Matt would clean his plate. That's the real reason.

Even in his prime, I coulda demolished Mike Tyson as long as he wasn’t in the ring. Well… if he wasn’t in the arena …. State

WLC should never lower himself to someone at Matt Levels. I have seen children out debate matt. Matt's a joke.

@@ceceroxy2227 stay mad troll.

@@lestern71 I am as mad a bullfrog with no shoes.

Is that actually true? If so, that's GOLD.

@@leob3447 Yep. That usually Graig's response to things he can't refute, he calls it absurd but never explains why.

@@Phil-dp9iq he doesn’t explain why something from nothing is absurd?

I have watched this debate dozens of times and I’m still blown away every time by not only this line but also how even after carroll reads the note from gouth to him he literally just passed over it as if it didn’t happen. He’s such a conman

It’s also funny how Craig keeps talking about HIS WORK. But he isn’t a peer reviewed cosmologist. He isn’t taken seriously at all. Having PUBLISHED WORKS doesn’t mean it’s taken seriously or passed through peer review in a serious way.

And to base any non-syllogistic argument on this syllogism is dishonest attempt to make it sound more logical than it is.

Great argument bud, all you have to do is say I reject the argument, well I reject your rejection. Kalam is successful

@@ceceroxy2227 Not how logic works.

@@goldenalt3166 thats what the first guy did. Not sure you really are using the word logic in its proper context.

@@ceceroxy2227 Rejecting a premise does make an argument unsound. Not rejecting the premise does not make it sound. So negating the negation doesn't work.

Craig creates excellent word salad for an audience that is largely unprepared to parse what he's saying or think critically about it even when they have. Boom. Successful apologist.

@@adamchristensen8566 Shapiro and Peterson, Hovind and others come to mind.

@@adamchristensen8566 Couldn't have put it better myself. To be fair. Their are plenty of atheists who fall into the category of "largely unprepared to parse what he's saying or think critically" That used to be me. But I put alot more effort into it since I realized I'm quite dumb generally. lol

He doesn't have to convince atheists, he just has to persuade Christians that the game's not over (which it is).

@@kenbrunet6120 That's the difference between these apologists and those of us living in the real world; we can admit that we don't know everything and actually put forth the effort to better learn and understand.

You keep saying that word. I don't think it meas what you think it means.

@@zoranocokoljic8927 you’re right .me using it is absurd. What I’ve learnt from Dr Craig is impact words, intonation and presentation are more important than the strength of the argument.

I am so smart...S-M-R-T...S-M-R-T...

@@liarspeaksthetruth 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣Doh!

Same as WLC's moral argument: if there is no god, there would not be objective morality. I am sad if there is no objective morality, therefore... God? He never has any reason why something might be objectively good or evil, it's just 'well, I wouldn't like that world'

they call themselves that lol

Only an apologist can call another apologist, apologist?

@@outhousephilosophies3992 No true apologist? ;)

I called myself an apologist, and I am *sorry* I did that.

The religious rarely make sense. For I don't know how long christians have called that pastors, shepherds and their congregations, a flock. 'The shepherd tending his flock' is a common saying for a pastor leading their congregation. A shepherds is one of the oldest occupations, a sheep herder. For at lest hundreds of years christians have been proudly calling themselves sheep. Yet now christian try to paint others as blindly following others by mockingly calling them sheep? They proudly call themselves sheep, and try to call others sheep as an insult. They proudly call themselves apologists, and now they want to pretend that others calling them apologists in an insult?

Its pretty common to see educated people speak about things they know nothing about. Knowledge in one field can produce over confident ignorance in others. Its stereotypically common with engineers.

I have a degree in neither philosophy nor any of the sciences. When I hear them kind of arguments, my thought is often, 'Cool hypothesis; what have you done to confirm it?'

@@robertwrigley6950 yes, exactly. Arguments are not valid without the evidence to back them up.

Craig isn't really a philosopher, though. He's a theologian who specializes in the philosophy of religion. His degree in philosophy from the UK was a 'philosophical' discussion of a theological subject.

@@stueyapstuey4235 My starting assumption is anyone who uses the title 'Doctor' and is neither a medical professional nor a science PHD is full of shit. This assumption seldom proves false.

Im stealing this one. Thanks.

Hmm… The Kalam proper is, in fact, only cosmological and not theological. WLC uses extra steps to try to tie in a personal god and _calls_ it (with the extra steps) the Kalam, but it is not. So, you might want to say: “William Lane Craig’s misrepresentation of the Kalam is Special Pleading, with Extra Steps.” Yeah, I’m a little pedantic, but if you don’t give an inch, they can still take a mile, but you have more clear justification when you call them on it.

