Two of my favorite apologists. We are so blessed at this time in history to have so many brilliant Christian scholars. Others include Dr. Hugh Ross, Dr. John Lennox, Dr. Gary Habermas, Dr. Sean McDowell, and I could name quite a few more. Feel free to add more to the list.
William lane Craig is a philosophical giant of our day! A lot of what he says goes over peoples heads but if you actually listen and keep up, he answers so many misunderstandings of Christian theology and beliefs. He’s honestly a genius! He definitely doesn’t get enough credit and seeing you 2 together is even more amazing! He even schooled jordan Peterson on some topics about Christianity~ their conversation was cut short but it was getting good~ they didn’t argue~ Jordan was just stuck on a particular thought~ and William lane Craig was being very patient and trying to get Jordan to see the answer
Two of my favorite apologists together! Both Frank and Bill live up to 1 Peter 3:15, by giving firm defenses of the faith, with gentleness and respect. Both illustrate the usefulness of applying all the Humanities (especially Philosophy) and Sciences (e.g., Astronomy and Physics) to discussions about Apologetics. I enjoy their winsome, non-arrogant approach, and especially think Frank's sense of humor is a natural magnet to the agnostic mind! Thanks for this fine conversation fellows!
For non-Christians musing the comments, I want to hear from you. I have a several questions below that I would like to hear your thoughts on. 1) What is your current understanding of Christianity? (Content, not cultural or societal impact). 2) Based on what you understand, have heard, or observed in Christians, would you consider happiness/joy to be a foundational part of Christianity? 3) Would you consider being a ‘good’ person different from being a joyful person? Same? 4) Think about all the desires that make you happy/joyful (i.e. eating food, sex, walking a dog, how you treat a friend, how you treat an enemy, anything). Would you say those desires align with truth, or some objective standard of goodness? Or is it preferential? Somewhere in between? 5) Have you ever had a moment where you resisted a desire because it conflicted with your conscience (i.e. what you believe to be true and good)? 6) Is a waterfall glistening in a sunset an objectively beautiful thing, or subjective?
Just on the last part of the discussion in regards to mathematics in the universe and therefore mathematics is considered the universal language This reminded me of Pslam 19 The heavens declare the glory of God and the sky above proclaim his handiwork Day to day pours out SPEECH and night to night reveals knowledge There is no SPEECH nor are there words whose voice is not heard
Always glad to see how sound and precise Bill is regarding the KCA. I just feel sorry for the narrow-minded people who can't see the great truths he blessed us with.
The truth is that we exist in a natural universe and not a magical one. An argument from ignorance and incredulity doesn't prove that magical entities in other dimensions exist.
@@TheTruthKiwi most likely again... either you know or you dont. Make a claim of certainty. Nature did not create itself from nothing. Im 100% certain. Its self refuting, since truth is absolute. Its like you believing that no one can know anything for certain...
Had a thought about why, exactly, theoreticians would rather not attribute the connection of math with physical reality to divine involvement. Maybe they believe the inner drive they need to advance their work would be evaporated by such a realization. Ayn Rand says all advancement in any field is driven by ego: This is my work. These are my discoveries and my accomplishments. These build my confidence in and belief in myself. It is my work that makes me more me. Rand was of course a stone cold materialists. (Or so she claimed. In her novels she recourses to the immaterial for purposes of metaphorical imagery.) Could a cosmologist continue seeking without an egoistic impulse? Would acknowledging the Creator evaporate personal drive? I think it might for some. However the reverse was true for Newton and other greats of the past. By doing their work, Newton and his ilk claimed not to seeking a greater image of themselves for themselves; they were very publicly and explicitly seeking a clearer understanding of God.
The reason that most theorists don't believe that the laws of nature had a "divine origin" is that it's completely unnecessary. For example, take Maxwell's equations. They describe the behavior of the electromagnetic field and the *laws* of classical electromagnetism, but Maxwell also *derived them mathematically* and published his derivations in the 1860s along with the theory itself. Another example is Noether's theorem, which proves that Conservation laws (such as conservation of mass, momentum, etc) are due to what's called a "continuous symmetry" of the system in question. In short, if you can logically prove that something (such as the laws of nature) *must* be the way that it is, then it obviously didn't have a supernatural origin. Anyone with an even reasonable understanding of math and physics will understand that suggesting that the laws of nature had a divine/supernatural origin is absolutely silly.
@@AHHHHHHHH-476 You cannot prove, and no claims to have proven, that the laws of nature must be what they are. On the contrary, the thing that makes the fine tuning argument compelling is the very fact that the laws need not be what they are. You should actually watch the above video.
Why focus on multiverse as a counter-argument may be life will also exists with different fine tuning may be not on earth but somewhere else and totally different i don't see the problem. Every combinations if constants provided that their exists is fine tune (by definition of their existence)
Out of the possible worlds, the proportion that wouldn’t already have ripped apart or collapsed is like a fly speck on a barn door. That’s just a start. For a fuller understanding, you should read Return of the God Hypothesis by Stephen Meyer. The odds against a life-compatible universe make “astronomical odds” look like a freckle on a flea’s leg in comparison.
The title of the video is "Who created and fine tuned the universe? with Dr William Lane Craig". So they used the question begging fallacy in the title. I'm not shocked though.
Ur obviously not listening. The idea here is that the universe has a cause, per kalam. So asking what is the nature of that cause doesn't beg the question at all. It would have been a question begging fallacy had they assumed without reason or sound argumentation that the universe has a cause. But clearly that wasn't the case.
