"Why can't a Ham and Cheese sandwich be immaterial if I define it to be so?" Why ??? Because you cant. A ham & cheese sandwich is a ham & cheese sandwich and nothing else.
It can be many things but not immaterial, because cheese and ham are material. It can however be a plug to clog the toilet, bathtub, etc. It can be a weapon if shoved into the throat of a victim you wish to asphyxiate, it can be garbage, it can be a colony of bacteria or vermin. It can serve functions other than food for the man who makes it. It can't be immaterial though because it's made of matter, like ham and cheese.
Well I respect Dr. Begon for a couple of things: -He did address the arguments, whether I agreed with his conclusions or not, he didn't merely drag a red herring across by using dozens of soundbite arguments and not addressing the 5 arguments. So I felt this debate had a little more friction, which I appreciate. -He apologized and clearly felt guilty that he had not addressed them in his first speech and said he would have reconsidered had he known. I respect him for that and felt he was sincere. -He does admit that he is not certain about some things, and stayed humble in some areas outside his expertise. I'm a WLC fan and agree with his arguments, but I felt it was conducted with respect.
Mike Begon ignored 90% of what WLC was saying and droned on his script. This was massively apparent when around the 1:23:20 min mark he didn't rebut a single thing WLC said and started talking about how if a person believes something "without evidence" you're literally Hilter. Holy shit he is outclassed majorly. Awesome job WLC.
Actually, you are quite wrong. Contrary to Craig’s claims that his opponents must “tear down his arguments and erect a case of their own”, all his opponents actually has to do is show the flaws in the claims made. Actually, there are a number of serious flaws in Craig’s arguments that you, as a theist, are either not aware of or, if you are, are you are choosing to ignore. Mike, although not particularly philosophically literate, is quite right to point out that Craig made numerous assertions, not realising that what Mike called assertions were in fact Craig’s metaphysical inductions to a preferred conclusion, and very poorly qualified ones at that. And, of course, Craig (dishonestly in my view) allows people to leap to his preferred conclusion without seriously justifying his leap of faith. And Craig is also well known to have a penchant for inaccurate quote mining and misrepresenting his opponents arguments and objections. The real issue is that he is rarely challenged on either his intuitions or claims he makes about what god thinks or does not think. Craig is doing no more than what engineers call reverse engineering, but in this case to a preferred conclusion. And, surprise surprise, Craig reaches his preferred conclusion. This is not to take away from Craig his debating skills and ability to appear to answer every objection. However, there’s a reason why when these arguments are examined in slow time, the flaws and unjustified assumptions are brought into sharp focus. And these are the same reasons that professional philosophers do not give serious credence to Craig’s arguments. Finally there is a reason why 90% of professional philosophers are atheists and those who are not are thrusts of one stripe or another. And no this is not an either ad populum or appeal to authority fallacy. This is presenting a relevant difference. This is not to say a god does not exist, but it is to say that those arguments that are made do not cut it in terms of being defensible and able to withstand sustained critical evaluation.
Mikes argument against Craigs fourth point did not by any means prove a single thing about Craigs point wrong. There are significantly far too many documents and other letters/writings outside of Christian believers talking about the body missing, talking about how Christians were giving themselves up wholeheartedly to that belief, and many other things. There are just too many non-Christian sources that try to explain away the missing body, or reference the missing body, etc/etc... If we are to dismiss all of those documents and writings, then we have to dismiss Napoleon, Alexander the Great, and SO many other historical events. Mikes counter to Craigs fourth point is not sufficient, and must address what we do with all of the extra-biblical documents concerning Christ, the missing body, and the believers reactions.
+conman parker What writings? If I recall, the earliest non-Christian writings about Jesus were those of Tacitus, who wrote a good two centuries ater the supposed event. Also, Begon's argument was actually that a book asserting that Jesus took a post-mortem walking tour of Judea is only an assertion and is therefore insufficient.
A writing saying that Christian believed in Jesus and we're doing X... Proves Christian's believed not what they believed actually happened. All the writings and letters I've see outside of the bible do not confirm anything other than Christians existed. It would be like looking back 2000 years in the future at now... And saying well ppl wrote about ppl believing in big foot so it must have existed.
to william lane craig: if the universe couldn't come from nothin', then how could god, who's even more powerful more sophisticated more wonderful more … whatever, come from nothin'?? isn't it a silly irony that you believe that the universe couldn't come from nothin' bcoz it's so wonderful that it must have a creator called god, & yet you believe that god has no creator, even though he's more wonderful more powerful than it 2 the point of bein' able 2 "create" it??
It's very interesting how many times Mike Begon says: "I don't know" I agree with @John Watson, Begon is one of the weakest opponents of Craig, he said absolutly nothing for his case, I think he didn't even mentioned that belief in God could be just the result of wishfull thinking or just an adaption of socio-biological evolution (show me time if I am wrong). These are 2 very obvious arguments that Begon could bring to support his case. WLC instead adressed everything Begon said, he explained well why his definition of delusion is better and why Begon has to show that God is a delusion.
The reason Dr. Begon says he doesn’t know is because he’s being honest. In all reality- how can WLC actually know what he confesses to know. It’s ludicrous! It’s all just assertions and he’s really good because he’s so articulate and he dresses everything up so well. But if you really listen to what he’s saying- it’s all just BS. But Christians really like that they have someone who places everything in an organized fashion, that it seems to make sense, but most importantly- that it’s all fact; that in itself is a false idea because there’s no proof for it.
to william lane craig: if the universe couldn't come from nothin', then how could god, who's even more powerful more sophisticated more wonderful more … whatever, come from nothin'?? isn't it a silly irony that you believe that the universe couldn't come from nothin' bcoz it's so wonderful that it must have a creator called god, & yet you believe that god has no creator, even though he's more wonderful more powerful than it 2 the point of bein' able 2 "create" it??
@@soriya011"if the universe couldn't come from nothin', then how could god, who's even more powerful more sophisticated more wonderful more … whatever, come from nothin'?? " Craig doesn't believe that god came from nothing as, like every other Christian, he believes god never had a beginning of his existence in the first place. "isn't it a silly irony that you believe that the universe couldn't come from nothin' bcoz it's so wonderful that it must have a creator called god, & yet you believe that god has no creator, even though he's more wonderful more powerful than it 2 the point of bein' able 2 "create" it??" Craig never argued that the universe must've had a cause because "it's wonderful" or anything like that, either. It's because we have good evidence that the universe had a beginning, that warrants asking "What was the universe's cause?" By contrast, we've no evidence/argument that any god which might exist must've had a beginning, and it's for that reason it makes no sense to ask "Who/what caused god?" or some such.
@@Vic2point0 Correct. Sure its hard to believe and understand but the fact that the universe and we are here proves that something must have been eternal.
Begon comes here with the claim that belief in God is a delusion, yet gives no arguments whatsoever to prove this, except for a ridiculously false epistemological belief that Craig shot down within 5 minutes of his first speech.
It's funny... Cause from my point of view... Begon told you exactly what he was arguing for. It's a more scientific view of the world. Like David Hume. Craig has baited you into his tactics... Its offering what he wants to debate against as what his opponent must do. That's not exactly true... Arguing the position to a don't know so it's reasonable to with hold a belief. A because every magical answer humans have found an answer to has turned out to be not magic... Maybe we should with hold a belief... Is a reasonable position. Kalam does not get you to a personal agent because using the same logic leaning on intuition.... We have never seen a mind outside of a brain... So we cannot say a personal agent is automatically the answer. Plus it's special pleading to say that a god's physics can be eternal but the cosmos can not be. Universe does not mean cosmos... And nothing could exist but a empty void in the future but started from a thing that existed mins or billions of years......
Before out universe expanded.. a dying God that's death created the universe is possible. Again same logic as kalam... all beings die... So a mind with that possibility isn't needed. So it is an assertion that a mind is needed.
//Begon comes here with the claim that belief in God is a delusion, yet gives no arguments whatsoever to prove this// Of course he did. He proved it beyond all doubt. What on earth is the matter with you people?
Peter Metcalfe How can you prove, beyond all doubt, that a supernatural entity doesn't exist? That's as incoherent as saying a blind man can prove what Einstein looks like.
@@keithboynton He gave you a video full of evidence and where it has led him. It's funny how "scientists" will freely admit the universe looks fine tuned for life and can't give a reason why that isn't the case but will still deny it and accuse you of not following the evidence. They even disprove their own theories (there must be multiple universes turns out to generate the exact same problems one does) but still do not accept a timeless space less personal creator is the only logical beginning
Two points: (1) Mike Begon created a rod for his back with regards to his somewhat unorthodox and perhaps even a logical definition of delusion, which is unfortunate, is it created a point of argument which did little to address the more important questions at stake. (2( James Clerk Maxwell independently calculated what the speed of light should be, and this formula was irrespective of its direction of travel. The fact that the measured speed of light, all be it based on a round trip journey matched with the formulaic calculations strongly infers that it is sensible and reasonable to believe the speed of light is the same in both directions.
