William Lane Craig - Wondering About God
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
The God debate is not a game. 'Is there a Creator God?' is a serious question. If God exists, what can we know about God? Can an infinite God be accessible to finite humans? Can we inquire of God's essences and traits? What are all the ways that God could be? Or could not be? We discover different beliefs of different kinds of Gods.
Watch more interviews on understanding God: bit.ly/2UMRHMa
William Lane Craig is an American analytic philosopher, theologian, and Christian apologist. He is known for his work in the philosophy of religion, philosophy of time, and the defense of Christian theism.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
I love this guy😆👍👍
Your first question is so odd "What does it mean that God created the world 'from nothing'". The reason that it is odd is because you have done exactly this form of creation yourself - that is what a dream is. A world appears, full of objects you can interact with - yet 'consciousness' or 'nothing' is the ground of their being and YOU are the creator of it. You are the cause, and there is no prior 'material reality' that you are creating the dream out of.
Once you fully understand your ontological position as 'God' of your dreams, how that makes you omnipresent, all knowing, entirely good (even if it is a "bad" dream) - and once you fully understand that consciousness is fractal in nature - at that point you can understand the relationship between God and this universe. Congrats - you are a character in God's dream and as a result a 'child of God'.
The singularity of the 'big bang' is what the start of THIS dream looks like from inside the dream. Religion / spirituality is concerned with the dreamer of this reality, where as science is concerned with the CONTENT of this reality. You cannot / will not ever find God through science any more than doing science in your own dream will tell you that the dream is generated by a sleeping person on a bed somewhere. That doesn't make science 'wrong' - but the mode of understanding the dreamer has to be through self-probing consciousness... the tools of which are meditation, psychedelics, near death experiences, and other trials that produce altered states of consciousness.
Well, certain ideologies has actually done quite well at describing what could be out there, considering all kinds of silly alternatives. They observed same sky as we do today, using only their eyes. But i don't think they meant God created universe and life as we know them today, Earth was pictured as a flat plane, exploding into existence by pure divine desire. This phenomena should be attributed to self description and analysis of the environment, it's a great achievement for animal species, but rest assure The Universe is something completely different and way more complicated than anything imagined by religion or science.
But it is not religion that will expand our knowledge - it will be Science & science works with facts not mere conjucture which is what you are doing in your last sentence - how do you know the universe is completely different - it is just idle speculation
Thank God that science progressed inspite of Science
Take a look at Islamic countries today - they still live in the 4th century, all the progress came from outside, they contribute nothing to the progress of the world - that is where we would have been as well
@Stefano Portoghesi Hi you have me pegged wrong - I am an Atheist Hindu - Hinduism is a Democratic faith there is freedom here but covered up by our dark skin - western media can't get beyond the skin color it seems
The people that you need to talk to are Christians & Muslims - they see God as a Master/King - their ticket to the easy good life in Heaven. Getting there is easy as pie - just make sure you are groveling to the right God like polishing the right shoes in a Corrupt country and getting ahead
The reason they argue there must be a God is obvious - without God there would be no easy after life - no Sugar Daddy to keep them in nice comfort ergo God MUST exist
Take away Heaven and most Theists will disappear
@Stefano Portoghesi See my post just now in the main discussion
@Stefano Portoghesi Well there is no such thing as an Atheist right? The best we can be is to be Agnostic correct? We can't definitely say that there is no God, but all evidence points to there being none
I lean towards Atheism - there being no God - but having grown up a Hindu - there are 6 schools of thought in Hinduism - one of them is Atheistic - basically one doesn't have to believe in God or go to the temples or anything
To me all religious ideas are just that - just ideas & i find them interesting - I try to find rational down-to-earth views of religious ideas - clearly the Christian/Islamic God is none but the local King/Dictator/Master
Yes Reincarnation is an idea that i like - whether I believe or not is not the point - i find these ideas interesting and think such ideas should be discussed
@@ramaraksha01 "how do you know the universe is completely different"
Well, nobody has ever seen inside of our planet, for a start. Earth is boring as a planet, existing inside completely negligible solar system, with only one average star. Even if we could explore entire system,we still wouldn't know anything much about the universe. And it's only what we can detect and measure with modern instruments, most of the universe we are not even aware of exist.
