That’s one way to interpret things but not the only way

@@therick363 How would you explain these fine tuned details that to me and others look like they had to be intelligently designed?

@@VenturaWeddings just because they appear fine tuned doesn’t mean they are. There is also the simple fact that say other than that…what else says intelligence? All we see are natural causes and events

@@therick363 I respect your feelings. I disagree. I can't disagree what i and so many others can clearly see with my own eyes everywhere i look. KZfaq presentations for fine tuning are mind blowing but also make perfect sense to me. You disagree and that's fine. I just cant deny there was a hand involved in everything coming together so perfectly.

@Anon Ymous Who says we have to present the tuner. Thats your job. Intelligent Design just presents that scientific facts that lead to the fact that everything we can study and see around us is obviously fine tuned. BTW big bang theorist or any other theory has eye witness of when it all started. We only have our God wired minds to figure that out. Oops, I said God. To each their own.

I don't remember that part but I think it was a mistake. It should have said "closed" systems. An open system may not reach equilibrium because other systems interact with it and either add or subtract from it, so only in a closed system could you reach total entropy.

A perfectly sealed refrigerator would keep food cold forever and it would also be a "closed system". Your open systems would eventually reach a state of equilibrium with each other. @@blusheep2

So he is saying god is on par with leprechauns and pixies.

@@cnault3244 yes nice ricky gervais quote haha

admitting that it is hard to disprove the existance of planet X or 9 doesn't mean that I believe in its existance. Atheist simply means "without god" so in practice agnostics are atheist

@@leoevans1839 that's probably a referrence to dawkins. so sad that nobody in this comment section bothered correcting you on your misconception of agnosticism and atheism. agnosticism deals with knowability of anything. atheism deals specifically with the denial of the existence of god. so being agnostic and atheistic aren't mutually exclusive, doofus. also an abjection of god can simply happen on the basis of lack of evidence, therefore atheists needn't disprove the existence of god, they merely have to point out how theists make a bad case for god.

there's no difference between atheists and agnostics in that they both must believe in the possibility that all this got here absent a god of course, we know that's not possible. therefore, the "there's no God" and "there may not be a god" or "i don't know" or "it can't be known" crowds are all wrong: there must be a God. therefore, the possibility game that atheism and agnosticism plays does not exist in reality, only in the hopes and prayers of atheists/agnostics. not possible not "we haven't figured out yet how it *could be* possible so we'll fill in that gap with our hope and prayers that there's a god" more like "we have no explanations for how all this got here, it all appears obviously self evidently designed and created, but i'll choose to believe it's possible that it WASN'T, even though all evidence and common sense contradicts me, and i'll fill in that gap of explanations with the hopes and prayers that someday someone will explain how it's possible that everything came from nothing, exploded, and became infinitely complex, all without intelligent guidance"

I recommend studying the Second Law of Thermodynamics further. It is a *LAW* of physics (something that is always true in physical reality) that tells us the universe is running out of usable energy. You'll have to understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics fully to understand.

@@lightbeforethetunnel I would have just worded it differently. It may be consistent with the second law of thermodynamics, but forever implies just that, forever. Eternity, infinity, forever. I would say that, the second law of thermodynamics makes an eternal universe impossible. Because, it can't be eternal if the usable energy is slowly running out.

@@lightbeforethetunnel That's not accurate. Energy can be stored in the form of more stable states, such as mass (as mass and energy are the same things), but matter is energy itself and neither matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed. They can be modified, such that they do have changes that have significant impacts on things within their proximity of influence, but they cannot be _destroyed_.

@@themicdropprophet Energy can be stored in the form of more stable states, such as mass (as mass and energy are the same things), but matter is energy itself and neither matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed. They can be modified, such that they do have changes that have significant impacts on things within their proximity of influence, but they cannot be _destroyed_.

@@thepubliusproject I agree with your comments regarding "energy." But it's all irrelevant given the context is "usable energy."

Given that the universe and time had to come into existence at the same time as the universe (matter and space), as you yourself admit, your opening statement is true by definition. It doesn't MEAN anything. If time had lasted forever, today could never have come. Time must necessarily have a beginning, as paradoxical as it sounds to describe time in temporal terms.

