a god period. Since qualities are subjective and quantities are objective, Craig refutes his ‘objective’ moral law giver who is really a perceived ‘subjective’ infinite being. And why is immoral behavior considered anti-social? Because morality is a human social construct. Craig’s bogus improbability numbers for his fine tuning argument are not accepted by most Physicists. Theists just declare something to be true with no evidence. If you guys are convinced, then I have more respect for …
Tags: bill, christopher, Craig, Dawkins, Debate, Design, evolution, fine, god, Hitchens, Intelligent, Kalam, Lane, maher, New, Obama, Real, Richard, Rules, time, tuning, william
I would love to see your evidence that many times a believer becomes a believer based on some deductive argument, i think it has to do with fear, persuasion, and good ol’ teaching them while their young there there is an invisible father in the sky. O and when we say god had a begining u say “No he didnt” everything has a begining except u god right? it leads to special pleading. May the flying spagetti monster send u to hell for not believing in him,
Peace.
Ok let’s disregard what the physicist say and assume for a moment that cause and effect apply to the big bang. Which of those three points is supposed to convince me that god was the unknown cause? And if I was to be convinced, what caused god?
“A persons belief in God is properly basic”
IMHO humans are predisposed to the idea of god because they are first and foremost tool makers, when the tool-maker question arose “who made the universe” it was natural to propose an omnipotent tool maker.
…continued…I agree with some of your other statements, you have obviously studied philospophy and epistemology, you do not deserve the thumbs down votes.
I assume from your comments you are a deist. Deisim is a much stronger hypothisis than theisim but personally I no longer subscribe to it.
Peace.
Greetings Tapecutter59-
QUOTE”let’s disregard what the physicist say and assume for a moment that cause and effect apply to the big bang…”
Not all physicists deny the law of causality with respect to the BB. The Copenhagen hypotheses of quantum mechanics is by no means a certainty.
Peace
Hello again philosophy7575
That’s the thing about the philosophy of science, a basic premise of the philosophy is nothing is an absolute certainty.
By all accounts and many experimental outcomes, Albert lost the Bohr-Eienstien debate. You can’t have it both ways, even if Albert was right about god’s aversion to dice it still doesn’t answer “what caused god?” Nor does accepting the hypothisis that god lit the fuse add any insights that can’t be shaved off with Occam’s razor.
Good point Tapecutter59.
Dan Dennett has proposed that Homo Habilis or ‘handy man’ may have been the first sophisticated tool maker and originator of the idea of a supreme intelligent designer for objects in the natural world.
Jane Goodall has also pointed out that chimps may have a similar sense of awe about the natural world as humans do. She tells of a group of them who seemed to go out of their way to visit a small gorge with a waterfall where they would sit in “quiet contemplation”
Douglas Adams made a similar argument in his speech ‘Is there and artificial god?’ It’s the paragraph begining ‘Where did the idea of god come from?’
Craig 3:11 “This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality”
But God is infinite, right? He would have to be.
Therefore, God is just an idea in your mind and does not exist in reality.
Craig is talking about an infinite number of ‘things’, or ‘past events’ — causal events. An actual infinite, or infinite regress of causes is impossible. However, God, being uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and personal, is beyond space and time, therefore, infinite.
It’s pretty dumb how craig goes on about inifinty not being real and just an idea except he seems to forget that one of the properties of the God he likes to cuddle, is infinity.
Dr.Craig ROCKS!!!!!!!!!
Greetings sashang0-
When theologians (including Craig) speak of God being infinite, they are speaking qualitatively. However, in this clip, and whenever Craig is talking about the impossibility of an actual infinite, he is speaking in the mathematical sense of a quantitative infinite, not a qualitative infinite. Therefore, there is no inconsistency or contradiction.
Peace
Greetings CheezDipPAK
No, you misunderstand Craig. When he says an actual infinite does not exist, he is (in context) talking about a quantitative infinite. When we speak about God being infinite, we are speaking qualitatively. Therefore, your conclusion about God being just an idea in our minds does not follow.
I hope this makes sense?
Peace-
“Tell me, which premise of the Kalam argument would you dispute”
Both of them.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for it’s existence – Prove it.
2. The universe began to exist – If by “began to exist” you mean there was a time t1 where the object didn’t exist and then a later time t2, where the object did exist, then this is not certain for the universe. There was no time before the universe began
Also, the “cause” in your conclusion does not have to be God
Humanity is truly screwed.
wow! I never thought God’s existence could be proven so solid. That gives me great joy, to know i believe in something that can be proven by science
Greetings prockets337-
You dispute the law of causation.
For an argument to be a good one, a premise simply has to be more plausible than it’s negation. Do you actually believe that the law of causation is less probable than it’s negation? This would destroy science! Science is the search for causes. It assumes the law of causation. Causation is a self-evidence metaphysical intuition. If you deny it, you have fallen into irrationality. The burden of proof rests on you.
Peace-
“The burden of proof rests on you”
Not really. I am asking for clarification on what “the universe began to exist” means. Craig (and you) state this, but offer no proof or definitition.
I am pointing out that there is no point in time at which the universe “began to exist.” Time began when the universe began. There is no time t ≤ 0. To say that the universe did not exist BEFORE the big bang is a meaningless statement because there is no such thing as before the big bang.
Shalom
“…the origin of the universe from, literally, nothing…”
As I understand, the big bang is the time at which all the matter in the universe exploded outward from its hot, dense existence. That’s not “literally nothing”; that’s a different state in which matter existed. The word “literally” should be used literally, not figuratively.
There very well may be a cause that brought the universe into being. We do not fully understand it yet, but we strive to do so.
The point here is that religious people believe that something which is thoroughly unprovable is the cause. The true atheistic agnostic simply says “I don’t know”, yet continues to search for the definitive answer.
You believed in god before watching this video, you hypocrite.
Precisely, the Kalam argument is essentially the First Cause argument, but with fancier, yet meaningless jargon.
If this creator is beyond space and time, the word “creator” doesn’t apply, as only things within space and time “create” or are “created”. IT truly is something, if IT is outside of space, time, and matter, that cannot be accurately attributed with the quality of a creator that creates. IT can’t be called an “it”, accurately. These are attributes within space, time and matter. It truly is nothing we can even conceive. Frustrating, but not something we can label “god”.
craig bores me