suppose Brahma could do it.
Or maybe one of the other imaginary creators.
Perhaps my imagination is limited by my scientific education.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg
The modern idea of God is very different from the god of Israel.
He is invisible, timeless, spaceless and does not live up a mountain
Apparently the god of Israel sometimes lived in a tent ! (Numbers 7:89)
@@ReasonableFaithOrg
And God said "Let there be billions of galaxies !"
And lo, it was so, and he saw that it was good.
Is that how it happened ?
@@ReasonableFaithOrg
Then he said, "Let there be billions of stars in each galaxy"
And "billions of planets, some just like the earth !"
Maybe he likes lots of planets for Jesus to visit, then die again.
I’ll give it to Craig for being the best Christian apologist but I don’t think he was prepared for a scientist like Carroll who also has a pretty good grasp on philosophy.
Yeah, no. Carroll clearly talks smoothly, but you simply don´t know your stuff, like many people in this sci-tech cellphone internet happy modern society. Carroll´s BS is obvious. The very inclusion of "God" in the title means a speaker needs to know something about God and religion, and not treat his scientific profession as if it makes him an expert on God and religion. He needs to look some things up about God and religion.
And what does Carroll do? He complains about "religion being poorly defined" and "abstract, medieval principles" that are unnecessary, because "building models" is all you need.
Now, WL Craig for his own part, plays things too straight and stays away from nailing the anti-phiosophical ideological fallacies that Carroll pushes like psychiatric-pharmacological salespeople pushing pills to cure depression.
The bottom line is that "building models" alone isn´t concrete techhie work, like Carroll makes it sound actually. It´s theoretical, which is abstract, and philosphical, because "modern science" IS actually a form of philosophy, originally called natural philosophy.
His disdainful labeling of metaphysics like Craig talks as "medieval" is ideological projection fallacy, because he is in denial of science as actually philosophical. And the limits of "science."
"Eternity" is a good point to see the egg in his face. Scientific principles include entropy, and the Big Bang, as Craig points out. And trying to justify an "infinite timespan" for the physical Universe is patently against a few things, including the logical coherence of physical things.
But, it´s the various angles that expose his ideological supremacism and superiority complex, which are forms of ideological doctrinal religious behavior. The way through is more like WL Craig´s start to approaching it, which is advanced and sophisticated.
Agreed. Craig gets lots of credit in my mind for even TRYING to understand the science. Puts him miles ahead of other apologists. And it's telling, and absolutely devastating for theism, that even the most scientifically literate of christian apologists gets absolutely clobbered in a debate like this.
@@contrarian23Except he didn't get clobbered, when his opponent is suggesting that the universe came from nothing. Such a ludicrous idea on its own was enough to invalidated Carroll's position, Craig didn't even have to break a sweat.
@@ysycotikCame from nothing?
You people still think nothingness is a location lmao.
@@donaldmcronald8989 Who says I think nothing is a location? I think nothing is nothing... if you think its something else then I question your sanity
Do not confuse science with fairy tales!
If I were WLC I wouldn't show this to nobody
Yeah, this is the debate that ended Craig's career. The cosmological argument was laughable before he was born, and that's all he had going for him. WLC is a one trick pony. And you have to admit, he mastered his trick pretty well. Got the better of some famous atheists who either didn't know any science or philosophy, or both, in the past.
Carroll publicly took away his trick. The shtick didn't work on an actual scientist who significantly out-qualified him on the subject matter, and also had a pretty good grasp on philosophy and could navigate his ramblings. WLC was *shaken* by the end of this debate. Don't know why some people still take him seriously.
Carroll made some pretty big mistakes on both the philosophy side *and* the science side. If you haven't had a chance yet, check out Dr. Craig's post-debate remarks:
www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/some-reflections-on-the-sean-carroll-debate
www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/further-reflections-on-the-sean-carroll-debate
www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/still-more-reflections-on-the-sean-carroll-debate
- RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg It's funny that once you really hone in on it, apоlоgists are all basically the same. Even the most educated and erudite apоlоgist, after enough pressure, is reduced to mumbling under their nose "b-but muh sumthin from nuthin" like an uneducated redneck repeating what their pastоr had told them. Which is what WLC does AGAIN, SEVERAL times, in his response. As Sean Carroll put so elegantly in the debate, repeating the opponent's argument in an incredulоus tone is not a cоunter-argument. But that is half of WLC personality; mocking his оppоnent by saying "bicycles/elephants pоpping out of nothing" to win over the crowd with a funny straw-man.
He is wrong when he claimed that the Hartle-Hawking model is NOT uncaused. Again, WLC is speaking out of his depth, or dishоnest. That is not surprising as he already demonstrated that he is willing to do so in this debate, when he misrepresented the model, or claimed to know better than the author of a model, in respect to Sean Carroll and Alan Guth. Every time he speaks about these models it is painfully obvious what he is; a philosоpher that is talking about a topic WAY outside his area of expertise. He knows JUST enough physics to stump an atheist oppоnent who knows nothing about physics. Obviously this did not work with an actual physicist like Carroll who was willing to challenge the premises of his argument.
And honestly, you think that WLC, a philosоpher who fails to accurately represent or even understand these models, at any point proved that Carroll made mistakes on the science side? Perhaps he could succeed in wоrd-salad'ing his way to show that Carroll made some mistakes on the philоsophy side (though it was hilarious to read WLC fuming about Carroll claiming that he is "wrong but also not even wrong", as if Carroll was making some rigorous formal logical argument with that statement). A teenager could read Hawking's pоpscience books and come out with a better understanding of various models of both a finite and infinite Universe than WLC. But WLC is an intelligent, highly educated man who uses his brain power to philosophy-mumbo-jumbo towards a conclusion that is fundamentally based on the inebriаted musings of illiterate sаvаges. And he uses the same argument for 40 years. An argument. Not evidence, not a demonstration. An argument that is based on medieval philosophy.
This is the best theists got. And it's nothing.
Of course, you want people to check out his post debate comments, when he can repeat his misunderstanding and appeals to authorities who don't agree with him.
If he wants a rematch with Carroll, I'm sure he'd entertain it. Craig got absolutely embarrassed when Carroll showed that the very cosmologist he cited debunked him. It was the best debunking of Craig of all time. You can't expect people to watch his post debate videos with any kind of assurance when he was caught lying and or misunderstanding science so many times in this debate.
His performance was an absolute joke, and like the original comment says, he was finally exposed as a novice in terms of scientific understanding. You lost fantastically, and you should accept your loss with integrity.
@@Horny_Fruit_Flies Comment 2/3 Craig won the Sean Carroll debate
Consider Guth’s 2007 paper Eternal inflation and its implications. In the abstract Guth writes,
“Although inflation is generically eternal into the future, it is not eternal into the past: it can be proven under reasonable assumptions that the inflating region must be incomplete in past directions…”Perhaps Guth is saying that inflation is not eternal into the past but the universe itself can still be eternal into the past? No. On page 14, Guth writes,
“If the universe can be eternal into the future, is it possible that it is also eternal into the past? Here I will describe a recent theorem [43] which shows, under plausible assumptions, that the answer to this question is no.”
Guth then describes the 2003 BGV incompleteness theorem. An interesting footnote demands examination. A theorem is considered most powerful when it has the widest possible applicability. The footnote discusses earlier theorems on the topic which were not as powerful as the 2003 version:
There were also earlier theorems about this issue by Borde and Vilenkin (1994, 1996) [44, 45], and Borde [46] (1994), but these theorems relied on the weak energy condition, which for a perfect fluid is equivalent to the condition ρ + p ≥ 0. This condition holds classically for forms of matter that are known or commonly discussed as theoretical proposals. It can, however, be violated by quantum fluctuations [47], and so the applicability of these theorems is questionable.
The added value of the 2003 theorem is that it applies to a much wider set of models. The earlier theorems could be violated by quantum fluctuations but Guth appears to be saying that criticism does not apply to the 2003 theorem.
Guth’s paper then goes on to describe a cosmological model that evades BGV theorem, the Aguirre-Gratton model. Earlier Guth had commented that no model with “reasonable” or “plausible” assumptions could evade BGV theorem. One must conclude that in Guth’s judgment the Aguirre-Gratton model does not have reasonable or plausible assumptions. But this is the model Sean Carroll endorsed in the debate.
