Arguments for the Existence of God, by William Lane Craig

Рет қаралды 5,285

12 жыл бұрын

Extracts from the full presentation, which can be viewed at: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gciSeJuLseDHgp8.html "The Evidence for God" by Dr William Lane Craig. This lecture, followed by audience Q&A, was held at Imperial College London, during the UK Reasonable Faith Tour.
More videos from the tour can be viewed at: kzfaq.info
More videos of Dr Craig's work can be viewed at:
kzfaq.info
Production of this presentation is sponsored by The Christian Evidence Society: www.christianevidencesociety.org.uk/

Пікірлер: 50

@WisdomKillsAtheism 12 жыл бұрын

Thanks!

@emailpobox666 12 жыл бұрын

"arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories " Causality is incoherent without time . Time itself came into being with the big bang

@emailpobox666 12 жыл бұрын

The quote I post shows that talking about causality without time is incoherent and that the Kalam talks about causality without time therefore is incoherent. No he thinks the definition of causality is incorrect yet in the 15 years since i can not come up with any new definition proposed by Craig that makes the Kalam coherent.

@mattmun12 10 жыл бұрын

I love how he quotes PZW Davies, a hardout christian to support his statement that the universe came into being ex nihilo. You can't prove nothing 'preceded' the universe with science.

@emailpobox666 12 жыл бұрын

WLC”The way in which i know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. this give me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart of the evidence. And therefore if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity.”

@rockos414 12 жыл бұрын

So what created God? 1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in necessity of it's own nature or in an external cause. If those are the rules, what explains God?

@emailpobox666 12 жыл бұрын

That was a question. but if your embarrassed .....

@postcardjohn 10 жыл бұрын

Gods have always avoided human reach. We sought them in their previous habitats: in springs, under the oceans, up distant mountains, in fiery volcanos, deep in the Earth, in the winds, above the clouds and on into the heavens. They are always one jump ahead. Apparently this one has adapted to the 21st century and now lives outside the universe!

@triunestar 9 жыл бұрын

Your definition of a god is "God of the gaps".

@postcardjohn 9 жыл бұрын

Inocencio De la Torre If I have a definition of gods it is that gods are myths.

@triunestar 9 жыл бұрын

Let's see. Everything that began ti exist has a cause; the universe has a cause; therefore the universe has a cause. What created the universe? It could be mathematics or unembodied mind. Mathematics obviously can't create things. 1+1=2 but that doesn't add 2 pesos in my wallet. What ever created the universe must be: immaterial because it created matter, spaceless because it created space, timeless because ot created time, powerful(if not omnipotent) because it created everything from nothing, intelligent because the universe is precisely finely tuned, personal because it made a choice to create, and supernatural because it created nature. BTW I agree that gods are myths.

@postcardjohn 9 жыл бұрын

Inocencio De la Torre Perhaps the universe did not begin to exist? Perhaps it has always existed?

@postcardjohn 9 жыл бұрын

Inocencio De la Torre All these gods were indeed gods of gaps. Understanding the water cycle replaced the gods of springs. Understanding geology, vulcanism and the Earth's core replaced volcano gods. When each gap in human knowledge is filled the associated god is shown to be an illusion. The Hebrew idea that a god existed above the firmament is also seen to have been false. There is no firmament, we do not live on a flat earth under a solid dome of sky. The truth of the cosmos is far more vast and astonishing than primitive peoples imagined and there is still no sign of a god. And less and less need of one as an explanation.

@thetheoreticaltheologian2458 2 жыл бұрын

It’s funny how top atheists won’t even attempt to debate Christian scholars anymore. They only try and debate those that are not that well equipped in debating like priests because then they can just blabber rants about life’s problems and hope they don’t have a good theological answer.

@3101010 12 жыл бұрын

the cause of a tree is only a seed. How hard is it to think the universe came from something smaller than itself? Or do we need to just say it was a magic man that made it all.

@themodelcitizen988 4 жыл бұрын

Him: “I cannot prove how the universe began, or even if it began at all vs being infinite. Therefore, God.”

@emailpobox666 12 жыл бұрын

WLC Continued “ i don’t think that controverts the witness of the holy spirit. In such a situation i should regard that as a result of the contingent circumstance that I’m in and if I pursued this with due diligence and with time I would discover in fact the evidence if I could get the correct picture would support what the witness of the holy spirit tells me”

@emailpobox666 12 жыл бұрын

Craig also avoids the fact that there are two theories of time the A-theory and the B-theory. If Craig is wrong and it's the B-theory like most physicists believe in then his argument also goes in the crapper. So if you ignore incoherent causality and if you choose the a-theory of time and etc then God.Really?

@rockos414 12 жыл бұрын

"by the necessity of its own nature" - I could summarize that to, "it exists because God HAS to exists." Sounds more like wishful thinking than a serious argument. Who determines that it is necessary? And how are you going to prove that God is necessary?

@jacobgeorge7720 4 жыл бұрын

Because as Aristotle said, there must be an efficient cause. It is a classic categorical error to ask why God is necessary. As Lennox says its like asking someone to chose between the principals of internal combustion and Henry Ford as an explanation for the Ford motorcar

@corydorastube 4 жыл бұрын

@@jacobgeorge7720 Whaty aheap of shit.