How do i know science is still in prehistoric age, best our satellites can photograph is a large state size chunk of sun surface, nobody has ever seen how less than one meter detail look like. And it's a real star, most magical object in space we know of, source of life and everything our world is made of, how can any celestial body in reach of our technology be more important than that, besides grounds we stand on, of course.
Science is a hierarchical structure of measurable and verifiable facts, it was easy to understand maybe until 100 years ago, today not a single person is alive who can built entire car by himself alone. Sure people know how to assemble a vehicle, but imagine an engineer would have to extract natural ore and process all modern materials alone, not to even mention electronics and other high tech, no way a single person could know all that science in a single life time. And it's just a car, high end machines are way more complicated than that. It's science, but i forgot what was the original goal, why exactly we want to know and record all that if human condition is still just as miserable and pathetic than since forever.
Well whatever you may think of the man, he has definitely honed his oratory skills of sounding convincing and confident.
All the more evil for having done so. See "crimestop" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime#Crimestop
@@johnsmith1474 Evil has no absolute meaning if there is no absolute Good . So ..... you dont make sense .....
@@CatsMusicTube - If you are going to babble incoherently at least learn to properly use ellipses. Nice cat anyway.
please define what God's imagine is and how it relates to humans, do we have divine properties or does God have human properties or something else I can't see.
What amazing is that the moment of creation or the big bang or singularity in mentioned in Quran in technical and scientific way..god say that out of nothing there was a "ratak" ratak mean "patch" or piece of fabric or woven ropes or strigs that are tightend and no holes in this patch..after that he teared this piece of fabric apart and that was the begining of everthing and from those string and ropes everything is made excacty like string theory says...so the the singularity is actually "tearing" of piece of fabric....this mentioned in Sura "ELMOAMENON"
An absolute beginning is contradictory to the existences of god. He is saying that the universe had to be created from nothing and that it can’t be eternal, why? In the same point he is implying that god is eternal so why can’t the universe be??
Because it is impersonal , dead . You need life to get life and a personal because you create .all our observation says so . It is only our ego that rejects truth .
CatsAndMusic again, if you need life to get life then you would need life+life+life and so on. It’s such a flawed argument.
@@Squire19lUK Not if Life is eternal . Atheist used to claim the universe is eternal . They had no problem there . They now claim the multiverse is , or the quantum sea is . Only to God they object . My friend , eternal is unavoidable . The question is what is eternal ? I say Life , God . Others say rocks or particles . You choose .
J w infinity occurs in physics, irrational numbers for example. So why can’t nature be infinite when there is evidence of this to be true? A cycle would explain how the universe could be constant. Again, by claiming a god can be eternal detracts from any point you make for the universe or other universes not being able to be eternal.
“So why can’t the universe be eternal”
The short answer is because it isn’t eternal!! This is now a fact that has been demonstrated by scientific evidence.
Furthermore, this assumption that the universe can still be eternal despite the overwhelming evidence has parallels with the “who created the designer” argument.
The long answer is the fact that an absolute, non contingent, uncaused cause, that is an absolute ontological ground of reality is necessary whether it is just substance/matter or an absolute mind that is intangible and inexplicable. So logically if an absolute uncaused, infinite mind and consciousness/God is the ground of reality they obviously would not require a cause or a “designer” as this is a contradiction in terms. Equally, the fact is that before we discovered the “Big Bang” atheists were quite happy to believe that the universe was the necessary and infinite uncaused ground of reality. So for centuries both atheists and theists have shared this logical conclusion that a non contingent uncaused cause is necessary to reality and existence and is a logical hypothesis and a rational belief to hold. However, with the overwhelming evidence of the “Big Bang” the science demonstrated that the universe began to exist approximately thirteen billion years ago so the universe was clearly not the infinite uncaused, non contingent ground of reality.