@domssabado9588 What?! Uh no, it's a begging the question fallacy as the title clearly says "WHO created and FINE TUNED the universe? with Dr William Lane Craig". The title presupposes both agency and that the universe is actually fine tuned. Beyond that, the premise that the universe had a cause is not sound. So they are actually are "assuming without reason or sound argumentation" that the universe had a cause. The Kalam cosmological argument is flawed; it is neither sound nor valid as a syllogistic argument. Perhaps it you who are not listening.
If there's a multi verse that in one of the infinite universes there's a God that in all of those universes that God exists. We believe that the existence of a spiritual realm not a multi verse but it is a separate realm of existence.
Seeing this video includes 2 Christians, posted to a Christian UA-cam channel that has a Christian audience that believes in the Christian god, makes me wonder whats point in even asking the question because you already believe you have the answer
@@TheTruthKiwi “their superstition and woo woo”…come on, there’s a better way to respectfully say things if you are only interested in truth. You reveal too much. Like I say you sound hurt.
@@TheTruthKiwi yes, agreed. I was wondering if such is the case why is Frank Turek interviewing him as an authority of biblical scholarship. I'm very surprised with Frank
Since nobody here bothered to say it, when it comes to Genesis the reason people have a problem with Craig is because he doesent hold a young earth view, and he also views genesis 1-12 as mytho history - which is an unfortunate term because it doesent mean what you think it means. So no, he believes the God of the Bible created the world, however he doesent believe that the genesis account of creation was supposed to be taken hyper literally, and that genesis doesent force us to commit to very many things. He takes his approach because for many people modern science is a huge stumbling block for many people, WLC attempts to harmonize the two. Quite successfully I would say.
scuse me you kick right off with claiming physical eternal nature. No citation of why. 2nd law of TD says either something pumped up PE or just outright created it. matter is harmonically bound em energy so God possessed or created that energy. We only understand some about it all; not even what it is really.
John 1;1 in the beginning was the word....words provide information ..information creates ..information comes from a mind...what other explanation could there be?
The universe and life most likely originated naturally and wasn't poofed into existence by some omnipotent entity from another dimension. Pretty much every isolated civilisation on earth has made up its own myths and legends regarding origins. It is human nature to make stuff up when we don't have all the facts.
@@TheTruthKiwi *Most likely* doesn't prove or verify your claim does it? Do you even realize the absurdity of what you're saying? You're saying the universe was *most likely poofed* into existence *naturally* rather then being *poofed* into existence by a Creator.
@@T0Mmichael1234 Things originate naturally every day and nothing supernatural has ever been shown or proven to exist whatsoever. Out of the nearly 8 billion people on this planet and the millions that have gone before NOT ONE PERSON knows exactly what existed or occurred prior to the Big Bang or the Planck Epoch to be more specific. If anyone claims that they do know then they are deluded or are being dishonest, probably both.
Hey! It's "Low Bar" Bill Craig! Is he explaining again how he will disregard evidence as long as he is convinced "in his heart" that the Holy Spirit has told him the truth?
@@TheTruthKiwi I don't think they are insincere, though. I know people like them, and they can be completely convinced of their religious truth and completely oblivious to the fact that even though they might *_feel_* it is true, that does not actually mean it *_is_* true. What worries me is when people like Dr. Turek are trying to get their kids involved in their ministry. Only rarely does that turn out well.
@Justin Gary You said: _"NAH you're just being honest that you being unconvinced is enough for everyone else to be unconvinced."_ No, the point is that the available evidence does not meet the standard to be regarded as sufficient or appropriate. If it were, we could not be having this disagreement. You said: _"AMEN brothers and sisters in Christ our Lord and God bless brother Frank Turek's and Cross Examined ministry's Apologetics ministry... etc. etc."_ I say: Spam.
@@therick363 Wow, so ignorant. Do you believe the universe had a beginning? If so, you also believe there is an uncaused first cause of the universe. Any other answer doesn't work. So what are you on about? SMH
@@benitaalmond3991 The puddle and hole came from Phooey Poppycock, Prince of the Purple Pixies. And I have exactly as much credible evidence for that assertion as Christians have that this 'God' they worship created and fine-tuned the universe. But you'll disagree nonetheless. It is call 'faith' afterall.
@@Theo_Skeptomai You believe that something can come from nothing and a frog can turn into a prince - you believe in more magic than I do and you need a lot more FAITH!
@@therick363 I keep being asked for evidence that God exists and created the universe, so I'm thinking turn about is only fair. Provide evidence for the materialists view.
@@stevenwiederholt7000 well I was asking you a question to make sure I understood what you were asking. The point os those who make the claim need to provide evidence for it don’t they? Also, where did I say I’m a materialist? Naturalist sure, but that didn’t automatically make me a materialist. But if you want some evidence-all we observe, measure, record and find are natural causes, events, effects and reasons and explanations for things. So it seems very likely there is a natural explanation for the universe.
Really?!? Please explain the methodology you employed to reach this conclusion. Time to dodge this straightforward request by presenting some red herring response and putting your fingers in your ears, throwing a tantrum, quoting scripture, proselytizing again, before cowering away rather than simply responding directly to this request.
@@Kltarver What do any of those items have to do with your methodology of determining this Jesus knows? Have YOU determined that the universe was created and fine-tuned?
In light of the mountain of evidence for the resurrection, it would take faaaaar more faith to maintain one's atheism. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
Yeah that huge mountain of evidence. I will be in the front row applauding when you get your Nobel Prize after your peer reviewed findings are critiqued and accepted.
I'm grateful to God and thankful to Mrs Olivia Renae Marks trading services, Their services are very genius and experienced in the market for over a decade and counting, they changed my life from a poor plumber to a better and middle class family man with 2kids.