It's not special pleading not really if you say the universe itself had no begging your kind of saying the universe caused itself but for it to do that it must have existed prior to it to cause it before it began and also although this argument doesn't argue for an active principle i will have to ask why is the universe so intelligently designed? in before reeeeeee mu-h entropy or look at all the cosmic death none of this points towards design well tell me why do things in nature tend to self assemble themselves to form substructures? similar to RNA which then eventually leads to DNA if there was no design that wouldn't happen naturally if there was no active principle evolution wouldn't be possible naturally because the amount of change over such a long period of time is still infinitely unlikely to produce life. And if there is an active principle for the sake of the argument then we can say nature itself is goal orientated and intelligent similarly there are tons of things in the universe that can go wrong at any moment but they still aren't this too would be explained rationally by an active principle this is not the conceptualization of a jeduo Christian god this god the god I'm arguing for isn't personal. In my world view there is no heaven or hell there are infinite universes and the hell equivalent is reincarnation through bad karma for every bit of rape you do that will be returned to you in another life of course the idea that God needs prayers is an insult as Xenophanes says god is wholly unlike us we are imperfect thoughts in gods mind off course however our purpose according to the Hindu tradition is to achieve moksha i've interpreted that to mean the ideal purpose for every 1 is to reach the platonic world of the ideal forms eventually so that we may become at the very least the platonic perfect of our selves. In my world view, 2 realms exist. 1 The platonic world of ideals (Here all the gods which are really just idealized versions of emotions are formed and also the ideal version of you. 2 Physical reality which is here and now this universe and all the multiverse. God exists in his own realm cause we all live in gods mind so for god to have a mind that implies there is something outside his mind so I don't know what to call it but I call it the platonic world of the perfect infinite. It's a long rambling but my worldview makes more consistent sense than other forms of religion

It really doesn't help them at all... the universe had a beginning, therefore it was God therefore god. Well, 1, they still can't provide any evidence that god was the beginner, and 2, most apologists don't understand the difference between the big bang and the universe, the universe existed "before" the big bang, so that's a false premise anyway.

@@SnakeWasRight To me it falls down right out the gate. "Everything that began had a cause and that cause is God who is uncaused" is a useless argument. But yeah get your point as well. It's a nonstarter that people won't stop trying to argue.

@@dethspud yeah, show me god exists and is uncaused. They can't. All they do is just DEFINE him as uncaused. Okay, great, talk to me when you have some evidence that your definition actually exists outside your head lol.

@@SnakeWasRight And then they accuse athiests of circular reasoning with a straight face. While asserting not being religious is a religion. Truly they have a dizzying intellect.

also not close to being true. Most people have never even heard of him.

Even in Apologetics there are others that get laughed out of the room more often than WLC. Just look at Lee Strobel or Frank Turek.... or (i can understand if you'd rather not look at anything he did) the worst detective in history, Jay Warner Wallace. But obviously WLCs Ego is bigger than his familiarity with debunkings of bottomcreeping apologists...

@@scambammer6102 "Most people have never heard of him" AND "more people have disagreed with him than (with) anyone else in recent history" Are independent. It is perfectly possible that only 5 people have heard of him, all 5 have disagreed with him and there isn't anyone in the world with whom more than two people have disagreed.

@@oscargr_ While true that they are independant, the fact that most people have never heard of him greatly reduces the pool of people who can potentially disagree with therefore greatly reducing the probability that "more people have disagreed with him than with anyone else in recent history". (Also, I would need some precisions with "recent")

@@Tyranastrasza The pool of people whom many people have heard of... is also very small. Edit, almost nobody has heard of either me or you.... That effectively takes us out of the pool of people with whom more people can have disagreed.

yep. mostly because the believers are desperate for auguments to throw on the table for their opponents to have to unravel. its a numbers game for them. and craig has admitted it in many conversations. classic gish galloping

Still many theists cite Kalam and similar arguments as support for their belief. They often refer to it as Thomism, after Thomas Aquinas, who included a version of the Kalam (and not much else) in his Five Proofs for the existence of god.

Craig gets paid for lying about science and religion. How can he change his mind?