That would be playing on definitions, not logic. Word definition isn't the point here. The point is that there was a point that time (the entire universe) started existing. Therefore, there must be a creator. God bless and much love ❤️✝️

@@GogglesOstrich Again, no. There is no point in time that the universe started existing unless there was a point that it didn't exist. I am not playing with a definition, I am sticking to the definition. It makes no sense to say something starts to exist if it was never non-existent. Face, it, the argument fails at this point. Craig attempts to rescue it with a complex, multi part definition of "begins to exist", but his definition raises even more questions (for example, what does he mean by "timeless")

@peterrobinherbert So the universe never had a beginning is what you're saying? So you're saying time goes infinitely back? Which would mean we passed infinite time to reach today

Because an infinite series of causes explains nothing. Imagine I want to shoot a target and to do that I need permission from person 1, he has to get permission from person 2 and if this goes on forever, will he ever shoot the target?

@@kenandzafic3948 thanks, makes sense.

@@kenandzafic3948 That analogy does not represent how reality actually is. The actual state of affairs would be more akin to: If I want to choose to shoot person 1, I need permission from person 2. In order for person 2 to give permission, event X needed to have occurred. If event X occurred, it doesn't make any difference how many prior events preceded it or what they were. You WILL get permission from person 2, and thus you WILL shoot person 1.

@@fanghur 1. No this doesn't look like reality, an eternal universe implies that time has existed forever which means we have an infinite number of material causes that affect this one event today. 2. It would violate causal finitism, which we have very good reasons to believe.

@@kenandzafic3948 We do not have good reason to accept causal finitism actually. See Majesty of Reason's excellent critique of it. Like, yes, at some point you just have to accept that it's a brute fact that this is the way the universe is. But that isn't a problem, at least not to me. Again, all that matters from a practical point of view are the causal factors in our immediate past. We don't need to know what happened a googol years ago.

indeed

@Yizzy Roger Hello dear brother/sister. I hope you take a tiny bit of your time to read this. Disclaimer: I am not trying to falsify anything from the bible or am an apologist for brand 'Islam' or try to convert you. Quite the contrary: First we have to define what 'islam' and 'muslim' means. Islam does not mean the arabic sect with 5 pillars, Islam merely means 'Surrender', in the context of the Quran, Surrender to God. The definition of 'Muslim' is 'someone who surrenders'. It is originally not a name given to those who adhere to a religion called 'Islam'. So a jew or a monotheist christian who follows the mosaic law or the Gospels we have today and surrenders completely to God alone, they are 'surrenderers' (arabic. 'muslim'). The doctrine of the mainstream 'brand Islam' is nowhere to be found in the Quran. The Quran tells that the Torah (OT) and the Gospel (NT) is from God and that the Quran confirms them and does not abrogate them. I know that it seems like 'Allah' is another God but no. Allah is arabic and means 'The God'. Just as in the Gospels God is called 'Ho Théos/ο Θεός' which literally translates to 'The God' i.e. 'Allah' in arabic. Yah** is our God. The word Allah just explains that he is one God nothing more. The Quran also uses thr names of the Prophets including Yah's name. And middle eastern christians also use the name 'Allah' for God. In aramaic, Jesus' language God is called 'Alaha' in hebrew 'Aloh' or 'elohim'. The Quran is a message not a book belonging to a sect or a 'religion' in the conventional sense. Mainstream 'islamists' like to bend verses so that it fits their religion which actually comes from sources that were written down 150 years after the death of Muhammad. The Quran does preach the same message as the OT and NT. The day of the lord, hell heaven, inheriting the earth (like in the psalms) it ieven brings a verse from the psalms in 21:105. Prophet mohammad did not try to convert others into his 'new' religion, he merely called every believer back to God and also as a warner for his tribe, like Jonah went to his people to warn them as a gentile prophet. I appreciate you if you've read all this. [He sent down to you this scripture (O Mohammad), truthfully, *confirming* all previous scriptures, and *He sent down the Torah and the Gospel.* (Quran 3:3)] [Say: "O people of the Book, let us come to a common understanding between us and between you; that we serve none except God, and that we do not set up anything with Him, and that none of us takes each other as patrons besides God." If they turn away, then say: "Bear witness that we have surrendered." (Quran 3:64)] P.s. I recommend you the lecture of 'Fred Donner'. Unfortunately I cannot mention links here. The title is: "Islam's origins: Myth and Material Evidence - Fred Donner" Peace and blessings from our one father who is in Heaven.

@Yizzy Roger wrong my friend, we don't believe in trinity, our God that we call Allah is it the same as what you call Father, if you go translate the word God to Aramaic (which is Jesus's language) it's translated as אלהא Elāhā (Biblical Aramaic) and ܐܠܗܐ Alāhā (Syriac). Don't let them mislead you of thinking we worship "another" God, I had a discussion with a guy who thought we worship the moon, and I was like "WHAAAT" ! I didn't know it was so misleading to think we worship different God

There is no God but Allah and Jesus Christ is his Son.

