“Is the Cosmological Argument Still Sound?” With Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Stephen C. Meyer
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 06. 2024
- Many have attempted to discredit the Kalam Cosmological Argument for God. Have they succeeded? Join Frank for this special livestream as he hosts two of the most accomplished Christian philosophers, Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, as they present their own approaches to the argument and answer the main objections to it. They will also take your questions!
For more info on Dr. Stephen C. Meyer's course and to save your seat in class: bit.ly/3GL1qKB
0:00 - Music
2:45 - Intro
4:20 - Welcome Dr. William Lane Craig (WLC)
7:00 - What is the Kalam cosmological argument?
11:05 - Welcome Dr. Stephen C. Meyer
16:33 - WLC on the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) theorem
19:17 - Dr. Meyer on the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) theorem
22:05 - How does a math equation explain creation?
23:56 - How is math the product of a mind?
26:30 - What are some objections to the cosmological argument?
34:06 - WLC on the tenseless vs. tensed theory of time
34:55 - Objection: the law of casuality does not apply metaphysically
36:02 - If god created the universe who created the God?
38:49 - Objection: Planck time and the space-time continuum
41:40 - What do you mean by "began to exist" in the Kalam cosmological argument?
44:51 - What evidence led scientists to believe in the Big Bang Theory?
46:34 - Has the Big Bang been disproven by the James Webb telescope?
52:00 - Is the Kalam argument an example of "God of the Gaps"?
1:00:12 - How do we know the creator is the Christian God?
1:01:56 - What is the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) theorem?
1:03:51 - Is the universe 6,000 or billions of years old?
1:08:34 - If God is timeless how could He create time?
1:12:20 - Does WLC support Intelligent Design as a metaphysical argument?
1:16:53 - Does science show that time isn't linear? - Zábava
Dr. Craig is such a chill dude. If I were to debate or have a discussion with someone, it would be him.
Three great minds!!! I will listen to this over and over. Thanks Frank.
This is one of the best conversations I have ever listened to.Extremely stimulating to not only the mind but the spirit as well.
William F. Buckley 🤣I miss him.
🤺☦🇷🇺Yes, but that is not the point, dude. Look, all you need to do as Christians is to not believe those Protestant heaтнens, like those 2 clowns, and simply learn the correct Orthodox answers. As someone, who is fluent in the Hebrew text l, unlike those heretics, I will teach you the answer for this question, closing it completely, ending the career of those 2 ignorants:
1. God created the time measurement for the "day" itself on the 2nd day, and only on the 4th who puts them on a MATERIAL signs for MAN to know, in the form of the planers and solar system.
2. The 1st day of creation is actually not a "first" day, the Bible explicitly says in Hebrew "ONE day", not FIRST, and that is because He only created this measurement AFTER he created the heavens and planet earth, and the light at the end, separating it from darkness, and so that 1st day of creation can be millions of years, making only the heavens and planet earth OLD, and of unknown time span, but not the living things - they are only about 6000 yrs old!
3. God explicitly gives us 2 definitions of "day" - at first it was a name for the essence of "light" which he created, and then he expanded the term to mean the 12 hour period of sunlight when it shines on earth. Now, since the darkness is simply the absence of light, and not a separate creation, and sunlight is constantly shining on earth, since when half of planet earth is dark, the other half is lightened, we don't count the 12 hours of darkness separately, but rather including it in that whole time span, an so God announces that the evening and morning together are called "1 day" = 24 hrs.
So, get education, repent and convert, heretics😁
Terrific Guests. More Stephen Meyer please. Maybe he can pull WLC out of his evolutionary wanderings.
🤺☦🇷🇺Yes, but that is not the point, dude. Look, all you need to do as Christians is to not believe those Protestant heaтнens, like those 2 clowns, and simply learn the correct Orthodox answers. As someone, who is fluent in the Hebrew text l, unlike those heretics, I will teach you the answer for this question, closing it completely, ending the career of those 2 ignorants:
1. God created the time measurement for the "day" itself on the 2nd day, and only on the 4th who puts them on a MATERIAL signs for MAN to know, in the form of the planers and solar system.
2. The 1st day of creation is actually not a "first" day, the Bible explicitly says in Hebrew "ONE day", not FIRST, and that is because He only created this measurement AFTER he created the heavens and planet earth, and the light at the end, separating it from darkness, and so that 1st day of creation can be millions of years, making only the heavens and planet earth OLD, and of unknown time span, but not the living things - they are only about 6000 yrs old!
3. God explicitly gives us 2 definitions of "day" - at first it was a name for the essence of "light" which he created, and then he expanded the term to mean the 12 hour period of sunlight when it shines on earth. Now, since the darkness is simply the absence of light, and not a separate creation, and sunlight is constantly shining on earth, since when half of planet earth is dark, the other half is lightened, we don't count the 12 hours of darkness separately, but rather including it in that whole time span, an so God announces that the evening and morning together are called "1 day" = 24 hrs.
So, get education, repent and convert, heretics😁
GOD BLESS YOU BROTHERS!
Not only is God a God of order and of things seen and unseen but He's a God of great intelligence and complexity.
You couldn't find a better lineup of host and guests!
Very, very informative video. I was struggling with my faith and this helped me tremendously 💯🙏
41:39 Thank you for answering my question
Thank you gentlemen for putting this content out there! Very informative 👍🏼
And easily debunked.
1:04:45 QUESTION, why is Genesis 1:5 ignored as the establishment of the cycle of time?
The video description suggests that some events could stop requiring causes. If that could happen, would someone or something make them stop needing one?
1:12:30 YOBA
Bill and Steve have wonderful arguments for the God hypothesis and more.
What does the God hypothesis predict?
QUESTION: While time and matter "began", one thing I don't hear addressed, is how time itself is relative to the observer (based on Einsteinian theory). We have debates on the age of earth (or everything), is it realistic to see that you may have both young and old earth depending on the relativistic nature of the observer due to where the observer is observing?
I would like point out, that when God is described during Creation...
Nothing he Creates is described as being created by starting from starting point, and then growing into the ages necessary for Creation to work.
He creates Adam/Eve already fully grown, and with the basic maturity & experiential knowledge necessary for the Adults that he Creates.
Practically speaking, this means that the universe in order to meet the needs of meeting both Creation standards....
And, meets the unchangeable evidence that drives our current scientific theories on the age of the universe...
Only requires God creating the universe, as a universe X Billion years Old.
You may read science of God by Dr. Schroeder
Answer from a physicist:
1) Ignore Paulthored and the Christian thinker, they don´t address your question.
2) Both a young and an old earther observe from the same point of reference. So Einsteinian time dilation is irrelevant. There is only one correct answer.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 well that's rather personal.😾
Especially when I wasn't addressing the question deliberately, because I wasn't really aware of the specifics behind the question.😤❔👨🏫
I don't know how that would necessarily negatively affect the point I'm trying to make with my comment though.