Willie has said, out of his own face, multiple times, that he doesn't debate, he evangelizes. He knows it's bullshit but he thinks it's OK to lie for Jebus.

yea, when you get paid for not recognizing something it's pretty easy to do. But hey, we don't have a terminal degree in bullshitting, how could we criticize wlc.

Lying for Jesus. A time honored tradition. See martin Luther...

Craig is on record saying that even if evidence irrefutably proved god did not exist, he would persist in his Christian faith. That is a fundamental hypocrisy for someone who claims to use evidence as a basis for his faith.

No, he would never do that. Right?😂

premise minus infinity is "unembodied mind." By definition that can't exist. The brain is a biological organism within a body, and there is no "mind" without a brain.

Yeah, exactly. Every argument for god when stripped bare of all the fluff just consists of “god exists”. As Pinecreek rightly observes the purpose of the arguments for god is not to provide evidence for god to non believers, rather it’s to reassure believers that they are not stupid for believing something without evidence.

In all fairness, classical logic is non-ampliative.

not just unembodied minds, but unembodied minds that can will things to happen!

As I mentioned before: He does not want that intelligence is material aka active, healthy brain architecture that evolved long after planets formed, cells developed and also long after multicells evolved. In his idea magic minds shall deny the order of causality itself. The order of historical events. By a "mind" coming first upfront atoms even...even before space time expansion...because magic magic blahblah magic. What does timelessness even mean there EXACTLY? Chains of thoughts are time events. To think from one thought to another thought is actually the thinking as process within time. It is not detached or above or sideways of time. To proceed thinking as a process is hellbond to time to exist to begin with. A mind as core term without thinking processes aka chains of thoughts changing from one mood to another mood to another is like claiming square circles and married bachelors and other logical self-contradictions. Craig's ideology is a direct flat out denial of logic and reality itself. Like there would be a "squaredcirclist" and he would be defining his faith in denial of round circles and claiming the "squared circle" to be a possibility. So is his unembodied mind a denial of how minds actually work and are in reality. It is even worse than flatearther in denial of the globe, because at least flatness is a thing.

I've wondered whether Craig's voice actually sounds like this in normal conversation or if he's actively tries to sound extra-annoying and condescending when he's debating...

@@joshlipay9713 it’s the same thing as the extra-earnest preacher voice. It just sounds contrived to me, but some people assume these contrived voices after many years of using them. They become second nature to them.

thinking from a neutral perspective or other perspectives that inst your own helps you out so you dont get "desensitized" from your own or others

For me, the most annoying thing about Craig is the way of he uses a condescending tone and a baffled expression to dismiss any idea he knows he can’t rebuttal. He definitely has the most annoying voice in the apologetics circuit.

It must be said that WLC's degrees have not been of much use to his career as an apologist. He is horrendously ineffectual at crafting concise, informed and cohesive arguments. He is also notably sloppy in his use of language, a deficit he masks with amateur theatrics and rhetorical sleights of hand. I'm sure he struggles with concrete tasks such as grocery shopping or assembling IKEA furniture, but he might best pursue such ventures, in the hope of becoming connected to the world that is, and even contributing something of worth to society. As it stands, he is, currently, utterly useless, superficial and needy, a cocooned coward who refuses to engage the world.

I'd say it's rather an attempt to dismiss an argument by appealing to characteristics of its' author, which is obviously fallacious

Dude got wrecked by Dr. Carroll who has a degree, but doesn't debate regularly. Matt is confrontational and debates professionally. Craig isn't dismissing an argument because he looks down on Matt for not having a relevant terminal degree. He doesn't want the mitts.

More like an ad hom. He doesn't need to respond to Matt's position because of who Matt is.

If you take it at face value, yes. But that's not why Craig refuses to debate Matt... Craig is scared.

The biggest problem with Craig basically rejecting Matt because he's not an academic is like rejecting a person's artwork because they didn't go to art School. Philosophy isn't like biology where there are concrete answers so I very much disagree with the idea that you have to go to a university to be able to speak on philosophy just like how you don't have to go to a university to make artwork

It's often difficult to change positions on a premise that one's financial stability is built on...

Yes, Bill, because *you* and your lemmings won't drop it even after the many flaws have been pointed out.

Whatever pays the cheques for WLC and the rest of the Apologetics cohort.

@Oswlek: That's your take from it? I thought he was admitting that he's never going to shut up about it.

Even better one. P1) I own a car. P2) All cars have engines. C) My car has an engine, and therefore can compete in NASCAR. He's completely missing a huge chunk of the fucking argument because he wants to jam HIS interpretation of a "cause" into the argument.

