3 Reasons Why the First Cause Must Be Personal with William Lane Craig
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- What does the cosmology of the universe reveal about God's nature? Check out this video, in which our friend Dr. William Lane Craig shares three reasons why creation points to a personal God.
📚 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀
What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek DVD👉📱bit.ly/3NgrahM and Mp4👉📱bit.ly/3xRpEgs
Blog: 'The Case for an Eternal Cosmic Observer' by Brian Chilton 👉📱crossexamined....
🤝 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧 𝗖𝗥𝗢𝗦𝗦𝗘𝗫𝗔𝗠𝗜𝗡𝗘𝗗 (𝗧𝗔𝗫-𝗗𝗘𝗗𝗨𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗕𝗟𝗘) 🤝
● Website: crossexamined....
● PayPal: bit.ly/Support...
👥 𝗦𝗢𝗖𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗠𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗔 👥
● Facebook: / crossexamined.org
● Twitter: / frank_turek
● Instagram: / drfrankturek
● Pinterest: pin.it/JF9h0nA
🗄️ 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗖𝗘𝗦 🗄️
● Website: crossexamined.org
● Store: impactapologet...
● Online Courses: www.onlinechri...
🎙️ 𝗦𝗨𝗕𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗕𝗘 𝗧𝗢 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗣𝗢𝗗𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗧 🎙️
● iTunes: bit.ly/CrossExa...
● Google Play: cutt.ly/0E2eua9
● Spotify: bit.ly/CrossExa...
● Stitcher: bit.ly/CE_Podca...
#Cosmology #Atheism #WilliamLaneCraig #Christianity #God #Science
Download FREE Cheat Sheet “The 4-Point Case For Christianity” 👉📱cutt.ly/ZYMC4nl
Hebrews 11:3 ESV
[3] By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
Guys, we know you are literally dull when all you can comment is: "this argument is fallacious" but give zero justification. Some of you have never read a philosophy 101 book, but you hide behind the internet to criticize an expert. If you claim to know too much, leave the comments and debate WLC.
This helped me resolve an issue I've been thinking through. Thank you.
How? What was the issue?
Atheist: "lol, you think God created everything. Bwahaha".
Christian: So what's the origin of life and creation?"
Atheist: "I don't know."
Christian: "Uh, ok".
If God is not the cause of our existence then at least atheist should demonstrate another cause I don't think that's too much to ask
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 if Atheist insist "no evidence" then they should have a counter explanation.. Otherwise your position is baseless
Yep, that's usually what I get from these anti-theist fools. Nice summary brother Festus. God bless.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 But it takes the arrogance out of you if you don't have a valid option at all.
@@jeffphelps1355 _"if Atheist insist "no evidence" then they should have a counter explanation."_
No, they should just tell theists to stop being lazy and help to *find* an explanation which is trustworthy
We should ask Biden. He was there with eve in the garden.
"That's right, Jack!!"
And corn pop was the one that told Eve to bite the fruit…
And DJT was just after him a couple years after grabbing Eve by her p.... because he can.
And DJT showed up a couple years later and grabbed Eve by the ...... because he can.
@@hhh-et2vi Hahaha. Still stuck on that locker-room comment. He never said he did. He said they will let you. As horrible as Harvey Weinstein was, they let him abuse in order to get the positions he controlled. Trump was proven right in what they allow to happen to them.
Thank you CrossExamined
Can science demonstrate life began randomly the obvious answer is no it takes intelligence for a demonstration to take place
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930that's what he's asking , can you demonstrate science caused all this and human life?
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 how does one demonstrate a supernatural being
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 yes its called using your head and realizing something doesnt come out of nothing. and life doesnt come out on non-life. a 2 year old understands these concepts. And if you ask well how do you know its God, then rewatch this video couple of times. Its literally about that.
@IZZY-zf7jh don't feed the trolls. Mr falls is on every vid put out by Frank and Co. Dunno if he is one of the principalities assigned to this platform, but I would not be surprised.
@@mikerukavina4551
Stay on target brother.
May Jesus Christ the Son of God guide all Muslims,Buddhist,Hindu,Agnostic and Atheist to Christianity.
Amen 🙌🏻
It's actually impossible for an imaginary friend to do anything.
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD Pray to Jesus Christ the Son of God and ask for a guidance from Him.(James 1:5)
@@brosebrose4154
How can a nonentity give guidance?