@@Paulthored I apologize for having hurt your feelings. That was not at all my intention. If you ever have the chance to visit a scientific conference you will recognize the topics are discussed often in a quite rude sounding language. And afterwards everyone sits happily together and socialises at the bar.
Good video
Is that a real human skull on Craig’s bookshelf?!
In Exodus 20.11 God said He took 6 literal days. Just like our 6 day work week. Are you saying that was too hard for Him? Are you saying He was not able to do what He said he did?
Let’s say He did take 6 days.
What took Him so long? This is the God of the universe.
Also, if you’re going to take the genesis account of creation hyper literally, you have to be consistent.
By this, you have to hold the view the 7th day never ended. God rested, and continues to rest from His work.
The other thing to consider is that you are likely not reading the original Hebrew. You’re an English speaker like me, we’re reading a translation of the originals, and some things are lost in translation. No 2 languages translate perfectly to each-other.
The word “day” in Hebrew is “Yom.” And it has multiple meanings. It can mean the literal 24 hour day night cycle. It can refer to the period of time from dawn til dusk. Lastly it can mean an unspecified period of time.
Regardless of which side of the debate someone rests on, it doesent diminish the text, so I’m not even sure why it’s in contention.
The point of genesis was not to depict an age of the earth, or existence. If it was, the Bible would have been VERY clear on that, and would have given us an exact timeframe to commit to. (Such as Moses stating the earth is (x) years old at the time of this writing). But it doesent.
But the point of genesis is simply to depict the fact that God is the creator of ALL things, and that before Him there was no other.
And secondly it was meant to act as a model for our week day. Work for 6 days rest on a seventh.
Age of the earth does not change what’s actually trying to be conveyed here, nor does it change any theological doctrines we as Christian’s hold to.
Either the earth is old, or it’s not, and either way it doesent matter. Either are fully compatible with how the text actually reads.
The universe doesn't have to be old if you consider the following. Based on the speed of light the universe appears to be old but if the universe had a beginning in point in time and came from a singular event and God expanded the universe to its desired size the stars for example would have transmitted their lights every moment in time till they reached their disired position in space. Based on that idea we could not calculate the age of the stars based on the speed of light.
We could also say God created the day and night cycles based on the laws of the universe and later combined that with the sun and the moon in day 4 so we would be able to count the hours and seconds. It appeared to me that He created the earthly light without a source at first and than in day 4 the light source.
But either way we make assumptions that we can not prove.
Actually, we use redshift of light to determine the age of the universe, and that is a method that has been proven to work, and we can measure the age of the universe with that. The 13.8 billion year estimate also agrees measuring the age of the Cosmic Microwave Background itself, which is the direct radiation afterglow of the Big Bang. So yes, we can know the age of the universe. Stop believing your silly bible and believe in actual science instead.
@@anthonyhudson2265 I am convinced that the bible is telling the truth but I admit that I don't necessarily understand it correctly. however it is more clear to me that God created the universe other than how He did it.
@@sportsman0075 And why do you believe that the universe was created by a deity in the first place?
The universe has a "desired size"? From the moment that inflation would have begun, the universe has never been one size. It is, and always has been inflating, according to the best evidence. Also, stars would not have existed during the initial inflation. Beyond all of that, which "the bible" are you referring to. There is no such thing as "the bible". There have been multiple Christian bibles/canons throughout history and none of them match each other nor has one ever been demonstrated to be authoritative. And btw, I'm speaking of different versions with differing content and not translations.
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 The bible which contains the old and new testament. Translated from the masoretic text and the greek manuscripts from the reformation. I am not aware of any differences. They all tell the same story.
2 Samuel 22:8 Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations of heaven moved and shook, because he was wroth.
9 There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it.
10 He bowed the heavens also, and came down; and darkness was under his feet.
11 And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: and he was seen upon the wings of the wind.
12 And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters, and thick clouds of the skies.
13 Through the brightness before him were coals of fire kindled.
14 The LORD thundered from heaven, and the most High uttered his voice.
15 And he sent out arrows, and scattered them; lightning, and discomfited them.
16 And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.
Peace, my fellow human!
Very well done gentlemen!
What is it that you appreciate about this video specifically?
@@jannaswanson271 I appreciate all of the philosophical arguments and points brought up. I use the cosmological argument myself because of Craig.
@@iffymarashi7700 I read his Wikipedia page. I do not appreciate how complicated he makes the Bible sound. It is not complicated.
@@jannaswanson271 I don’t think the Kalam Cosmological argument that he posits is confusing at all.
@@iffymarashi7700 On Wikipedia it says the following about Dr. Craig's theories which are not Biblical in the least.
"For physical evidence, Craig appeals to:
Scientific confirmation against a past-infinite universe in the form of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Scientific evidence that the universe began to exist a finite time ago at the Big Bang.
The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, a cosmological theorem which deduces that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary."
With regard to the 'Christian problem' of end-of-time balancing the beginning of time for all material objects, including humanity (please forgive my awkward rendition), Christians do not in fact believe in the material persistence of the human body and soul. We believe in the persistence of a *glorified* body, one which is not material in the sense that we know it, to be re-united with the non-material soul at the end of time. This is such a common teaching among Christians that it is surprising to me that these three men haven't heard of it!
Mathematical equation for Creation is in Australia
🤣
I see it as old space and Earth with young creation in 7 literal days. I agree with just about everything Kraig says but to say young earth is an embarrassment and needs to be done away with is a ridiculous thing to say
Is the beginning of something (the universe) represented by a proposition that is true, or false? According to the correspondence theory of truth, truth describes actual states of affairs in reality. But the beginning of something is not an actual state of affairs. It's a description of a process, not a state. So it is not a well formed proposition that you can use in a logical argument. We can't say whether the universe began or not. We can only describe certain conditions at certain times. But to say that's evidence of a beginning is superimposing terms of convenience that only proves our prejudice in metaphysics.
Is a process not a state of affairs? I think it has to be otherwise how could anything exist. There has to be a process for everything to exist. That includes you. Maranatha
@@gerardmoloney433 Whether the universe had a beginning is an opinion or a guess. You can't know if it had a beginning because you'd have to know that there was a prior time when it was not and then a subsequent time when it was. But time began with the universe. So there was never a time when the universe was not. Thus, you cannot state that the universe ever began.
Stronger today then ever webb telescope is showing us his glory
The Webb Telescope Hoax?
@@jannaswanson271 sigh. Please support your disrespectful claim the JWST is a hoax. Otherwise you’re being extremely disrespectful towards the many people that have put time and effort into the JWST.
@@therick363 The Bible never speaks about "space". It says we live under a firmament and that the sun, moon and stars are within that firmament. If you don't believe the Bible- fine- but I do.