The problem with most philosophers and theologians, including Dr. Craig, that they try to make use of concepts in mathematics and physics for which they have superficial knowledge.
to william lane craig: if the universe couldn't come from nothin', then how could god, who's even more powerful more sophisticated more wonderful more … whatever, come from nothin'?? isn't it a silly irony that you believe that the universe couldn't come from nothin' bcoz it's so wonderful that it must have a creator called god, & yet you believe that god has no creator, even though he's more wonderful more powerful than it 2 the point of bein' able 2 "create" it??
@Papa Smurf "The universe is most likely from God rather than from nothing or natural processes. " - evidence? "That would leave the burden of proof on both of us" - nope, its you only. " Regardless of any debate though you do see how it's not really good to walk around starting debates that you cannot defend but just try to ask questions." -- because you cant stop making unsupported claims. "For instance antidepressants have about a 40% success vs. Placebo which is 20percent and when they interpret it they say it's scientifically proven except for the 60 percent of people it didn't work on the majority it's more likely not to work than work" -- no idea how this applies, but ok.. " I use drugs to avoid god" -- um, good for you? "Science can and is not as good as you might want to believe" -- you know nothing of my beliefs. "you can scientifically prove something that's not true." -- example? " No one ever said hey I can scientifically prove god exist without a doubt." -- they cant anyway and thats why we dont believe their claims that gods exist.
@Papa Smurf ahahahaha, i love this. you got almost everything wrong :D no idea what you were expecting though. im not a hormonal teenager with anger issues who would get angry with you. mostly people like you just make me laugh.
I don’t think Dr. begon understands what an argument is - a deductive argument necessarily does not rely on empirical observation, although empirical observation can provide evidence for why a deductive assertion is true. But science relies heavily on deductive assertions. For ex even the idea that evidence should be given for an argument, or that strong evidence is better than weak evience, cannot be proven empirically really, without relying on deductive assumptions.
Excellent debate Mr Begon landed some heavy blows in this debate. Focused on the evidence as understood in science as the way we actually know things undermines Craig's sophistry.
Science can only provide evidence regarding material things. You ignore reason, logic, ethics, purpose and all the most important things. Your thinking is at the level of grunt.
He said that even in some wild moment, someone did knock down all the arguments, he would still have the presence of the Holy Spirit in his heart as proof. I agree.
Your example of the 'two scratches on a cave wall' is a very good one - if we did discover these scratches, we could perfectly well say 'these scratches require an explanation'. If we were then told that they were were in fact a Chinese symbol meaning 'man', we could go further and say they necessarily required not just an explanation, but the existence of one or more Chinese speaking people. We appear to have proven the existence of something just from logical inference with real world evidence
This just shows how easily a debate collapses when one participant is not at least somewhat informed in the area of philosophy. Mike Begon makes claims that are laughable. "If a belief is not supported by evidence, then that belief is false." But what about his so-called "scientific beliefs" in things like the beginning of the universe? Even granting his own evidentialism, which I don't agree with, a belief held without evidence is not necessarily false. Before Darwin came along, for example, it could be said that there was no evidence for the theory of evolution. Does that mean that the theory was once false but is now true, since now we do have evidence for it? Of course not. A belief can be true without evidence, and people can hold to true beliefs without evidence, though they may be irrational or unjustified in doing it. Mike Begon is very confused about this, it seems.
Tom Paine Did you read my comment or watch the video? I quoted him saying, "If a belief is not supported by evidence, then that belief is false." That is a direct quote. If you disagree that he said that, watch the debate again. This is actually something that he goes back and forth on throughout the debate. He says that he's not trying to prove that God does not exist; he's just trying to prove that belief in God is a delusion. But then he says what I just quoted, which gives away that he at least *should be* arguing against the existence of God. If it is true that belief held without evidence is false (it isn't), then he should try to at least show that there is no evidence for God's existence, but then if he does that, he is arguing against God's existence. But remember how he defined the word "delusion." He defined it as a belief held without evidence. So, he's trying to show that belief in God is a delusion, or a belief held without evidence. In order to show that belief in God is a delusion, he must show that there is no evidence for the existence of God. But in showing that there is no evidence for the existence of God, he is, on his own merits, showing that God does not exist! And I haven't even addressed the problems with the individual claims that he makes. I'm just saying that, on his own statements, it can be shown that Mike Begon is attempting (or should be attempting) to show that God does not exist. His views on this are incoherent.
Sorry, I wrote my reply before seeing the end of the video. I presumed he was smarter than to have said that. I agree that statement was misguided, but I still agree with much of what he argued. I think Craig probably won the debate on his terms and the other guy won on his terms, but unfortunately the terms were apparently not well enough defined before the debate. Craig won on style and the fact that the other guy got muddled, though I'm still convinced that belief in the God of orthodox theism is delusional.
+Tom Paine The difference is that in Craig's example of the person being the other side of the wall, we can verify this by looking. And even if we couldn't look there are lots of ways that we could establish the truth of the claim. No such avenue exists for the god claim It is unverifiable in principle. As for the issue is defeaters, Craig is being incredibly dishonest when he discuss properly basic beliefs because the whole point of a properly basic belief is that there can be no defeater for them. That is precisely why they are called proper basic. And Begon was quite right to point out that Craig's arguments were no more than metaphysical assertions. Craig's claiming the resurrection is a hypothesis is laughable, especially given that Craig is imposing a theological interpretation on the evidence that no historian either give it or can give it, because historians deal in matters of fact and what can be verified. I wonder how many believers would square up to someone like Peter Sutcliffe, a mass murderer in the UK some years back, claiming that his belief god asked him to plunge hammers in the backs of heads of prostitutes, was properly basic. What would be the defeater for that argument? And this is the problem with this claim: it allows the criminally insane a get out of jail free card as there is no way, using the concept of properly basic beliefs, to distinguish madness from religious assertions. In this sense Craig is being incredibly irresponsible. Here's a particularly troubling contradiction, which was highlighted in a debate with Michael Payton. When discussing the problem of evil Craig claims that evil and suffering are not logically incompatible with god being all good and loving. He adds that god can have morally sufficient reasons for allowing both and this would explain the apparent contradiction. The problem here is that Craig claims that Objective Moral Values exist, and that as a theist he can 'objectively' know that the holocaust was wrong. This is supposed to be a knock down argument against atheism. The problem, as you might have already guessed, is that Craig CANNOT claim he objectively knows the holocaust (or any immoral action or suffering anywhere or at anytime) is wrong, as he doesn't know what morally sufficient reason god had in allowing these and many other atrocities. He is in effect claiming that he knows that god does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing morally abhorrent crimes. In other words, in using the OMV argument, he is in fact judging god to be guilty of genocide. He [Craig] can't have it both ways. Either he knows the crime being discussed is wrong, because he knows the mind of god, or he doesn't, and so judges god in absentia and without knowing what morally sufficient reason he had to allow these atrocities. The whole enterprise stinks. As Sean Carroll commented to Craig, and I paraphrase, 'why go through all these intellectual gymnastics, when it is easier to admit he was wrong and that god does not exist.'
Tom Paine This was such an odd debate to me because, as you said, Mike Begon and Dr. Craig seemed to approach the debate with two different goals in mind. I'm personally not concerned at all with who "won" the debate. I'm concerned with the truth (I'm a Christian, by the way). In this debate, my primary concern was with Mike Begon's approach to the debate. I'm not sure how a delusion can be a delusion if it is a true belief. Mike Begon defines a delusion as "a belief held without evidence." But how can a belief be a delusion if it is a true belief? I have more comments to make, but I'll stop here. It's best to address these points one at a time.
CogitoErgoSum We're on the same side here, and I agree with all of your arguments and have made the same argument you do here, before, regarding Craig's argument against the problem of evil. I might add that his counter to that is ad hoc because there really is no reason whatever to believe that there is any morally sufficient reason for something as horrific as babies born with cancer or any number of other real world horrors, except as a means to rationalize the POE. This makes it a poor argument to begin with, but when you consider that it is darned near impossible to even imagine what a morally sufficient reason for such a thing would be, it has to be considered nothing but a blatant ad hoc rationalization, not a good reason for rejecting the POE. Furthermore, it's a means to an ends argument, and makes little sense used in an argument for a supposedly all-powerful being. The reason humans sometimes have to resort to the ends justify the means arguments is exactly because we are not powerful enough to accomplish our ends otherwise. That shouldn't be a problem for an all-powerful being.
All that we deduce, infer, observe, imagine, reckon and figure takes place in the physical universe via interactions between physical events. With our perception limited to what is accessible to us, it's not possible to know what may be beyond our perception. Since P1 of the KCA is based on perception and reasoning within this universe, it requires a leap of faith to treat it as anything other than an assertion. It jibes with theism, but otherwise leads to infinite regress. What am I missing?
mike begon is disappointingly weak. i suspect that's it's a dishonest plot of the theist side 2 invite weak atheist debaters 2 confront william lane craig.