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD Jesus Christ the Son of God Himself will guide you if you pray earnestly to Him.(James 1:5)
Why not biblical cosmology instead of the Jesuit big bang of the beast cosmology?
I fear the day that we can EXPLAIN God with SCIENCE……………..…
You have demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is.
Science is only capable of investigating and testing the natural world. There is no mechanism within science that allows it to test ‘supernatural’ claims. So science wouldn’t be able to confirm or deny the existence of gods
So you have nothing to fear!
I fear the day we go back to when it was punishable by death to do so...
Chance and mathematics don't have any causal properties.
The Christian God can't be shown to hold any properties... at all.
Read my post, they don't need them and Craig knows it.
Was there one big bang that created the sun the moon and the earth and just happened to align in such a perfect position to make the sun not scorch the earth and the moon to be in a position to make the tides ebb and flow or was it three different big bangs. Mmmmm what's the chances of that happening by coincidence.
There’s literally billions and billions of these coincidences; as long as they’re natural, and I can live my life the way I want to, and I don’t have to accept a supreme beings authority over me.
Does that mentality sound familiar?
@@rhpicayune to each his own . I cannot for the life of me believe everything from the big bang to the largest animal to the smallest atom was by chance . a coincidence. GOD gives us science to study so we can understand how things work. at least I know where I came from why iam here and where iam going and why things are what they are .
There's not enough "time" in the universe for such a probability to be probable.
@@gordo191 " I cannot for the life of me believe everything from the big bang to the largest animal to the smallest atom was by chance . a coincidence. GOD gives us science to study so we can understand how things work. at least I know where I came from why iam here and where iam going and why things are what they are."
But you surely must understand how this is not a very convincing position for a non-believer?
@@GazGuitarz lol, did you read what you said, there is a higher probability of you rolling 10 dice and each of them standing on the corner of one another without falling under normal circumstances.
And the chance of that happening is lower than 1 × 10-⁴⁰⁰ which is way longer than the billion and billions of years science claim.
1:11 "I cannot think of any other way...." ... There you have it. Craig can't think of another way. And since his knowledge is equal to all human knowledge can be, or will be, we needn't trouble ourselves with origin questions ever again! 😅 If you're saying you can't think of another solution, you are very literally acknowledging a GAP. And Craig is conveniently filling that gap with a concept that humans dreamed up long, long ago, before humanity had the faintest notion of cosmology or its attendant questions. He also smuggled in causation "rules" which apply to things within the universe. Why assume the same rules apply to dimensions other than space/time? If Craig's answers aren't satisfactory to you, You're far from alone. p.s. Always remember that Craig deeply WANTS the Christian story to be true, by his own admission. He lowers the epistemic bar for Christian claims. That may contribute to why he prefers to fill the knowledge gap with his favorite deity. You're welcome.
read my comment
@@Lightbearer616 I'll certainly read it, but please tell me where it is.
@@Lightbearer616 ... Better still, just paste your comment as a reply.... Like everyone else does
@@drumrnvaI put it in 1 hr ago. May see it it you set sort to "Newest" but searching in youtube is terrible.
If God is good, why does suffering exist?
@JesusSportsNature I don't consider suffering as evil. You can't expect a beautiful physique without your body suffering - and adapting - in the gym. And likewise our character can be transformed by suffering for the better (e.g. James 1:4). That's certainly true in my life - I wouldn't be who I am today without the hardships of the past. And I've seen the Holy Spirit make the most amazing mosaics of broken peoples lives - far more beautiful than what there was in the beginning.
In fact, I'm convinced God uses evil for His purposes (which is why He allows it). As an example of this, look at the natural world. Imagine a Gazelle in Africa; protecting its offspring against a lion or tiger (i.e. something evil) actually gives the Gazelle a purpose to its life. Where as a gazelle in the zoo, with food and shelter provided. No threats. A vet on hand. Nothing to do but eat and sleep day after day. What is the purpose of its life? Similarly, I don't believe God wants us to laze around and be fed grapes all day. Rather, he's wanting us to overcome the evil in the world, and bring His kingdom come.
✝️✝️✝️✝️✝️✝️
Sorry, but this argument is fallacious.
Yes it is. Why are Christians so dishonest?
Care to elaborate?