@@jannaswanson271 and that’s you dodging what i said and asked. You see, one of the big issues many, no matter their belief or non belief about gods, is when someone like you says what you say with such conviction but then purposely ignores questions and dodges giving any evidence other than quotes from a Bible. It comes off as very disrespectful and dishonest. I don’t disrespect those who hold different beliefs/positions/views on things. But when they are strand disrespect to others when they simply ask you questions to support what you say? Yeah that tells everyone something about you.
@@jannaswanson271 you said the Webb was a hoax. Either back that up or you show you lack respect and integrity and are nothing more than a conspiracy theorist who can’t step up.
Your second premise must be proven. To know for certain that the universe began to exist we must prove it with either a mathematical proof or an absolute experimental proof. I agree that it looks like it began but I have never seen a proof of it and if any statement is true then the proof of that statement exist somewhere even if we can't find it.
Look up the CMBR for scientific proof that the universe began.
Huh... But we do have proof and evidence that the universe had a beginning, especially if you work within the realm of real numbers and mathematics and science.
I'm so thankful and happy God has led me to cross examined, bro basically SOLIDIFIES JESUS AND GOD praise the lord Jesus
Contingency argument is better
Why do you think it's better? What do you think is the best argument for the contingency of the universe?
@@introvertedchristian5219 Kalam requires a beginning of the universe which some cosmological models show universe going in on infinite past. We can’t rule this out. Not a problem for the contingency argument.
Per Pearlman YeC 'a' not 'The' big bang. So yes a hyper-dense start followed by hyper-cosmic expansion, but 'thousands not billions ' of years ago. see Creation Science and Big Bang Cosmology volume II of the Pearlman YeC for the alignment of Torah testimony, science and ancient civ.
1:03:50 on thousands vs billions scientific and theological dispute.
Pearlman YeC SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model has much more than a 5.67 quintillion to one parsimony advantage over the current consensus champion competing hypothesis SCM-LCDM, thus falsifying for all practical intents and purposes all deep-time dependent scientific hypotheses and assumptions. Based on the vast body of empirical cosmological observations (like CMB and cosmological redshift) basic physics (like special relativity, a light speed limit of standard light speed) and math.
why not rotation of proto earth in relation to the proto sun on day one? to start the day count.
Prior to physical creation The Designer knows how long that rotation is planned to take, even if not in place till mid day 1, 2, 3, and no later than day 4 when the universe attains mature size and density.
In SPIRAL HTP hypothesis we find proto galactic formation starts day one and in Pearlman vs Hubble we find the universe attains mature size and density by the end of literal day 4.
Also, skeptics often cite the words of David Hume as an objection to the proofs of the existence of God, so I think it would be advisable to provide answers to his objection.
"A great number of men join in building a house or a ship, in rearing a
city, in framing a commonwealth: why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?" (Dialogues)
Responses:
"And, to jump ahead a bit, there are two further problems with
polytheism as an explanation of the existence of not merely a universe but a universe governed throughout space and time by the same
natural laws .
If this order in the world is to be explained by many gods, then some
explanation is required for how and why they cooperate in producing
the same patterns of order throughout the universe. This becomes a
new datum requiring explanation for the same reason as the fact of
order itself. The need for further explanation ends when we postulate
one being who is the cause of the existence of all others, and the
simplest conceivable such-I urge-is God. And, further, the power
of polytheism to explain this order in the world is perhaps not as
great as that of theism. If there were more than one deity responsible
for the order of the universe, we would expect to see characteristic
marks of the handiwork of different deities in different parts of the
universe, just as we see different kinds of workmanship in the
different houses of a city. We would expect to find an inverse square
of law of gravitation obeyed in one part of the universe, and in
another part a law that was just short of being an inverse square
law-without the difference being explicable in terms of a more
general law." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God")
"If the
physical universe is the product of intelligent design, rather than
being a pure accident, it is more likely to be the handiwork of only
one rather than more than one intelligence. This is so for two broad
reasons. The first reason is the need for theoretical parsimony. In the
absence of any evidence for supposing the universe to be the handiwork of more than one intelligence rather than only one, then, faced
with a choice between supposing it the handiwork of one or of more
than one intelligent designer, we should choose to suppose it to be the
creation of only one. For it is not necessary to postulate more than
one to account for the phenomena in question. The second reason for
preferring the hypothesis of there being only one designer of the
universe to supposing more than one is that the general harmony and
uniformity of everything in the universe suggest that, should it be the
product of design, it is more likely to be the handiwork of a single
designer, rather than a plurality of designers who might have been
expected to have left in their joint product some trace of their plural
individualities. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")
Your answer is in the Bible. Throughout the book it says the Father is God and Christ the Word of God created all things that were made.
Dr. Craig believes the uncaused cause must be timeless. But he tells us that God is timeless without creation and temporal after it. As a Thomist, I need to disagree with him on that point since it implies that God can go from being timeless to being temporal. If God did that, he was possibly temporal. So, his belief suggests that timelessness isn't built into God. If Dr. Craig is right, who or what made God enter time? Classical theists believe that God can't change in any way. That makes me hope Dr. Craig will explain who or what activated God's ability to change if he can change.
Thomists distinguish between linear causal series and hierarchical ones. You already know about linear ones because you know married couples procreate. They give their children life. But those children can have children, too, because they don't need their parents to help them do that. My parents died. But I can still be a natural father.
In hierarchical causal series, there must be a cause that makes other series members exist and enables them to be causes. The reason they rely on explains why they exist now, not only why they began to exist. So here's an analogy. Imagine an Amtrak train composed of an engine, a passenger car, a dining car, and a caboose. When the engine pulls the passenger car, pulling power flows to each other car. The train needs its engine because no car in it can propel itself. It could roll down a mountain. But to do that, it would need someone or something to launch it.
The engine represents God, existence, and causality in the train analogy. A significant challenge emerges for atheists. If atheism were true, it would imply the absence of everything. Without anything, there would be no universe, atheists, or truth. This line of thought invites deep contemplation on the nature of existence and its origins.
Dr. Craig's belief that God can change produces a vicious infinite regress of causes. If it does that, his belief implies that there's no God.
Do NOT rant or debate!!!
If a god existed -- NO arguments of any kind would be necessary --> A real god would be obvious!!
Ahh yuss I learned about presumptionalism early in my faith and it was instrumental in understanding my faith or any belief from a more rational perspective. I should say I struggle to understand the idea that personhood in the nature of god follows naturally. Like your guest said Diesm is all logic seems to get us.
I would so much appreciate for a creationist historian/archaeologist PHD to start publicly supporting these scientists to add to what these guys don't do, and get into public debates with "academic" historians and evolutionists who are against God and The Bible. There is plenty evidence for The Bible from Genesis to the first century AD. I hardly hear anyone of them (Lennox, Craig, these guys, and others) ever talk about it except about Jesus. There is MUCH evidence for The Bible from it's beginning to its end.