@@jimnichols1066 yep. But 'Son' as in 'vicegerent' not a literal begotten child. Almighty God does not beget. God even calls Israel his 'first born Son' or the angels 'sons of God'. Even adam is called 'Son of God' in the Gospels. The Gospels should be read in context with the Torah (old Testament) otherwise there will be much inconsistencies and misconceptions.

The second premise is not based on the big bang theory, as many who use the Kalam don't believe in the big bang. I certainly don't and still hold to the Kalam. Nobody is saying that it HAS to be the Christian God. What is being posited is that there is CLEARLY something with intelligence, outside of space, time, and matter that caused all this. It baffles me that people don't grasp this. We see it played out in everyday life, cause and effect, yet, seemingly, when it comes to existence, some people draw a blank. Something can't come from nothing. That is something that is factual and observed in everyday life. The criticism against this argument are weak and some even outlandish and comical.

@@EdwardJem I agree that it is possible that there is an intelligence that exists outside of our universe. However we don't know if there is an intelligence outside the universe. I don't think it matters either way because if there is it's not interacting with the universe as we know it today.

​@@zachio69 if it is possible an All Powerful encompassing being exists then we can see if it is possible if this being can exist in any possible other reality Yes it is possible that this being can exists in every single possible reality and is all poweful and perfect. If it is possible for this being to exist in every single possible reality then this being exists in actual reality.

@@BobTrikob-pr2ts Nobody knows if there is an all powerful perfect deity that exists that's what you said.

@@zachio69 no im saying if its possible for this being to exist in every possible reality it then should exist in actual reality

What class and college? If you don’t mind me asking.

Great production. Useless argument.

@@con.troller4183 Prove it.

@@jakubdub7557 Prove that the universe "began to exist".

@@con.troller4183 Prove that I am not love You.

@@con.troller4183you literally made the claim that it’s useless. That’s a positive claim. Burden of proof is on you

thanks to imam gazali 😍😍

Craig should thank Imam al Ghazali

@@younesshbiddou6865he literally did by calling it the Kalam Cosmological argument and has cited him many times

Watch the infinite regress vodeo

Good pont

1- god is necessary and eternal 2- the universe is contingent and has a begining 3- God is outside time and space

@Osamatarig Osman saying humans come from matter is like saying lakes come from water... And consciousness, i.e a function of the brain, is also made of matter. Otherwise lopping off a part of your brain wouldn't change your consciousness in any way

@Osamatarig Osman just bc we can't fully explain something ATM doesn't mean you can just assert magic did it! This has nothing to do with determinism, which has its own issues. And EVERYTHING we know about what we label as "consciousness" takes place in the physical. You can't show me one thing that has consciousness but no brain! And once again someones consciousness can be altered by messing with the brain, clearly showing consciousness to be a by product of the brain, the same as hunger, sadness, etc.

it does not, and you no proof it does, also if that was right, then me you and a rock would be justr rearrangements of atoms, thus unaliving you wouldn't be bad or good, it will jst be@@wyett123

no, the universe is the entire thing, everything within it simultaneously makes up a universe.

Have you connected with our local chapters in India? If not, you should! - RF Admin www.reasonablefaith.org/chapters/directory

@@drcraigvideos Mr Craig, are you a Christian?

@@cnault3244 Yes, Dr. Craig is a Christian. - RF Admin

@@drcraigvideos In that case, why would he waste his time with the Kalam cosmological argument? That argument does not get you to Jesus or Christianity. It doesn't even get you to the god of the Bible. Using that argument you can plug in Brahma, Ptah, Odin, Zeus, or any other creator god or goddess people have worshiped, or some unnamed god or goddess. He should be presenting evidence for the Bible story of Christ's resurrection.

@@cnault3244 This is part of a cumulative case for Christianity. Arguments from natural theology can significantly increase one's willingness to accept Christian theism. In fact, some people have accepted Christ because the Kalam Cosmological Argument convinced them that theism was true! And, of course, Dr. Craig has also done tremendous work on the historical argument for the resurrection of Jesus, so it's not as if he offers arguments like the above to the neglect of Christian theism specifically. - RF Admin

if the first two premises are correct, I am open to the idea that the first cause must be uncaused. Could be God, a council of gods or a timeless energy outside our universe.

That God can create from nothing doesn't mean God perpetually will create from nothing. There is no contradiction.

@@owensullivan252 Craig has said nothing can come from nothing but believes a god can create from nothing. That's a contradiction.