Correct me if I am wrong, these Apologist are continuously studying hard, thinking hard and praying to answer every detail of our questions. I admire them, Apologetic is really a hard work.
Perhaps they have no time to savor the beauty of Christianity, deep, soaking in God's presence, worship. Waiting on God and be still.
I don’t think they are studying hard
WLCs premises here are just wild. They’re unjustified and more importantly, totally self-refuting.
Causal explanations do not have to be either personal or “scientific.” Aside from being a false dichotomy, it makes no sense.
A personal cause is scientifically explained. They’re not mutually exclusive. One is predicated on the other.
To have a “personal” cause, whatever that means, requires time, existence, consciousness, (all the things and more) that WLC says preclude a scientific explanation for the beginning of the universe. It’s claiming you cannot have an idea until you have built a prototype. That’s 100% backwards. It couldn’t be more incorrect.
What the heck is he doing here? It just seems like tap-dance apologetics for the anxious believers. WLC has some great apologetics but this is among the worst I’ve ever heard from anyone, let alone him.
1. you're assuming personal choice is independent of imperical cause and affect. this has never been observed to be the case. 2. assumes the conclusion. Why a being? 3. Is also relying on the assumption in premise one. Also if a personal mind by definition is separated from things around it and so is subjective, not objective.
1. “Intendent” and “imperial,” did you mean independent and impersonal? Immaterial? “this has never been observed…” in a world in which materiality has been established. 🍎 & 🍊!
2. In philosophy jargon, a being is anything that exists, whether God or a universe-seed. Person, that is, a conscious Being, is a subcategory of being.
The attributes aren’t “assumed,” they are derived from examination of the implications of 1: What are the attributes required of the First Cause to account for the existence of the universe? (Further attributes he did not mention can be identified from the characteristics of the universe and of life.)
3. Again, not assumptions; previously established conclusions.
Mind is not subjective or objective; that’s a category error, except that a claim that a mind exists would be an objective fact. Rules and claims are subjective or objective.
When there is a single, universally applicable source, a rule or claim is objective because it is established by an objective standard. When the rule or claim can vary from mind to mind, it is subjective.
An opinion about abortion based on governmental law is subjective because laws about abortion vary. A claim based on science and God’s Law is objective because it is true in every jurisdiction.
Without objective laws, the Nuremberg trials and the International Criminal Court would have no authority other than what raw power can establish. Without God, all morality reduces to subjective, varying preference.
all first cause arguments commit the special pleading fallacy. The various forms of the many first cause arguments commit other fallacies and have other flaws. You have to come up with an argument that actually works before you can debate what the 'first cause' is.
"You have to come up with an argument that actually works." Which will never happen in your case. Regardless of the logic of the argument, you will always dismiss it as being fallacious because you don't possess the intellectual courage to honestly and objectively consider the possibility that God exists. The irony of you citing logical fallacies when your own confirmation bias is the most fallacious of all.
@@susangarland6869 wrong. I was raised christian and sincerely believed. I was forced to give up that belief after years of study, my bias, as you call it, was in favour of god existing and was overcome by hard evidence. If an argument could be presented that worked. I would accept it. None have so far achieved this.
@@Matthew_Holton "If an argument could be presented that worked, I would accept it." See above. At least have the moral courage to admit that it is God you reject, not arguments, and stop hiding behind word salads that impart the illusion of intellectual rigor. You are not well informed; you are blind and foolish.
How does God as the first cause commit the special pleading fallacy?
@@surfrusty12 you apply a universal rule and then say that your claimed entity is exempt from that rule, all first cause arguments commit this fallacy, among others.
How does anyone take this reasoning seriously???
Three evidences for God, but atheist trolls will still claim there's 0 evidence for Christianity. Sad how dishonest they are.
Jesus lives ♥️ and is God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
That's the thing. They act as though they're the authority on what evidence is. But when confronted as the authority, mostly bupkiss. They don't realize or act like they don't realize that they can't say no unless they can affirm what evidence is and what exactly their knowledge of God is and how they know.
@@JiraiyaSama86 ain't that the truth
"Three evidences for God, but atheist trolls will still claim there's 0 evidence for Christianity. Sad how dishonest they are. "
Let's be fair here. Even IF what WLC was saying here actually held up, it wouldn't prove anything about Christianity was true. This would be an argument in support of theism
@@kinggenius930 I wonder if you'll ever stop trolling
@@JadDragon I don't bother with him. Talking to him is like talking to a dead tree. And I've already had my fair share of that. Many of them are practically dead trees. They don't offer fruit.