Off topic but Frank turek debates and intellectual conversations make me feel safe when I play subnatica and go to the abysel zone 😅
1:03:50 That is why I do believe that W.L. Craig is not a christian in a Biblical sense nor born again either.
He promotes some theoretical, philosophical, deistic, men made heresy, which gives up the historicity and truthfulness of Biblical account.
But The Biblical Jesus (not Jesus of W.L.C), accepted and quoted account of Creation at face value - "But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female" Mark 10:6. And this account is only 6K years old.
I personally have zero problems to believe that at the Creation "Ex Nihilo", my Almighty God of the Bible created the universe the way we see it now, with all "red shifts" as a package.
In addition to that and as a consequence of that ideas of W.L.C. he opens the door to deny the supreme authority and historicity of the Bible per se cause if the first three chapters are wrong and metaphorical, then all the rest of the Bible is not trustworthy too.
He opens the door for all perversities of post modern world.
If there is no supreme authority of the Bible so there is no authority at all.
And hence as we see today Romans 1:18-32 in action.
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:8
Fully agree with Dr Craig being wrong. but...be careful not to throw the first stone. If you are perfect and if you have never grown in wisdom or knowledge since you were younger, then go ahead call him out, but please don't judge his salvation, give brother Craig a break, he is a Christian, he just needs some humbling guidance from the heavenly Father. Pray for him.
DENISHA MONTGOMERY!!!!!
I disagree with the deep time view of creation. Death before the fall of man creates a theological dilemma when it comes to sin and redemption. Also, in Exodus 20 when it says God created everything in six days and rested the Sabbath, it is clearly expressed as one week as we know it, as Moses and the Israelite audience would have understood it, so you have to believe in a God that can double speak in a deceptive manner at times.
I really don't know why people like these guys feel a supernatural explanation for the formation of earth, animals, plants, etc. is a problem, but God creating the universe and raising the dead is not a problem. I think it's an issue of lack of faith similar to the way the disciples are the time of Christ's first coming believed many things about him, but were unwilling or unable to believe the rest.
Turek needs new frames-
Hoping new frames give him a more coherent worldview.
The man's frames are a metaphor for his religion.
What do you mean "still" sound. It wasn't sound to begin with.
By the way, if you want a different explanation for the apparent age of the universe look for a video on that by Dr. Jason Lisle.
Lisle hasn’t demonstrated or backed up his young age universe
@@therick363 While your amazingly indepth response almost changed my mind, please explain the dating methods for the rocks found in strata and the ages of the layers in the geologic column.
You have not backed up why you think Dr. Lisle hasn’t demonstrated or backed up his young age universe.
See two can play that game and....Many of us believe Dr. Lisle has proven it.
@@therick363
I don't particularly like Jason's cosmological argument. He demonstrates something about time dilation which is so far above the thinking abilities of most of the layman that he's speaking to. However, when it comes to geological arguments, rock strata don't demonstrate anything about time, they only demonstrate that a lot of water slish-sloshed back and forth dragging tons of mud and silt with it, layered down billions of dead animals, sorted them by size and density into the settling strata, which lithified shortly after (like our concrete) and thus gave the appearance of many years of sediment (although I don't know where the settling material would have come from? Maybe it came from the all too often used meteorite theory?! 🤣) So in reality, trying to date anything from strata is unintelligible. How can someone who claims to be intelligent try to use rapidly moving water sedimentary physics to deduce age? We don't have any observable new layers of sediments to extrapolate into the millions of supposed years behind us, so it doesn't make sense to assume that that's what we're looking at when we observe millions of smooth, non eroded layers in our canyons and cliff sides. We actually do have a very recent massive mudflow to observe how rapid stratification can happen. Mount St. Helens eruption, and the later breach of the natural dam which cut through the layers that the whole mountain side laid down in 1980 on its way to Spirit Lake, carrying multitudes of bark stripped trees shows us just how rapidly moving mud can instantly cut through rock, leaving vertical cliffs behind, and exposing the strata to observe how animals get trapped in the mudflow.
So again, why would a so called scientist use fossils to date strata, and strata to date the fossils? Tell me that's not circular reasoning.
@@atyt11 if you would like to discuss tuning see can do that. But so far you’ve made a few comments to me about my posts.
Your comments have been rather rude and a bit childish.
So if you wish to talk value things show me you want to engage in an adult conversation.
@@FrankPCarpi …..why are Talking about geology in a cosmology video?
I didn’t bring up geology at all. I did mention universe.
Can you please explain why you talked about geology?
Jesus Christ is in Nunawading with a mathematical equation
The description talks about the Kalam. If anyone has a good argument and evidence to support the Kalam and a god then let’s discuss. Because I’ve yet to hear one that makes me conclude a god is responsible.
Likewise, I haven’t heard an argument that disproves God.
Not a god...The God, Creator. Christopher Hitchens admitted the new Atheists had no argument against The Fine Tuning Argument. Cosmological research reveals not just the existence of the Creator God/Ultimate Mind but the absolute NECESSITY of God's existence in order to explain WHY anything exists at all. There is no ultimate/eternal meaning or purpose to our existence UNLESS God exists.
@@iffymarashi7700 I can admit i don’t think there are any that prove or disprove. I have my own positions and views on things of course, as do we all.
@@drlaurav _cosmological research reveals not just the existence of the creator god/ultimate mind but the absolute NECESSITY of gods existence in pester to explain WHY anything exists at all_
Can you present this research? I’m rather versed in cosmology so what are you referring to? Because I don’t know of any science that says what you’re saying.
@@therick363 you're correct. Science cannot explain why anything exists at all, and that's the point. Scientists can postulate based on available evidence how things may have come into existence to a certain degree, but the Reason behind the existing demands and necessitates a transcendental Causal Agent, i.e. a Creator God. When we see Mt. Rushmore we know it didn't just happen accidentally, we know expert artists/ designers carved those faces! Similarly, when we examine the DNA helix and learn that there's 3.2 trillion bits of amino acids/instructions within each cell, instructing it to absorb nutrients, detox, metabolize, etc ...that precisely tuned operational cell didn't randomly pop into existence...both its form and function DEMAND and necessitate a Designer. Scientists have tried FOR DECADES to spontaneously create living cells. As Dr. Jim Tour , a nanoscientist loves to point out, they've failed spectacularly.
Hope that helps.
Sounds to me like you guys are trying to impose your cultural beliefs on Genesis. Hmmm.
One question I have concerning the Kalam cosmological argument, when it comes to objects or even matter, I am talking about physical stuff that we can touch, all that had a beginning because it is formed or composed by particles such as electrons etc. however according to the First Law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed, so does the Kalam argument applies to energy also? therefore energy could not have been created according to that First Law of thermodynamics. My take is that energy comes from God himself and it is not a creation but a result of God’s transformation which we know it does not have a beginning.
The phrase “creation e ni hilo” has to be understood correctly. Hebrews 11:3 does not say the universe was created from nothing but it says “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” So the universe was created from invisible things such as energy which emanated from God.