When I saw the picture of Guth holding the sign, I thought perhaps he was planning to publish a new paper describing a model with reasonable assumptions that could evade BGV theorem. Six years have passed since the debate. I no longer think a paper is coming or that such a model is possible.
This episode represents a very interesting chapter in the sociology of science. Why would Guth agree to appear in a photograph that publicly undermines an important theorem bearing his name and all of his relevant science papers? That question has never been answered.
So, does BGV theorem imply the universe/multiverse had an ultimate beginning? Yes, of course it does.
Carroll claimed that quantum eternity theorem (QET) was better than BGV theorem.
@@Horny_Fruit_Flies Comment 3/3 Craig won the Sean Carroll debate
“If you need to invoke a theorem, because that’s what you like to do rather than building models, I would suggest the quantum eternity theorem. If you have a universe that obeys the conventional rules of quantum mechanics, has a non-zero energy, and the individual laws of physics are themselves not changing with time, that universe is necessarily eternal.” - Sean Carroll
Carroll’s blog “Post-Debate Reflections” cited his paper “What If Time Really Exists?” to describe the QET. I approached Carroll’s paper with interest thinking it was going to lay out a widely applicable mathematical theorem constraining all future cosmological models to be past-eternal if they were to be considered viable. That was not what I found.
The paper did not, in fact, attempt to prove a new theorem at all. And the term “quantum eternity theorem” does not even appear in the paper. In fact, the term does not appear anywhere in the scientific literature until after the 2014 debate.
Carroll’s paper began as an appeal to scientific anti-realists to consider the possibility that time is real. Carroll is not arguing that time is absolute or relative or anything in particular. He is simply arguing only for the reality of time. As a scientific realist, it would be hard for me to disagree with Carroll’s perspective here. The paper goes on to describe the fact that QM’s Schrodinger equations can move backward and forward in time. That is to say, once you know the wavefunction at a specific point in time, then you can calculate the wavefunction at any point along an infinite timeline from infinity past to infinity future.
Carroll writes:
John Wheeler, following Niels Bohr, liked to admonish physicists to be radically conservative - to start with a small, reliable set of well-established ideas (conservative), but to push them to their absolute limits (radical) in an effort to understand their consequences. It is in Wheeler’s spirit that I want to ask what the consequences would be if we take time seriously. What if time exists, and is eternal, and the state of the universe evolves with time obeying something like Schrodinger’s equation?
Here I must throw a penalty flag. Time can be real and not eternal. Carroll is committing circular reasoning. First, Carroll’s paper presupposes time is eternal and then after the debate Carroll claims his paper demonstrates a “theorem” that time is eternal. This is false and dishonest. There is nothing to stop time from coming into existence when the universe comes into existence and nothing to stop time completely if/when the universe stops changing. Time is simply a measure of change. At some point in the future we know the universe is going to run out of usable fuel, the stars will go out and the universe will no longer be life-supporting as it reaches maximum entropy. If nothing meaningful is changing, then I would argue that time stops. What good are Schrodinger’s equations at that point?
Needless to say, Carroll’s “quantum eternity theorem” doesn’t require any cosmological model to be past eternal. It only demonstrates that if an eternal universe existed, then Schrodinger’s equation would be able to calculate the wavefunction anywhere along an infinite timeline. But everyone working in QM knew that already.
Aron Wall wrote an interesting piece on Carroll’s use of QET. He begins with a quick overview of quantum mechanics and then makes this statement,
“It’s a little bombastic for Carroll to even refer to this as a ‘theorem,’ since it’s just an elementary restatement of one of the most basic principles of QM.”
In his Post-Debate Reflections, Carroll basically admits this “theorem” is very weak and easy to evade:
The time parameter in Schrödinger’s equation, telling you how the universe evolves, goes from minus infinity to infinity. Now this might not be the definitive answer to the real world because you could always violate the assumptions of the theorem but because it takes quantum mechanics seriously it’s a much more likely starting point for analyzing the history of the universe. But again, I will keep reiterating that what matters are the models, not the abstract principles.
I understand that Carroll likes models, but his attack on theorems is unwarranted. We use theorems to constrain and judge the models. For example, the Steinhardt-Turok eternal cyclic universe model is no longer highly regarded precisely because it violates BGV theorem. Carroll knows this and his attack on theorems is really an attack on science (Steinhardt-Turok eternal cyclic universe model).
Carroll also knows that QET is not really a theorem at all and so cannot honestly be described as better than BGV theorem. Any cosmological model can violate Carroll’s concept of the QET and no cosmologist would care.
Conclusion
Uninformed viewers of the 2014 Carroll-Craig debate may think that Carroll won the debate. After all, Carroll is a cosmologist, he’s brilliant, confident and likable. He attacked and undermined BGV theorem, the science upon which Craig often bases his arguments. Carroll even enlisted the help of Alan Guth to undermine his own theorem. Then Carroll sprung the quantum eternity theorem on Craig, who was caught off-guard by the term since it had never appeared in the scientific literature.
Informed viewers of the debate came away with a different view. Carroll’s denial that BGV theorem implies the universe/multiverse had an ultimate beginning was shocking and dishonest. Also, informed viewers saw it as rather underhanded for Carroll to claim “quantum eternity theorem” was a recognized theorem that implies the universe is eternal into the past.
On the basis of the science, Craig was truthful with the audience and Carroll was not.
Truth will win out as they say.
Carroll’s behavior can only be seen as harmful to science.
Damn, the beginning of Carroll´s opening says it all. God is not even in contention as a serious explanation among cosmologists.
Of course not. Because Carroll is implying that only physical explanations are considered. How would scientists arrive at God as an explanation for anything if they're only looking for physical explanations to begin with? It's for this precise reason that so many non-theists have been dissatisfied with cosmological models that support the universe's having an absolute beginning - because the theistic implications are so clear. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Thats just false. If any non physical model had evidence or at least its parts had evidence, it would be considered. Thats just not the case.
@@nosteinnogate7305 What do you mean by "model"? The models being discussed in the debate are *physical* cosmological models. So, if you're going by their definition of "model," you're making the same mistake as Carroll, demanding that a search for the physical yield a non-physical explanation, which is absurd. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Basically just a system that explains the data and predicts future data. If a non-physical anything exists which has influence on our world, that can be described by a model. If you cant do that, you are in the same boat as any other imagination.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Physical explanations are the only ones we can actually test and reason about. Anything else is just irrelevant and complete guesswork for someone that's trying to reason about the real world. The second you start venturing out of that, any other explanation may be equally false, or equally correct - We have no way of knowing whatsoever. Furthermore, i'm going to presume this is a christian channel; these ones usually are. EVEN if the universe was created by a supernatural entity, there is a gigantic leap from that, to the god of the bible, Yahweh.
30 minutes in an it’s clear the theme is Craig is out of his depth.
That would only be true if you didn't know that the models Carrol offered as rebuttals don't work and he knew they didn't work when he said them but he was relying on your naivety and "trust me. I'm a scientist," Schick to avoid the reality that what Dr. Craig said was true and as a result these deeper philosophy questions require answers.
@@supreme11505 The models don't work? Please elaborate.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 the models such as the oscillating universe that expands and contracts over and over eternally doesn't work because we would have a finite amount of entropy and if it were doing that from eternity we would've run out of entropy already. The model where time goes in two separate directions from a common starting point doesn't work because you still have a beginning. Expanding time in two separate directions doesn't take away the beginning. The curved model that Hawking came up with still has a beginning even if the beginning wasn't a singularity. Sean tries to act like there are a bunch of viable models other than the Big Bang and there are not.
@@supreme11505 "we would have a finite amount of entropy and if it were doing that from eternity we would've run out of entropy already"
WTF are you talking about?!? Entropy _increases_ with time, so how could we "run out" of it?
Additionally, you should try reading up on Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology.
"The model where time goes in two separate directions from a common starting point doesn't work because you still have a beginning."
Huh? So what? That still is a rebuttal to Craig's claims. So it _does_ work.
"The curved model that Hawking came up with still has a beginning even if the beginning wasn't a singularity."
That can _not_ really be described as a beginning. Apparently you misunderstood his model.
9 years on and the Craig linguistic nonsense hasn’t aged one bit.