@emailpobox666 12 жыл бұрын

He can argue all he wants but both are valid theories yet the B theory is accepted by most physicists and it is telling that he uses the Big Bang from physic/cosmology yet rejects the B-theory of time. He says the kalam is bunk in the Quentin smith Debate. You just refuse to accept it. Keep up the faith

@emailpobox666 12 жыл бұрын

I can understand Dr Who but a children's show geared to 6-10 year old girls is something I'm having a difficult time understanding

@riaanvisser6331 11 жыл бұрын

if there are problems with the kalam argument, then please enlighten us to these. You must surely know which they are. so please... problem 1.... problem more....

@user-fk8rb8ue5h 6 жыл бұрын

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/a6uGes6dnNLOj2g.html I await your reply.

@thatonegamer9547 5 жыл бұрын

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oq1xjLWa3rbNeZc.html I await YOUR reply.

@doctorwebman 5 жыл бұрын

The Kalam Cosmological Argument fails for several reasons. First of all, we don't know that everything that begins to exist must have a cause, and we don't know that the universe began to exist. Lastly, the Cosmological Argument only leads to a cause for the universe if it is sound, not to a magical ghost. That cause could have been any number of things, if it existed, and it does not have to still exist.

@emailpobox666 12 жыл бұрын

WLC Continued “The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories! Quentin Smith vs Craig 1996

@rockos414 12 жыл бұрын

Defined by who? What if I don't agree with that definition? Proof God exists: God is necessary. ...really? That doesn't satisfy me as an answer or argument for God's existence. It should be painfully obvious why.

@emailpobox666 12 жыл бұрын

No Not in any way . I just found out about this Brony (looked it up because of your screen name)and can't really get my head around it. Kinda like actually seeing BigFoot.

@emailpobox666 12 жыл бұрын

You missed your calling as a comic

@mikaeljohansson7921 3 жыл бұрын

As normal is there not proof of any god. You can put in odin or any other god you like.

@emailpobox666 12 жыл бұрын

What could Craig possibly say about and B theory of time except that there are two theorizes and He believes in A. Waste my time with Craigs nonsensical reason. He admits that he would ignore evidence against Christianity why would I listen to someone who would ignore evidences

@maxhorsford7800 7 жыл бұрын

His logic: We don't know how the universe got here----------------> there must be a God that created it. That, sir, is a sequence of thought no man should think is rational. The idea that a God would exist for no reason to make everything out of nothing is far crazier than the scientific explaination

@MartyClevenger91 6 жыл бұрын

"His logic: We don't know how the universe got here--------------> there must be a God that created it." You are misrepresenting his logic. Please, rewatch and try to understand his arguments. "The idea that a God would exist for no reason to make everything out of nothing is far crazier than the scientific explaination." Not at all. Just because the idea of God appears "crazy" to you doesn't mean that it's not (or can't be) more logically valid than it's naturalistic counterparts, and this is what Dr. Craig is proving with his arguments. If you can legitimately tear down his arguments for the existence of God, then please do so.

@carlosnantes4577 6 жыл бұрын

Straw Man. It would be more accurate to describe nos argument as: We don't know how the Universe came to be, but we know it did come to be and that it's origin is also the origin of all time, all space and all matter and, therefore, it's cause must be beyond the confines of time, space and matter. The only things that reach beyond these confines are abstract objects, like numbers and forms, and minds. Abstract objects have no causal value, and so it should have been a mind. This mind, then, we shall call God. Of course this is still an oversimplification, but at least this one does not misguide and force a leap like yours.

@emailpobox666 12 жыл бұрын

The readers can judge for themselves. Usually the delued theists choose e to believe in Craigs BS. By the way are you really a fan of My Little Pony

@Kparris7 11 жыл бұрын

His argument is self defeating: the universe must have a cause, as Dr. Craig suggests, and he suggests God. So now we have the universe and God. But God must have a cause, why does God exists instead of no God?

@opendoorgames6413 7 жыл бұрын

Only things that "begin" to exist are created. God Exists outside of time and space. Beginning to exist is a distinction relative to time. God has no beginning. God has always existed and wasn't created. The timeline of creation ends as soon as you are beyond the constraints of time.

@williamchami3524 7 жыл бұрын

Gnaeus Romanus God NECESSARILY exists. He is the First Cause, the Uncaused Cause. His existence, as Dr Craig shows (at 1:31), is "in the necessity of its own nature". God is Being itself. We cannot have anything without this first cause.

@TheAverageJoe2014 7 жыл бұрын

Okay what would you say to the very real scientific possibility that the big bang was not the beginning but just one cycle of infinite cycles and the universe is infinite and eternal with no beginning.

@corydorastube 4 жыл бұрын

@@williamchami3524 And one knows this how?

@emailpobox666 12 жыл бұрын

And your an adult man?

@emailpobox666 12 жыл бұрын

WLC “If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.

@kaviramyead 11 жыл бұрын

Here's a possible explanation : Someone uses his lighter and this combustion lead to a particle that is the universe we're living in. Now our particle is on the floor behind the refrigerator. Of course, this guy is also living in a tiny particle, remember the end of men in black ? Yeah, that's stupid, this is not "beautiful" or "noble" we wouldn't have any importance in this scenario. Hum, and there's infinite scenarii like that. But of course, it's ridiculous. But the God idea is not, of course

@emailpobox666 11 жыл бұрын

LOL There are far more problems than that with the Kalam

@emailpobox666 12 жыл бұрын

OK your embarrassed

@emailpobox666 12 жыл бұрын