Lol Grotiuos, Poufendorf and Locke all lived during the Enlightenment and had the same philosophical method. Your complaint actually is that Craig doesnt accept Hume or Kant's Irrationalist rejection of reason and logic.
Yeah, I love his online lectures in Yale Open Courses; I had no idea he had debated Craig. It was terrifying and exiting to know they had this debate. I'm a Christian, but I have serious respect for that man, not only because of his intellectual skills, also because of his respectfulness, kindness etc. Shelly is a great moral man.
If Craig supporters can handle it, they should watch the Craig-Kagan Debate and see how little Craig knows about moral philosophy. He has a schoolboys level of understanding of the issues, which, coincidentally, is the highest level of mental ability his followers have.
mike begon is disappointingly weak. i suspect that's it's a dishonest plot of the theist side 2 invite weak atheist debaters 2 confront william lane craig.
Dr Began has just made all those people who have encountered God liars . He forgets that atheism is a minority . The real argument is which God is the true God . For me the undeniable God is JesusChrist the 2500 biblical prophesies are not to be ignored
lol even WLC acknowledge the argument for Jesus from fulfilled prophecy is an impossible case to make. You’re not liars. You’re just mistaken. Humans have wild imaginations.
Let's do a thought experiment. Mr X is on an airplane about to crash to certain death. He can jump out of the airplane in a last ditch effort to save his life. He has the option of jumping as is, or use a parachute. In light of the fact, that no proper scientific evidence (i.e.randomized control trials) exist on parachute use to prevent death and major trauma, Mr X would be deluded if he decided to jump using a parachute. But Mr X is a proper scientist, not a deluded parachutist. Mr X won't be misguided by common sense.
Lmao. Your analogy would be great aside from the countless mountains of data that people falling from planes are more likely to survive with a parachute. And parachutes are real. The plane is going down. The Christian jumps out confident his invisible. Intangible. Unfalsifiable parachute will catch his fall. The atheist doesn’t cling to false hope and comforts his family in his final hour knowing his time is precious. The theist vanishes into an infinite void with a smile on his face, he will never learn he was wrong.
"Eternal series of events is impossible. God doesn't persist across an eternal series of events." How do you know this, where are you getting this information from and where is your evidence.
You're making an assumption: what reason do you have to suppose there's no such thing as infinity. It could very well be possible that the universe goes through an infinite cycle of big bang and big crunch.
Firstly, the definition of changeless is "Unchanging; constant." Another definition "unchanging; constant; steadfast." God is this. Changeless doesn't mean that he can't change things. It means that he can't change. He doesn't need to change, he is God. He is omnipotent because he is the creator of the universe, and all life within it. He gave us free will, and the ability to make decisions. He gave us minds. I believe God is omnipotent because he is. My arguments were logically valid.
By the way, ThisMemory is defending the Kalam argument, which means that "spaceless" also means "boundless in spatial terms", just as "timeless" means "boundless in temporal terms".
I really really hope there is a God, otherwise there is no ultimate explanation for everything. But I guess we will never know for sure and just keep on arguing.
Doubt is always a part of the Christian walk. The older I get and the more I study the universe through videos and reading, the less doubt I have. If you seek God, He will make himself known through nature and experience.
No, he gave a perfectly valid answer for someone who understands science. You can't say what evidence would be satisfactory to prove that something exists if it's not evident that it actually does. That would be reverse engineering and an incorrect way of doing things. I'm sure he could've told the questioner a list of things which would make him FEEL intuitively that God existed, but that would be irrelevant to a debate and not worthy of the name evidence.
Things smell like they taste and smaller constituents absorb the taste of the larger portion. Thus, I can smell feces to know its taste and I don't bother picking through feces to find an undigested kernel of sweet corn. WLG's career is built on a single argument: "Infinity is impossible, therefore there must be an infinite being who offers you infinite bliss." If there is a useful kernel of knowledge or truth in WLG's career of excretions, I challenge you to find it.
1) I fully agree that the two possible meanings of "eternal" can cause confusion, which is why I was careful to stipulate which meaning I intended. After all, it is fair to say that the number 7 has existed eternally, and existed regardless of whether the Universe or space or time existed. However, it has not existed for an infinite amount of time, since there hasn't BEEN an infinite amount of time. 2) You are also correct on the simultaneous causation, which I mentioned before with...
"There are no proper objections to the moral argument. It makes sense to most people:" - you mean to many Christians. Popularity doesn't win an argument. Neither does delusional pronouncements.
... postulate infinite density in black holes. In fact, finding an infinity in the equations was the first indication that more work needed to be done on the quantum mechanics of black holes.
@andysmith hey there. Thanks for the information. I will try and read up some more on that. I have brain damage so learning is difficult but I try hard. Thanks for the comment
Overall, from the cosmological argument, the best you get out of it is "The universe may have a cause and this cause may be like one of the possible human conceptions of God." It's far from a killer argument, but it is still decent.
He says, quite explicitly, that the only two things we KNOW OF which are spaceless and immaterial are abstract objects and minds. We also already know that abstract objects are causally impotent (this is a very elementary philosophical point), and so we are left with a mind. However, this is not the only way to get from the "cause" which the Kalam proves to a personal mind. You also have the fact that it is a timeless cause with a finite effect, which necessitates free agency.
1) I am not talking about either of those things! The Kalam makes no reference to the "reforming of matter" OR the "appearance of matter". It only references the "coming into being of an entity". Just as "killing" and "stabbing" are two different things which may or may not coincide in a given case, so "coming into being" and "reforming or appearing of matter" are separate matters which may or may not be concurrent. By fixating on a complete non-issue you miss the entire point.
Its so easy to see why so many professors/atheist etc r afraid of Craig, he really is a phenomenal debater and researcher. But then again it does make it easier when u have truth and logic on your side hehe.
As Frasier Crane once put it: If you were looking through a tunneling electron microscope, you still couldn't detect how small my interest is in what you "care about". You can tell me all day that you don't care about philosophy, logic, puppies, kites, whatever. That has never been the topic of discussion. Philosophy is the tool we have for particular kinds of questions, and science is a tool for other kinds of questions. Whether you like it or not.
And on the point about whether a timeless cause with a finite effect necessitates free agency: If the fully sufficient causal conditions have existed without beginning, then the effect should exist beginninglessly as well. For example, if a container has water in it, and the internal temperature of the container has been sub-0 timelessly (eternally), then the water should be frozen eternally. The only way around that is if the cause is a free agent, and can *choose* when to produce its effect.
The point is that the only reason we know things like "there is an external world" or "logical inferences are valid and binding" are because we intuitively experience the obviousness of their truth. We have nothing else to found them on. So, for any argument you can run against the existence of objective moral values and duties, I could run a parallel for the existence of the external world.
Mr. Begon's problem is that while he can speak to his students as he did with Craig, they will not push back; their grades are in his hands. But Craig pushed back and Begon fell down.
It's the best tool we have for what it's supposed to be used for. A screwdriver is the best tool we have for driving screws. That doesn't change the fact that it's terrible for hammering nails. The question of whether infinities or transfinites can be instantiated in reality is one for philosophy; not science.
Actually, the Kagan discussion wasn't meant to be a debate at all (you'll notice it wasn't in the usual format, and their weren't rebuttals). It was just supposed to be a discussion, with no winner or loser. So I retract my previous statement. In fact, if it had been a debate, I think Kagan was being more persuasive than Craig (minus the bit about free will and compatibilism, where Kagan totally smoke-screened the issue). Craig did, however, post a serious refutation on his website.
2)uncaused-->this follows from the argument, but again, if notions of causation fall apart when there is no space/time, this may be impossible to know. 3)powerful because it caused the whole universe-->This implies that all causes are equally/more "powerful" than their effect (which is a complex premise itself to defend) and implies that the cause is a singular power (when it could be multiple weaker eternal components).
Shelly Kagan also debated Craig; and he's my favorite atheist morality philosopher; that debate was one of Craig's-vs-atheist best debates. So far as I know, Shelly K. is the only debater that hasn't been crushed by Craig and have given a good solid balanced debate.
It's not a composition fallacy. You have not given anything to refute the argument. I gave you the link because I thought you would understand Craig, and me, but clearly not.
Perhaps you are correct, I would have to see a demonstration in full of this. But wasn't the original point we were discussing about extraordinary evidence? Perhaps Craig does commit allot of fallacies but I think he is right on that point, which was the basis of our conversation.
1) Because an actually infinite series of events is impossible. 2) Absolutely fascinating. In fact, while I don't always agree with Craig's points on Natural Theology (there are several strong points of disagreement), I will admit that he has done very good work on the question of a non-verificationist interpretation of STR. Several physicists and philosophers have done similar work in recent years, and it is very intriguing indeed. 3) You got the first part right. On the second part...