I see a possibility that energy could be eternal and simply goes through changes.
I don’t think the Kalam works but that’s me.
@@therick363 Behind the energy there is God, that is where the energy comes from, it is part of the creator. The Kalam says that what ever began to exist has a cause, which is true, however this does not apply to energy since the first Law of Thermodynamics says that energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed.
@@fcastellanos57 I don’t see energy coming from a god but I respect those who do.
Exactly. I think many people who advocate for the Kalam don’t understand that or ignore it.
@@therick363 knowing that energy is not created or destroyed, it has to come from God who is eternal.
I currently lean towards young earth creationism, but the stipulation of an old earth centering around the fourth day of creation and the time leading up to it is intriguing. Guess I know what biblical rabbit hole I'll be traveling down next!
How young earth how young are we speaking? There are fossils and archeological finds dating back tens of thousands of years. I think no matter young or old, neither argues against God as the creator.
I am also a YEC, I am not sure why Craig has to belittle YEC brother and sisters the way he does. His attitude runs counter to how Jesus commands us treat each other
John 13:35, A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you also must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.”
It is not like the YEC movement does not have some reasonable arguments from science nor credible scientist in its ranks. I know that these scientist are the minority, but they are credible in their field and are believers in Christ.
Still, Craig is on the right side, he just reacts in the wrong spirit when addressing his YEC brothers and sisters.
@@DudeNamedDuncan I'm quite a fan of Graham Hancock, read Fingerprints and Magicians of the Gods. Really enjoyed the Ancient Apocalypse series. Some of this theories are a bit whacky bit there's a lot of interesting coincidences which should be taken seriously.
Bottom line for me is that Jesus quotes directly out of Genesis, not in a metaphorical sense but in a real sense, ie “He created them male and female” and “As were the days of Noah, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.”
Jesus took Genesis literally. The Apostles took it literally. Since Christ died and rose, and we can know that for sure, that seals the deal for me.
@@duriuswulkins4324 That's wonderful! Because we know that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old from radiometric dating, and we know from both measuring the history of the expansion of the universe and from the Cosmic Microwave Background (which is the radiation afterglow of the Big Bang) that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. So that means we can disregard everything that your silly bible and your seditious criminal that you worship "Jesus" ever said. So there is no god and there is no such thing as sin! Yay!
Dr. Craig does not believe the bible.
Why is he on your show?
Explain please.
@@CriticalThinker02 He denies what Jesus, the apostles and the historic church have taught, namely that God created in six days. The Jews of Jesus's day would surely have understood this from a plain reading of the Bible. The idea that these were non-literal days would have appeared nonsensical to them. And WLC has explicitly called for Christians to abandon this biblical teaching.
Because echo chambers are counterproductive. Mind you, im a skeptic, and abhorr the concept of simping for Craig.
@@gusolsthoorn1002 Thanks for explaining what the other guy never bothered to. Neither Jesus nor his apostles ever mentioned a 6 day creation that I’m aware of, but I agree it’s likely they would’ve interpreted Genesis to be 24 hour days. That said, what do you do with all of the evidence that points to an old earth? Lastly, is it fair to cast people like Dr. Craig (or anyone) out of the body of believers or make blanket statements like they don’t believe the Bible when they still hold fast to the Gospel and core doctrines?
@@CriticalThinker02 If you review carefully what I wrote, I only addressed what Craig said on this issue. I made no blanket statements. As for the evidence for an old earth I think that with careful review you will find they are not that strong. What tends to happen is that people assume that the evidence is overwhelming and massive, but when you understand the assumptions at play many of those evidences are not strong. Of course, it takes a while to work through them. Nevertheless, the origins question begins with philosophy and not the scientific method. For example, generally the idea that a supernatural agency could have been involved in the formation of the universe is discarded a priori in scientific enquiry, not because there is anything in science that precludes God's involvement but that is how the scientific community has stacked the deck, so to speak. Once a person understands these presuppositions that the science begins to fall into place.
its funny these bigwigs invoke "quantum" to try to walk around causality, when if you scratch at the quantum side of physics (across from the relativity / spacetime geometer side of the table), those people are the ones most afraid of removing causality / some fixed notion of time from their math.
In your smugness and rush to denounce young-earth creationists, besides the fact that you seem to have forgotten that calling fellow believers "an embarrassment" is a bit of a no-no ... you also are skipping blissfully over some really important facts. You state that is difficult to know how long a day (="yom") was before Day 4 when the time markers like the sun and moon were created. Fair enough. But yours is a bit of a straw-man argument, though, because there's so much more to your old-earth beliefs that you're NOT stating in this context. Hidden inside your long-earth beliefs lie some impossible-to-reconcile assumptions. Chief among them (although this video doesn't specifically mention this) is the fact that, since you are interpreting the evidence (fossil and otherwise) to say that the earth is very old, then you must also believe in millions of years of death, disease, decay and destruction before the fall of humans. One of the hosts even derisively mentioned the "Biblical Adam" ... and ha ha ha, how funny that is ... which brings up the question: Do you believe there was a Biblical Adam? If so, when did he live? Because if he "arrived" with humans *after* those millions of years of death, destruction, etc., then we've got a problem, and it is this: If there was no Biblical Adam who fell into sin whose consequence was death, then there was no original sin from which we needed to be saved, and that begs questions around the purpose for Jesus' work. Do you see the problem? If it wasn't Adam's sin that brought death into the world ("For by one man sin came into the world, and death by sin"), but instead death existed for millions of years before Adam, then you may as well erase huge swaths of the Bible! And if you choose not to believe some of the Bible (and I assure you, when the Bible says "yom" it means "day" the way you and I mean it) then what other parts of the Bible do you choose to believe are untrue?
It is difficult to explain Christian belief with an old-earth philosophy. The Christian belief system revolves around Jesus (the "last Adam") who was born, lived an innocent life, and died an unjust death to save humans from the consequences of the sin brought into the world by the first Adam. That is plainly stated in the Bible. It's not even in Genesis -- it's in the New Testament, for example 1st Corinthians. It's clearly explained. I took your snickers and guffaws as an indication that you think we shouldn't believe in silly little things like the Biblical Adam. But then your whole belief system falls like a house of cards. Our Christianity can't just be based on "being a good person" or "following the teachings of Jesus" -- we've got to believe the whole thing.
Even without the cosmological argument, what about the DNA information argument? Information can only come from a mind, and when you find a language with all of the amazing sophistication as the DNA molecule, there isn't enough knowledge in the sum of humanity to write such language. Only God could have written that kind of self replicating, self correcting set of programmable instructions! Even though any matter at all would have to have been created in the first place in the cosmos.
God of the gaps
@@therick363 Another zinger. You are the witty one. Again, almost changed my mind with that mostly complete sentence.