The irony is that atheists weren’t interested in asking who created the non contingent, uncaused infinite universe prior to the “Big Bang” as this would clearly have been a circular and illogical question. It’s now suddenly very convenient to ask who created or caused the non contingent uncaused cause when the evidence points to the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/monotheism but it still does not hide the fact that this is circular reasoning. Equally, prior to the twentieth centuries advances in cosmology it speaks volumes that the prominent atheist philosopher David Hume claimed that the universe was the necessary uncaused, non contingent ground of reality and existence. So asking people, who believe in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/monotheism, who created the ontological ground of reality? asking people who believe in “that of which nothing greater can be conceived”/God/mind and consciousness, who created God? is circular logic and is a non sequitur as it does not logically follow that this proves that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism is true. It’s hardly surprising that the physical universe turned out to be finite because philosophers had already pointed out for centuries that if the physical universe was infinite it would have led to an infinite regress of causes making it logically impossible to arrive at the present as materialism is a closed system. So by the strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists own standard this assumption broke the law of non contradiction prior to the evidence of a metaphysical beginning provided by the “Big Bang” .
Prior to discovering that the universe was finite Hume would have replied that the universe was necessary and therefore did not require a cause or a creator. However, the science demonstrates that the universe, that is matter including space and even time had a beginning so the cause of the universe is obviously immaterial, spaceless and timeless.
It speaks volumes that initially sceptics argued that if an absolute mind and consciousness/God is necessary and does not need a cause or creator then why not the universe? However, this has turned into a special pleading fallacy and is a double standard because now that science has demonstrated that the universe isn’t the uncaused cause it’s suddenly an essential requirement to ask who caused “that of which nothing greater can be conceived”? Who caused the non contingent, uncaused cause/mind/consciousness? (Anselmo d’Aosta). This is hilarious and is comedy gold because as I pointed out already the belief that the universe was the infinite, necessary uncaused cause was a prevalent belief among prominent atheists before the twentieth century. However, the observable evidence in science and cosmology has strongly refuted this possibility as our space time is contingent and can not be necessary in and of itself. Obviously there is still debate regarding what is the most likely necessary cause of existence and reality. Nevertheless, the fact is that asking why can’t the universe be eternal and who created the necessary, uncaused, non contingent cause of the universe is still a circular and ridiculous objection whether it turns out to be nothing more than meaningless, blind, mindless matter or an absolute mind/consciousness that caused the universe and we don’t even need to appeal to theistic philosophers to point this out!
No even God source knows what it is so it broke itself off into infinite fractals with individual units of consciousness in order to love and know itself
Kudos -- 444 Gematria -- 🗽
Thunderbirds are Go!!!!!!!!!
It’s all just absurd anyway. It is absurd to say that an uncreated being, God, created everything from nothing. It’s equally absurd to say that nothing created everything out of nothing.
Each side of the argument starts out with a miracle. Out of nothing something.
But of course my nothing out of something explanation for reality is better and more real than yours - and it goes on and on and on.
TCL Actually both sides don’t start with a miracle. One start with a necessary miracle doer and the other requires an uncaused miracle - this is absurd on its face which is why cosmologists of the materialist variety need to put inflationary cosmology back onto an infinitum of some kind, any kind. What i do find curious is why cosmologists think that an infinitum would work? It looks like an escape from work
Chris J Abraham - Nothingness, the real nothingness- the absence of anything at all. No laws of physics, no vacuum, no virtual particles popping in and out of a vacuum ( laws of physics and a vacuum are something ) are something no doubt about it. The language of physics becomes as absurd as the language of theists.
One sounds exactly like the other when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it all. They both rely on some kind of faith- an unknown first cause of some kind. They go at each other like “their” unknown and inexplicable whatever it is, is more reasonable than the other. Children in a sandbox.
Psychiatrysts:
noth·ing | \ ˈnə-thiŋ \
Definition of nothing (Entry 1 of 4)
1 : not any thing : no thing
leaves nothing to the imagination
2
Hi, Lawrence!