@@Cross_Malaki . I think you can go further, like airplanes have engines, therefore my car can fly.

Except blue 1967 Ford mustang exits and can be verified. Where exactly is this timeless, spaceless, personal bla bla bla.... to compare the "cause" to?

@@justanormalday7251 Which is why I say my argument is better, even though it's still a terrible argument. My car could actually be a blue 1967 Ford Mustang, because such cars exist and we can verify their existence. My car is red.

@@ziploc2000 I was agreeing with you with my comment.

Well if it was timeless it must have immediately decided to do something as no time could pass in which not be intending to do so. :P So technically making the universe is not change as it would always have been that timeless somethings nature ;) The FUNNY thing is that for his FIRST premise Craig goes out of his way to make it look and sound physically sound by appealing to observations of things INSIDE the universe "beginning to exist" (which always is a transmutation of things already there, so a bit comparable to the creation work of the biblical god, but not to the pseudo scientific creation WLC asserts in *this* argument by referring to the universe beginning to exist... which is not something the bible god has been reported to cause!) and he gives examples. Where are his examples for bodyless minds? For timeless beings? For existence outside of our observed reality at all? HERE he suddenly presupposes possibility based on his presupposed belief in the god of his church. That seems a tiny bit inconsistent and dishonest. ;)

And then after a few thousand years god changed his mind again and decided to almost destroy his most precious of creation, humans, because they disappointed him... You can't make this s41t up.

What I don't understand, is how can a mind be changeless, or even timeless. Doesn't a mind have thoughts, decisions, observations? Don't all of those require time and change???

@@leob3447 Yeah .. but that's not what philosophers like WLC mean by "mind"... Their definition makes it possible... It's just an abstract thing... I am afraid you are going to have to read Billie's books 😉😁

@@oscargr_ He is creating and abstract definition of mind that fits into his argument, but doesn't translate at all to his Christian god - one that thinks and feels. So basically - spaceless, timeless, and meaningless.

It's his life's work, his pinnacle accomplishment. He isn't as popular and successful at creating and maintaining christians (and their money) as Ken Ham or Joel Osteen, he isn't as academically sound as a physicist or a philosopher who isn't dedicated to defending God. The Kalam is his way to be exceptional. He created the best proof of God. Well, he popularized it. Maybe shored up the foundation and formalized it a bit on the way. Anyways, it you take that away from him, you take away his life's work, and that is just sad. Almost like he would have a brain dead philosophical career.

All 'good' apologists do that. They have to. Otherwise they will go from apologist to apostate.

He responds to all of skydive phils arguments against the kalam on his own channel, you should watch, he engages all the critiques, seems he engaged matt's critiques also, which really arent serious ones.

@@ceceroxy2227 never said he doesn’t. I said he resorts to insults, if you bothered to read the comments. Why aren’t they serious responses? What qualifies as serious in your world?

The universe and time are a lot more than the concept of a word. It follows that something timeless and space less can create something like a word (which is technically just shapes or strokes of ink/graphite unless there’s a reader/observer). That makes sense. But creating time and space in and of themselves would have to be made by something outside/beyond the two.

​​@@DnalorNibuldoes space need to be made? Is the question "who made space?" relevant in this context? Time doesn't easily exist. It's an aggregate simplification of other phenomena

He probably agrees with Jordan Peterson and the ancient Christian elite Eusebius that if a lie is useful for personal gain then it must be true (or true enough for them to lie about). We will have to be more careful and prepared against such attacks, both mentally and physically; at least for the better meant of all mankind and the end of all false religions that would hurt the rest of good humanity to gain the slightest benefits towards the cronyist ingroup or their leadership elites.

The sad thing is he doesn't think they're assumptions at all.

No, I think he makes arguments in all his books and papers for things like causation and the beginning of the universe. There are quite a few arguments for both.

@@ceceroxy2227 arguments founded on assumptions, so yes

@@uninspired3583 arguments based on science reason and logic, if you want to call those assumptions, ok

It's basically a self-interested appeal to authority. My argument is right, because I have sold thousands of books saying so.

Correct, that's why people with a small penis boast about the size of their penis 24-7. No one else does, so they feel they have to.

Literal sophism

He's right, of course. It doesn't argue for the moral properties of a god. It also doesn't argue FOR A GOD

they don't argue for the moral properties of god, those get smuggled in later alongside all the other yahweh baggage

@@FighterDoken 😲

@@FighterDoken Yes it does. Or rather Billy Boy and his sycophants exclusively use it to argue for their specific brand of a sky faerie.