Premise 1- Everything that begins to exist has a cause--> 1) this type of reasoning works when you refer to temporal causation in the present...however, philosophers have proposed alternative forms of causation that possibly exist in certain instances breaking the universality of this claim
The actions are objective, but the moral value of the actions is entirely subjective, if we accept your view. And Kagan was willing use the terms "subjective" and "objective" in his debate with Craig, even though he prefaced it by saying they were difficult terms. But, I think Craig's point is that moral values and duties are either opinion-independent truths about reality, or they are subjective opinions.
The analogy is in going from "not existing" to "existing". The analogy is "coming into being". You came into being. It doesn't matter if it was via "molding" of pre-existing matter, or through a quantum fluctuation, or through the magic of a wizard. ANYTHING which goes from non-being to being must have some cause to do so. This is not inferred from all the "coming into being" that we see around us, it is a first principle, without which science and rational thought come crashing down.
If the believers win it will either be ignored or i don't know i have not truly thought about that possibility enough to find what may happen other than how it would either be ignored or the battle goes on and neither side wins
... the illustration of the ball that has been on a cushion eternally. It is the cause of the indent in the cushion, even though it has always been causing it. This was Immanuel Kant's illustration, by the way, not my own. But it does show that simultaneous causation is quite plausible.
He directly defines what he means by "objective" and Sam Harris and others have agreed to go with that definition in their debates with him. And yes, Craig does give an argument for the existence of these kinds of objectivie truths. He argues from our intuition. And he's not the only philosopher to do so. It is rather clear that any skeptical argument against the reality of moral values would have premises that we are less certain of than we are of the moral values themselves.
you always know you're talking to a believer when they say things like "prove my beliefs false". Exsqueeze me? Prove your beliefs true, with evidence. No it doesn't depend on what I mean by evidence, I mean evidence, is there evidence for your position or are you just talking? Apologetics is always just talking , if they had evidence for god everyone would believe in it.
Craig keeps winning these debates, without changing the opening statement much. That is the point. When the audiences are polled, or the arguments are weighed, it always comes out in Craig's favor. How bad can his arguments really be, if he keeps winning? Also, I really resent the idea that Christians have to pretend and be dishonest and ignore counter-arguments. That seems an unjustified insult.
1. Why would something that changes need a beginning. Why can't it be eternally changing? 2. It is indeed a long separation...bloody interesting though. 3. So an unchaging god was able to change because part of his unchanging character was the ability to change. Also choosing when to change would require thinking...which is an act...which means he would have to be able to change to decide to change.
The universe came into being. That's why it can't be infinite. Before the BB theory, everyone thought the universe was eternal. Since nothing comes into being without a cause, and the universe came into being, it's cause must be beyond nature, or in an immaterial, uncaused cause, what we mean by God. It is not special pleading. It's common sense. I hope you see why..
Infinity is not scientific, it's theological. Your multiverse cannot be proven, if you atheists are really grounded on "evidence" why do you believe anything without even a shred of evidence? Dawkins would rather believe that we're created by aliens than by God. Talk about delusional. Smh
thetruhoss, special pleading? How about stuck in a rut of denial? You are stuck. How about you look at all the people who were completely biased against the God of the Bible, people more than equipped to take down this God, if He didn’t exist, who became faithers and defenders of the faith.
@@keithboynton No, I don't think all atheists believe in the multiverse theory. The idea of aliens creating mankind is less plausible than the idea of God because it still doesn't answer the question of who created the aliens, unless those who believe in in think that those said aliens are timeless and immaterial.
1) The term obviously exists, and has a very clear meaning. If it's easier, use the phrase "not anything". That often clears up confusions. For example, there isn't anything outside the Universe. 2) The multiverse would have a series of events (like creations of Universes), and therefore have its own time. 3) According to the BVG theorem, the multiverse would need an absolute beginning. And it is not infinite (there are deep problems with an infinite multiverse). 4) Only as a concept.
Over a week has passed and you still don't understand that the statement "X came into being from non-being" does not entail that there is nothing else in existence; merely that none of the things that DO exist had anything to do with X coming into being. And if things could come into being uncaused from nothing, then it is impossible that such events would be discriminatory or limited to just Universes.
Please do because I'm always curious about people's opposition to them. I left out "Disembodied mind" because it's not a quality of the cause listed in the argument. I also didn't have enough room to list one or two other qualities. Though, an immaterial, personal, uncaused cause does cover "Disembodied mind."
I've spent about a minute and a half trying to work out how your answer is actually a response to the question I asked. And how you could genuinely believe that Craig has shown that God exists? Flabbergasting.
The first premise of the KCA is what is called a "first principle of metaphysics". It is grounded in the incoherence of the idea that being could come from non-being. Non-being includes a lack of all powers, all potentiality, etc. Therefore it cannot produce anything. Moreover, if things could pop into being from non-being, it should be happening all the time (nothingness can't be discriminatory), and confounding any attempts at science or rational living.
So... you can't think of one to state here? That his opening statements have changed much over a decade is indicative that no one has defeated anything in those statements (or else he would have stopped using the defeated point).
The problems with the Kalam are 1composition fallacy 2equivocation of "begins to exist"3special pleading and 4argument from ignorance 5A-temporal causality, b-theory of time ,and last but not least an effectless effect
first premise from Craig's point of view would be 'experience tells us that things which begin to exist have causes, we don't know this to be universally true but common sense tells us it probably is'. Now common sense is very useful in day to day life but experience has shown us that it is more than useless in understanding science which is often counter-intuitive. The second problem with premise 1 is the notion of causation. Philosophers (and scientists) have debated for centuries as to what
That's the thing. Sometimes good science defies all logic and reason. Winning an argument based on premises you believe to be true, simply because it seems logical to you, doesn't make it fact. If your heart is removed from your chest cavity by shrapnel during battle, we know with 100% certainty you will die, whether you believe otherwise or not, even if you win a word based argument and convince people otherwise.
I'm sorry, but your statement starts with "Nor does...", and I'm not sure which other statement it's coming from. What were you getting at with the concept that doesn't include temporal events?
Because, if something comes into being without pre-existing material, that means it comes into existence from nothing. That doesn't require that nothing else exists (as you seem to imagine), it just requires that none of the things that do exist are causally related to the thing which just came into existence. Therefore, if something can come from nothing, then anything can, because nothingness cannot discriminate.
There are no proper objections to the moral argument. It makes sense to most people: 1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. 2. Objective moral values and duties do exist. 3. Therefore, God exists. If you want to deny the conclusion, then you must disprove (1) or (2). You've said "Objective moral are asserted", so you agree with (2). You have not tried to deny premise (1), so the conclusion still stands. Even is you did destroy this, at best you're left with
I have good reasons to think there isn't a giant teapot orbiting the earth.Craig gave five proofs to show God is not a delusion.Begon argued from HIS definition of delusion to disprove Craig's proofs.It was a good magic trick he attempted.If delusion is "a false belief or opinion" then Begon needs to disprove Criag's proofs which he failed to do and he gave NO arguments that believing in God is a delusion.
And yes he's right. That's why I am a Christian. Also the Bible says in James 1:3, "for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing."
"Why can't a Ham and Cheese sandwich be immaterial if I define it to be so?"
Why ??? Because you cant. A ham & cheese sandwich is a ham & cheese sandwich and nothing else.
It can be many things but not immaterial, because cheese and ham are material. It can however be a plug to clog the toilet, bathtub, etc. It can be a weapon if shoved into the throat of a victim you wish to asphyxiate, it can be garbage, it can be a colony of bacteria or vermin. It can serve functions other than food for the man who makes it. It can't be immaterial though because it's made of matter, like ham and cheese.
How do you arrange to have two experts in the same room and not have them talk to each other?
well thats what a structured debate is, it is not a one on one argument, but a series of statements and refutations.
@@jarskiXDme hurling.
Well I respect Dr. Begon for a couple of things:
-He did address the arguments, whether I agreed with his conclusions or not, he didn't merely drag a red herring across by using dozens of soundbite arguments and not addressing the 5 arguments. So I felt this debate had a little more friction, which I appreciate.
-He apologized and clearly felt guilty that he had not addressed them in his first speech and said he would have reconsidered had he known. I respect him for that and felt he was sincere.
-He does admit that he is not certain about some things, and stayed humble in some areas outside his expertise.
I'm a WLC fan and agree with his arguments, but I felt it was conducted with respect.
Mike Begon ignored 90% of what WLC was saying and droned on his script. This was massively apparent when around the 1:23:20 min mark he didn't rebut a single thing WLC said and started talking about how if a person believes something "without evidence" you're literally Hilter. Holy shit he is outclassed majorly. Awesome job WLC.
Actually, you are quite wrong. Contrary to Craig’s claims that his opponents must “tear down his arguments and erect a case of their own”, all his opponents actually has to do is show the flaws in the claims made.
Actually, there are a number of serious flaws in Craig’s arguments that you, as a theist, are either not aware of or, if you are, are you are choosing to ignore.
Mike, although not particularly philosophically literate, is quite right to point out that Craig made numerous assertions, not realising that what Mike called assertions were in fact Craig’s metaphysical inductions to a preferred conclusion, and very poorly qualified ones at that.