Order and design suggests to me that a mind has to be behind it. This universe has those attributes.
Nope wrong.
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARDgo on…
Are you able to prove there is intended order and design to the universe, or is that merely how it seems to you?
@@HeinrichTheGr8
It's an assumption without the evidence to show a mind was behind it.
Mathematical order or the like doesn't mean design.
And what part of the universe has been shown to be designed? Only everything that humans have designed. All else this far has been shown to be a naturally occurring process.
That literally makes no sense, lots of completely natural things have order and presuming the universe has design is just begging the question.
Unfortunately Dr. Craig didn't address the impersonal deity explanation of the cause. I came from a religion that had that explanation, and I'm always looking for theologians to address that problem.
What religion?
@@mattr.1887 Hinduism and Buddhism. I was a Buddhist for most of my adult life, but I was also into Vedanta as well. Vedanta posits an impersonal Brahman, and Buddhism an impersonal enlightened buddhahood. I'm saved btw, for five years now, and I understand the problems with an impersonal deity. In fact all the time I was involved in those religions, I could never give up the idea of God that I formed in childhood from reading the Bible. The more I delved into those religions, the more issue I took with their conception of the ultimate nature of Godhood, so in the end, they left me unsatisfied. Because I know there are a lot of people like me out there in the world though, I'm always hoping that apologists will address the problems of eastern religions and their idea of impersonal deity.
Step 1. False dichotemy, reject one in the false dichotemy, therefore God.
Step 2. Look at your God, and dictate the universe has to be by a god with those properties.
Step 3. Argument from incredulity.
Good video but change the thumbnail. Looks like it says Big Bang is waay greater than God. Make it an arrow or hand pointing instead (- - > or 👉)
Everything is better than your imaginary friend.
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD Nothing is greater than the living God who created the heavens and the earth. Creation is nothing compared to his glory and power
@@CristOportunidad
That's what you think, but can you show it?
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD lol, you atheists never get tired of living in your delusion.
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD actually yes. God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1), made himself visible through nature (Romans 1:18-20) and through his Son Jesus Christ (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). He is eternal and all powerful (Revelation 1:8) and he is coming back to judge the earth of its sins (Revelation 1:7).
He is the just Judge of all the universe, with his moral standard being righteousness itself, yet in his perfect wisdom he executes a plan for love and free will to exist within his creation. The choice to spend an eternity with him, or without him if you despise him; because love isnt forced, and God is love (1 John 4:7-8). Hereby he reveals himself through his word, scriptures written by men throughout history inspired by himself to reveal the evil of man and the goodness and fidelity of God. His character and will are all present in his word, and chose the weak and humble for it to be shared, because the meek will inherit his kingdom (Matthew 5). For he came as a meek servant to save us all, he will come back to judge us all.
“The time has come,” He said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”
Mark 1:15
How do you tell the difference between a timeless, spaceless, immaterial being that is real and a timeless, spaceless, immaterial being that is not real?
One makes me feel smart and special and the other belongs to one of the bad religions.
What do you mean by this question?
@@minicello231 If there is a timeless, spaceless, immaterial being that is real and a timeless, spaceless, immaterial (proposed) being that is not real, how would you distinguish the two?
@@Randall.Weaver God is the only timeless, immaterial and spaceless being, so any other being besides God that claims those attributes is fake.
@@ndibunwapeter9013 Timeless, immaterial, and spaceless are properties of nonexistence. If Being A is said to be timeless, immaterial, and spaceless and Being B is said to be timeless, immaterial, and spaceless, what process would you use to determine which one, if either, actually does exist and which one, if either, does not?
"Causal explains can either be scientific or personal."
How can a causal explanation be personal? What does that even mean? Ever causal thing we know of exists in the universe and thus is scientific.
I have no clue where a mind comes in to his 2nd point.
"There is not any other way to explain the origin of an effect with a beginning from a timeless cause."
What about a multiverse? I still don't see why it needs to be a being.
You don't get it, even if the multiverse exists you still need to go back to an uncreated source that created everything.
And it's more logical to for the uncaused cause to be a being than a non being.
@@ndibunwapeter9013Nope, wrong again.