Frank, you are so right. DNA makes the Macro-evolution "theory" dead in the water, completely absurd and impossible. And sad to say for Dr. Craig, his swallowing of the dead theory causes him to make those condescending comments about those that disagree with him.
@@atyt11 it’s not a “zinger” it’s simple call out.
And it wasn’t meant to be a dissertation, more wasn’t needed to be said. So “almost a complete sentence” really isn’t much of a counter argument by you. After all, you didn’t show I was wrong.
And “another zinger”??
@@therick363 there's no evidence of any gaps.
Not to toot my own horn, but I arrived at the Kalam Cosmological Argument through my own reason, and was later surprised to hear Dr. Craig use it.
In other words, it's a RATIONAL argument.
Please explain how it’s a RATIONAL argument then. I would like to hear it.
same here!
It’s a logical syllogism. Whether or not it’s rational is dependent on the person.
Just because more than one guy had the same idea doesnt make it rational lol. Its interesting, and intuitive, but ultimately in my opinion it doesnt do much to prove the existence of a being who created the universe
@@smilloww2095 ditto
Both Craig and Meyer undermine the Bible with their scientism. Craig has some good philosophical arguments for the existence of God and that is about it (but so do many other apologists).
I'll stick with Answers in Genesis, Institute For Creation Research, and Creation International and their expertise and true scientific and Biblical answers. Craig and Myer are not Christians.
True scientific answer?
Believing in Christ and biblical authority does not mean believing in a literalistic interpretation of Genesis creation account.
God's authoritative and first revelation of nature is nature itself. Tis proceeded from God, from the Word, the Logos who became Christ. Nowhere in the bible does God judge anyone for how they believe God created the earth and his will not be how Christ judges people on judgement day. So please show humility to other Christians who clearly believe in the identity of Christ, his resurrection and his salvation by grace. Answers in Genesis, when based on what the scripture actually says is not always seen as being the same as the Answers in Genesis ministry. I greatly respect Ken Ham's faith and Christian service but I personally do not believe his particular interpretation of Genesis 1 and the flood. The most useful discussion and writing on this is "7 days that divide the world" by Prof John Lennox.
There is no conflict between science and the bible. There is only conflict between interpretations in science and interpretations of the bible. Obviously, because both were written by God, they will both be saying the same thing when they are interpreted correctly.
@@therick363 Yes, but if you don't know what science is and what science is not, well that's on you. Educate yourself.
@@stephenking4170 First of all, your Loser Name tells me all I need to know about you.
Second, Jesus Christ affirmed Adam & Eve, Noah's Flood, Sodom & Gomorrah and Creation as reported in the Scriptures. So, you have positioned yourself AGAINST Christ. You, and Craig and Meyer are anti-Christs.
@@JimDeferio _yes, but if you don’t know what science is and what science is not well that’s on you_
You said true scientific….so I asked you about it. And instead of answering it with specifics…you came back with a rather dodging and rude reply. Why?
_educate yourself_
That quote condescending. Why didn’t you answer the question I asked? Is it because you can’t?
I do know what science is, is not and more. So how about you share what true science is specifically.
LOL, it was never "sound". 🤣
Actually the embarrassment is with William Lane Craig and Stephen Meyer. To determine the age of the earth or the age of the universe, we need to know a couple of things. Unfortunately, there is no way to determine this by any scientific methodology.
The two factors required are:
1). The one-way speed of light. All we know or can know is the two-way speed of light. There is nothing in physics that would require the speed of light to be the same in each direction. All that is required is that the average speed over both direction be what we measure.
2). The other measure we use is radioactive decay. We can know the actual decay rates of particular radioactive materials. However, the problem we have is that there is no way to determine how old any natural sample is because we do not know what the original sample composition is.
In both cases, we only have our presuppositions of these aspects. So it is not possible to determine scientifically how old the universe is or the earth is.
If you want to argue otherwise, you have to demonstrate that you can measure the one-way speed of light and/or you can determine the actual original composition of any samples used for dating.
Even the simple use of C14 dating requires you know the historical levels of C14 and this is not know only assumed.
What does "we don't know what the original sample's composition" mean? What does that have to do with Radiometric Dating?
@@anthonyhudson2265 If you do know the original composition of any sample for which you are doing a radiometric dating test, the date you calculate for that sample could well be many orders of magnitude older than the actual date of the sample. It is assumed that no radioactive decay products are in the original sample.
A simple example here is the common C14 dating process. It is assumed that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere and being absorbed by living organisms is the same across long periods of time. If this assumption is wrong then age calculated for that sample will be wrong. Depending on the existing conditions at the time, the calculations could be far younger or far older than the actual age.
Another example is using long half radioactive elements as the source of dating. If the original make up of the sample used has decay products when the sample is first created then the age we calculate when we test today will give an age to that sample which is wildly wrong. In this case, the age calculated will be much much older
We cannot determine at our current time nor at any future time what the original composition is. We can only make assumptions about what we think the original composition was. It is one of those areas for which we can do no scientific test to get an actual answer. All we have are untestable assumptions.
This is often missed by many people who think that scientific investigation can give you factual answers about things in the past. If we have no direct information about certain specific things, we can only rely on whatever presuppositions we hold.
If we can obtain other information, we might (only might) be able to do a comparison. However, this still often leads to anomalies. In Western Australia there are certain artifacts that are petrified (which is supposed to take a very long time to achieve) and yet we know that these artifacts are no more than 150 years old.
If you hold to some form of Catastrophism, you can view things as being able to change very rapidly and you will look at the data accordingly. If you hold to some form of Uniformitarianism, you can view things as taking enormous amounts of time.
From my perspective and based on the data available in a large number of areas, I tend to an idea that catastrophism is the normal mode for the Earth. Having observed just how quickly environmental changes can occur, it seems to be the more reasonable stance. Of course, if you interpret the data differently, you will come to a different view.
When I put the bible into the mix, the idea for a old old universe and earth is much less probable. But your view can be different.
In terms of both William Lane Craig and Stephen Myer, neither of these men appear to have the engineering background to assess the claims of old old ages. I recognise that Stephen Myer does look at biological systems, but I somehow think he has not looked at the available data on macro-evolution that has been obtained from specific experiments by evolutionary biologists that do not support the ideas of those evolutionary biologists. I notice that it is now very hard to get access to the data that was accessible 40 years ago.
Like so much from the last 70 to 100 years, so much data has just been thrown away as it was considered to be no longer needed and if you do find something it is often because it was put into storage and then forgotten about. As a society, we have been very careless about preserving our knowledge base and literature base from those times.