And, of course, Craig (dishonestly in my view) allows people to leap to his preferred conclusion without seriously justifying his leap of faith.
And Craig is also well known to have a penchant for inaccurate quote mining and misrepresenting his opponents arguments and objections.
The real issue is that he is rarely challenged on either his intuitions or claims he makes about what god thinks or does not think.
Craig is doing no more than what engineers call reverse engineering, but in this case to a preferred conclusion. And, surprise surprise, Craig reaches his preferred conclusion.
This is not to take away from Craig his debating skills and ability to appear to answer every objection.
However, there’s a reason why when these arguments are examined in slow time, the flaws and unjustified assumptions are brought into sharp focus. And these are the same reasons that professional philosophers do not give serious credence to Craig’s arguments.
Finally there is a reason why 90% of professional philosophers are atheists and those who are not are thrusts of one stripe or another. And no this is not an either ad populum or appeal to authority fallacy. This is presenting a relevant difference.
This is not to say a god does not exist, but it is to say that those arguments that are made do not cut it in terms of being defensible and able to withstand sustained critical evaluation.
Mikes argument against Craigs fourth point did not by any means prove a single thing about Craigs point wrong. There are significantly far too many documents and other letters/writings outside of Christian believers talking about the body missing, talking about how Christians were giving themselves up wholeheartedly to that belief, and many other things. There are just too many non-Christian sources that try to explain away the missing body, or reference the missing body, etc/etc...
If we are to dismiss all of those documents and writings, then we have to dismiss Napoleon, Alexander the Great, and SO many other historical events. Mikes counter to Craigs fourth point is not sufficient, and must address what we do with all of the extra-biblical documents concerning Christ, the missing body, and the believers reactions.
+conman parker What writings? If I recall, the earliest non-Christian writings about Jesus were those of Tacitus, who wrote a good two centuries ater the supposed event. Also, Begon's argument was actually that a book asserting that Jesus took a post-mortem walking tour of Judea is only an assertion and is therefore insufficient.
A writing saying that Christian believed in Jesus and we're doing X... Proves Christian's believed not what they believed actually happened.
All the writings and letters I've see outside of the bible do not confirm anything other than Christians existed. It would be like looking back 2000 years in the future at now... And saying well ppl wrote about ppl believing in big foot so it must have existed.
to william lane craig:
if the universe couldn't come from nothin', then how could god, who's even more powerful more sophisticated more wonderful more … whatever, come from nothin'??
isn't it a silly irony that you believe that the universe couldn't come from nothin' bcoz it's so wonderful that it must have a creator called god, & yet you believe that god has no creator, even though he's more wonderful more powerful than it 2 the point of bein' able 2 "create" it??
kuroshashu, WRONG. One of the earliest was Josephus.
Riya So, making up your own definition for Yahweh, God? Or you believe in the possibility of an infinite regress?
This is by far Dr. WLC’s weakest opponent who offered little to nothing to make his case. Dr. WLC reduced Dr. Begon to an elementary level denialist.
It's very interesting how many times Mike Begon says: "I don't know"
I agree with @John Watson, Begon is one of the weakest opponents of Craig, he said absolutly nothing for his case, I think he didn't even mentioned that belief in God could be just the result of wishfull thinking or just an adaption of socio-biological evolution (show me time if I am wrong). These are 2 very obvious arguments that Begon could bring to support his case.
WLC instead adressed everything Begon said, he explained well why his definition of delusion is better and why Begon has to show that God is a delusion.
Lol. Where is WLC’s evidence?
The reason Dr. Begon says he doesn’t know is because he’s being honest. In all reality- how can WLC actually know what he confesses to know. It’s ludicrous! It’s all just assertions and he’s really good because he’s so articulate and he dresses everything up so well. But if you really listen to what he’s saying- it’s all just BS. But Christians really like that they have someone who places everything in an organized fashion, that it seems to make sense, but most importantly- that it’s all fact; that in itself is a false idea because there’s no proof for it.
@@richrobledo6561 Jesus Is King
@@zachg8822 Jesus Is King
Is it me, or did Dr. Begon act like he really wanted to Be gone?
to william lane craig:
if the universe couldn't come from nothin', then how could god, who's even more powerful more sophisticated more wonderful more … whatever, come from nothin'??
isn't it a silly irony that you believe that the universe couldn't come from nothin' bcoz it's so wonderful that it must have a creator called god, & yet you believe that god has no creator, even though he's more wonderful more powerful than it 2 the point of bein' able 2 "create" it??
@@soriya011"if the universe couldn't come from nothin', then how could god, who's even more powerful more sophisticated more wonderful more … whatever, come from nothin'??
"
Craig doesn't believe that god came from nothing as, like every other Christian, he believes god never had a beginning of his existence in the first place.
"isn't it a silly irony that you believe that the universe couldn't come from nothin' bcoz it's so wonderful that it must have a creator called god, & yet you believe that god has no creator, even though he's more wonderful more powerful than it 2 the point of bein' able 2 "create" it??"
Craig never argued that the universe must've had a cause because "it's wonderful" or anything like that, either. It's because we have good evidence that the universe had a beginning, that warrants asking "What was the universe's cause?" By contrast, we've no evidence/argument that any god which might exist must've had a beginning, and it's for that reason it makes no sense to ask "Who/what caused god?" or some such.
@@Vic2point0 Correct. Sure its hard to believe and understand but the fact that the universe and we are here proves that something must have been eternal.
His body language showed he was conflicted
The unprepared atheist lost this debate and even if "prepared" the atheist argument could never have a base, provide evidence or make sense.
Begon comes here with the claim that belief in God is a delusion, yet gives no arguments whatsoever to prove this, except for a ridiculously false epistemological belief that Craig shot down within 5 minutes of his first speech.
It's funny... Cause from my point of view... Begon told you exactly what he was arguing for. It's a more scientific view of the world. Like David Hume. Craig has baited you into his tactics... Its offering what he wants to debate against as what his opponent must do. That's not exactly true...
Arguing the position to a don't know so it's reasonable to with hold a belief. A because every magical answer humans have found an answer to has turned out to be not magic... Maybe we should with hold a belief... Is a reasonable position.
Kalam does not get you to a personal agent because using the same logic leaning on intuition.... We have never seen a mind outside of a brain... So we cannot say a personal agent is automatically the answer.
Plus it's special pleading to say that a god's physics can be eternal but the cosmos can not be. Universe does not mean cosmos... And nothing could exist but a empty void in the future but started from a thing that existed mins or billions of years......
Before out universe expanded.. a dying God that's death created the universe is possible. Again same logic as kalam... all beings die... So a mind with that possibility isn't needed. So it is an assertion that a mind is needed.
//Begon comes here with the claim that belief in God is a delusion, yet gives no arguments whatsoever to prove this//
Of course he did. He proved it beyond all doubt. What on earth is the matter with you people?
Peter Metcalfe Here! Here! What we are seeing is the stupid people have to convince themselves of and to believe in a stupid idea.
Peter Metcalfe
How can you prove, beyond all doubt, that a supernatural entity doesn't exist? That's as incoherent as saying a blind man can prove what Einstein looks like.
So nice to hear two very intelligent and civil men discuss this very important subject...
Bill is an artist. He starts every debate the same and just as you think he is giving cookie cutter answers, he blows his opponent away. Genius
@@keithboynton
He gave you a video full of evidence and where it has led him. It's funny how "scientists" will freely admit the universe looks fine tuned for life and can't give a reason why that isn't the case but will still deny it and accuse you of not following the evidence. They even disprove their own theories (there must be multiple universes turns out to generate the exact same problems one does) but still do not accept a timeless space less personal creator is the only logical beginning
Two points:
(1) Mike Begon created a rod for his back with regards to his somewhat unorthodox and perhaps even a logical definition of delusion, which is unfortunate, is it created a point of argument which did little to address the more important questions at stake.
(2( James Clerk Maxwell independently calculated what the speed of light should be, and this formula was irrespective of its direction of travel. The fact that the measured speed of light, all be it based on a round trip journey matched with the formulaic calculations strongly infers that it is sensible and reasonable to believe the speed of light is the same in both directions.
Craig is good at debating because he is uses logic and reason to support his arguments.
The problem with most philosophers and theologians, including Dr. Craig, that they try to make use of concepts in mathematics and physics for which they have superficial knowledge.
What did Craig get wrong?
Poor little Mikey, another atheist destroyed by WLC.
to william lane craig:
if the universe couldn't come from nothin', then how could god, who's even more powerful more sophisticated more wonderful more … whatever, come from nothin'??
isn't it a silly irony that you believe that the universe couldn't come from nothin' bcoz it's so wonderful that it must have a creator called god, & yet you believe that god has no creator, even though he's more wonderful more powerful than it 2 the point of bein' able 2 "create" it??
@Papa Smurf i love the illogical leaps lol. "universe had a beginning, therefor god". Then you wonder why people mock you.