You need ti show why it has to be a being... and not simply the first law of thermodynamics.
You failed again
@@mattslater2603 ok lol
@@ndibunwapeter9013Hey at least you can accept it
@ndibunwapeter9013 I don't think you understand, the multiverse is the uncaused source. Why does it have to be a conscience being?
Ain't God great
God is just imaginary.
Our God is an awesome God.
He is imaginary. You only confirmed his existance by saying that. For you, God may live in the imagination only. For others, however, he lives in more places than just the imagination. But what matters is that HE IS.
You got the first 2 words mixed around
@@somerandom3247 Ah, but to make sense, there would need to be additional words. God ain't great, He is far more than just great.
1.) "Personal" is indeed scientific, aka natural. It's ya brain. You are a part of your brain. That's what acts. So the only cause we have experienced so far is always scientific, and personal is a subset of scientific.
2.) Nah, not true. A.) Saying timeless and spaceless is nonsensical, it has to be somewhere at some time. Outside of our spacetime, maybe. But not without it. Do of that what you will.
B.) Abstract objects don't evidently exist outside of minds. C.) Unembodied mind has never been shown to exist. Conciousness we have found was always "embodying" something.
3.) Well isn't that just neat. Making things up such as this magical thing of (libertarian) free will that creates effects without a prior cause.
Yeah, none of these were solid, convincing or anything. Just a big mess of assumptions and fabrications and falsehoods. 😅 Embarrassing really.
Nice hypothesis, Dr Craig. Do you have any evidence to support it? No, you don't do evidence. You just do unfounded assertions and fallacious arguments.
But no proof that this mind is your God.
The Bible is the proof
@@ndibunwapeter9013No that's the source of the claim.
You're bad at this
@@ndibunwapeter9013 Ah, the typical "the bible is true because it says it is true". By that Christian logic, many religions are true just because they say they are. Christian's have no proof that their Triniy gods(whom they borrowed from other religions) are the god that created the world. Do yourself a favor and think for yourself, although I know that is very difficult for you to do.
@@Watcher_of_the_Heavens But it's true.
@@ndibunwapeter9013 Then every religion that makes a truth statement is also true.
God takes me to His realm & shows me His ocean & then He uses both of His hands to scoop the auric light from His mid section & He casts the ball of auric light into His ocean & it instantly expands into a universe. God creates one universe after another & then takes me to walk on the new earths & demonstrates how to control time & space by working with the different wavelengths of the light spectrum that the universes & their dimensions are made from.
The universes are suspended in God's ocean like holograms & Genesis describes how God was with an ocean & created light & then created the universe in His ocean & it remained in His ocean when He was finished. So Genesis is describing the creation of a hologram made from God's light in His ocean.
God makes me swim through His ocean to our own earth & walk ashore & many times God manifests & takes hold of me & pulls me out of the holographic energy the world is made from & I instantly find myself beneath the waters of God's ocean which is a thick sweet heavy water that tastes like incense .
God's ocean is filled with many creatures & some of them wrap their tentacles around me when I am in their waters. God shows me how life from His own ocean can pass through into the earths oceans & adapt to live on earth.
And so the universe did come from a central big bang & that was a ball of God's auric light that He cast into His ocean. And all life did come from the oceans but it came through first from God's ocean which our universe is suspended in. So scientists are correct that the universe was created by a big bang & all life came from the oceans, but they don't have all the information yet.
#1 Seems a false dichotomy. There could be myriad other reasons that we don't currently know of. Dr. Craig's assertion that the cause of the universe cannot be scientific does not seem based on any evidence or reason.
#2 The Kalam cosmological argument does not arrive at a "timeless, spaceless, immaterial being"; it just concludes that there must be "something" without any logical conclusions as to the characteristics of that "something". Dr. Craig's personal addition to the Kalam is his own invention and is basically just him asserting his personal preferences. For example, it doesn't follow that the "something" from the Kalam must be "timeless" just because time is a property of our universe. "Time" as we know it could just be the expression, or a subset, of a different quality that extends to the "something" that caused our universe.
The examples Dr. Craig gives that he imagines could fulfill his made up criteria, a number or a disembodied mind, do not qualify as both are examples of things that as far as we know depend on our universe for their existence, and Dr. Craig was looking for something that would not depend on our universe for its existence. If his imagination falls short to adequately describe the Kalam's "something", then he should be honest about that, remain agnostic as to the characteristics of that "something", and refrain from presenting his opinions as if they were anything more than mere speculation.