You can't add numbers together and get to infinity Frank and Bill. In the same way you can't subtract years from infinity and get back to the beginning. I know you both understand this. And yet you still keep making this argument as if infinity was a number. As a philosopher, you have to understand this Bill. So you're either being misleading, or dishonest. Take you pick...
I don’t think you understand what he’s saying. In fact, what you said is in agreement with what he said. Namely, an infinitely old universe is impossible because traversing from a infinitely distant past to this point in time is impossible. Infinity cannot exist in reality. He explains the math in detail in his works (e.g., his book Reasonable Faith and his lectures Defenders Class). As a retired aerospace engineer, I can verify his math. He (Craig) knows what he’s talking about.
@@nickbrasing8786 Context. When we say God is infinite, we usually use ‘infinite’ as a colloquialism. We do the same thing when we say the universe is infinite, even though it isn’t. From where we are, and within the bounds of our reach, as a mathematical approximation, we ca treat both as if they are infinite. Another aspect is that the clause “God is infinite” does not state which attributes are infinite and whether you’re talking about within space-time or within God’s native, timeless existence. When people want to be precise, they use terms such as omniscience, omnipotence, and everlasting. When you explore each branch of the subject, you find a lot of debates that we will never be able to have certainty about because our frame of reference is too limited. There are additional distinctions in the answer to your question that would take an entire lecture to spell out. (And Dr Craig has answered it in detail in his books and lectures.) I hope you’re not going to insist on a bumper sticker answer when the answer requires nuance.
@@ricksonora6656 Oh I completely agree it's a complicated answer and requires nuance. 100% agree. Just like infinity. And other than the "omni" characteristics assigned to God, I don't know why you can't apply everything you said to the cosmos itself. Otherwise how is this just not a case of special pleading? Things can apply to God but not the universe? And as you no doubt know, saying things like "God’s native, timeless existence" are itself problematic. Isn't existence temporal? What does it mean to exist for zero seconds? How is this not the same issue as "what came before the big bang, when time began existing in our universe"? Asking what came "before" time is just a problematic question. Just like "existing" outside of time. Now we're into philosophy and not math or science. To me, we each have to come down to one brute fact. To you (I presume) is that God has always existed (a kind of infinity), and to me energy has always existed (a kind of infinity). But I can easily demonstrate that energy exists. You can't do the same for God. And discussion about "fine tuning" and "the impossibility of infinity" (which kind of seems to apply to the universe but not God) doesn't provide the level of evidence that turning on my stove does. Context. So I just wait. And not for a bumper sticker. I actually do look into this and understand it to the best of my ability. On both the science and theology side of the argument. One is just more compelling to me.
Atheist claim atheism is just a "lack of belief" so atheism has nothing to do with "lack of evidence" it just a personal opinion. If the individual atheist in nor convinced by the evidence that doesn't mean the evidence is not valid.
Completely wrong. A-bigfootism would be a lack of belief in Bigfoot. And it has everything to do with the lack of evidence. Even though there is far more evidence for Bigfoot than there is Jesus being god.
BS. I was the one that corrected YOU on this very point when I expressed to you that my position of atheism is not based on a lack of _belief,_ but on a lack of _evidence._ And now you're going to adopt my point snd twist it to your ridiculous narrative. You will stop at nothing. BTW, this is your cue to deny everything and protest "I haven't any idea what you're talking about".
Evidence that is concocted from fallacious argument is NOT valid. And evidence that is not introduced n the first place cannot even be _considered_ to be valid, can it? So, for the umpteenth time, please dodge the following straightforward question: Are you aware of ANY _evidentiary facts or sound argument that demonstrates_ this god of your devotion is a reality? YES or NO.
I remember Jehovah’s witnesses at my door when I was about 11 years old reading from their bible and assuming everything it said was true. They seemed completely brainwashed and I couldn’t understand why they would just assume what was in their bible was true.
Please note they never use the words evidence or facts it is all philosophical warm wind and therefore it is called ARGUMENT. “What are the 5 cosmological ARGUMENTS? The arguments are often named as follows:” “(1) argument from motion, (2) argument from an efficient cause, (3) argument from necessary being, (4) argument from gradations of goodness, (5) argument from design.”
If one proposes the universe happened by accident, as naturalists do, that one looks for evidence of such (good luck with that:). If on the other hand one proposes it was designed by a necessary being then one looks for evidence of design i.e. the cosmological fine tuning which even the materialist admit exists.
@@williamrice3052 Have you heard of Douglas Adams' puddle analogy? If not I recommend looking it up. Also, I'm pretty sure the big bang was a natural occurrence. Where's the evidence of any gods causing it? Also, how do you know that the universe isn't in a natural, continuous loop? Perhaps as the last universe expanded and reached maximum entropy it then collapsed into a singularity. As the singularity reached maximum density it then expanded again into our universe, and the cycle continues... That is almost infinitely more likely than an omnipotent entity from another dimension magically poofing everything into existence from nothing.
@@williamrice3052 William Rice: “necessary being then one looks for evidence of design” Do you never logically think about and analysed what you are saying? According to Genesis, Christians, and the Bible the UNIVERSE is earth surrounded by a dome with little lights. The moon, an object to provide light by night. According to the chronology in the Bible earth and the UNIVERSE is about 6 500 years old.
If God is immaterial who exactly is seated in the Throne of Heaven in Daniel 7:13-14, Acts 7:55 and Revelation 5:1 and 7. An immaterial God would of necessity be an impersonal God. That line of thinking makes God impersonal and impossible to have a relationship with. That's not the God of the Bible.