@@hillstrong715 Scientists take the changing levels of C14 into account when using radiocarbon dating, and any research into radiocarbon dating would tell you that. So you're just being wilfully ignorant. And the method that scientists use to measure the age of the Earth, the Argon-Argon method, measures 40Ar in samples. And as you would know if you knew basic things about Radiometric Dating, the Argon-Argon method can't reliably measure samples younger than about 1 million years old, and the reason for that is, of course, that 40Ar takes that long to accumulate in a sample. So any sample that is *completely uncontaminated,* and scientists make sure the samples they date are uncontaminated, and *still* has detectable amounts of 40Ar, is at least millions of years old, and in the case of the age of the Earth itself, it's 4.5 billion years old. And there is a law of physics that forces the speed of light to be the same in every direction, because the speed of light is just derived from Maxwell's equations, which are the laws of electromagnetism, and the laws of electromagnetism don't change based on what direction you go in, obviously. So the speed of light doesn't change if it goes in another direction. So we can know, from multiple methods (one of them being measuring the Cosmic Microwave Background [which is the radiation afterglow of the Big Bang] itself) that the universe is 13.8 billion years old.
The reason that you believed these complete lies, which are obviously wrong if you know basic scientific facts about these things (as I have shown in this comment) is your idiotic religion. So I suggest that you leave your silly religion, because it has brainwashed you into completely denying science and history, so you can believe in the fairytale that it tells. And I suggest that you accept that your god doesn't exist, and instead that the universe began with the Big Bang, and is 13.8 billion years old, and that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
@@anthonyhudson2265 When you say [Scientists take the changing levels of C14 into account when using radiocarbon dating], This can only be done if you are able to measure those changing levels. If you cannot do so, which is what will happen for any time period before we even knew what to test for, you do not have a handle on the actual situation for that time. You have to make assumptions based on what you have now.
Those assumptions may be okay but they may not be at all irrelevant.
To then say to me that [So you're just being wilfully ignorant], misses the entire problem here. As for any kind of measurement, including [the Argon-Argon method, measures 40Ar in samples], you still have to make presuppositions about what you expect the processes to be. These presuppositions cannot be tested. You may believe that [Radiometric Dating, the Argon-Argon method can't reliably measure samples younger than about 1 million years old, and the reason for that is, of course, that 40Ar takes that long to accumulate in a sample], but you cannot ascertain that simply because we have no ability to test if this presupposition is actually true. On the basis of our current testing, we assume it.
Whe at you then say with [So any sample that is completely uncontaminated, and scientists make sure the samples they date are uncontaminated] is again an assumption being made. We cannot know as we do not know the prevailing conditions when that sample was laid down. We have examples today when we know when particular samples were laid down, we know the prevailing conditions under which the samples were laid down and we have the presuppositions of how the relevant processes are supposed to work and when the samples are tested for age, the age measured is many orders of magnitude older.
This should give you pause and it should become obvious that our knowledge is very incomplete. To categorically go (as you have done) and just accept what the consensus processes are specified as without critically looking at the presuppositions and underlying problems means that you will think you know more than you actually do.
You then go on to say that [And there is a law of physics that forces the speed of light to be the same in every direction, because the speed of light is just derived from Maxwell's equations, which are the laws of electromagnetism, and the laws of electromagnetism don't change based on what direction you go in], which actually is wrong.
The value of the speed of light is based on two factors, the first being the permittivity of the medium and the second being the permeability of the medium. For some mediums these values do not change with direction change, for other they do. Now, what you also do not seem to comprehend is that there is nothing in our physics that requires the velocity of light to be the same in each direction. All that is required is that the average over both directions is c for that set of media.
The one way speed is always unknown (we have no ability to measure it). The there and back, we can measure.
Even your reference to the CMB is assuming that what the current consensus about this is true. Even here there is some small dispute. But you fail to understand is that the value obtained from the theory has been quite different by a large error difference to what they have measured which has meant that theory has had to change a number of times to get it close. Theory should be within a couple of percent, not the 50% + that was originally found.
Unfortunately for you, your profound blind faith in scientism (which is what you are showing us is your religious view), means that you are unable to differentiate the difference between what scientists say are the [facts] and what is just a possible interpretation of the facts.
You can think all you like that [The reason that you believed these complete lies, which are obviously wrong if you know basic scientific facts about these things (as I have shown in this comment) is your idiotic religion.]. If you knew your history of scientific investigation, you would know that scientific investigation has been driven forward by this very same religion you despise. No matter how much you might believe otherwise.
If you look carefully and closely, you will see that, in general, there appears to be a stalling in the forward movement of scientific investigation. For all the showiness that goes on, we are not learning more about the universe around as one would expect if there was a dynamism in scientific investigation. I have heard too many time of scientists either leaving altogether and doing something else or waiting to retire before starting investigations into areas of interest for them that were essentially forbidden to them by the consensus view (unable to get funding, etc).
There appears to be a lack of education on your part in basic undergraduate electrical engineering here as many of these things were certainly covered when I did my undergraduate electrical engineering 40+ years ago. I do not know what they do now, but some of these things seem to have been discarded for more technologically oriented subjects.
💪✌️😎✝️
It never was sound. They failed immediately
Exactly. It amazes me that people find this convincing.
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 it's just make believe
Wow, I am disappointed by Frank Turek. "O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,” for by professing it some have swerved from the faith. Grace be with you." I Timothy 6:20-21
I’ve seen many videos/teachings from Frank Turek, Answers in Genesis and David Barton with son and Creation in the 21st Century. All explained in detail how our earth is about 6000 yrs old. WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS TEACHING? I hope someone who knows sees this question and replies. Thank you much!!
The only way they could explain in detail the earth is about 6000 years old is if they cherry pick science or ignore it all together.
Frank doesn’t teach the earth is 6,000 years old he believes in the Big Bang which came from God
The earth is not 6000 years old. It is much, much older. There is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence to substantiate this.
Do you put petrol in your car?? Do you know how long oil takes to form? Millions of years………not 6000.
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 What actual scientific proof is there, without resorting to assumptions and speculations, that they earth is more than 6,000 years old? When I mean science I mean the things that can be subject to experimentation and observation, not just opinion.
Can a human fart three times simultaneously?
If you measure a fart musically, probably more than 3 times simultaneously. How does it sound?Like a chord? with harmonics?
I assume this question is to impress us with the depth of research and study you put into your doctoral thesis on flatulence??!??
They say that inflation was an exponential expansion. But exponentials start out very small can grow in proportion to their size. So it could be that the universe was infinitesimally small for eternity past and then at some point started expanding very rapidly. In other words, the universe may have existed forever as a single point or very close to a single point.
You still need a cause for the infinitely small universe.
This would still seem to run into issues with the law of entropy in thermodynamics
Time also need a beginning according to science, so anything that made time has to be timeless.
@@juked_summit8098 Thermodynamics don't apply to an infinitely small point.
@@anthonyhudson2265 Yes, even in quantum mechanics, 2nd law of thermodynamics does applu
No its not. That was easy enough to asmwer.
"Began to exist" are just plain simple english words. I wander how can someone who speak english can't understand that sentence. It is like "Pop-up" in the internet cyber-space.