At least Carroll knows that he doesn’t know anything
And yet you keep tuning in to listen after 9 years. You sound like a fan that gets mad bc you waited in the rain and Shaq didn’t sign your basketball.
Too many big words. Dont get it.
He usually sticks to his guns and no one has given him a run for his money in at least a decade
@@pepperachu Who are you referring to?
Apparently neither does Carroll. Didn't hold a position in the debate. Didn't prove any of the 3 points he presented .
Supernatural superstitious. Where is gods mom and dad? Did they die? The creation of the universe started with the spaghetti monster cooking up a new dish of pasta and put too much garlic and spices in the pan. It exploded and thete you got a big pasta bang. Anything is possible in lala land.
The land of the atheist
Pastafarian! 🍽️ FSM doesn't have parents. He's uncreated. Why call him 'monster'? He's nicer than many other religious deities.
Ugh. I don’t know why Craig cannot tackle the many points Carrol makes about naturalism and goes back to Kalam. Just because you can conceive of something coming from nothing doesn’t mean you can say it’s logical to insert a god. Not only that, a specific god!
Craig and Carroll both of them can't make a point. Because Carol don't understand theism and craig science. Carol God is universe that he believes is ethernal without cause. And Craig belives that God is ethernal without cause. Both of them have belief.Both of them will never prove those points.
4x in a row craig goes to the popped out of nothing strategy.
Because it is a logical impossibility.
If science is founded upon any logic then it can’t be the something from nothing logic.
That would make it a contradiction.
So you never listened just like Craig? @tgenov
@@tgenov which Sean Carroll explains over and over as a misnomer of his position. Craig, instead of engaging with the correction just covers his ears, closes his eyes and repeats again the same thing
Carroll was correct about theism being ill defined, it's the reason why such sloppy terminology is not allowed in science.
Carroll is incorrect about theism being ill-defined. Dr. Craig himself has written extensively on how theism is to be defined, particularly in his work on the coherence of theism. But it doesn't appear that Carroll was familiar with that work, which makes sense since his area of expertise is science, not philosophy. - RF Admin
@ReasonableFaithOrg I don't blame Carroll since Craig's work is fraught with vagueness and a vocabulary that's not reflected by reality.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Which god am I holding up? ;-)
I don't use internet debate phrases often, but damn, Craig got *D-D-D-DESTROYED*
Like, I felt second hand embarrassment for him at some points
When Sean got Alan Guth to comment, *in the middle of the debate,* that Craig was misrepresenting his model.... OOF
WLC never dropped the ‘popped into nothing’ rhetoric throughout this entire debate even after SC had opened with saying that’s not the stance of naturalism.
The idea that a syllogism can prove god is insane.
Why? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg because syllogisms are not evidence. Logic cannot prove that something exists. Sorry!
@@drzaius844 If a deductive syllogism is logically valid, then the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. The question then becomes whether or not the premises are true. If the premises are more plausible than their negations, then you have a good argument on your hands. So, yes, conceptually speaking, a syllogism can provide good reason to believe that God exists. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg You kind of ignored the original claim, my dudes. Original poster said "a syllogism can't *prove* god true", and you replied with "a syllogism can give good reason to believe god is true". Those are not the same things.
The original poster is correct in their claim. The mere suggestion that you can prove something true with a syllogism would have you laughed out of any science lab on the planet, and then probably beaten up by people in lab coats in the parking lot. What modern, civilized people do is gather empirical evidence to demonstrate the truth. Making an argument, which is all WLC and theists like you do, is literally the first step in any scientific setting, usually done in a university cafeteria, before they start doing the real work in the field.
That you think making a logically sound argument is enough and you can sit back and bask in your success, just shows that you've given up on actually demonstrating that your gods exist. I have more respect for people who try to prove miracles or use their dreams as evidence, at least they don't delude themselves into thinking that they can use word salad to will their fantasies into existence. At least people who believe in miracles respect the concept of evidence.
@@czajkowski2352 Why would people in a science lab be laughing? Science does not prove anything in the way you or the original commenter are using the word either, just like the syllogism. Clearly the sense in which "prove" is being used here is not the certainty of a mathematical proof as you are now implying. Proof here is obviously being used to express positive evidence for, or justification for the conclusion in question. Theres lots of room for dishonest equivocation here. Clearly reasonable faith and William Lane Craig would NEVER claim (indeed they have explicitly stipulated the opposite on many occasions) that syllogisms can give you mathematical level CERTAINTY of a conclusion. All they have ever said (correctly so) is that IF the premises are true, then the conclusion is certainly true. The truth of the premises are NOT claimed to be mathematically certain or logically necessary.
It sounds like this should have been a debate between Sean Carrol and Alexander Valenkan. Craig really doesn't need to be here...and given later events, really proved himself not to be trustworthy in his convictions.
"If there's just one in a million chance that this is true, its worth believing." -- low bar Bill
Yeah, no. The debate is about Cosmology and God, and Carroll insisting on an eternal Universe mistakes the origin of the very theistic issues he´s willing to acknowledge. In Christianity, and otherwise.
this guy is a top abrahamic charlatan.. a total waste of neurons
@@robinhoodstfrancis Carroll doesn't insist on an eternal universe. He said there are plausible models that don't necessitate god. These models are ontologically simpler than theism since they're based on what we know about the universe without invoking anything superfluous like god.
@@alankoslowski9473 Nice try. However, you tripped over knowledge and reality as many or most, or all, science ideologues do. Scientific models are made for studying physical objects and processes, with methodological naturalism. As such, scientists are doing natural philosophy, and confuse themselves in having failed to study the History and Philosophy os Science, so-called.. It's ALL natural philosophy, in fact, with varying clarity of emphasis.
Thus, in "science", the renaming has gone with the technophile conceit of the "demarcation" problem. That's only a problem for overspecialized science ideologues, as I've begun to indicate.
Thus, Carroll's only expertise is cataloguing speculative efforts in "theoretical physics" and their proposals. And the existence of arguments like Bord, Guth et al. which Is reported as past finite in implications. I recall that Carroll is bent on past eternal, which is part of his disconnect and confusion conceit that he thinks he is not just a philosopher.
Clarifying the existence of proposed past eternal models is one thing, as is noting that "science" studies physical things without God. Arguing that "science" negates and-or is supreme and invalidates metaphysical logic is a Domain Neglect bias, to use an existing term to go with the Knowledge Domain fallacy I've had to name. It's epistemological, and epistemic by implication.
Simplicity is only accurate if it applies within a common knowledge domain framework. Carroll, and you following him, with less bias than Dawkins types anyway, can't even get to the philosophical nature of "physics" itself, and the very real psychosocial symbol using phenomenon that is the trans-physical human mind. "Simple"? Calling "love" nothing but neurochemicals is simple, but not even accurate in neurochem. That would be inaccurare overzealous human ideological reductionism, not "simplicity." Craig isn't doing "god of the gaps." You guys are folliwung Carroll in doing "Gap in the philosophy", for starters..... . That's an amazing original formulation on my part. Thank you for spurring me to it.....
@@robinhoodstfrancis listen to carroll's opening statement again.
I think Sean Carroll is the best person to explain how to conceptualize “a universe out of nothing” idea. Even though he doesn’t believe that himself, that’s not his cosmological model, he’s very good at explaining the correct way to think about that concept.
I must have missed his explanation. Where did all the energy come from?
Not God@@glennsimonsen8421
This universe having a “beginning” doesn’t mean that it came from nothing. It could have come from other things.
There is NO model that includes a transcendent being doing anything. Mr. Craig, you must be talking about some other model, one that does not demonstrate any claim of yours. Try again.
Craig didn't claim any such model. The only models he references are made by cosmologists. He speaks of the logical IMPLICATIONS of models which begin from nothing. Try listening again.
@@glennsimonsen8421 He didn't claim any such model? Fine. I cannot possibly hunt down what I was referencing if it means watching Craig again attempt to convince people that his conclusion is true by fitting science around his philosophical argument after the fact. He didn't use science to get to his god, he used emotion. How do I know that? Because he has so proudly announced it to the world. Model, schmodel. I don't care.