@@theairsoftcorps I can tell you really looked at the quoted scripture. Guess what? After you die you will be a spirit as well. Again because you either thought you were to smart to read at the quotes or to lazy to do so who is seated on the Throne of Heaven in the above quoted scripture? Did the Holy Spirit cause all those men to lie about what they witnessed? Please bless me with all your amazing knowledge that I'm sure you think is above everyone else's.
@@theairsoftcorps also since you must be a spirit to worship God do you turn into some ethereal being when you worship God? It might do you some good to understand the spiritual context of most scripture instead of thinking every word is meant literally.
Both give piss poor arguments. I’ve listened to dozens of hours of their teaching and debates. In fact, Craig even admits that even if his arguments were disproved to his intellectual satisfaction, he would still believe in Christ as savior. These two make a lot of money off of Christians. Gullibility is a wonderful and an enriching thing.
@Festus Haggen: “You have to really not want God to exist to credit all creation” You must really want god to exit, with no evidence, no proof, nothing but indoctrinated superstition and fear of the evil deity.
God did it! And, no, I'm not being sarcastic. It's obvious to everyone according to Romans 1. Everybody knows! Arguments aren't needed when the human intuition knows. Arguments may be logical and valid, but they're not needed. Took me a long time and much gradual wisdom to realize this. Just preach God's Word and let it convict people what they intuitively know and what they're suppressing in unrighteousness. It's time for Christians to put arguments as secondary and lean on God's Word that convicts the heart of what they already know.
Nothing "created" anything... all is a thought in the the imagination of the Mind of God. Reality has been PROVEN to be nonlocal, so matter has no stand alone existence. Period. Try reading something OUTSIDE of the Christian echo chamber and discover that reality is SO MUCH MORE BEAUTIFUL! I'm not an atheist, I'm a nondualist. All is One. All is God. We are all dissociated perspectives of that One Consciousness. So... of course things add up in the universe to appear like fine tuning, same as a dream in your mind at night seems reasonable till you wake up. ⏰️
Two of my favorite apologists. We are so blessed at this time in history to have so many brilliant Christian scholars. Others include Dr. Hugh Ross, Dr. John Lennox, Dr. Gary Habermas, Dr. Sean McDowell, and I could name quite a few more. Feel free to add more to the list.
@PIXELGAMING2468 He’s not laughing that they’re dead (I hope). He’s laughing at comparing them to the likes of Dr Craig.
Ed fesser
Two of my favorite brethren in Yeshua! Praise Father God Almighty for these amazing men! Shalom from Ecuador 🇪🇨
Thanks for all you do for Christianity and apologetics. I pray for continued strength and wisdom for you both and those that help you.
William lane Craig is a philosophical giant of our day! A lot of what he says goes over peoples heads but if you actually listen and keep up, he answers so many misunderstandings of Christian theology and beliefs. He’s honestly a genius! He definitely doesn’t get enough credit and seeing you 2 together is even more amazing! He even schooled jordan Peterson on some topics about Christianity~ their conversation was cut short but it was getting good~ they didn’t argue~ Jordan was just stuck on a particular thought~ and William lane Craig was being very patient and trying to get Jordan to see the answer
Thanks for sharing, it is wonderful to see you both here interacting and providing all this thoughts. God bless you, keep up the good work.
Two of my favorite apologists together! Both Frank and Bill live up to 1 Peter 3:15, by giving firm defenses of the faith, with gentleness and respect. Both illustrate the usefulness of applying all the Humanities (especially Philosophy) and Sciences (e.g., Astronomy and Physics) to discussions about Apologetics. I enjoy their winsome, non-arrogant approach, and especially think Frank's sense of humor is a natural magnet to the agnostic mind! Thanks for this fine conversation fellows!
Far better listening to this than to the politicians.
For non-Christians musing the comments, I want to hear from you. I have a several questions below that I would like to hear your thoughts on.
1) What is your current understanding of Christianity? (Content, not cultural or societal impact).
2) Based on what you understand, have heard, or observed in Christians, would you consider happiness/joy to be a foundational part of Christianity?
3) Would you consider being a ‘good’ person different from being a joyful person? Same?
4) Think about all the desires that make you happy/joyful (i.e. eating food, sex, walking a dog, how you treat a friend, how you treat an enemy, anything). Would you say those desires align with truth, or some objective standard of goodness? Or is it preferential? Somewhere in between?
5) Have you ever had a moment where you resisted a desire because it conflicted with your conscience (i.e. what you believe to be true and good)?
6) Is a waterfall glistening in a sunset an objectively beautiful thing, or subjective?
HEY MAN! You interview Low Bar Bill!
My two favs
Just on the last part of the discussion in regards to mathematics in the universe and therefore mathematics is considered the universal language
This reminded me of Pslam 19
The heavens declare the glory of God and the sky above proclaim his handiwork
Day to day pours out SPEECH and night to night reveals knowledge
There is no SPEECH nor are there words whose voice is not heard
Two of my favorite Christian apologists :)
Always glad to see how sound and precise Bill is regarding the KCA. I just feel sorry for the narrow-minded people who can't see the great truths he blessed us with.
The truth is that we exist in a natural universe and not a magical one. An argument from ignorance and incredulity doesn't prove that magical entities in other dimensions exist.
@@TheTruthKiwi thats exactly the narrow minded type of statement he would be referring to.
@@teddyrascal6305 If only being interested in what is most likely to be true is "narrow minded" then I guess you're right.
@@TheTruthKiwi most likely again... either you know or you dont. Make a claim of certainty. Nature did not create itself from nothing. Im 100% certain. Its self refuting, since truth is absolute. Its like you believing that no one can know anything for certain...