Simple answer, no
This was fairly disappointing from Dr. Craig. I completely understand for years in the past creationists were getting hammered on universal common ancestry but it’s 2023 for heaven sake. Get with the times Craig. That side had gotten demolished ten times over. You’re the one embarrassing yourself if you believe your great great great etc. grandfather was a sponge
But there was a universal common ancestor, you'd just rather believe your fairy story of a "god."
@@anthonyhudson2265 wow good one. Equivocate much?
@@hurrikanehavok7313 How is that an equivocation?
@@anthonyhudson2265 Universal common ancestor is seriously questioned by evolutionists themselves.
No reason to think that the earth is 6,000 years old? We have God's word that gives us lineage and timelines of everything that took place. I know these men love the Lord but don't put science over God's word. "Let God be true though every one were a liar"
So your god says 6000…but then makes our brains and gives evidence that it’s far far older?
@@therick363 What evidence?
@@londonlester6871 radiometric dating
Astrophysics or distance objects.
These things tell us the world and universe are far older. So why have that but a book that says 6000? Doesn’t make sense
@@therick363 I will tell you that carbon dating is not accurate at all, and an all-powerful infinite God can create an infinite universe. But when looking at this book we should also consider the 2,000 prophecies that were predicted and fulfilled. The historical accuracy of the Bible and so on. But it doesn't sound like you are a believer, so the only thing that matters for you, Rick, is the question: Who is Jesus? Because if He is who He said He is you need to turn and trust in the sacrifice that He paid for your sins. If you seek Him you will find Him! The good news is that Christ died for all men but the bad news is that apart from Him every man will spend an eternity in Hell for their sins. I would love to talk about this more with you man! Know that God loves you even though you don't love Him and He proved that by sending His Son to take the punishment we all deserve.
@@londonlester6871 you can tell me it’s not accurate at all- it until you can back it up and disprove the scientific evidence that says otherwise…..
Prophecies that are vague and can be interpreted many ways and also have owns that aren’t fulfilled.
If the universe has a cause then God is the most likely the cause. If your going to hide behind God of the gaps then your position is based on faith
God being the cause of space, time, and matter is not a “god of the gaps” argument. It’s deductive reasoning. The cause of space time and matter must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. The source of that cause being God is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.
Faith doesn’t mean believing in something..just because. It’s trusting in what you have good reason,or good evidence to be true.
_if the universe has a cause the god is the most likely the cause_
Why is that? We don’t see any god(s) ever doing anything. So why is that the most likely cause?
Theists are the ones hiding behind god of the gaps, not atheists.
@@ADanforth1988 _god being the cause of space, time, and matter is not “god of the gaps” argument_
Yes it is.
_its deductive reasoning. The cause of space, time, and matter must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial_
Why? Who says it has to be? We sorta understand matter/energy. We have less understanding of what time is and know almost nothing of what space itself it.
Saying god is a reasonable conclusion…when we don’t see any gods doing anything….is therefore not a reasonable conclusion when we don’t known enough.
@@Jewonastick process of elimination. If God was not the cause then you must have another explanation
Didn't you read his comment. "Reasonable deduction" what kind of "evidence" are you looking for?
If a god existed -- NO arguments of any kind would be necessary --> A real god would be obvious!!
Wow you just debunked all religion.
@@DudeNamedDuncan What a pathetic excuse to NOT prove your oh sooo ALLLL Powerful gods ... hahahahah
@@recardooneal9900 Well ... yes ... name a religion which has proven its gods...!
So obvious that His presence, power and creativity shouts from the mountains, from the depths of the sea, from the intricate forests, from the creativity of man, from the inner conscience. God is inescapable.
@@briendoyle4680 none, because gods are made by man, his imaginations. .Thy were laughed at by Old testament prophets. But as for the Creator, God, the evidence for his existence, creative power is everywhere, from the interior of a cell to the distant galaxies. He is also evident within, in the conscience of mankind, who was made in his image.
How disappointing. Nothing but the usual fallacious reasoning. But why should I.expect differently.
Well, you believe that nothing created everything so what do you expect?
@@luisd918 Thank you for proving my point about fallacious reasoning because your comment is by definition irrational.
Your statement is a False Dichotomy which is logically fallacious and therefore irrational. A proposition is NOT either 'A' or 'B'. A Dichotomy is either 'A' or 'Not A'. So you say everything came from God and since I've never been presented with any valid evidence for that claim, I believe it is something other than God.
Not that it came from nothing...one of the millions of other possibilities. But I won't accept any of those without evidence either.
But once again you were very helpful in proving my point for me. Thank you for walking into it.
@@anthonymitchell9793 if you are into logic then you will understand their thinking but you dont
@@luisd918 How far do you think I will get before I can find:
1) An assertion without an evidential basis.
2) A logical fallacy.
3) A mistepresentation of science or the truth?
See the difference between us is I question everything and demand evidence. You question nothing and blindly believe.
@@luisd918that’s it? Your reply after having it explained to you is “you don’t understand logic.” That’s it?
That’s also called being irrational, Luis.
How disappointing. I though that there was finally a Christian "leader" willing to stand for Biblical Cosmology. It is not that hard people.
Amen, Janna!
If it’s not that hard then please by all means, explain and show us this biblical cosmology.
@@therick363 Read Genesis 1. God created day and night before the sun, moon and stars. He created a firmament over the Earth solid enough to hold back the waters above. He put the sun, moon and stars within the firmament. He tells us that the moon has its own light, not that the sun shines on it. The Bible tells us over and over again that the Earth does not move.
This is a small sampling...1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 33:8-9, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Isaiah 14:7, Zechariah 1:12
Believe God, not man!
@@jannaswanson271 quotes from a Bible do not make arguments nor counter reality.
Please supply factual evidence to support a firmament.
Please supply scientific evidence to support this.
Janna Swanson. Keep in mind that the Bible is written from an observer perspective. Saying “The sun rises in the east and sets in the west” is observable from an earth perspective but isn’t literally true. This isn’t a contradiction of Gods word.
This argument was never sound. Even IF it was, which is not, it does not bring you to a god or gods.
Which premise do you reject?
@@Johnny-mz9ot Neither premise can be demonstrated to be accurate.
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 atheists like you are funny. You’re displaying blatant arrogance.
All you are doing is asserting claims with no backup to support your claims. As if everyone should just look at those claims and be like “yea this random atheist on CZcams is smarter than a philosopher with a phd and a scientist who have been doing this for years.
Come on smart guy, reject the two premises with sound logic. 😂
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 I'd be hard pressed to think of an intellectually lazier response. It's like you made zero effort
@Johnny-mz9ot There is nothing about my response to you that is intellectually lazy. You asked me, "Which premise do you reject?". I specifically answered your question by correctly stating that "Neither premise can be shown to be accurate". IF you wanted to know WHY I assert that neither premise can be demonstrated to be accurate, perhaps you should ask that question also.
DENISHA MONTGOMERY!!!!!