As with most apologists, Craig invokes science while NOT DOING ANY SCIENCE, yet he calls others intellectually lazy. He has no falsification criteria and still insists atheists claim the universe came from nothing, even though god clearly must have created the world FROM NOTHING. He's a withering old man who hasn't had a new thought in four decades, and he believes that if god wants to torture or drown us all just for grins, well, that would just be the swellest morality anyone could hope for. Craigs mind is broken, and as you are defending him, so may yours be.
Don't bother responding. I've given up thinking there is anything redeeming about the guy. He'll be pretty much forgotten in twenty years anyway.
38:02. This list of problems in the field of cosmology shows the difference in the two approaches. WLC is concerned only somehow to define a god into existence. If a physical hypothesis serves his purpose he uses it. If it doesn’t, he rejects it. Carroll on the other hand is working with whatever t’hypothesis seems best to explain the evidence. Carroll can afford to admit his hypothesis is wrong, that a different one is better. WLC can only insist that there is a god, and we need to find reasons to support his blind faith.
When we know everything, God will pop out of existence.
😂😂😂😂😂
whoa
We will not achieve that tho
@@abdooljackson1399
So as long as there are mysteries, God will be a useful hypothesis
instead of rejecting tens of theories and concluding that if they are not true, then God exists, Craig could examine the theory which is proposed by God himself in his own book and to see if it is consistent with the facts (those to which he examines the theories). A creation without big bang and with no bang at all, starting with the earth and then the sun and moon, with no other galaxies and the earth is habitable immediately after the creation and life appears in the most complex format on it.
This presupposes that the creation texts in Genesis are meant to be read literalistically, which Dr. Craig has shown to be implausible given its genre analysis. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Ah, so you're moving the goal posts again. Yet again...lol Okay. don't you see why anyone outside your religion thinks you're being unfair, dumb, and simply don't care about truth?
wlc got destroyed in this debate, laughably so Any honest Christian would admit that and put WLC in the nutso category, where he deserves. I've heard him say that there MUST be a literal Adam and Eve, but of course, we know that's impossible, so what? That's another change? Or WLC had that one right? lol
Really, this superstition you'll believe is silly.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg so we can ignore everything in there
@@bee4781 How does that follow? Do you ignore poetry like the Psalms because it uses figurative language or Revelation because it uses apocalyptic symbolism? - RF Admin
yes, I do@@ReasonableFaithOrg
“There was a first moment in time” does in fact not sound any easier to comprehend than “popping into existence”. If you said there was a first moment in time I would find it very easy to imagine someone starting a stopwatch during a race. If I asked you what was the race like before it began, I know that question doesn’t make sense because the race hasn’t began so there can be no description. But I also know that the person holding that stopwatch CAUSED the timer to start. There is no non dependent causal factor. Motion must be set. Energy can not be created or destroyed.
Post removed. Again, a finite anything has a start.
@@ArneyJ-Brosausage80 "Again, a finite anything has a start."
Eh.... the universe might be the exception here.
A little thought experiment
How do we know something has a beginning?
A: If there was a time where it did not exist yet.
Was there a time where the universe did not exist?
A: No
Conclusion, the universe did not have a beginning.
@@Wmeester1971 Because you violate the law of non-contradiction & shows physicists adhere to scientism & aren't logicians.
@@Wmeester1971 I think YT sees long posts as spam. I can show it's mathematically impossible to be eternal. If it's eternal, why's it 13.8 billion years old & not a googolplex or more?
@@ArneyJ-Brosausage80 If cosmologists say that its possible the universe is eternal, then you have quite a burden of proof to claim that its mathematical impossible.
More probable is, that you desperately want it to be because it fits your predermined conclusion.
Little tip people: there is no God. You're welcome
That's an argument from ignorance btw.
@@ArneyJ-Brosausage80 I
How so? Has the existence of a God been proven by science in ANY way? No. I didn't think so....so if it is all the same to you,I'll stick with my ignorant SCIENTIFIC views of "there is no God"
@@HelenCrane-jl1nvOf course God's not proven. Likewise, he's not disproven & never will be. People (not saying you since I don't know you) don't get the distinction between epistemology/ontology. You'd have to be omniscient to *_know/prove_* God doesn't exist.
@@ArneyJ-Brosausage80 Not that ole chestnut! Burden of proof is with you not I. I am quite safe in the knowledge that when I die, i'll be buried then decompose. No afterlife, no nada.
@@ArneyJ-Brosausage80 Nope. Religion started when the first con-man spoke to the first gullible fool..
This will always be funny to me. A guy arguing why his imaginary friend actually exists to a scientist.
Not quite
@@sk8rkid1016 Yeah I guess, he doesn't actually make any valid arguments. Good point
Sad to see so many lost people in these comments.
Dr. Craig misunderstands the 4D block universe, time does not move be forward all of time is merely there, so if there is a timeline going forward in the opposite direction to ours at the beginning of matter in our universe, then there is no possibility of a first cause, because this eternal 4D block universe has no beginning of time.
yes Cragi, creating models from which one can make predictions is the same as creating different versions of god so it can fit the current knowledge we've collected through science, for sure they are. While one uses predictions you use "coherence". Jesus, how dare you say such a silly thing.
Craig was probably surprised when he discovered that the God that he defined to be the perfect explanation for everything actually explained everything perfectly.😂
Craig never fails to entertain. Always hilarious when one needs a bit of laughter.
I was thinking the same thing about comments like this. When I'm feeling down, they're my go-to! Thanks!
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
Voltaire
@@AtamMardesIt's hilarious because Voltaire was a deist but saw through religion.
The why question cannot be answered. Craig just wants to answer it “Therefore, God” instead of possible multiverses. It’s like asking who created god. “Well, there had to be a reason!” No, not really.
Yes. Because multiverse theory doesn't answer first cause of matter. And God does answer it just Craig can't prove it because it's impossible. Same science can't and will never be able to prove why there is matter rather than not.
@@konradpoznanski1105 The “first cause” theory falls apart when trying to explain what a first cause is, and what that could ever do with a god (who has multiple definitions) is just blind speculation.
@@mainecoonmamiNa, the 1st cause is God & before that, SuperGod→HyperGod→MegaGod→UltraGod & Ultra-mega-hyper-superGod did it.
@@konradpoznanski1105 I don’t know about never. That’s a strong word. Perhaps matter has always existed and it ebbs and flows. The point is, he is inserting something with no evidence. It isn’t scientific.
In a sample of 2307 adults in the US., IQ was found to negatively correlate with self reports of religious identification, private practice or religion, mindfulness, religious support, and fundamentalism, but not spirituality.
Cite the source, I want to read the whole report and who carried it out.
Mindfulness seems like the odd one out here. Has nothing to do with religion.
could you site the source? plz
Still wondering years later how anyone thinks Craig "won" this debate. He was shut down on the science, absolutely. He was shut down on the philosophy too.
Probably only people that haven't actually watched it.
Craig won
Sean Carroll goes "What in the world am I doing here????". ;-)
1:15:04 Craig is incorrect about the alleged "taxicab fallacy". From the fallacy files website: "The Fallacy Files has no entry for it, nor does any standard text or reference work on logical fallacies". Furthermore, "Even if we suppose that those who hop out of the taxi accept inconsistent claims, even for a second, that is not a logical fallacy. Inconsistent beliefs are certainly bad things to have because they cannot all be true, but logical fallacies are not psychological". I can't believe Craig used a fake fallacy just to score, not logical, but rhetorical points for good soundbites. (Even if it was a real fallacy, Craig misapplied it since Carroll did not evince an argument; he simply highlighted a _fact_ : "The universe is different than our experience")
From this premise:
"Everything has a sufficient cause" (that Craig and other Kalam supporters state) you can go to the following conclusions:
A. There is an infinite regress of causes. (Which is correct with the premise) or
B. There is an uber-cause, which is either self-causing or has no other cause (special pleading).
I don't support the criticism of infinity. It is difficult to grasp for humans (since our minds didn't evolve to deal with infinities, nor are we used to it) but that doesn't mean it's false. It's important to notice that the statements 'past is infinite' or 'there is an infinite regress of causes' are not identical. Infinite regress of caused could, just like Zenon's turtle and Achilles, be an infinite series with a finite result. We could have a finite past with infinitely many smaller and smaller causes (at least philosophically speaking, perhaps physicists will prove me wrong). Meanwhile the statement 'the past is infinite' can be easily explained as 'before every day, there was another day'. I don't see anything unintuitive about that. I would argue that stating that points where past / future does not exist are far more unintuitive, yet more mainstream thanks to Penrose-Hawking.