So if I don’t agree with bill on the KCA…I’m narrow minded?
I love both of them.
great interview
I love how he calls him, Bill.
Will?
JESUS CHRIST IS OUR LORD AND SAVIOR,……….THE ONLY DOOR TO OUR HEAVENLY FATHER,………. AMEN TO THAT ❤
Nah, Zeus and Thor are way cooler. 😎
There is only one God and every knee will bow and every tongue confess ......
Amen.
Brilliant!
Love and respect both of these two men and what they're doing for the Kingdom.
Is that Chiefs' Kingdom?!!!! How bout them Chiefs!!!!
@@markb3786 Go Chiefs! Red Kingdom!!
Excellent!
Still waiting for the definition and proof of the supernatural.
GOD BLESS!
Great; the God of the gaps argument again
@@repelsteeltje310 YEAH, REPENT! GOD'S JUDGEMENT AND WRATH IS COMING.
Had a thought about why, exactly, theoreticians would rather not attribute the connection of math with physical reality to divine involvement. Maybe they believe the inner drive they need to advance their work would be evaporated by such a realization.
Ayn Rand says all advancement in any field is driven by ego: This is my work. These are my discoveries and my accomplishments. These build my confidence in and belief in myself. It is my work that makes me more me.
Rand was of course a stone cold materialists. (Or so she claimed. In her novels she recourses to the immaterial for purposes of metaphorical imagery.) Could a cosmologist continue seeking without an egoistic impulse? Would acknowledging the Creator evaporate personal drive?
I think it might for some. However the reverse was true for Newton and other greats of the past. By doing their work, Newton and his ilk claimed not to seeking a greater image of themselves for themselves; they were very publicly and explicitly seeking a clearer understanding of God.
Or maybe it's because nothing supernatural has ever been shown or proven to exist whatsoever.
@@TheTruthKiwi Did you even watch the video? Everything material that is must perforce have come from something immaterial.
So ayn rands work, by her own definition, was driven by ego... wah wah. Self refuting world view, materialism ,naturalism, easily refuted.
The reason that most theorists don't believe that the laws of nature had a "divine origin" is that it's completely unnecessary. For example, take Maxwell's equations. They describe the behavior of the electromagnetic field and the *laws* of classical electromagnetism, but Maxwell also *derived them mathematically* and published his derivations in the 1860s along with the theory itself. Another example is Noether's theorem, which proves that Conservation laws (such as conservation of mass, momentum, etc) are due to what's called a "continuous symmetry" of the system in question. In short, if you can logically prove that something (such as the laws of nature) *must* be the way that it is, then it obviously didn't have a supernatural origin. Anyone with an even reasonable understanding of math and physics will understand that suggesting that the laws of nature had a divine/supernatural origin is absolutely silly.
@@AHHHHHHHH-476 You cannot prove, and no claims to have proven, that the laws of nature must be what they are. On the contrary, the thing that makes the fine tuning argument compelling is the very fact that the laws need not be what they are.
You should actually watch the above video.
Why focus on multiverse as a counter-argument may be life will also exists with different fine tuning may be not on earth but somewhere else and totally different i don't see the problem. Every combinations if constants provided that their exists is fine tune (by definition of their existence)
Out of the possible worlds, the proportion that wouldn’t already have ripped apart or collapsed is like a fly speck on a barn door.
That’s just a start.
For a fuller understanding, you should read Return of the God Hypothesis by Stephen Meyer. The odds against a life-compatible universe make “astronomical odds” look like a freckle on a flea’s leg in comparison.
The title of the video is "Who created and fine tuned the universe? with Dr William Lane Craig".
So they used the question begging fallacy in the title. I'm not shocked though.
Exactly.
What's it Mr. Mindless Singularity or Ms. Self Existent math? Evidently not
Ur obviously not listening. The idea here is that the universe has a cause, per kalam. So asking what is the nature of that cause doesn't beg the question at all. It would have been a question begging fallacy had they assumed without reason or sound argumentation that the universe has a cause. But clearly that wasn't the case.
@domssabado9588 What?! Uh no, it's a begging the question fallacy as the title clearly says "WHO created and FINE TUNED the universe? with Dr William Lane Craig". The title presupposes both agency and that the universe is actually fine tuned. Beyond that, the premise that the universe had a cause is not sound. So they are actually are "assuming without reason or sound argumentation" that the universe had a cause. The Kalam cosmological argument is flawed; it is neither sound nor valid as a syllogistic argument. Perhaps it you who are not listening.
Ahh great the God of the gaps argument again....
Yep. Over and over and over and........
If there's a multi verse that in one of the infinite universes there's a God that in all of those universes that God exists.
We believe that the existence of a spiritual realm not a multi verse but it is a separate realm of existence.
Seeing this video includes 2 Christians, posted to a Christian UA-cam channel that has a Christian audience that believes in the Christian god, makes me wonder whats point in even asking the question because you already believe you have the answer
Very true man. They need to keep reassuring themselves though just in case one happens to realise how absurd their superstition and woo woo is.
To expand upon the answer
@@TheTruthKiwi you sound hurt
@@charlescarter2072 Nope. I'm only interested in what is most likely to be true that's all.
@@TheTruthKiwi “their superstition and woo woo”…come on, there’s a better way to respectfully say things if you are only interested in truth. You reveal too much. Like I say you sound hurt.
Doesn't William Craig believe that creation may have not been created by the word of God as stated in Genesis?
I'm sure he believes a lot of things whenever it suits him.