I have enjoyed your videos for years.
But...
I have a question for you!
What do you think about that book which claims to have figured out what are and how work black holes. According to it those might be very brightly shining objects that become invisible exactly because of the laws of physics.
Also, this book suggests a new idea for the origins of the Universe. According to it, it is eternal and uncreated and that is the only way it could be. The book describes the philosophy behind that. It it logical though.
Also, the book describes tides in a completely different way. Yes, it still is because of the Moon, but in completely different way from what we think today.
Among other things the book looks at failures of flat eart theory and hollow earth theory. It even addresses the question what is truth...
Anyway, what do you think about those theories?
The book is titled as - My Quest to Understand Everything: Everything is Mechanics of Reflection.
Its author uses a funny pen name - george warehouseman... Possibly to trigger some unstable PhD's... ha ha ha
And the idea about God-Crestor is completely debunked there, along with all those texts of all three Abrahamic Religions.
Also this book claims to have figured out the true pattern and mechanics of Magnetic field... It provides proofs for this claim and has depictions of it in it.
All in all, it is just filled with alternative views on many theories of contemporary theoretical physics.
God cannot be understood i.e boxed, known but that is a flaw of knowledge not of God. You follow. Knowledge makes objects of its inquiry and it can't make an object to that which is infinite. Understanding that you see why God is not a religion. However it is not because God is unreal but rather because he is infinite so. Yeah. And you can understand that. You can walk to thhe edged of what you can know and not know.
Not once in these interviews with these religious people are they asked - what does one DO in Heaven? What work does the great creator of his huge universe with all its stars, planets and life forms for us lowly humans? So do we all just sit about doing nothing? Snoring away eternity?
These people who are doing the interviewing play the game - they know what questions make these religious people uncomfortable - so they ask easy and cheap questions that they know these people are happy to discuss
Only religion is able to turn normal, honest people into dishonest scum bags
@Ruby Badilla The problem i have is with the Bhakti yoga - you refer in No 1 about the concept of God, but why would God need our prayers? Because He is a King/Master? We must praise Him, He will be pleased & reward us?
Just like the ancients peasants who lived under kings did?
True Bhakti is selfless - one prays for the good & happiness of the neighbor, not for ourselves
And then we think - is there something that I can do to help?
And thats why we have Reincarnation
WE are the Saviors - christians & muslins hope to either run away from life or some sugar daddy magic being coming down & solving all our problems
Hinduism says no such person is coming - its on us to make the world a better place
@Ruby Badilla Reincarnation can happen within one life as well
Once i was a child clinging to my mother
Then a boy, then a young man full of dreams, then middle age & now in the autumn of my years
All those people were me yet they are not
You are proposing the Buddhist view, to me the Hindu view makes more sense
I control my fate, i am responsible for my future state
For eg i say that christians & muslims will come back as lower life forms as they wish for an easier less stressful life
Tat Tvam Asi - they become who they are or who they wish to be
@Ruby Badilla It's about taking responsibility for one's actions - the Buddha had a calling - he could have stayed in his palace - have a wonderful life but he chose to follow his heart
Animals don't have that choice that we have
We have choices, you can be a Buddhist or not- you have made a willful choice
To claim that you have not then you are no better than a machine or an animal
There is a reason why some teams win and other don't - why some countries win huge number of gold medals and others don't
Why some get top marks and others don't - those who want gold medals and top marks and making the sacrifices, working hard to attain those goals
Those who get poor marks or do not get to the olympics are simply choosing not to work hard
This is not rocket science
By your words I see that you might be headed to a lower life form where everything will be predestined for you - maybe as a tree - you will live our your life according to what all trees have done for all of time
@Ruby Badilla huh? Your entire post was that we dont have a choice how we are born, but now we do?
Choice is limited by the life form that we have - i certainly cannot fly but a dumb bird can do so easily
A brain-damaged person has less "choices" than most people
Choice is in this context
No dog is dreaming of becoming the next Mozart or solving Einsteins equations - it is in this regard they have less choices
@Ruby Badilla ok we were talking nicely what happened?