Finally, let's assume you agree with 'everything has a sufficient cause' (even though radioactive decay suggests otherwise) and let's agree with the special pleading against infinity, for a self-causing / causeless being. Now you also have 3 options:
A. The universe itself is causeless / self-causing.
B. A necessary being other than the universe is causeless / self-causing.
The first option seems to be supported by the fact that matter and energy can be transformed one into the other but you can't destroy or create matter or energy without using the other. This suggests all matter / energy is a necessary being. One might say that all beings are non-necessary and you can't have a collection of non-necessary beings be a necessary being, but this assumes all beings are seperate. Monism perfectly solves this issue, stating that all matter and energy along with spacetime are the necessary beings; meanwhile their association or position relative to one another or 'state' is non-necessary; this is no different than stating that god is necessary but his temper is non-necessary (but monism does assume one being less, being promoted by the Okcham's Razor).
Some people deny Monism based on their feelings ('I feel like I'm seperate than the universe) but all our scientific knowledge points toward it. On top of that, having a feeling of being seperate does not necessitate us being seperate. I have a feeling I have a free will, consciousness, that I ate pancakes this morning... some of these may be incorrect (after all, we've experienced many a time our feelingd or intuitions to be incorrect, and as Bertrand Russel put it: If Common Sense is true, physics is true but if physics is true then common sense is false, therefore common sense is false).
Now let's assume you agree with 'everything has a sufficient cause', you agree with special pleadings against infinity for a causeless / self-causing being and you agree it's not the Universe itself. You have arrived at... nothing. The Bare Causeless Being is by definition:
- something that existed at the beginning of the universe
- and caused the universe to exist.
To prove that it's still out there, the theist would have to say that it's timeless (but where would you prove it's timeless? How do you show that something even *can* be timeless?).
To say that it's a person, you need to show that physical laws or other non-conscious beings cannot cause something out of nowhere (well, process of radiation hardly agrees with you there).
Omnipotence is usually stated as necessary to create universes; that's not true. I can write a book but that doesn't mean I can also run a marathon. If this necessary being can create universes, that's the only thing we know about its powers.
Omniscience - I don't see why a process put in motion by one couldn't get out of hand and become unpredictable or unknown even to the creator. Also omniscience assumes its a person (and we don't know that).
To sum up, Kalam argument requires agreeing with a questionable premise, agreeing with some special pleading, assuming that Monism is false based on one's feelings and then doing some mental gymnastics that are hardly intellectually honest.
“Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.”
John 14:6
I think we can all agree Craig's bycicle argument was the best most hilarious part of the debate.
I found it funny too, but I think it flew over most people's heads. He was massively oversimplifying on purpose with a wild example
57:00 This should demonstrate to ANY observer that Craig is merely "quote mining" when he cites cosmologists: he is telling S.C. that S.C. thinks the opposite of what S.C. actually SAYS HE THINKS!
It's this kind of rampant dishonesty from EVERY Christian apologist I've watched that makes me distrust any time they quote ANYONE. Not only are they lying, by taking quotes out of context they are misrepresenting the authors and implicitly calling them liars in regards to their beliefs.
This is trivially demonstrable in logic. It is called modus tollens.
If P, then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P.
If Caroll says he believes P, and P implies Q.
Then if it is empirically demonstrated that not-Q is actually true.
Then Caroll necessarily believes not-P.
He is proving Caroll wrong. Literally.
This is how logic with law of excluded middle works. Either P or not-P.
If you think that P is true, but it turns out to be false. Then you were confused.
You were thinking -P.
It's not about thinking and believing, but the topic and conclusion in the theorem inself.
Craig’s use of out of context quotes from reputable scientists underlines his dishonest style of apologetics.
What quote did he use out of context? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg
52:14
Craig misrepresents Carroll’s work by saying that according to Carroll’s very own model, the universe had a beginning.
1:03:32
Carroll, who has repeatedly said that he doesn’t believe that the universe needs to have a beginning, points out that a point of lowest entropy does not constitute a beginning.
This manner of debate from Craig is either due to ignorance or dishonesty, perhaps a mix of both.
But considering that Craig is a pretty smart guy and considering that he has just heard Carroll say that he doesn’t believe that the universe needs to have a beginning, I am forced to conclude that Craig is being dishonest.
@@davidolatunji119 //Craig misrepresents Carroll’s work by saying that according to Carroll’s very own model, the universe had a beginning.//
There's a difference between what a position claims and what it implies. Carroll claims that his model doesn't have a beginning, but it does imply it, since both the forward direction and backward direction of time's arrow start at the same point. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg
The point that you are trying to make is like insisting that a picture of Jesus with a halo implies that he has an actual halo despite the artist saying that the halo is meant to depict holiness.
The arrows are an illustration that show a point of lowest entropy. If you want to call a point of lowest entropy the beginning, you are free to do so but haven’t demonstrated anything, you’ve just changed a definition.
What do you mean by “there is a difference between what a position claims and what it implies”? Presumably people make claims about positions not the positions themselves.
@@davidolatunji119 //The arrows are an illustration that show a point of lowest entropy. If you want to call a point of lowest entropy the beginning, you are free to do so but haven’t demonstrated anything, you’ve just changed a definition.//
Since Carroll himself equates the direction of time with entropy, it's perfectly reasonable to say that his model implies a first moment, a beginning.
Many physicists have rejected the Carroll-Chen model because of the lack of evidence for (and implausibility of) the time-independent Hamiltonian with non-zero energies it requires.
//What do you mean by “there is a difference between what a position claims and what it implies”? Presumably people make claims about positions not the positions themselves.//
Yes, the phrase "what a position claims" is just shorthand for "what a person claims about their position." There can obviously a difference between what a person claims about their position versus what their position actually implies. For example, a person may claim that heavily rusted and missing bolts on a roller coaster do not endanger riders. But, of course, given the compromise to structural integrity, this is exactly what heavily rusted and missing bolts imply. - RF Admin
If nothing can come into existence without a cause, what caused Craig’s creator to come into existence?
God is a necessary being. A necessary being doesn't "come into existence" because it has never not existed. Note that the argument says that "Whatever *begins* to exist has a cause." If God has always existed, then his existence never had a beginning, and, therefore, doesn't need a cause. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Why is God a necessary being? If God can exist without coming into existence, then the universe can exist without coming into existence.
@ReasonableFaithOrg "'Necessary' has meaning only in relation to presupposed conditions. It makes sense to say that, if A and B exist, C must necessarily exist. But taken by themselves, the last four words do not make sense'.
-Walter Kaufmann
_Critique _of_ _Religion_ _and_ _Philosophy_
There's no verifiable ontological context in which any supposed deity exists.
"when people consider whether God created reality, they have deflated reality so as to allow for there to be something more"
-James Ladyman
-Don Ross
_Every_ _Thing_ _Must_ _Go_
_Metaphysics_ _Naturalized_
The online Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy does not state that necessary deities are actual beings exist, but it does convey they're a priori speculation.
@@CesarClouds //'Necessary' has meaning only in relation to presupposed conditions. It makes sense to say that, if A and B exist, C must necessarily exist. But taken by themselves, the last four words do not make sense'.//
This is actually not true. It may be the case that there are good reasons for drawing a logical connection between A and B yielding C's necessary existence. One such case would be the Leibnizian argument from contingency. Another would be the modal ontological argument.
//There's no verifiable ontological context in which any supposed deity exists.//
What do you mean by "verifiable"? If any valid deductive arguments for God are sound, then this seems like a prime context for a "verifiable ontological context" in which God exists.
//"when people consider whether God created reality, they have deflated reality so as to allow for there to be something more"//
This, of course, mischaracterizes arguments for the existence of God. God (if he exists) is part of reality, so to claim that God created all of reality would mean that he created himself, which is absurd. In order for a thing to create itself, it must first exist. If it already exists, it doesn't need to be created. Dr. Craig certainly hasn't ever made such an argument.