I think wizard is innacurate. my research shows that it would be an invisible genie. Sorry, I'm just bored and wanted to argue with someone today lol

@@kenbrunet6120 Universe creating Pixies just make it look like an invisible universe creating genie exists to throw us off. Just like fossils.

Especially an invisible sky wizard who wants to be in a personal relationship with you, but refuses to offer proof of his existence.

I thought the xtian god was a lich?

It's always funny to listen to him rattle off the list of qualifications for a cause for the universe and never include that the cause must be something that exists. If he did, it would be obvious to all that he's engaging in circular reasoning. In his full argument the need for a cause demonstrates existence, but at the same time existence is a requirement for causality even if he doesn't say so. For his argument to work, he needs to demonstrate the existence of his timeless, spaceless, personal agent first. If he could do that, the entire argument would be moot.

@@bobbun9630 Exactly that, yes. It comes across as so flimsy, made to look impressive by word salad or, more commonly, just making bold-faced claims. I mean, if someone was trying to convince me that they had a pet dragon, and all they ever did was describe all the aspects of their dragon and how 'When you really think about it philosophically, my dragon logically _has_ to exist', then shock-horror I'm not gonna end up believing they have a dragon, I _am_ gonna think they're talking out their rear however.

A hypocrite like always.

Also Dawkins objected to Craig's approval of the slaying of the Canaanites, as ordered by Yahweh, in the Bible.

@@tonydarcy1606 WJC may have changed his position on that, since he is now chucking the OT.

@@tonydarcy1606 But I thought as dawkins said there is no good no evil, just pittiless indifference, seems like that is contradicting his position on the canaanites.

Well you have to then say its acceptable Craig doesnt want to debate Dillahunty, because Dillahunty has been dying to debate Craig, Dawkins didnt want to debate Craig, thats his choice, Craig not interested in debating Matt, thats his choice, but actually Craig and Dawkins did debate in a group debate in mexico.

I very much agree with you. The Kalam has been stated and debunked so many times I think this horse has pretty much been beaten to a pulp by now :-D

It's no different than saying; 1: I think God exists 2: Existance exists 3: therefore God exists

@@GRAHFMETAL That's a fair appraisal. It is obvious that the god concept was a human invention to start with, so there's practically zero chance of it being a reality. All that these religious charlatans do is to try to make it harder to disprove, by pushing god beyond the realms of testability.

If he were to prove the existence of "god"-he would still need to prove the god to be his god,and then,a trinity.

@@shriggs55 Absolutely correct. The Kalam Cosmological argument is incredibly weak, especially given that it cannot identify who, or what, the creator might be. It's just a method of shifting the goal posts. Creationists like to circumvent the problem of proving that god exists, by asserting that god must be the reason for the existence of everything else.

@@clemstevenson Sometimes it's not about accumulating knowledge on any subject(s)-but what a person WANTS to believe is true.Often times it has an emotional attachment.

In the beginning the Kalam was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move

@@tonydarcy1606 According to Wikipedia, the counter-arguments are about as old as the Kalam itself. They write: _The kalam cosmological argument is based on the concept of the prime-mover, introduced by Aristotle, and entered early Christian or Neoplatonist philosophy in Late Antiquity, being developed by John Philoponus.[7] Along with much of classical Greek philosophy, the concept was adopted into medieval Islamic tradition during the Islamic Golden Age, where it received its fullest articulation at the hands of Muslim scholars, most directly by Islamic theologians of the Sunni tradition._ _Its historic proponents include Al-Kindi,[8] Al-Ghazali,[9] and St. Bonaventure.[10][11][12]_ _One of the earliest formulations of the kalam cosmological argument in the Islamic philosophical tradition comes from Al-Ghazali, who writes:_ _"Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning."[13]_ _Between the 9th to 12th centuries, the cosmological argument developed as a concept within Islamic theology. It was refined in the 11th century by Al-Ghazali (The Incoherence of the Philosophers), and in the 12th by Ibn Rushd (Averroes).[14] It reached medieval Christian philosophy in the 13th century and was discussed by Bonaventure, as well as Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica (I, q.2, a.3) and Summa Contra Gentiles (I, 13)._ _Islamic perspectives may be divided into positive Aristotelian responses strongly supporting the argument, such as those by Al-Kindi, and Averroes, and negative responses critical of it, including those by Al-Ghazali and Muhammad Iqbal.[15] Al-Ghazali was unconvinced by the first-cause arguments of Al-Kindi, arguing that only the infinite per se (that is an essentially ordered infinite series) is impossible, arguing for the possibility of the infinite per accidens (that is an accidentally ordered infinite series). He writes:_ _"According to the hypothesis under consideration, it has been established that all the beings in the world have a cause. Now, let the cause itself have a cause, and the cause of the cause have yet another cause, and so on ad infinitum. It does not behove you to say that an infinite regress of causes is impossible."[16]_ _Muhammad Iqbal also stated:_ _"To finish the series at a certain point, and to elevate one member of the series to the dignity of an uncaused first cause, is to set at naught the very law of causation on which the whole argument proceeds."[17]_