He believes the finite beginning of the the universe was caused by the God of the Bible and none other
@@williamrice3052 He can believe what he wants, that doesn't mean that he's right.
@@TheTruthKiwi yes, agreed. I was wondering if such is the case why is Frank Turek interviewing him as an authority of biblical scholarship. I'm very surprised with Frank
Since nobody here bothered to say it, when it comes to Genesis the reason people have a problem with Craig is because he doesent hold a young earth view, and he also views genesis 1-12 as mytho history - which is an unfortunate term because it doesent mean what you think it means.
So no, he believes the God of the Bible created the world, however he doesent believe that the genesis account of creation was supposed to be taken hyper literally, and that genesis doesent force us to commit to very many things.
He takes his approach because for many people modern science is a huge stumbling block for many people, WLC attempts to harmonize the two. Quite successfully I would say.
scuse me you kick right off with claiming physical eternal nature. No citation of why. 2nd law of TD says either something pumped up PE or just outright created it. matter is harmonically bound em energy so God possessed or created that energy. We only understand some about it all; not even what it is really.
John 1;1 in the beginning was the word....words provide information ..information creates ..information comes from a mind...what other explanation could there be?
The universe and life most likely originated naturally and wasn't poofed into existence by some omnipotent entity from another dimension.
Pretty much every isolated civilisation on earth has made up its own myths and legends regarding origins. It is human nature to make stuff up when we don't have all the facts.
Whoever responded to my comment it did not post
@@TheTruthKiwi
*Most likely* doesn't prove or verify your claim does it?
Do you even realize the absurdity of what you're saying? You're saying the universe was *most likely poofed* into existence *naturally* rather then being *poofed* into existence by a Creator.
@@T0Mmichael1234 the universe creating itself does not seem like a rational explaination. I envy thier faith
@@T0Mmichael1234 Things originate naturally every day and nothing supernatural has ever been shown or proven to exist whatsoever.
Out of the nearly 8 billion people on this planet and the millions that have gone before NOT ONE PERSON knows exactly what existed or occurred prior to the Big Bang or the Planck Epoch to be more specific. If anyone claims that they do know then they are deluded or are being dishonest, probably both.
Lanes thumb giving me anxiety
Hey! It's "Low Bar" Bill Craig! Is he explaining again how he will disregard evidence as long as he is convinced "in his heart" that the Holy Spirit has told him the truth?
Very low bar. The sad thing is that they are proud of it and live to delude others.
@@TheTruthKiwi I don't think they are insincere, though. I know people like them, and they can be completely convinced of their religious truth and completely oblivious to the fact that even though they might *_feel_* it is true, that does not actually mean it *_is_* true. What worries me is when people like Dr. Turek are trying to get their kids involved in their ministry. Only rarely does that turn out well.
@@hansdemos6510 Absolutely. I'm sure you're right man and yes, indoctrinating any children is akin to child abuse imo.
@Justin Gary You said: _"NAH you're just being honest that you being unconvinced is enough for everyone else to be unconvinced."_
No, the point is that the available evidence does not meet the standard to be regarded as sufficient or appropriate. If it were, we could not be having this disagreement.
You said: _"AMEN brothers and sisters in Christ our Lord and God bless brother Frank Turek's and Cross Examined ministry's Apologetics ministry... etc. etc."_
I say: Spam.
@@hansdemos6510 try having a personal relationship with Jesus . See what happens. Serious suggestion…not spam.
Way to go WLC! You managed to ammend the Kalam Cosmological Argument from simply being unsound to being utterly ridiculous.
Ha! - Not really though even naturalists accept the notion of cause and effect.
@@williamrice3052 Ha! - Even the Erode District in Tamil Nadu consists mostly of the Gobichettipalyam Assembly as an accepted constituency.
@@williamrice3052 so what about cause and effect? No one that has used the KCA has ever shown an uncaused first cause
@@therick363 Wow, so ignorant. Do you believe the universe had a beginning? If so, you also believe there is an uncaused first cause of the universe. Any other answer doesn't work. So what are you on about? SMH
The Universe is fine tuned to kill us.
We are very lucky to not be in the most difficult and deadly spot in this great Universe.
Lucky or was it designed that way?
@@Notevenone designed through a filter of physics and chemistry that we had evolved from.
Meaning seems to follow afterwards.
@Donkey Kong Where did the puddle and the hole come from in the first place?
@@benitaalmond3991 The puddle and hole came from Phooey Poppycock, Prince of the Purple Pixies. And I have exactly as much credible evidence for that assertion as Christians have that this 'God' they worship created and fine-tuned the universe. But you'll disagree nonetheless. It is call 'faith' afterall.
@@Theo_Skeptomai You believe that something can come from nothing and a frog can turn into a prince - you believe in more magic than I do and you need a lot more FAITH!
It would be extremely hard to make a case for a fine-tuned universe. It seems to be just wishful thinking.
72-oz steak insights. Mind blown!
IF there is a multiverse. IF
IF there is a godS
@@therick363
Provide evidence that there isn't. (Sources Please)
@@stevenwiederholt7000 ….you want me to provide sources that there’s aren’t gods?
@@therick363
I keep being asked for evidence that God exists and created the universe, so I'm thinking turn about is only fair. Provide evidence for the materialists view.
@@stevenwiederholt7000 well I was asking you a question to make sure I understood what you were asking.
The point os those who make the claim need to provide evidence for it don’t they?
Also, where did I say I’m a materialist?
Naturalist sure, but that didn’t automatically make me a materialist. But if you want some evidence-all we observe, measure, record and find are natural causes, events, effects and reasons and explanations for things. So it seems very likely there is a natural explanation for the universe.