//The online Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy does not state that necessary deities are actual beings exist, but it does convey they're a priori speculation.//
The SEP contains entries by a huge variety of scholars, including theists, atheists, agnostics, and many more. It's not a forum for arguing for the existence of God. It's an encyclopedia for informing readers about the state of philosophical scholarship on various topics. - RF Admin
@ReasonableFaithOrg I don't think you understand Kaufmann. He's not disputing necessary logical deduction, but only that mere deduction alone does not imbue ontological meaning. Same for your second point, mere logical deduction does not "verify" ontology. This also applies to your third point. As for your last point, what I said stands: nowhere in the encyclopedia does it state that "necessary being" is a fact beyond mere logical necessity.
"I suspect that Dr. CRAIG THINKS THE MAJORITY OPINION OF COSMOLOGISTS ARE IMPORTANT FOR SOME ISSUES BUT NOT FOR OTHERS"
Damn that was career-ending shit.
None of Dr. Craig's arguments rely on "majority opinion" for the truth of the premises, so the comment was an irrelevant rhetorical jab that had nothing to do with the actual arguments. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg
Craig said "many of his colleges might disagree with him" and showed a list of names
That is a debate so arguments are relevant and craig is obsessed with opinions which is not relevant in debate
Carroll addresses the Boltzman Brain "problem" right away. Craig pretending he didn't doesn't change a thing
What was the argument against it
@Shehatescash that the researchers actually use "Boltsman Brains" as a sort of litmus test, to help rule out models. Essentially, if your proposed model predicts universes dominated by "Boltsman Brains", then they know it doesn't work. In other words, Craig's is presenting a false dillema.
@@ReasonBeing25 The model doesn’t have to ‘predict ‘Boltzmann brains. The model can also either entail Boltzmann brains, or be underdetermined with respect to why there are not boltsmann brains but there are regular brains. Craig argued this point
@Shehatescash I don't follow your point. I'm attempting to provide a summary answer for someone's question. Dr. Carrol corrected Dr. Craigs mischaracterization of the "Boltsman Brain" dilemma and it's use in formulating models, to then have Dr. Craig repeat his assertion afterwards. Are you suggesting that this was not the case? Please correct me if I am misreading you
The fundamental flaw with Theism is the apologist can literally make up anything as a retort.
That is why it's a fantasy. God has no effect in reality.
Theism is not well defined
@@ThatisnotHair Does the Big Bang have an effect in reality?
At the very least it has the effect of us remembering it.
It isn’t like any human was around to see it 13.8 billion years ago.
@@Foration3 Well-definition is not well-defined either.
As a matter of fact definition itself is not well-defined.
In the way that Mathematicians use the term “well-defined”.
I love that you guys have so very little that you desperately cling to whatever scraps of arguments you think you can.
You say "we weren't there to observe it" as if you suddenly give a shit about verifiable evidence, the scientific method, or observation based conclusions.
Surely if this is how you feel about the big bang, you wouldn't be a Christian and believe a guy was magic and rose from the dead? Not only were we not there to observe it, there's no extra biblical evidence he existed, and absolutely zero evidence whatsoever that his kind of creepy blood magic resurrection nonsense is even a possibility
For anyone that was fooled by Craig’s disingenuous analogy about the bicycle out of nothing. Bicycles are very complex, and significantly more so are the humans that design and manufacture bicycles. Why is it necessary that the beginning of the Universe was due to some complex process. The “Evidence” that humanity has gained thus far strongly suggests that simplicity goes towards complexity. Evolution being the best example.
If the universe was not created then there are only two options to explain its existence:
1. The universe came into existence out of nothing
2. The universe has always existed
However, neither of these options can be chosen because option 1 would violate all known physical laws and option 2 would lead to an infinite regression of reality resulting in a contradiction. Therefore the only option left is to agree that the universe was created.
But how can you dismiss a personified creator? Let's assume the universe was created by some natural law as atheists and cosmologists suggest. However this natural law cannot arbitrarily decide to create the universe; it must have been satisfied by some condition before it could create the universe.
If the condition for the natural law has always been satisfied then the universe has always existed leading to the contradiction of infinite regression. If the condition for the natural law can be unsatisfied then the natural law needs to decide to create this condition. How is this different from a personified creator?
@@clay806 "Universe out of nothing" and "universe is created" is a false dichotomy. Also atttributing it as "created" adds a lot of baseless assumptions into it. You're already making up your conclusions and you work backwards from there.
Actually, there is a law called Entropy that physicists invoke. It basically says that things tend to go from complex to simple.
Evolution is not even a scientific theory and since you present it as proof, it’s clear you are willing to change your standard for evidence when the outcome is undesirable to you.
You are more than happy to buy into evolution without requiring proof because it doesn’t come with any moral responsibility.
@@clay806 you are objectively wrong to assert what you did.
Past eternal is not logically inconsistent and is the most plausible of the arguments.
@@andrewfairborn6762
Can zero plus zero equal to 1 ?
ua-cam.com/video/N6UW3Imn5b8/v-deo.html
Gee whiz, even I caught that false premise -- "if the universe began, it must have had a transcendent cause" -- and I'm just a poor, untrained layman.
Why do you think it's a false premise? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg What exactly does 'transcendent cause' even mean? How does it differ from any other cause?
@@ReasonableFaithOrg First of all. The premise ''universe began to exist'' is false because it is an equivocation fallacy around the term ''beginning''. Modern cosmologists view the Big Bang as the earliest moment of the universe Not the beginning of the universe. General relativity(a classical modal) fails to correctly describe the universe's behaviour at the quantum level. Guth says nobody knows if the universe had a beginning because his theorem of incomplete geodesics applies to classic universe models only. Again, the transcending cause of the universe that WL claims to be a mind, poses a problem. Asserting that an unbodied mind caused the universe, is purely speculative. There is no proof that a mind can exist without a substrate(This counter-argument was given by Prof Peter Millian in another debate with WLC).
Second, regarding WLC's fine-tuning argument, Carrol does NOT deny that the universe is finely tuned, He refutes the argument that the universe is finely tuned to allow life to exist. Because God does not need the mass of electrons to be constant to create life. The Bible talks about heavenly beings (Cherubs, Angels etc), Does their existence depend on the fine-tuning of the universe?
"No matter where and how far we look, nowhere do we find a contradiction between religion and natural science. On the contrary, we find a complete concordance in the very points of decisive importance. Religion and natural science do not exclude each other, as many contemporaries of ours would believe or fear; they mutually supplement and condition each other." -Max Planck (originator of quantum theory)
If the universe had a beginning, there is no eternity before the beginning, because there is no time outside the universe, and therefore no "before".
"Eternity" can mean several things, one of which is a timeless state. This is consistent with Dr. Craig's view that God was timeless without creation and entered into temporal relations at the moment of creation. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg If God is timeless, how did he cross time to get here today? Oh, you say, he's always existed?
Okay, as soon as you say that, you open the door to quantum mechanics always existing.
If God can be eternal, so can the universe. Unless you're going to make an exception for God and say only He can have this property for some reason? Special pleading is a sign of a weak arguement.
It's funny that WLC cannot argue fairly and honestly. "We don't see bicycles POPPING into existence." Yeah, duh. Thanks for that brillance.
@@michaelsbeverly Again, Dr. Craig's view is that God *was* timeless without creation and entered into time since the moment of creation. This is simply the logical outworking of creation being the first moment of time.
Quantum particles haven't always existed because, according to modern cosmology, the entire quantum vacuum from which such particles arise came into existence a finite time ago. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg And you're a quantum physicist all of a sudden?
Where'd you get your PhD?
You're doing what Christians ALWAYS do and that's build a strawman and pretend to have won an arguement.
Your assertion (a dumb one) asserts that ALL Quantum Mechanics is understood and all quantum PhDs AGREE on everything (the cherry picked point you think gives you the upper hand).
Don't you see how disengenious you are?
Can't you admit that you could be wrong and that the universe might not be as you think it should be in order to prove your god theory must be true?
WLC's view that god was timeless is just an assertion without a shread of evidence to back it up. You might as well insist that we live in the dream of Brahma, it's just as valid and has as much evidence for it.
The REASON you and WLC don't want to admit an obvious truth, like Christians didn't want to admit to a heliocentric solar system or that evolution is true and obviously so, is that you're grasping at straws to try and hold on to your faith (and keep the sheep in line).