Giggle

@@Forest_Fifer Ah! A fellow member of _The Amalgamated Union of philosophers, Sages, Luminaries and Other Professional Thinking Persons_

It does. You begin by assuming god exists then you attempt to fool someone else int9 believing

I'm going with Universe sneezing fairies 🧚 💥✨ Especially as the fairies at the bottom of my garden assure me that I am beautiful, clever, and still a pristine virgin 🧚🌻🧚🏵️🧚💮🧚🙆🏼‍♀️💁🏼‍♀️

@@ladyselenafelicitywhite1596 Reminds me that another student once told me that (in their uni math lecture) they had spent about half a semester (accidentally) proving theorems about the elements of the empty set (because they got their starting definitions wrong). Every theorem about the elements of the empty set is true - there isn't a single element for which they are false, no matter what they say!

@@ladyselenafelicitywhite1596 Meh, I never understood this obsession with virginity... Some good experience is so much more appealing 😋

@@mcwolf1096 it's a joke based of the Sir Sic's expression about being handsome, famous, and good at the sex.

@@ladyselenafelicitywhite1596 Ah, okay, I might have missed that bit (having listened to this while doing some other stuff 🙃)

In general, I'd somewhat disagree - but considering that Craig basically demands that Matt should read _all_ of Craig's works, the fact that he hasn't watched some of the most obviously relevant videos by Matt just shows his utter hypocrisy...

I think he tried to refute this at some point by saying that the decision to create the universe, and the creation of space-time were simultanoeus, that is to say, there's no gap between those two "events", so he can still maintain timelessness. More special pleading of course.

Time was my initial awakening from religion. If god is timeless and unchanging, then why did God suddenly change after Christ? There is no way you can read the old testament and new testaments and say that is an unchanging god, yet people do. And if God's existence as Christ is what caused the change, perhaps through experiencing the world as a human would, then god is not all knowing. There's a huge contradiction in there between the common definition of what God is and the "evidence" of God in the Bible.

They love to use the word "personal" because it sounds like "Jesus loves you" personal God instead of the "existing as an entity" that they are actually claiming.

@@rodoxag9117 If God made the choice to create, that's still requires it to be affected by time. The only real argument to get around this is some kind of temporal dimension beyond our universe. But that opens the door to a greater cosmos.

a choice doesnt seem to need time, but an action does. Doing something needs time, if the first action was silmataneious with the beignning of the unverse and time itself then we have silmutaneous causation.

I like that

@@Paulogia thank you 🙋🏼‍♀️🙆🏼‍♀️😘💋 Here's another one from memory. "Faith. Belief without evidence, of things without parallel, told by people without knowledge." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

How

@@senkuishigami2485 how? It's a joke 🙄😒🙎🏼‍♀️🙍🏼‍♀️🙇🏼‍♀️🤷🏼‍♀️🤦🏼‍♀️

@@ladyselenafelicitywhite1596 ok

It does not matter, like for Flat Earth the message that WLC distributes is meant for the cult bubble. And they believe it, they are conditioned to believe everything from everybody that claims that he speaks for the ultimate unquestionable institution, their imagination how God should be.

Here's the problem, WLC doesn't really care for the phycisists opinions. He's already convinced that time must have a beginning from his idea that infinite regression is impossible. He only brought up physics and cosmology because he thought he could add physical evidence to his philosophical claims. Even if he ends up accepting that cosmology doesn't back up his claim about the whole "universe had a beginning" thing, he will still put it aside and keep going with his infinite regression impossibility. The fact that both Guth and Vilenkin disagreed with WLC's usage of their theorem in his own face and he's still repeating the same BS clearly shows that he does not care for physical evidence at all.