Suddenly you turn nasty
So much for all that high-brow talk of Buddha & treating people nicely
Just cheap talk?
Nobody really knows!
This is just one massive assertion by Craig, and he certainly isn't in the position of cosmologists to evaluate the current science!
In other words, he's willing to bend anything to fit the bronze age Biblical beliefs that he holds!
Wide-eyed incredulity, wow, he has all the answers.
he is appealing to the consensus among the experts in the field, you muppet. not ''bending'' anything the big bang is in accord with what the Bible taught all along.
1 ) You dont know what other people know .
2 ) There are Theist comsomologist , there are atheist cosmologist . Science is a method used by all .
3 ) Is not assertion , no more than its negation . It is a deductive argument derived from logic , philosophy and observation .
@Stefano Portoghesi There are no "gods" . There is only one un-caused cause by necessity . Observation of DNA , irreducible complexity , fine tuning , morals , beginning of universe all point to this . This is your observation , that something doesn't come from nothing . Your observation is that life does not come from non-life , logical from illogical , order from explosion , but yet you put your faith that is does .
@@CatsMusicTube
All of the above is very much better explained by naturalistic causes!
The real test of a believer is whether they will accept death rather than recant. The upside to this for society is obvious.
I don't get any of this. All this energy should be put into curing cancer.
Then dont watch , go and heal my friend .
“All this energy should be put into curing cancer”
Sorry but there’s no “energy for curing cancer” without a philosophy of care. Equally, your comment is just an (Appeal to Moral Outrage Fallacy). Not to mention an (Appeal to Emotion Fallacy and an Appeal to Humility Fallacy)
What about all the energy and money used to build CERN’s Large Hadron Collider? The Large Hadron Collider took about a decade to construct, for a total cost of about $4.75 billion. How many children with cancer were cured by the Large Hadron Collider?
Furthermore, what about all the energy scientists have put into making weapons? Why are you more concerned about someone who promotes the idea of forgiveness and loving your enemies than energy wasted on war and particle physics?
No religion ever created a weapon with the potential to destroy our children and grandchildren’s future at the press of a button (nuclear weapons) for this kind of monstrosity you need secular twentieth century science/technology and physicists and scientists who put all their energy into “proving” that everything is meaningless and that morality is arbitrary encouraging nihilism and fatalism by presenting our families and children as nothing more than biological and chemical robots.
“Since Hiroshima and the Holocaust, science no longer holds its pristine place as the highest moral authority. Instead, that role is taken by human rights. It follows that any assault on Jewish life - on Jews or Judaism or the Jewish state - must be cast in the language of human rights.”(Rabbi Johnathan Sacks)
“The news today about 'Atomic bombs' is so horrifying one is stunned. The utter folly of these lunatic physicists to consent to do such work for war-purposes: calmly plotting the destruction of the world! Such explosives in men's hands, while their moral and intellectual status is declining, is about as useful as giving out firearms to all inmates of a gaol and then saying that you hope 'this will ensure peace.”
(J.R. Tolkien 1945).
So, another video filled with incredulity of how the universe works (and cosmology in particular), with false interpretations of what the mentioned cosmologists said, and a video with also no evidence of the existence of God...
How surprising!
Watch a real cosmologist, Sean Carroll on this issue: czcams.com/video/ew_cNONhhKI/video.html and czcams.com/video/H864JH1tPYU/video.html
He does not explain how universe works . You are not even able to understand the argument yet you disagree , it is amazing !!!. You dismiss a strawman .
@Psychiatrysts Exactly my friend ....
How come WLK does not quote text in the Bible which says God created it from nothing. A simple textual citation would suffice, though I doubt if such a verse can be found.
Meant quoting the text from the Bible
@@middlewayproject2364 Genesis 1:1
God does not exist. end of conversation.
Wowee thanks
Why are you so angry?
Lord Acton ...why do you interpret it as anger?
I’m not sure which are worst. Atheists or Theists.