@Papa Smurf nice projection. the burden of proof is all on you.
@Papa Smurf "The universe is most likely from God rather than from nothing or natural processes. "
- evidence?
"That would leave the burden of proof on both of us"
- nope, its you only.
" Regardless of any debate though you do see how it's not really good to walk around starting debates that you cannot defend but just try to ask questions."
-- because you cant stop making unsupported claims.
"For instance antidepressants have about a 40% success vs. Placebo which is 20percent and when they interpret it they say it's scientifically proven except for the 60 percent of people it didn't work on the majority it's more likely not to work than work"
-- no idea how this applies, but ok..
" I use drugs to avoid god"
-- um, good for you?
"Science can and is not as good as you might want to believe"
-- you know nothing of my beliefs.
"you can scientifically prove something that's not true."
-- example?
" No one ever said hey I can scientifically prove god exist without a doubt."
-- they cant anyway and thats why we dont believe their claims that gods exist.
@Papa Smurf ahahahaha, i love this. you got almost everything wrong :D no idea what you were expecting though. im not a hormonal teenager with anger issues who would get angry with you. mostly people like you just make me laugh.
I don’t think Dr. begon understands what an argument is - a deductive argument necessarily does not rely on empirical observation, although empirical observation can provide evidence for why a deductive assertion is true. But science relies heavily on deductive assertions. For ex even the idea that evidence should be given for an argument, or that strong evidence is better than weak evience, cannot be proven empirically really, without relying on deductive assumptions.
Excellent debate Mr Begon landed some heavy blows in this debate. Focused on the evidence as understood in science as the way we actually know things undermines Craig's sophistry.
Science can only provide evidence regarding material things. You ignore reason, logic, ethics, purpose and all the most important things. Your thinking is at the level of grunt.
He said that even in some wild moment, someone did knock down all the arguments, he would still have the presence of the Holy Spirit in his heart as proof. I agree.
Good gravy! Mike Begon is difficult to listen to.
Your example of the 'two scratches on a cave wall' is a very good one - if we did discover these scratches, we could perfectly well say 'these scratches require an explanation'. If we were then told that they were were in fact a Chinese symbol meaning 'man', we could go further and say they necessarily required not just an explanation, but the existence of one or more Chinese speaking people. We appear to have proven the existence of something just from logical inference with real world evidence
This just shows how easily a debate collapses when one participant is not at least somewhat informed in the area of philosophy. Mike Begon makes claims that are laughable. "If a belief is not supported by evidence, then that belief is false." But what about his so-called "scientific beliefs" in things like the beginning of the universe? Even granting his own evidentialism, which I don't agree with, a belief held without evidence is not necessarily false. Before Darwin came along, for example, it could be said that there was no evidence for the theory of evolution. Does that mean that the theory was once false but is now true, since now we do have evidence for it? Of course not. A belief can be true without evidence, and people can hold to true beliefs without evidence, though they may be irrational or unjustified in doing it. Mike Begon is very confused about this, it seems.
Tom Paine Did you read my comment or watch the video? I quoted him saying, "If a belief is not supported by evidence, then that belief is false." That is a direct quote. If you disagree that he said that, watch the debate again.
This is actually something that he goes back and forth on throughout the debate. He says that he's not trying to prove that God does not exist; he's just trying to prove that belief in God is a delusion. But then he says what I just quoted, which gives away that he at least *should be* arguing against the existence of God. If it is true that belief held without evidence is false (it isn't), then he should try to at least show that there is no evidence for God's existence, but then if he does that, he is arguing against God's existence.
But remember how he defined the word "delusion." He defined it as a belief held without evidence. So, he's trying to show that belief in God is a delusion, or a belief held without evidence. In order to show that belief in God is a delusion, he must show that there is no evidence for the existence of God. But in showing that there is no evidence for the existence of God, he is, on his own merits, showing that God does not exist! And I haven't even addressed the problems with the individual claims that he makes. I'm just saying that, on his own statements, it can be shown that Mike Begon is attempting (or should be attempting) to show that God does not exist. His views on this are incoherent.
Sorry, I wrote my reply before seeing the end of the video. I presumed he was smarter than to have said that. I agree that statement was misguided, but I still agree with much of what he argued. I think Craig probably won the debate on his terms and the other guy won on his terms, but unfortunately the terms were apparently not well enough defined before the debate. Craig won on style and the fact that the other guy got muddled, though I'm still convinced that belief in the God of orthodox theism is delusional.
+Tom Paine The difference is that in Craig's example of the person being the other side of the wall, we can verify this by looking. And even if we couldn't look there are lots of ways that we could establish the truth of the claim. No such avenue exists for the god claim It is unverifiable in principle.
As for the issue is defeaters, Craig is being incredibly dishonest when he discuss properly basic beliefs because the whole point of a properly basic belief is that there can be no defeater for them. That is precisely why they are called proper basic.
And Begon was quite right to point out that Craig's arguments were no more than metaphysical assertions. Craig's claiming the resurrection is a hypothesis is laughable, especially given that Craig is imposing a theological interpretation on the evidence that no historian either give it or can give it, because historians deal in matters of fact and what can be verified.
I wonder how many believers would square up to someone like Peter Sutcliffe, a mass murderer in the UK some years back, claiming that his belief god asked him to plunge hammers in the backs of heads of prostitutes, was properly basic. What would be the defeater for that argument? And this is the problem with this claim: it allows the criminally insane a get out of jail free card as there is no way, using the concept of properly basic beliefs, to distinguish madness from religious assertions. In this sense Craig is being incredibly irresponsible.
Here's a particularly troubling contradiction, which was highlighted in a debate with Michael Payton. When discussing the problem of evil Craig claims that evil and suffering are not logically incompatible with god being all good and loving. He adds that god can have morally sufficient reasons for allowing both and this would explain the apparent contradiction. The problem here is that Craig claims that Objective Moral Values exist, and that as a theist he can 'objectively' know that the holocaust was wrong. This is supposed to be a knock down argument against atheism. The problem, as you might have already guessed, is that Craig CANNOT claim he objectively knows the holocaust (or any immoral action or suffering anywhere or at anytime) is wrong, as he doesn't know what morally sufficient reason god had in allowing these and many other atrocities. He is in effect claiming that he knows that god does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing morally abhorrent crimes. In other words, in using the OMV argument, he is in fact judging god to be guilty of genocide. He [Craig] can't have it both ways. Either he knows the crime being discussed is wrong, because he knows the mind of god, or he doesn't, and so judges god in absentia and without knowing what morally sufficient reason he had to allow these atrocities. The whole enterprise stinks.
As Sean Carroll commented to Craig, and I paraphrase, 'why go through all these intellectual gymnastics, when it is easier to admit he was wrong and that god does not exist.'
Tom Paine This was such an odd debate to me because, as you said, Mike Begon and Dr. Craig seemed to approach the debate with two different goals in mind.
I'm personally not concerned at all with who "won" the debate. I'm concerned with the truth (I'm a Christian, by the way). In this debate, my primary concern was with Mike Begon's approach to the debate. I'm not sure how a delusion can be a delusion if it is a true belief. Mike Begon defines a delusion as "a belief held without evidence." But how can a belief be a delusion if it is a true belief?
I have more comments to make, but I'll stop here. It's best to address these points one at a time.
CogitoErgoSum We're on the same side here, and I agree with all of your arguments and have made the same argument you do here, before, regarding Craig's argument against the problem of evil. I might add that his counter to that is ad hoc because there really is no reason whatever to believe that there is any morally sufficient reason for something as horrific as babies born with cancer or any number of other real world horrors, except as a means to rationalize the POE. This makes it a poor argument to begin with, but when you consider that it is darned near impossible to even imagine what a morally sufficient reason for such a thing would be, it has to be considered nothing but a blatant ad hoc rationalization, not a good reason for rejecting the POE. Furthermore, it's a means to an ends argument, and makes little sense used in an argument for a supposedly all-powerful being. The reason humans sometimes have to resort to the ends justify the means arguments is exactly because we are not powerful enough to accomplish our ends otherwise. That shouldn't be a problem for an all-powerful being.
question time was exelent - I do not regret listening it all through.
"Does AmunRaRocks know what he's talking about"
No, next question.
All that we deduce, infer, observe, imagine, reckon and figure takes place in the physical universe via interactions between physical events. With our perception limited to what is accessible to us, it's not possible to know what may be beyond our perception. Since P1 of the KCA is based on perception and reasoning within this universe, it requires a leap of faith to treat it as anything other than an assertion. It jibes with theism, but otherwise leads to infinite regress. What am I missing?
Craig is stuck in the 1300's with his philosophy. It's remarkable a man can learn so little after having done this for so long..
mike begon is disappointingly weak. i suspect that's it's a dishonest plot of the theist side 2 invite weak atheist debaters 2 confront william lane craig.
Riya So like Hitchens?
Lol Grotiuos, Poufendorf and Locke all lived during the Enlightenment and had the same philosophical method. Your complaint actually is that Craig doesnt accept Hume or Kant's Irrationalist rejection of reason and logic.