#3 This seems to be an argument from incredulity. Why would it matter what Dr. Craig can or cannot imagine? And why does he presume the cause was permanent? We have no evidence that it is, or, in the absence of time as we know it, what that would even mean. On top of that, I don't see any problem in imagining a permanent cause that only occasionally burps up a universe.
A PhD in philosophy and the guy casually throws out arguments from ignorance and misrepresents science. A freshman philosophy student could poke holes in this reasoning.
I guess you are also a phd in philosophy qualified enough to teach WLC?, if you are, we want to see you debate him. If you aren't, just shut up and listen. The reason he teaches philosophy and has a post doctoral degree in it is literally because he is an expert. But you hide behind the internet and type rubbish because you are not courageous enough. Just shut up. If you meet WLC, correct him, let's see.
Seriously, this is well explained. What is thew error in his argument?
Somebody can have a PhD and still be wrong. Dr Craig's mental gymnastics are obvious to anybody who is not simply trying to reach the conclusion he has set out to reach.
@@philb4462 Yes! Someone can have a phd and be wrong, no one disagrees, but that's an excuse people give when they just want to ignore expertise; yeah! I can also say that about Dawkins and his colleagues and ignore their expertise because somehow in your opinion expertise is irrelevant when you just don't agree with the expert, but I don't because it is not proper. I don't have the experience to evaluate their expertise or criticize it at this point.
MY POINT HERE IS THAT IT IS ONLY PROPER TO HONOR OR RESPECT SOMEONE'S EXPERTISE OR INTELLECTUAL ACHIEVEMENTS ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE NOT IN THE POSITION TO CRITICIZE. IF YOU ARE IN THE POSITION, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU DEBATE HIM.
There's no mental gymnastics other than the one you seem to be seeing here. The arguments were very clear and easy to test and track.
@@michaeltamajong2988 Are his arguments easy to test, as you say? He says "Causal explanations can either be scientific or personal". He presents this as a dichotomy. Leaving aside that I'm not sure what he means by that and why a personal cause isn't scientific, how do you test that the only causes of the universe *could be* scientific or personal? In an origin state of the universe where there is no time and no space, how do you go about testing firstly that there are only two options and secondly that he has eliminated all scientific options in that circumstance so he can rule them out and conclude it must therefore be personal? What do you think the test is for that?
Here's a problem I have with Dr Craig. He has a conclusion he wants to reach. He doesn't follow the evidence where it to leads. He knows where he wants to end up and he comes up with things that to some people sound like he is going from evidence to conclusion, but he's not. In order to get to his conclusion, he freely uses logical fallacies. He cherry-picks to high Heaven. He is very dishonest. I can see him doing it and I'm not ashamed to call him out for it. He is not doing honest philosophy. He's doing evangelism. I don't care if he has a PhD. If I can see him blatantly using fallacious arguments and dressing up unfounded hypotheses and calling them compelling evidence, I'm going to say so. If I can back up what I'm saying then I see no reason why I shouldn't.
0:20 why not? There could be an entire world of natural laws behind whatever existed (and perhaps still exists) prior to our universe. This wouldn't have to rule out a God, either.
Listen to yourself. Natural physical laws existed prior to the universe? How??? If so, how would you ever scientifically prove it?
Sure. Maybe there was some other universe that gave birth to ours. I'm saying maybe. Not "definitely".
How would we prove it? Don't know.
We are talking about the Supernatural. Why should "natural laws" need to apply?
@@bassmanjr100 Exactly, how could anything, even a god, exist before time itself
I think WLC would agree that another entire world of natural laws behind our current universe could have existed. But that doesn’t have any impact on the discussion. All you’re doing at that point is moving the first cause back to the beginning of the world of natural laws behind our universe. And if there’s another world of natural laws behind that one, then the first cause question would just move back to the beginning of that world, and so on. It doesn’t matter how many layers of natural cause there are. The question is, what is the first cause of everything that has ever existed?
To anybody here who rejects the Big Bang Theory, I would be curious to know why, if you are willing to share
Given the way they talk about it, I doubt any have actually read it, or even listened to an explanation of it from someone who has. May have heard it, but definitely have not listened.