@@jennifer97363 I don't know. The fact that he feels the need to say "end of conversation".
"God is the efficient cause of the world and everything in it all matter and energy is space and time themselves have been brought into being by God at a certain point in time" -_-
William Lane Craig sounds too persuasive to be true.
What do you mean by this? I am genuinely curious. Are you saying he merely speaks well? Are you saying it is just eloquence?
@@jewulo Science does not need to defend anything, it is open to whatever it may discover or not. William Lane Craig is obligated to defend god because his whole life stands or falls with that belief. Religion is personal; what you wish OUGHT to be, but science is impersonal; it just IS.
@6363sunset What's your opinion?
Why internet and my computer work while posting this comment is really about science; accuracy and correctness. Why my body functions is also about an astonishing accuracy and correctness...and nature and the whole universe, totally mind-blowing. For me, existence itself is enough. I don't need a religion/god as an explanation/excuse for existence.😉
@6363sunset The concept of god is a heritage, like original sin.
The problem with arguments for the existence of any particular "God" is that the very same argument can be used to claim the existence of any god. Craig is atheist for every god but his own. Take it one step further, and no god exists. Craig's claims are extraordinary, but supported with zero evidence.
*_1_* A lot of incredibly cruel behavior has been going on for millennia in the name of God, country, and religion. Look what the Islamic State, the Taliban, Al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, and others are doing right now!
*_2_* Hypatia, a great Greek mathematician, philosopher, and scholar, who lived about 1600 years ago and who edited Euclid’s _Elements,_ died in agony when a Christian mob stripped her naked, slowly peeled away her flesh with broken pottery, and severed her limbs. That’s what religion does to people.
💕 ☮ 🌎 🌌
Using the name of Christ to do evil or the name of momo says nothing . You go to the teaching to see if it aligns . Using "science" to build nuclear bomb does not discredit science .Using your saying to justify my evil action does not mean you actually told me to do so . Be honest in your thinking .
Cannot believe that this is a XXI-st century discussion...
@J w exactly. The god of pirahãs of course.
Charlatan of the highest order.
“Charlatan”
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence! Evidence please not (Appeal to Ridicule Fallacies and Ad Hominems). I’ll wait!!.
Worthless conversation with out evidence of god.🤣🤣🤣🤣
Eric Dumont ok 😂
Stefano Portoghesi 1) I’d work on your humility to think everyone is naive and you are so enlightened. 2) I’d read more into metaphysics as to understand the absurdity of your own claims just now. 3) you don’t have to understand how (meaning the mechanism to which He accomplishes creation) an immaterial being creates a material world for it to be the best explanation and the logical conclusion of a syllogism with sound premises.
@@adamduarte895 anybody that believes in a flat earth , talking donkies and snakes I will never have a conversation with, that is madness in itself.The Bible doesn’t give out much scientific information, but at least in one area, the origin of striped animals, it relieves the burden of scientists and tells us exactly how this happened.
Genesis 30:37-39
Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted.
This is a lesson for any couple planning to have sex to avoid doing so in the presence of striped curtains or speckled wallpaper. Seriously, this is in the Bible that otherwise intelligent people carry around and revere as being the most perfect and insightful book ever written. But over and over, it reveals itself as a primitive Iron Age document written by people who had no clue about the world in which they lived. If it’s really the word of God, then God must be pretty stupid.
@Stefano Portoghesi totally agree, to have a conversation with these theists a person must be delusional or bloody stupid.
@@adamduarte895 Atheists became the intellectuall lazy people of our generation. No depth, no answers, contradiction. They dont care about their arguments. They treat truth as a tool to please their own god that is themselves. Sad
Nothing ever showed up to us. There's no God.
Jesus did .....
“There’s no God”
Sorry but this is just hubris and the (Stone Fallacy). Everyone knows that the straw man god that atheists build in order to attack and demonise moderate religious expression does not exist.
“Nothing ever showed up to us”
Sorry but this is the (Catergory Error Fallacy). Not to mention the the (Crackers in the Pantry Fallacy).