Yeah, I love his online lectures in Yale Open Courses; I had no idea he had debated Craig. It was terrifying and exiting to know they had this debate. I'm a Christian, but I have serious respect for that man, not only because of his intellectual skills, also because of his respectfulness, kindness etc. Shelly is a great moral man.
If Craig supporters can handle it, they should watch the Craig-Kagan Debate and see how little Craig knows about moral philosophy. He has a schoolboys level of understanding of the issues, which, coincidentally, is the highest level of mental ability his followers have.
Do watch the Craig vs. Kagan debate. Craig wins that one too.
Brent Arnesen your mental ability is on show with that statement ridiculous
mike begon is disappointingly weak. i suspect that's it's a dishonest plot of the theist side 2 invite weak atheist debaters 2 confront william lane craig.
I dont get it... youd notice an elephant if it was crossing the road.. yet you are so blind to simple truths.
2 phds he is an idiot
Dr Began has just made all those people who have encountered God liars . He forgets that atheism is a minority . The real argument is which God is the true God . For me the undeniable God is JesusChrist the 2500 biblical prophesies are not to be ignored
lol even WLC acknowledge the argument for Jesus from fulfilled prophecy is an impossible case to make.
You’re not liars. You’re just mistaken. Humans have wild imaginations.
Let's do a thought experiment. Mr X is on an airplane about to crash to certain death. He can jump out of the airplane in a last ditch effort to save his life. He has the option of jumping as is, or use a parachute. In light of the fact, that no proper scientific evidence (i.e.randomized control trials) exist on parachute use to prevent death and major trauma, Mr X would be deluded if he decided to jump using a parachute. But Mr X is a proper scientist, not a deluded parachutist. Mr X won't be misguided by common sense.
Lmao. Your analogy would be great aside from the countless mountains of data that people falling from planes are more likely to survive with a parachute.
And parachutes are real.
The plane is going down. The Christian jumps out confident his invisible. Intangible. Unfalsifiable parachute will catch his fall.
The atheist doesn’t cling to false hope and comforts his family in his final hour knowing his time is precious.
The theist vanishes into an infinite void with a smile on his face, he will never learn he was wrong.
"Eternal series of events is impossible. God doesn't persist across an eternal series of events."
How do you know this, where are you getting this information from and where is your evidence.
Mike Begon must be a very good teacher. This from a believer in God. William Lane Craig is quite top rate (world class thinker). Thanks to both.
You're making an assumption: what reason do you have to suppose there's no such thing as infinity. It could very well be possible that the universe goes through an infinite cycle of big bang and big crunch.
Nice to know I see this debate the same day it's uploaded by ReasonableFaithTour.
9 years ago, interesting. Are you alive? :D
Firstly, the definition of changeless is "Unchanging; constant." Another definition "unchanging; constant; steadfast." God is this. Changeless doesn't mean that he can't change things. It means that he can't change. He doesn't need to change, he is God. He is omnipotent because he is the creator of the universe, and all life within it. He gave us free will, and the ability to make decisions. He gave us minds. I believe God is omnipotent because he is. My arguments were logically valid.
By the way, ThisMemory is defending the Kalam argument, which means that "spaceless" also means "boundless in spatial terms", just as "timeless" means "boundless in temporal terms".
I really really hope there is a God, otherwise there is no ultimate explanation for everything.
But I guess we will never know for sure and just keep on arguing.
Doubt is always a part of the Christian walk. The older I get and the more I study the universe through videos and reading, the less doubt I have. If you seek God, He will make himself known through nature and experience.
@@jaybennett236
For a few months, many years ago I lived next door to a Hindu family.
They had no doubts that Ganesha exists.
No, he gave a perfectly valid answer for someone who understands science. You can't say what evidence would be satisfactory to prove that something exists if it's not evident that it actually does. That would be reverse engineering and an incorrect way of doing things. I'm sure he could've told the questioner a list of things which would make him FEEL intuitively that God existed, but that would be irrelevant to a debate and not worthy of the name evidence.
Things smell like they taste and smaller constituents absorb the taste of the larger portion. Thus, I can smell feces to know its taste and I don't bother picking through feces to find an undigested kernel of sweet corn.
WLG's career is built on a single argument: "Infinity is impossible, therefore there must be an infinite being who offers you infinite bliss." If there is a useful kernel of knowledge or truth in WLG's career of excretions, I challenge you to find it.
1) The term "begins to exist" entails temporality. It doesn't make sense in any non-temporal model.
1) I fully agree that the two possible meanings of "eternal" can cause confusion, which is why I was careful to stipulate which meaning I intended. After all, it is fair to say that the number 7 has existed eternally, and existed regardless of whether the Universe or space or time existed. However, it has not existed for an infinite amount of time, since there hasn't BEEN an infinite amount of time.
2) You are also correct on the simultaneous causation, which I mentioned before with...
"There are no proper objections to the moral argument. It makes sense to most people:"
- you mean to many Christians. Popularity doesn't win an argument. Neither does delusional pronouncements.
You just gave an example of an objective moral. "Murder is wrong." Objective morals exist whether you like it or not.
... postulate infinite density in black holes. In fact, finding an infinity in the equations was the first indication that more work needed to be done on the quantum mechanics of black holes.
Well, that was a great way to address the arguments, by ignoring them.
Craig said in a podcast that this was the best debate he had. I'm glad it's online now!
I find it so hard to believe that Craig still debated the existence of God after this. Begon made a mockery of Craig's sophistry.
Craig destroyed him completely. It's unbelievable!
@andysmith hey there. Thanks for the information. I will try and read up some more on that. I have brain damage so learning is difficult but I try hard. Thanks for the comment
Overall, from the cosmological argument, the best you get out of it is "The universe may have a cause and this cause may be like one of the possible human conceptions of God." It's far from a killer argument, but it is still decent.
After being completely and utterly humiliated in front of a wide audience, where is Mike Begon now?
He says, quite explicitly, that the only two things we KNOW OF which are spaceless and immaterial are abstract objects and minds. We also already know that abstract objects are causally impotent (this is a very elementary philosophical point), and so we are left with a mind. However, this is not the only way to get from the "cause" which the Kalam proves to a personal mind. You also have the fact that it is a timeless cause with a finite effect, which necessitates free agency.
1) I am not talking about either of those things! The Kalam makes no reference to the "reforming of matter" OR the "appearance of matter". It only references the "coming into being of an entity". Just as "killing" and "stabbing" are two different things which may or may not coincide in a given case, so "coming into being" and "reforming or appearing of matter" are separate matters which may or may not be concurrent. By fixating on a complete non-issue you miss the entire point.
Its so easy to see why so many professors/atheist etc r afraid of Craig, he really is a phenomenal debater and researcher. But then again it does make it easier when u have truth and logic on your side hehe.
As Frasier Crane once put it: If you were looking through a tunneling electron microscope, you still couldn't detect how small my interest is in what you "care about". You can tell me all day that you don't care about philosophy, logic, puppies, kites, whatever. That has never been the topic of discussion. Philosophy is the tool we have for particular kinds of questions, and science is a tool for other kinds of questions. Whether you like it or not.
And on the point about whether a timeless cause with a finite effect necessitates free agency: If the fully sufficient causal conditions have existed without beginning, then the effect should exist beginninglessly as well. For example, if a container has water in it, and the internal temperature of the container has been sub-0 timelessly (eternally), then the water should be frozen eternally. The only way around that is if the cause is a free agent, and can *choose* when to produce its effect.
The point is that the only reason we know things like "there is an external world" or "logical inferences are valid and binding" are because we intuitively experience the obviousness of their truth. We have nothing else to found them on. So, for any argument you can run against the existence of objective moral values and duties, I could run a parallel for the existence of the external world.
Mr. Begon's problem is that while he can speak to his students as he did with Craig, they will not push back; their grades are in his hands. But Craig pushed back and Begon fell down.
It's the best tool we have for what it's supposed to be used for. A screwdriver is the best tool we have for driving screws. That doesn't change the fact that it's terrible for hammering nails. The question of whether infinities or transfinites can be instantiated in reality is one for philosophy; not science.
Actually, the Kagan discussion wasn't meant to be a debate at all (you'll notice it wasn't in the usual format, and their weren't rebuttals). It was just supposed to be a discussion, with no winner or loser. So I retract my previous statement. In fact, if it had been a debate, I think Kagan was being more persuasive than Craig (minus the bit about free will and compatibilism, where Kagan totally smoke-screened the issue).
Craig did, however, post a serious refutation on his website.
2)uncaused-->this follows from the argument, but again, if notions of causation fall apart when there is no space/time, this may be impossible to know.
3)powerful because it caused the whole universe-->This implies that all causes are equally/more "powerful" than their effect (which is a complex premise itself to defend) and implies that the cause is a singular power (when it could be multiple weaker eternal components).