If God is so great, why not admit that the universe didn't need him, obviously, to exist, but that by FAITH you believe in Him?
Are you scared that admitting the truth opens the door for sheep to leave the flock? What's the fear here?
Obviously, quantum mechanics has proven, just like biophysics has shown almost certianly, and without any doubt evolution has proven, that we don't need a god to exist.
sure a god could be possible, just like Sean Carroll said, it's not logically impossible, it's just a very BAD explaination, for many reasons he gave.
If your faith was strong and secure, you should have no problem admitting the obvious, we could live in a universe that got here differently than by means of a supernatural warrior god of the bronze age, and that these other explainations are a lot more consistent, logical, and don't require one to make excuses constantly.
Just think about how strongly Christians insisted that the heliocentric solar system was a bad idea, spawned by Satan, and that it was clearly obvious the sun orbited the earth, a FACT, they said, confirmed by His Holy Word.
Of course, today, not many Christians are standing on the Bible when it comes to a flat earth or a non-heliocentric solar system, because, duh, it's obvious that it's stupid and faces in the face of what is clearly proven to be true. The earth orbits the sun.
With quantum mechanics, we know things might not be as they seem, and we don't have definitive answers, but we know for a FACT that a god isn't necessary.
It might be that a god exists, and I suspect the Christians next retreat, like they did with evolution, is to say, "Oh, quantum mechanics is how God made the universe, the Bible showed that all along! Isnt' that Special?"
Be honest and quit fighting reality.
God may exist, sure, but He (or she, it, they) is NOT needed for us to be here. Period.
This argument is settled.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg you missed my argument. There is still no “before”, because that would require time. Also, “entering” something is a process, which requires time. If you’re timeless, it seems impossible to “enter” something.
Why would the universe have to react from its beginning? Who's to say quantum fluctuations can't occur anywhere in time?
28:56. True. There's no deities being discussed in modern cosmology per the peer review. Debate was over at that point.
Why would the debate be over at that point? - RF Admin
@ReasonableFaithOrg Craig stated, more than once I believe, that he's not urging against the science but using it in support of premises for a deity's existence. That's fine, but philosophy doesn't hold sway over science. It's the other way around.
@@CesarClouds What does it even mean to say that "science holds sway over philosophy"? Is it possible for science to overturn the laws of logic, or to operate without the assumption of the reliability of our cognitive faculties, or to operate without the assumption of the existence of the external world? Clearly, there is no such thing as science without philosophy at its foundation. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg I meant to say "precedence", as every introductory book about western philosophy, that I'm aware of, states. I don't know if science can presently meddle in pure logic as you state, but it's made inroads like in quantum logic.
@@CesarClouds No, science has not made inroads in replacing or modifying classical logic with quantum logic. Quantum logic isn't a logic at all, since it doesn't have anything to do with reasoning processes. It has to do with summarizing the measurements performed by quantum apparatuses. Here's what atheist philosopher of science Tim Maudlin had to say about it:
"The horse of quantum logic has been so thrashed, whipped and pummeled, and is so thoroughly deceased that...the question is not whether the horse will rise again, it is: how in the world did this horse get here in the first place? The tale of quantum logic is not the tale of a promising idea gone bad, it is rather the tale of the unrelenting pursuit of a bad idea. ...Many, many philosophers and physicists have become convinced that a change of logic (and most dramatically, the rejection of classical logic) will somehow help in understanding quantum theory, or is somehow suggested or forced on us by quantum theory. But quantum logic, even through its many incarnations and variations, both in technical form and in interpretation, has never yielded the goods."
- RF Admin
You've got a physicist who understands the scientific principles and a non-physicist who quote-mines physicists for statements supporting his religious belief. Craig claims the low plausibility of life is evidence of design whereas it is actually evidence that the universe was not designed for life.
//You've got a physicist who understands the scientific principles and a non-physicist who quote-mines physicists for statements supporting his religious belief.//
Even physicists need good training in philosophy, lest their extrapolations exceed the data. This was the case with Carroll's own model, which he didn't realize actually implies that the universe had an absolute beginning.
Moreover, Dr. Craig is an expert researcher. He studied so much cosmology that at one point he considered getting another doctorate in astrophysics. So, to say that he's just quote-mining is a gross mischaracterization. If you read his work in, for example, the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, you'll find that he understands the physics quite well.
//Craig claims the low plausibility of life is evidence of design whereas it is actually evidence that the universe was not designed for life.//
It's no part of Dr. Craig's argument to claim that the low plausibility of life is evidence of design. Where did you get that? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Dr Craig is a fake through and through. His kalam argument fails to convince me, it fails to convince physicists. It convinced one philosopher with zero understanding of physics. Dr. Craig can repeat as much as he wants that he cannot imagine this or that, but that only shows he lacks imagination and physicists need imagination because nearly all major scientific discoveries these days tend to be counter-intuitive.
Contrary to what you say, he doesn't understand the physics, he's using words as arguments but physics are not words, it's mathematics. I very much doubt he could get a doctorate in astrophysics, he would not be the first fake to attempt a cosmology doctorate (Bogdanov Affair). Whenever Dr. Craig will translate his cause/god/whatever into mathematics with a precise definition and formulate it as a falsifiable theory, I will change my mind. His claims and your claims are outrageous.
@@ReasonableFaithOrgHe really should've gotten a doctorate in astrophysics, then you'd have a logician show a finite age eternal universe is untenable.
How can you have low entropy in the middle of something that is eternal? Doesn't the concept of being eternal eliminate the concept of their being a "middle"?
“Within” will probably be a better word
If you believe in the God of the Bible, then I suppose the arguments in favour of the existence of that god are very convincing indeed.
Otherwise, they can be dismissed as superstitious nonsense.
Our testimonials page is full of testimonies from people who had no prior belief in God or the Bible. What convinced them was the strength of the arguments and evidence. But, sure, anyone can dismiss anything if they try hard enough. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg What evidence? Claims yes, plenty of claims, but zero evidence.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg And so what if someone can argue better than another debater. Still does not in any way prove your manmade religion. Think I will go with Albert Einstein's Spinoza.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg The Australian aborigine has been walking this earth for over 50 thousand years. Suppose the manmade Christian God concept was not around then and the great big strong testimonies and arguments for it.
@@SimonPaterson-b5c Your argument seems to be this:
1. If Australian aborigines didn't have a concept of the Christian God over 50,000 years ago, then the Christian God does not exist.
2. Australian aborigines didn't have a concept of the Christian God over 50,000 years ago.
3. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.
Clearly, premise (1) is false. Australian aborigines also didn't have a concept of black holes. But obviously their lack of a concept didn't have any impact on whether black holes existed. So, the argument fails. The lack of the concept of the Christian God among ancient Australian aborigines had no relevance for whether the Christian God actually exists. - RF Admin
The only thing in existence as large as the universe is Craig's ego.
Why do you think he has a big ego? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg For one he frequently postures and grandstands like he is some eminent force in this topic whilst really offering nothing more sophisticated than the Kalam.
@@timcollett99 You don't think the Kalam is sophisticated? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Not even remotely.
@@timcollett99 We're very interested in your analysis of the chapter on the Kalam in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Let us know when it's published. - RF Admin
Roger Penrose's idea of cycling universes makes a lot ot sense to me. Carroll didn't seem to on board last I saw, but it seems like something to consider.
Sean Carroll has a lot of bad ideas. No need to follow him on that path. Penrose is probably right about the CCC, even if he is wrong about almost everything else he says these days.
Few scientists give Penrose's idea any credence, and it's been studied and considered to death. It's a perpetual motion machine for one thing.
@@schmetterling4477anything to prove that your imaginary friend exists 😂
@@azmainfaiak8111 Huh? I have been a hard atheist since age eight. What are you talking about? ;-)
Einstein thought nothing was an impossibility, if that’s true the Kalam argument doesn’t get off the ground…
At 1:53:36 the gentleman asks why does Craig believe God gets to just exist outside of time. Listen to his answer and tell me what his proof/argument on why God does exist. To me it sounds as just an assertion.
Craig just uses the "logic fallacy fallacy" almost continually during the talk. Extremely dishonest. When he isn't using it, he's using the "strawman fallicy" on every other point. 💜
Craig won this debate quite easily
@@charlescarter2072 the strawman arguement is the easist way to win this audience.