The 'Big Bang Theory' and the cosmological argument are both irrelevant in my daily life. I have studied neither. What I have studied is how to pull weeds out from between my leeks and onions. I have studied enough about both electrical wiring and plumbing gas appliances so that I haven't had a big bang.
@@harryfaber "The 'Big Bang Theory' and the cosmological argument are both irrelevant in my daily life. I have studied neither."
Neither played a factor in your finding your faith?
The Big bang theory makes no sense, it's just a theory with a bunch of assumptions.
@@ndibunwapeter9013 How so?What do you believe it is assuming?
So first you start off with the assumption that something created the universe from nothing, then:
1. Insert a false dichotomy, a immediately disregard the option that you don't like.
2. Give the definition of nothing, then claim that minds can exist without bodies.
3. A straight out god of the gaps.
How do you think the universe began?
@@ndibunwapeter9013
Given that as far as we can tell, the energy in the universe can not be created or destroyed I don't believe that the universe did begin.
If you are asking what set off the big bang, I don't know.
@@somerandom3247 I don't understand, do you believe the universe is eternal or had a beginning?
@@ndibunwapeter9013
As far as we can tell, the energy of the universe is eternal.
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
@@somerandom3247 who's this 'we' and that statement is false.
Go look up the meaning of eternal, before you start making up baseless claims.
We used to wonder how turtles all the way down, and search for for the first un-supported or self-surpported turtle. But it's turned out to be theres no need for them, not even one. Because all foating in space? Not exactly but constantly free falling to each other. Oh and, there's no up nor doen in space.
An uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being who is responsible for the universe.
What is interesting is that calling something spaceless and immaterial is redundant because only matter/material can take up space. Immaterial is the opposite of material. Immaterial is also known as the spirit in philosophy terms. The reason I am bringing up these terms is because we are actually talking about the Mind-Body problem.
What is the Mind-Body problem?
1) The body is material AKA matter
2) The mind is immaterial AKA spirit
3) The body and mind interact
4) Spirit and matter do not interact
The dilemma is do we maintain premise 4 or do we reject it or do we question the other premises? The Mind-Body problem involves what is consciousness, how does the body interact with the mind, how do they cause each other and what about qualia?
Where the Mind-Body problem intersects with Christianity is the fact that we need to prove that the spirit does exist and that the spirit does have causal powers hence proving a type of Cartesian Dualism since we are invoking God in our explanations.
A lot of philosophers and scientists contend with our teleological argument because we do not have a good answer to the Mind-Body problem because we are invoking God who is immaterial and hence how does immaterial things have any causal powers on things that are material?
For me it makes sense to believe in God but the problem is that we do not have enough Christians in academics to clear up the misunderstandings in our science and philosophy that is consistent with our theology. Clearing up the Mind-Body problem would make some ground for the teleological argument.
We don't need to prove that the spirit exists, we can AT MOST believe that it exists. In the same way that we believe that WORK (in physics) is the result of ENERGY. Work is proof that energy exists, otherwise there would be no work possible. Creation is proof that a creator exists, otherwise there would be no creation. Energy can never be proven in absence of the work that carries it and has produced it, neither a creator can be proven in absence of his creation that carries him and owes its existance to. Energy is immaterial, and it is defined only in connection to the work it is producing. Work is proof of energy the same way as the creation is proof of a creator. The Creator is immaterial the same as energy is, and as such it can never be proven in isolation of his creation. Creation is proof of a Creator. So this immateriality called spirit will never be proven, it can at most be believed in based on analogies such as the above. That's why God can only be believed in, never fully known or fully understood. But we can become more like him in character. To do that we need to follow Jesus, as He is God's character that can be emulated by humanity.
We need no Christian Academics to clear up anything. We need them not existing as they will complicate something that in effect is very simple: that creation is proof of God. Academics rarely produce simplifications to anything. Knowledge and understabding of God should never be elitist, but simple for all to understand. As such this is not the domain of Academics, and I hope and pray that it will never be.
God cannot be fully known. The closest thing to God was Jesus. If we want to get to God, then the closest we can ever get to something that can never be fully understood is to emulate Jesus. Even Jesus doesn't know God fully, and he admits it. Jesus rightfully says that the way to God is only through him, as there is no other human that was closer to God than Him. So "follow Jesus" is what those who want to know God more, should do.