@@rodoxag9117 you're right about that, but I think it's even worse: he doesn't care about physicists' opinions or about physical evidence, but he continues to act as if he does. citing a _"constellation of very prominent ... physicists"_ as he does later in the video suggests a really deep dishonesty when he's been told that Guth asserts the opposite of what he asserts that Guth asserts. I wonder what it would take to get him to switch off of this? perhaps there's nothing.

Well, his favorite apologetic is the argument from lots of arguments. That's a big red flag.

His entire belief structure relies on information that he could not possibly possess.

He doesn't need published works to make him an expert. He's obviously an expert. It's just that he's an expert in religious apologetics, which isn't exactly an area of expertise the world should be seeking out.

The major point is that he does not want that intelligence is material aka active, healthy brain architecture that evolved long after planets formed, cells developed and also long after multicells evolved. In his idea magic minds shall deny the order of causality itself. By coming first upfront atoms even...even before space time expansion...because magic magic blahblah magic. What does timelessness even mean there? Chains of thoughts are time events. To think from one thought to another is actually thinking as process within time not detached or above or sideways of it. To proceed thinking as a process is hellbond to time to exist. A mind as term without thinking processes aka chains of thoughts changing from mood to another to another is like claiming square circles and married bachelors. Craigs ideology is a denial of logic and reality itself. Like there would be an "squaredcirclist" and he would be defining his faith in denial of round circles and claiming the squared circle to be a possibility.

He uses the impossibility of actual infitnites to show the universe can not have an infinite series of past events, He uses timelessness to show that the cause must be timeless.

@@ceceroxy2227 we don't know that the universe had a beginning. The big bang is not the beginning. Actual infinities are possible. WLC trying to prove a cosmologist or physicist wrong with their discipline is silly. He is stuck with a philosophical argument that doesn't add up.

@@johnelliott5859 Actual infinities are possible, wow please explain your evidence for that, are you saying that its possible to have a quantifiable discreeet infinite number of things. The arguments for the impossibility of forming an actual infinite through successive addition or traversing an infinite are how we philosophically can come to the concusion that the universe is finite into the past, if you would like to demonstrate why these are fallacious, I would love to hear your arguments.

@@ceceroxy2227 You have added 'discrete' to your requirement for infinities. Not all conceivable sets are discrete. The WLC argument you seem to be referencing is about how it would take an infinite number of discrete steps to get from an infinite past to the present. Fallacy: assumes time is discrete and advances in discrete chunks. Such an idea is not to be found in Schroedinger's equation which is the basis of the well tested and highly applicable theory of quantum mechanics. The discrete energy levels of quantum mechanics are the time invariant solutions to that equation as applied to atoms and molecules and it happens that those time invariant solutions provide the central values of the measurements we make on atoms and molecules. Nowhere in there is "time changes in discrete amounts". There are infinities which have no isomorphism to any naturally occurring phenomenon, but that is far from saying that all naturally occurring phenomena are discrete series and as such finite.

Maybe like the disciples putting so much weight behind Christ's so-called resurrection.

YEP!!!!!!!! exactly. Carroll demonstrated that using kalam as an argument for god is classic god of the gaps. old 2000 year old thinking (i think Carroll called it outdated aristotellian thinking) that our current knowledge of the universe, makes obsolete.

I'd argue the argument is only valid if we're talking about the "short" version of it, the one that stops at "the universe has a cause". It's actually false, as in a non sequitur, if we go with the full argument of "it has to be non spatial non temporal" and all that garbage.

@@nathanjora7627 no it is fully valid. A valid argument is an argument, the conclusion of which is true, if all premises are true. Since both premises are wrong, the argument is valid, but not Sound in the slightest.

@@BluePhoenix_ I think you missed the part where I said that I didn't think *the extended* version of the argument isn't sound. Ie : (as I've also explicitly stated) the part where premises are added in order to conclude that this first cause has to be a personal free agent with great powers that transcends time and space.

It's, apparently, ok to lie if it saves a doubting christian from hell 🙄

Ya got that right! Craig wants to play in the "big field" and he just can't. He has managed to insert his name but that's about it. He has wanted to debate Dawkins and Dawkins WON'T for the exact same reason that Craig won't debate Dillahunty!

Which scientist did WLC misquote?

​@@draftsman3383Dawkins

​@@rickkwitkoski1976He warned to debate Dawnkins on what topic?

Craig is a highly respected philosopher in his field, when people on the internet post comments attacking him like he's some young earth creationist who jus dun' rolled off the pick up truck, they rarely sense the irony.