Uh. Jesus does.
Really?!? Please explain the methodology you employed to reach this conclusion.
Time to dodge this straightforward request by presenting some red herring response and putting your fingers in your ears, throwing a tantrum, quoting scripture, proselytizing again, before cowering away rather than simply responding directly to this request.
@@Theo_Skeptomai The universe is a live.
@@Kltarver I asked for your methodology, not meaningless drivel.
@@Theo_Skeptomai Life experience. Combat, homelessness.
@@Kltarver What do any of those items have to do with your methodology of determining this Jesus knows?
Have YOU determined that the universe was created and fine-tuned?
In light of the mountain of evidence for the resurrection, it would take faaaaar more faith to maintain one's atheism. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
Lol.. There's no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. And even if Jesus had resurrected, that wouldn't prove the existence of any god.
Ha ha ha mountain of evidence? No. Speculation.
It doesn’t take faith to be an atheist and only dishonest apologists say such a thing
Please present one evidentiary fact that demonstrates this Jesus or his resurrection occurred.
Yeah that huge mountain of evidence. I will be in the front row applauding when you get your Nobel Prize after your peer reviewed findings are critiqued and accepted.
Care to respond to any of the four comments before you?
$37,000 biweekly profits, Surely there is great good in serving God!!!
@mariagonzales6489 I earn from investing in the digital market with the guidance of Mrs Olivia Renae Marks Brokerage services...
Dude, I also trade with Mrs Olivia services what a coincidence!!
I'm grateful to God and thankful to Mrs Olivia Renae Marks trading services, Their services are very genius and experienced in the market for over a decade and counting, they changed my life from a poor plumber to a better and middle class family man with 2kids.
@@bettymathew5233 Hi, Is there a way I can reach her. please share her services cont. Information🙏
There is her line 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
You can't add numbers together and get to infinity Frank and Bill. In the same way you can't subtract years from infinity and get back to the beginning. I know you both understand this. And yet you still keep making this argument as if infinity was a number. As a philosopher, you have to understand this Bill. So you're either being misleading, or dishonest. Take you pick...
I don’t think you understand what he’s saying. In fact, what you said is in agreement with what he said.
Namely, an infinitely old universe is impossible because traversing from a infinitely distant past to this point in time is impossible. Infinity cannot exist in reality.
He explains the math in detail in his works (e.g., his book Reasonable Faith and his lectures Defenders Class). As a retired aerospace engineer, I can verify his math. He (Craig) knows what he’s talking about.
@@ricksonora6656 "Infinity cannot exist in reality". Then how can God be infinite?
@@ricksonora6656 well said
@@nickbrasing8786 Context. When we say God is infinite, we usually use ‘infinite’ as a colloquialism. We do the same thing when we say the universe is infinite, even though it isn’t. From where we are, and within the bounds of our reach, as a mathematical approximation, we ca treat both as if they are infinite.
Another aspect is that the clause “God is infinite” does not state which attributes are infinite and whether you’re talking about within space-time or within God’s native, timeless existence. When people want to be precise, they use terms such as omniscience, omnipotence, and everlasting. When you explore each branch of the subject, you find a lot of debates that we will never be able to have certainty about because our frame of reference is too limited.
There are additional distinctions in the answer to your question that would take an entire lecture to spell out. (And Dr Craig has answered it in detail in his books and lectures.) I hope you’re not going to insist on a bumper sticker answer when the answer requires nuance.
@@ricksonora6656 Oh I completely agree it's a complicated answer and requires nuance. 100% agree. Just like infinity. And other than the "omni" characteristics assigned to God, I don't know why you can't apply everything you said to the cosmos itself. Otherwise how is this just not a case of special pleading? Things can apply to God but not the universe?
And as you no doubt know, saying things like "God’s native, timeless existence" are itself problematic. Isn't existence temporal? What does it mean to exist for zero seconds? How is this not the same issue as "what came before the big bang, when time began existing in our universe"? Asking what came "before" time is just a problematic question. Just like "existing" outside of time. Now we're into philosophy and not math or science.
To me, we each have to come down to one brute fact. To you (I presume) is that God has always existed (a kind of infinity), and to me energy has always existed (a kind of infinity). But I can easily demonstrate that energy exists. You can't do the same for God. And discussion about "fine tuning" and "the impossibility of infinity" (which kind of seems to apply to the universe but not God) doesn't provide the level of evidence that turning on my stove does. Context.
So I just wait. And not for a bumper sticker. I actually do look into this and understand it to the best of my ability. On both the science and theology side of the argument. One is just more compelling to me.
Atheist claim atheism is just a "lack of belief" so atheism has nothing to do with "lack of evidence" it just a personal opinion. If the individual atheist in nor convinced by the evidence that doesn't mean the evidence is not valid.
Completely wrong.
A-bigfootism would be a lack of belief in Bigfoot.
And it has everything to do with the lack of evidence.
Even though there is far more evidence for Bigfoot than there is Jesus being god.
BS. I was the one that corrected YOU on this very point when I expressed to you that my position of atheism is not based on a lack of _belief,_ but on a lack of _evidence._ And now you're going to adopt my point snd twist it to your ridiculous narrative. You will stop at nothing.
BTW, this is your cue to deny everything and protest "I haven't any idea what you're talking about".
Evidence that is concocted from fallacious argument is NOT valid. And evidence that is not introduced n the first place cannot even be _considered_ to be valid, can it?
So, for the umpteenth time, please dodge the following straightforward question:
Are you aware of ANY _evidentiary facts or sound argument that demonstrates_ this god of your devotion is a reality? YES or NO.