A mind, or a spirit has casual power over the material. The mind/spirit creates the material in the same way as ENERGY (in physics) creates WORK, which points to materiality. Einsten proved that mass is just an accumulation of energy. In the same way matteriality is just an accumulation of immateriality, or with other words "creation has been made out of nothing", or I would say out of the energy of God. But this energy of God is nothing (material) until the moment when it condenses and produces mass/matter. So before matter was, there was nothing to begin with, or there was a sea of energy and nothing material. Out of that nothing has everything material sprung into being. Everything material is an accumulation of immaterial energy. The closest God can be likened to is energy if depicted scientifically. But energy is immaterial, or it is not matter. It is that primordial energy we all carry in our material bodies everyday, so we could say that God is with us in every moment of our lives, we are never alone. His energy is what powers our body and everything that we see around us. If his energy would be withdrawn, we would all perish with no trace of ever having been. Why does God hold his energy concentrated/accumulated in matter so that matter can exist? Why is there something rather than nothing? It has to do with the principle of "giving". Beings (material or immaterial) moved by giving are benevolent and selfless, whereas those that take are seen as selfish and seeking their self interest are regarded as evil. Selflessness is always associated with Love. So why is there something rather than nothing? Because of creator's love. Everything was made out of love. Over the centuries people have equated God with Love, and it really comes as a no surprise why they have done that.
There is no need for philosophy or Academics, neither scientists, nor clearing any Mind-Body problem. The problem of God is simple: God exists, He cannot be known due to his nature, and those who want to draw near him, must follow Jesus. Jesus was the closest to God, and as such only he can show the way to draw near to God. Drawing near to God will never be possible in knowledge and in power as we can never equate God in such attributes. Even if we get all the power in the world, there is still a vast amount of power in the immateriality from which matter sprung into existence, and that power will never be at the hands of man, but continue to be in the "hands" of God. So God we can never be, but like God (in character) we can always become. We just got to Love. Only in Love we can mimic him closer and restore in us his image and likeness in which we were originally created, and which was lost beginning with the Original Sin.
@@wangxiaoming8989 Thanks for taking the time to write this. I do not disagree with your content as they are reasonable with respect to logic.
The only reason I disagree is because in my view if we are training the next generation of Christians to believe that it is always going to be impossible to prove the spirit then we are training "weak" Christians who are not going to be well versed in academics. The institutions of Universities emerged from churches and monasteries to bring together people who desires "philosophia" or the "logos" You don't need to be a Christian even scientists adopt this idea of exploring and "testing the impossible"
To go back to the spirit in my view I have to believe that spirits are either DARK MATTER OR DARK ENERGY. The reason I think about it is because those things have some kind of causal power insofar as we are able to detect their existence but we have not found a way to interact with them hence why they are respectfully dark matter and dark energy.
In Cognitive Science we want to try to get rid off the explanatory gap not just let gaps be what they are. Hence we as Christians have no reason not to try to solve the Mind-Body problem. I will say that I do not want another Galileo problem in that the Catholic Church persecuted him just because he had a view that was different from the church. This is why I am emphasizing the importance of needing more Christians in academics because of the misdeeds of the Catholic church painted all Christians to be mentally insane.
The truth is the truth and with scientific proofs you can change the entire world and that is undeniable. Notice Faith, love and hope abide but of the greatest is love but notice that 1 Corinthians 13 does not dismiss the importance of faith. Faith in God is of course the priority. Faith in the science and math that God created is also important. To have faith in the math is to have faith in the logic system God created.
Proving spirits is going to be important to dismissing the Buddhists when it comes to knowing about the mind and consciousness. Hence we do need to prove the Cartesian dualism.
Remember I only mentioned that the Mind-Body problem is related to God but it has nothing to do with proving God's existence.
There was no first cause the universe has always existed in one form or another
Craig rejects Genesis. He doesn't believe in the 6 day creation period.
That is fair, no? What reason does one have to think the universe was created in 6 days?
@@kinggenius930 What is a day?
@@harryfaberA 24 hour period
@@kinggenius930 Is that true on Mars? What is an hour? Is an hour not just a division of the approximate time it takes the earth to revolve? How long is a day on a planet that does not revolve?
@@harryfaberMental gymnastics garbage.
Can we change the other words of the bible to suit other definitions too, Harry?
How much more incoherent can we make your silly book of supernatural nonsense?