@@andrewwells6323 😂😂

@@andrewwells6323 Well, the irony seems to be that this "highly respected philosopher" engages in highly dubious arguing. But then again, I've seen that reference adjusted to "theological philosophy". Might be an important point there.

@@andrewwells6323 . Problem once WLC started milking KLA he stopped trying and has become disingenuous.

@@robertt9342 Someone disagreeing with you doesn’t make them dishonest or disingenuous.

glad someone got it

And he is lauded as among the best and the brightest apologists alive today. Ouch. Good thing Craig haws god on his side. ;)

That's because if he ever actually answers a question he would have to defend his answer and he just can't do that. He even refuses to answer if he believes in a god, instead he says that he acts like he believes. . . Well I don't care if he sacrifices goats on a full moon, I want him to answer what he believes. If I lived in a country where being an atheist could get me killed, then you are damn right I would act like I believed, but that doesn't mean that I actually believed.

LOL

In fact it makes no sense. What happened before the first cause? And what is "cause" anyway? It's a human tool for describing apparently related events, that's all.

That’s where my problem with the Kalam starts. I see no evidence that the first premise is true. I’ve never seen everything and I don’t know anybody who has seen everything. It could well be that there’s something that began to exist without a cause. It could be that there’s a dozen of them. Or thousands. It’s an assumption without proof and so the rest of the kalam is pointless.

the only thing that could have possibly "begun to exist" would be the universe because everything else is a just a rearrangement of energy. so premise 1 is nonsense

@@natew.7951 Theists don't even agree with the Kalam. They think god had no cause.

Another point about the Kalam is that it suffers from a fallacy of composition - even if we accept the first premise, the correct way it should be stated is "Everything **In the universe** that begins to exist has a cause" Which then makes it clear how the jump to the conclusion by combining p1 and p2 is unjustified. So I would argue Kalam isnt even VALID if stated correctly, much less Sound.

I'm a fan of Craig but I absolutely love that analogy , delahunty does punch hard. I'm not sure if he'd beat craig but he'd punch very hard, like he did with peterson.

That's just a premise, so I don't think anyone called it valid. What was called valid is the Kalam as a whole. * Valid means an argument would be correct if all its premises were true. * Sound means it's not only valid, but we also know the premises are true. Premise 1: Pink fairies are the only causes of universes. Premise 2: Our universe exists. Conclusion: Therefore pink fairies exist. My argument IS valid because the premises (if true) would mean the conclusion was true. My argument IS NOT sound, because we don't know the premises are all true.

Its a metaphysical principle, that everything that begins to exist needs a cause. Thats like saying well I need to investigate every square and circle to say we cant make a square circle.

@@ceceroxy2227 that comparison is apples and oranges. Squares/circles are mathematical definitions and thus can be proven exclusive. This is the problem with philosophy, I'm not sure I'll ever be convinced, without evidence, that in the realm of quantum physics spontaneous, random, uncaused events aren't possible. Then there's the whole 'came into being' problem, which someone a God can avoid but the universe cannot. The random assertion that a consciousness can exist formlessly and timelessly is nonsensical. Our consciousness is formed by electrical patterns. It isn't even a fundamental thing. I propose that inside this hypothesis, energy is a far more fundamental concept that can be placed as the timeless cause.

@@ceceroxy2227 Did you agree with Toblexson's explanation of your mistake? Squares and circles are by definition mutually exclusive. With things and causes, there is no logical reason why a thing _must_ have a cause. If your desired conclusion is an uncaused god, _you're forced to agree!_ If everything has a cause, then uncaused gods are impossible. If not everything has a cause, then Kalam has no basis for claiming our universe had one.

@@ceceroxy2227 Another “metaphysical” principle is that everything has a natural cause, too.

well that's one problem. Theists believe in infinite time one way but not the other.

You'll notice that he never addresses the point where god ...er, "a mind"... begins to exist.

merci

These are but wild and whirling words, my Lord.

Actually it is a very controversial part. "Beginning to exist" is already something extremely arbitray and a useless term in physics, only used colloquially. The second premise is also without basis. The reality is, we do NOT know. The universe might very well be eternal.

Both those premises are assumptions though with nothing backing them up that why the whole thing is controversial.

“The cause must be immaterial…” that’s deductive reasoning, no?

@@page8301 wouldn’t an eternal universe entail an impossible infinite regress in time?

@@glucasme Yes. And?

Because they want to prove a god.