@@BrianFedirko I assume you are an atheist?
@@charlescarter2072if only any academic or even laymen agreed with you. 😉
@@Greg-xi8yx I don’t need them to
Craig wins the ugliest tie award for sure, but as far as making a reasoned argument.... Carroll wiped the floor with him.
Which of Carroll's arguments specifically did you find compelling? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg While I thought all of his arguments were superior in reason, Carroll's slides showing what we would expect the world to be like under theism vs how the world actually is (which is explained easily under naturalism) were particularly compelling.
@@ericfitchett5575 There are a few places where that particular line of argumentation goes wrong. First, the fine-tuning argument doesn't conclude to theism, but to a cosmic designer, so Carroll is illicitly attacking theism. Second, he makes the mistake of characterizing the fine-tuning argument as claiming that *all* of the constants and quantities of the universe are fine-tuned for life. That's no part of the argument. Rather, it's that there are enough such constants and quantities that their occurring by chance alone is almost impossible. Third, Carroll claims that on theism, we should expect a higher level of entropy, since we could exist without such low entropy. But as Robin Collins has noted, the low entropy allows for the discoverability of the universe. So, even if we are able to exist at higher levels, perhaps mere existence isn't all that the designer of the universe was concerned with.
And there are other issues. For a more detailed treatment, so Dr. Craig's reflections on this portion of the debate here: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/still-more-reflections-on-the-sean-carroll-debate. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Sean Carroll is not illicitly attacking theism at all. The entire debate here is whether cosmological evidence points to God's existence. WLC most certainly presents the FTA as a reason to believe in theism. Are you saying it isn't an argument for theism? Why would you make such a concession? It is a very odd thing to say that the FTA argument gets us to a cosmic designer but not to theism.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg In my mind, the problem with the Fine Tuning argument in general is that we would all be very surprised to wake up into a world in which we could not survive. In other words, our planet is improbably suitable for the life that evolved on it, but that is out of trillions upon trillions of planets. Take into account these unfathomable numbers, and how many planets are not finely tuned for life, and it makes sense that we wake up on one of the ones that is.
Been looking for this
Carrolls closing statement about religion was beautiful
Craig's version of the Kalam relies on a bad premise. He asserts that things "begin to exist". You have to look at this assertion quite carefully. We can't use a loose or poetic interpretation of it, if we want to be logically sound and valid.
Things can "begin to exist" in an informal way. For example, my omlette "begins to exist" sometime after I crack the eggs but before I take a bite. To be more precise, I wouldn't say that the omlette begins to exist, I would say that I begin to LABEL the thing as "an omlette". All of the constituent parts of the omlette already existed. The parts were merely rearranged, and a label was applied. It did not "begin to exist" in reality.
So ask yourself the simple question: do you have any reason to believe that any object EVER has "begun to exist"? Not in the way that I described with the omlette, but in the way that Craig means when he presents his Kalam?
In my experience, objects do not ever "begin to exist". Rather, pre-existing things are rearranged and re-labeled. So the first premise of the Kalam seems like nonsense to me, and I'd need to be convinced that it's possible for anything to begin to exist, let alone the universe.
There are other issues I have with his Kalam, but this specific one is what originally convinced me that it's wrong when I first thought it over. Craig likes to talk about the Big Bang but he grossly misuses it - he wants people to think that the Big Bang proves that the universe popped into existence, but it does not. He uses this argument with laypeople who don't understand the science. It's quite dishonest in my opinion - I am almost positive that he knows better.
But mate the burning red dot waiting to explode isnt more rational than bigbang popping in nothingless if you mean that. God exsist, and there is nothing we can do about it.
In what way did the universe exist prior to the Big Bang? Don't scientists say neither time nor space existed prior to the Big Bang?
All language is about putting labels on reality. Stepping back and explicating that labelling process doesn't do anything to deny the phenomena that's being labelled. From my perspective, all you've done is break down the concept of an omelet beginning to exist into more labelled components. But that doesn't deny the observed phenomena of the omelet beginning to exist.
No it's iron clad, I watched most of Bills debates and I haven't seen anyone properly refute it
Didn’t you just kick the can further down the line? If we only labeled and omelette based on a rearrangement of its parts. Look at the parts, then we can keep following this line until there was a first instance of the individual parts. We labeled them, but how do we follow that there never was a first instance of an egg for the example
Debate starts at 8:00. You’re welcome.
Props to WLC I guess for keeping this absolute butchery on his UA-cam page.
Apparently an omnipotent God created the common clothes moth.
The adults cannot feed. Their only purpose is to mate and lay eggs.
The eggs hatch and the little grubs eat our clothes. Good design !
Clothes moths play an important role in the ecosystem, since their natural diet is rotting wood, fungi, lichens, and even bat guano. So, yes, very good design. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg
Malaria plays an important role in the ecosystem.
It helps to control the population of humans.
Very good design - TG2 Admin.
There wouldn’t need to be any fine tuning if a universe was indeed created with human life in mind.
I see generations of adaptations and countless extinct species along the way. Exactly what we would expect from evolution by natural selection and not any gods looking out for us.
A lot of atheists in the comments
its like carroll was playing on his smurf account or some shit. Wasn't even close
This is the risk you take, William Craig, when you invoke cosmology as proof of God: If you go against someone that actually lives in this space, you're toast.
What do you think the defeater was and why
@@Shehatescash The common theme was that Sean showed over and over again that Craig's assumptions about cosmology and interpretations of theorems were biased towards the result he wanted and incorrect. A reasonable person would toss any cosmological data is support for either position based on this debate, and adopt a neutral position as to whether God is required. When you do this, the simpler models have the advantage based on what we've seen before. So, Craig needs to adjust his cosmology if he faces Sean again.
@@Steve-cd9ul It seems to me that this isn’t as cut and dry as you would think. Why do you take it that Sean was correct? I suspect it’s on the basis of some authority, but the problem in this particular case is that Sean has a bias AGAINST Craig’s conclusion, so naturally he’s gonna say things which contradict the conclusion in order to support himself. When checking over the facts and hearing the arguments i wonder what do you think was said that was a defeater to Craig’s position? I’ve seen this same attitude towards krauss in that debate but, krauss was actually wrong on lots of points and equivocated many philosophical terms
Craig is asserting a very, very specific explanation for the creation of the universe: A personal god, with multiple specific traits. Sean provide more than enough model possibilities to account for everything we have observed. He also showed beyond a reasonable doubt that Craig's was not a model, in that it was never submitted to scientific panels for review, and that his conclusions on theorems in fact contradicted the originators of the theorems themselves. So clearly Craig does not have a model in the same way as the many, many other actual models that actual real cosmologists like Sean have. It was clear that Craig was TRYING to find support for his presupposition rather than going where the models went.@@Shehatescash
@@Steve-cd9ul Any good explanation is very, very specific, otherwise it was lack explanatory scope, or have too much of it. Big bang is very very specific. Evolution is very very specific.
Providing a possibility for creation doesn’t mean it’s likely, or means anything. Craig was arguing against the various models brought up, and pointed out how the premises of his conclusion are more likely true than not. Sean giving a model doesn’t serve to show a defeater. Hitler would give a diff model of human rights, doesn’t make it relevant (not saying Sean is hitler)
Something doesn’t need to be submitted to scientific panels for review in order to be a model, lol. A model is just an explanation. Theism is a model of reality. I have no clue where you get your definition of model from. This definition would entail that before Einstein submitted special relativity, special relativity wasn’t a model. The submitting process didn’t change the nature of the theory.
What do you think was out of accordance with his definition of theory?
Craig quotes someone that claims the Universe has an "absolute": beginning. That's not a scientist. Scientists (honest and accredited ones) don't speak in absolutes.
The quote is from Alexander Vilenkin who is one of the preeminent cosmologists alive today.
it's a strange kind of proof that depends on things being "more likely to have happened"
Dr. Sean Carrol absolutely destroyed Dr. WLC.
Craig clearly loses when he defaults back to the aforementioned "incredulous stare" when he bleets about how fantastic it is to believe the universe "popped into being" which was more than once explained by Carroll to make no sense in the context if the universe.
He had to pander to his customer base and have something in there about “universe from nothing”.
Heaven forbid that Craig would actually be honest. I don’t think he knows how.