Shelly Kagan also debated Craig; and he's my favorite atheist morality philosopher; that debate was one of Craig's-vs-atheist best debates. So far as I know, Shelly K. is the only debater that hasn't been crushed by Craig and have given a good solid balanced debate.
God is eternal. He has no beginning nor end, he is boundless.
Prove it
Let's discuss the composition fallacy in the Kalam or perhaps Begging the question in the fine tuning and objective Moral. Where do you wanna start?
It's not a composition fallacy. You have not given anything to refute the argument. I gave you the link because I thought you would understand Craig, and me, but clearly not.
Does a monk shit in the woods?
Perhaps you are correct, I would have to see a demonstration in full of this. But wasn't the original point we were discussing about extraordinary evidence? Perhaps Craig does commit allot of fallacies but I think he is right on that point, which was the basis of our conversation.
1) Because an actually infinite series of events is impossible.
2) Absolutely fascinating. In fact, while I don't always agree with Craig's points on Natural Theology (there are several strong points of disagreement), I will admit that he has done very good work on the question of a non-verificationist interpretation of STR. Several physicists and philosophers have done similar work in recent years, and it is very intriguing indeed.
3) You got the first part right. On the second part...
Premise 1- Everything that begins to exist has a cause-->
1) this type of reasoning works when you refer to temporal causation in the present...however, philosophers have proposed alternative forms of causation that possibly exist in certain instances breaking the universality of this claim
The actions are objective, but the moral value of the actions is entirely subjective, if we accept your view. And Kagan was willing use the terms "subjective" and "objective" in his debate with Craig, even though he prefaced it by saying they were difficult terms. But, I think Craig's point is that moral values and duties are either opinion-independent truths about reality, or they are subjective opinions.
If there comes a time when you understand what I wrote, feel free to leave a relevant comment and I'll be happy to discuss.
The analogy is in going from "not existing" to "existing". The analogy is "coming into being". You came into being. It doesn't matter if it was via "molding" of pre-existing matter, or through a quantum fluctuation, or through the magic of a wizard. ANYTHING which goes from non-being to being must have some cause to do so. This is not inferred from all the "coming into being" that we see around us, it is a first principle, without which science and rational thought come crashing down.
If the believers win it will either be ignored or i don't know i have not truly thought about that possibility enough to find what may happen other than how it would either be ignored or the battle goes on and neither side wins
... the illustration of the ball that has been on a cushion eternally. It is the cause of the indent in the cushion, even though it has always been causing it. This was Immanuel Kant's illustration, by the way, not my own. But it does show that simultaneous causation is quite plausible.
He directly defines what he means by "objective" and Sam Harris and others have agreed to go with that definition in their debates with him. And yes, Craig does give an argument for the existence of these kinds of objectivie truths. He argues from our intuition. And he's not the only philosopher to do so. It is rather clear that any skeptical argument against the reality of moral values would have premises that we are less certain of than we are of the moral values themselves.
you always know you're talking to a believer when they say things like "prove my beliefs false". Exsqueeze me? Prove your beliefs true, with evidence. No it doesn't depend on what I mean by evidence, I mean evidence, is there evidence for your position or are you just talking? Apologetics is always just talking , if they had evidence for god everyone would believe in it.
Craig keeps winning these debates, without changing the opening statement much. That is the point. When the audiences are polled, or the arguments are weighed, it always comes out in Craig's favor. How bad can his arguments really be, if he keeps winning?
Also, I really resent the idea that Christians have to pretend and be dishonest and ignore counter-arguments. That seems an unjustified insult.
You have faith in the argument that is all. You can't defend them and you don't see the problem.
1. Why would something that changes need a beginning. Why can't it be eternally changing?
2. It is indeed a long separation...bloody interesting though.
3. So an unchaging god was able to change because part of his unchanging character was the ability to change. Also choosing when to change would require thinking...which is an act...which means he would have to be able to change to decide to change.
The universe can't be Infinite but the physics of my God can... Lovely special pleading.
The universe came into being. That's why it can't be infinite. Before the BB theory, everyone thought the universe was eternal. Since nothing comes into being without a cause, and the universe came into being, it's cause must be beyond nature, or in an immaterial, uncaused cause, what we mean by God. It is not special pleading. It's common sense. I hope you see why..
Infinity is not scientific, it's theological. Your multiverse cannot be proven, if you atheists are really grounded on "evidence" why do you believe anything without even a shred of evidence? Dawkins would rather believe that we're created by aliens than by God. Talk about delusional. Smh
thetruhoss, special pleading? How about stuck in a rut of denial? You are stuck. How about you look at all the people who were completely biased against the God of the Bible, people more than equipped to take down this God, if He didn’t exist, who became faithers and defenders of the faith.
@@keithboynton No, I don't think all atheists believe in the multiverse theory. The idea of aliens creating mankind is less plausible than the idea of God because it still doesn't answer the question of who created the aliens, unless those who believe in in think that those said aliens are timeless and immaterial.
1) The term obviously exists, and has a very clear meaning. If it's easier, use the phrase "not anything". That often clears up confusions. For example, there isn't anything outside the Universe.
2) The multiverse would have a series of events (like creations of Universes), and therefore have its own time.
3) According to the BVG theorem, the multiverse would need an absolute beginning. And it is not infinite (there are deep problems with an infinite multiverse).
4) Only as a concept.
Over a week has passed and you still don't understand that the statement "X came into being from non-being" does not entail that there is nothing else in existence; merely that none of the things that DO exist had anything to do with X coming into being. And if things could come into being uncaused from nothing, then it is impossible that such events would be discriminatory or limited to just Universes.
Please do because I'm always curious about people's opposition to them. I left out "Disembodied mind" because it's not a quality of the cause listed in the argument. I also didn't have enough room to list one or two other qualities. Though, an immaterial, personal, uncaused cause does cover "Disembodied mind."
Needs a link to the apparently kid who probably was never lied to about his biological origins.
I've spent about a minute and a half trying to work out how your answer is actually a response to the question I asked. And how you could genuinely believe that Craig has shown that God exists? Flabbergasting.
The first premise of the KCA is what is called a "first principle of metaphysics". It is grounded in the incoherence of the idea that being could come from non-being. Non-being includes a lack of all powers, all potentiality, etc. Therefore it cannot produce anything. Moreover, if things could pop into being from non-being, it should be happening all the time (nothingness can't be discriminatory), and confounding any attempts at science or rational living.
So... you can't think of one to state here? That his opening statements have changed much over a decade is indicative that no one has defeated anything in those statements (or else he would have stopped using the defeated point).
The problems with the Kalam are 1composition fallacy 2equivocation of "begins to exist"3special pleading and 4argument from ignorance 5A-temporal causality, b-theory of time ,and last but not least an effectless effect
The funny thing about this debate is William Lane Craig did not notice that once you accetpt Begon'
A natural "gearing" is something. "Nothingness" is the absence of all things, including any "gearing" or inclination or potential.
first premise from Craig's point of view would be 'experience tells us that things which begin to exist have causes, we don't know this to be universally true but common sense tells us it probably is'. Now common sense is very useful in day to day life but experience has shown us that it is more than useless in understanding science which is often counter-intuitive. The second problem with premise 1 is the notion of causation. Philosophers (and scientists) have debated for centuries as to what
That's the thing. Sometimes good science defies all logic and reason. Winning an argument based on premises you believe to be true, simply because it seems logical to you, doesn't make it fact. If your heart is removed from your chest cavity by shrapnel during battle, we know with 100% certainty you will die, whether you believe otherwise or not, even if you win a word based argument and convince people otherwise.
Mr. Begon seems a perfectly nice person - I'm just wondering why a Professor of Ecology would be debating such a thing...
I'm sorry, but your statement starts with "Nor does...", and I'm not sure which other statement it's coming from. What were you getting at with the concept that doesn't include temporal events?
Because, if something comes into being without pre-existing material, that means it comes into existence from nothing. That doesn't require that nothing else exists (as you seem to imagine), it just requires that none of the things that do exist are causally related to the thing which just came into existence. Therefore, if something can come from nothing, then anything can, because nothingness cannot discriminate.
There are no proper objections to the moral argument. It makes sense to most people:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
If you want to deny the conclusion, then you must disprove (1) or (2). You've said "Objective moral are asserted", so you agree with (2). You have not tried to deny premise (1), so the conclusion still stands. Even is you did destroy this, at best you're left with
hey is the law debate going up? thanks guys
I have good reasons to think there isn't a giant teapot orbiting the earth.Craig gave five proofs to show God is not a delusion.Begon argued from HIS definition of delusion to disprove Craig's proofs.It was a good magic trick he attempted.If delusion is "a false belief or opinion" then Begon needs to disprove Criag's proofs which he failed to do and he gave NO arguments that believing in God is a delusion.
If God does not exist then neither do you.
If Krishna doesn’t exist. Then neither do you.
Hare Krishna. True god. Jesus sucks dicks.
And yes he's right. That's why I am a Christian. Also the Bible says in James 1:3, "for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing."
He answers all objections.