Wonderful video Dr. Craig ❤

This is an excellent video that truly showcases the importance of aesthetic considerations on questions of our own existence and metaphysical ontology.

Great video!!!

Wow! This may be the single most convincing piece of natural theology I've encountered.

Dr alexei gives off the vibe of the smart scientist genius in hollywood movies who the american government is looling to recruit

You hear about great mathematicians that "create" new fields of mathematics like calculus or trigonometry, when they actually discovered them. We can discover, but think about how mind blowingly awe-inspiring it is to think of the one who actually created mathematics in its entirety. That is just so crazy! God is so good!

Thanks for Sharing Dr. Craig, it's a hard dialogue to grasp though

I understood little of what Dr Burov said. I wish people with thick accents would slow down. Playing the video at reduced speed didn’t help. I think Dr Burov comes close to a systems design approach. That would identify requirements implied by the anthropic principle and verifying whether life and the universe fulfill the requirements. It is a robust argument because the requirements (and their fulfillment) branch into every discipline of science. Together, they correlate to creation having a designed purpose, and therefore, creation having a Creator possessing unimaginable intelligence, power, and, I would add, craftsmanship. If that’s what he’s saying, the cumulative argument is more robust that any other argument by itself. As I understand, biologists have begun benefiting from a systems design approach to organisms. It has potential for understanding the creation and for supporting theism, as well.

Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability: ​ A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.) Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness. A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview. Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)

My initial reaction: Mathematics is a human language used to describe the natural world. It should not be surprising when mathematical equations describe real-world behaviors, since they are massaged until they do so. It might be surprising that natural behaviors happen consistently or happen congruently with each other. And it might be surprising that man can invent a language to describe natural behaviors. But that would say as much about man as about nature and math. I’ll have to listen to the 7-point and 3-point explanations again, perhaps several times, to make sure I understand them.

we created mathematics as part of our tools to describe the world... so of course it's effective at describing the world....

well... i did get to 11min...

Atheism suffers from a simple fallacy: they look at skills/traits that are useful today & assume that those skills/traits would have been useful in the past because how else to explain that we have those skills/traits? But it doesn't work that way. If you want to claim that we developed the ability for math or the ability to make music etc., you have to explain how that ability would have been useful 100k years ago while we were evolving. Look, thinking burns calories, lots of them. Calories are hard to come by. Thus, people who don't think tend to outcompete people who do. How would a penchant for advanced mathematics get our ancestors laid? How would it get them more food? Tell me that or you're not really responding to the argument at all. The argument from math is that we humans have lots of skills/traits that only make sense if our CREATOR wanted us to have those skills/traits in order to know Him. From an evolutionary perspective, they'd be losers. Persuade me differently but wouldn't you rather spend your calories on, say, getting stronger or having better eyesight? Wouldn't those traits have been more useful to our ancestors than the ability to compose music or do math? Honestly, with whom would you prefer to be stuck in the wilderness - Einstein or the Rock? What skills would really keep you alive? Einstein wouldn't just be useless in the wilderness; he's be a liability - esp. compared to a great athlete like the Rock. My problem w/ atheists is that they're always telling me about evolution, but ignoring the implications of their own theory. If evolution is real, there are no genetic gays or genetic trans people (as those genes would be bred out). There's no math or musicians etc because they'd lose out to other skills that would better use the same calories. The best attack on atheism, therefore, is really the indirect proof - the implications of the theory are wrong, so the theory is wrong.

Completely childish. mathematics, like religion, ls a human invention.