I remember Jehovah’s witnesses at my door when I was about 11 years old reading from their bible and assuming everything it said was true.
They seemed completely brainwashed and I couldn’t understand why they would just assume what was in their bible was true.
@@Theo_Skeptomai and I can trust you about evidence instead of the apologist
Christianity's Fallacy of the Day: Begging the Question!
Isn't that every day? :p
Please note they never use the words evidence or facts it is all philosophical warm wind and therefore it is called ARGUMENT.
“What are the 5 cosmological ARGUMENTS?
The arguments are often named as follows:”
“(1) argument from motion,
(2) argument from an efficient cause,
(3) argument from necessary being,
(4) argument from gradations of goodness,
(5) argument from design.”
Yup, they love trying to define their god into existence.
If one proposes the universe happened by accident, as naturalists do, that one looks for evidence of such (good luck with that:). If on the other hand one proposes it was designed by a necessary being then one looks for evidence of design i.e. the cosmological fine tuning which even the materialist admit exists.
@@williamrice3052 Have you heard of Douglas Adams' puddle analogy? If not I recommend looking it up.
Also, I'm pretty sure the big bang was a natural occurrence. Where's the evidence of any gods causing it?
Also, how do you know that the universe isn't in a natural, continuous loop? Perhaps as the last universe expanded and reached maximum entropy it then collapsed into a singularity. As the singularity reached maximum density it then expanded again into our universe, and the cycle continues...
That is almost infinitely more likely than an omnipotent entity from another dimension magically poofing everything into existence from nothing.
@@williamrice3052 William Rice: “necessary being then one looks for evidence of design”
Do you never logically think about and analysed what you are saying?
According to Genesis, Christians, and the Bible the UNIVERSE is earth surrounded by a dome with little lights.
The moon, an object to provide light by night.
According to the chronology in the Bible earth and the UNIVERSE is about 6 500 years old.
@@williamrice3052 William, it is clear that you don’t understand the fine-tuning.
Please explain your concept of fine-tuning.
This vid has to be called:
"WHO IMAGINED AND FARTED THE UNIVERSE"
These lie spreaders are running out of people to mislead them...
The nonsense couple
If God is immaterial who exactly is seated in the Throne of Heaven in Daniel 7:13-14, Acts 7:55 and Revelation 5:1 and 7. An immaterial God would of necessity be an impersonal God. That line of thinking makes God impersonal and impossible to have a relationship with. That's not the God of the Bible.
Naw, ya just need to understand theophanies and visions. In John 4:24 Jesus confirms God is spirit.
@@theairsoftcorps I can tell you really looked at the quoted scripture. Guess what? After you die you will be a spirit as well. Again because you either thought you were to smart to read at the quotes or to lazy to do so who is seated on the Throne of Heaven in the above quoted scripture? Did the Holy Spirit cause all those men to lie about what they witnessed? Please bless me with all your amazing knowledge that I'm sure you think is above everyone else's.
@@theairsoftcorps also since you must be a spirit to worship God do you turn into some ethereal being when you worship God? It might do you some good to understand the spiritual context of most scripture instead of thinking every word is meant literally.
@@TheBluegoatman do you think your flesh is you or are you an immaterial soul with a physical body?
It’s still God. Just like the burning bush or the pillar of cloud, it’s something to help us comprehend that he’s there
Both give piss poor arguments. I’ve listened to dozens of hours of their teaching and debates. In fact, Craig even admits that even if his arguments were disproved to his intellectual satisfaction, he would still believe in Christ as savior. These two make a lot of money off of Christians. Gullibility is a wonderful and an enriching thing.
You have to really not want God to exist to credit all creation to a random mindless, purposeless, meaningless chaotic cosmic event.
Exactly
Disbelieving in God does not one commit one to the belief that random chaos created anything.
@Festus Haggen: “You have to really not want God to exist to credit all creation”
You must really want god to exit, with no evidence, no proof, nothing but indoctrinated superstition and fear of the evil deity.
@@chad969 if not to God and not to random chance/chaos, then to what do you attribute the existence and order of the physical Universe?
@@willievanstraaten1960 not quite like your superstitious disbelief.
The earth is flat, established that it shall not be moved. Fixed set on pillars with a dome firmament.
How high is the dome?
How thick?
What’s it made of?
What’s on the other side?
How did it get there?
God did it! And, no, I'm not being sarcastic. It's obvious to everyone according to Romans 1. Everybody knows! Arguments aren't needed when the human intuition knows. Arguments may be logical and valid, but they're not needed. Took me a long time and much gradual wisdom to realize this. Just preach God's Word and let it convict people what they intuitively know and what they're suppressing in unrighteousness. It's time for Christians to put arguments as secondary and lean on God's Word that convicts the heart of what they already know.
It's a good idea to have an argument ready when your intuition is different from others'.
So a book written by men….equals fact of reality?
My human intuition says there’ aren’t any gods.
@@Demiligne No. Logical arguments for Christianity don't really work. Sticking with faith and not questioning is the best approach.
These people specialise in talking nonsense and making up stories.
💯
Nothing "created" anything... all is a thought in the the imagination of the Mind of God. Reality has been PROVEN to be nonlocal, so matter has no stand alone existence. Period. Try reading something OUTSIDE of the Christian echo chamber and discover that reality is SO MUCH MORE BEAUTIFUL! I'm not an atheist, I'm a nondualist. All is One. All is God. We are all dissociated perspectives of that One Consciousness. So... of course things add up in the universe to appear like fine tuning, same as a dream in your mind at night seems reasonable till you wake up. ⏰️