Prove it.

@@con.troller4183 Death is not eternal dream. Reincarnation is possible. My opinion.

@@con.troller4183 God exsist

@@con.troller4183 Universe is INTELIGENT DESIGN.

@@con.troller4183 I dont must prove anything.

Did you even watch the video? It shows that the cause was Uncaused and did not have a beginning.

@@RealAlpha_Bricks So you agree there are things without beginnings which refutes the first claim that everything has a beginning.

@@billjohnson9472 no because god never began to exist because he has always existed so he didn’t need a cause to begin to exist

@@RealAlpha_Bricks That falsifies the first claim that everything has a beginning. Because you are giving an example of something without a beginning. QED

@@billjohnson9472 yep

Helpfully, Dr. Craig defines what is meant by "God" here: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/defining-god. - RF Admin

@@drcraigvideos he definitely didn't lol

Why? 😅

That's not one of the premises. The premise is "Everything that *begins to exist* has a cause." Clearly, if the cause does not begin to exist, then it doesn't fall under the things described in the premise. - RF Admin

The original premise of the KCA was "everything that exists has a cause." We arbitrarily assign properties to God so that he is immune to the contradiction contained within the first premise. This begs the question though, if God can have all of these properties then why can't the universe or rather the universe's constituents also be timeless as well? Furthermore, "begins to exist" is somewhat arbitrary. The water I am drinking began to exist, but it also came from previous constituents (hydrogen and oxygen). Since we don't know what the previous constituents of the universe was, we can't rule out that the universe "began to exist." The only thing we can say for certain is that the universe began to expand.

Just that everything has a cause, the cause does not have to be God but the cause cannot be tied down by the laws of thermodynamics. I think. Idk I started getting tired after scrolling through so many replies.

The simple answer is that God was always there, he created time, space, and matter. Therefore he was out of it, therefore there wasn't a need for a beginning or an end

Simple: Even the infinity starts with One. And nothing is before One, it must be uncaused.

@@myNameIsNot- Sure but, there isn’t a consensus as the video implied. Many believers believe God has existed forever.

@@myNameIsNot- How is it outside the topic? The existence of God is what the video was trying to prove. And, not believing in the existence of God is what makes someone an “atheist.”

@Richard Fox I was explaining why that was the case.

@Richard Fox I see! I appreciate it. I thought I had just been too convoluted in my first explanation. Thank you for the reinforcement!

I think the actual law of thermodynamics is that the movement of energy in the universe will slow down until all the energy is dispersed evenly. Craig’s point still works if you think this is the case. However, that is nowhere near the biggest problem with this video. Look up “Cosmological Argument Paulogia” to have it explained.

@@BigFatWedge No, I don't think this is the biggest problem with this video. It's hard to pick the biggest turd at a shit show, though, and this one was pretty egregious. Thanks for the response!

@@thepubliusproject Always happy to reply and be responded to. 😊 Yes this argument has some problems. But the only way to give the Kalam credence is to look at science hay only necessarily applies to the universe. If you go to pure philosophy for support, you’ll always run into Carl Sagan’s “why not save a step” conjecture. (It’s interesting how Craig seems so totally ignorant of that line of reasoning. Huh. 🥴) For the “more of a stretch than believing in magic” thing, there’s always the point that the universe was the beginning of time, and that cause and effect aren’t necessary outside of the universe’s scope. I confess to not really understanding that. 😂 I should really search that up. And that thing about how “one by one, all the models were disproven”( 2:40 ) sounds sort of fishy. It doesn’t seem plausible to claim that we know absolutely that nothing could have happened before the Big Bang, and even then you have the whole beginning-of-time thing. But I’d say the worst part is the second part, the “philosophical” defense of the Kalam. Carl Sagan took down all that in about 2 minutes, years before the video was even made. Seriously Craig, either you’re ignorant or deceptive, and either way, please admit to it. (Also any strange grammatical choices I’ve made are cause I’m stupid 🤣)

Your really not that far from the Kalaam's argument. What you are arguing for is a First Cause. Something that itself is eternal. Is Necessary. So the Kalaam comes to the same conclusion that you are coming to intuitively. The question then is what must the first cause's qualities be and does the universe fit those qualities... hint.... it doesn't.

@@blusheep2 well, I feel like I’m more showing it’s weakness as a an argument. It assumes a premise for the universe by assuming it must have a cause because everything within it had a cause. There’s no evidence that the universe began to exist.

@@guitart4909 Oh, but there is. I'm sure you've heard of the singularity? Do you realize that the singularity isn't a thing? Its not a concrete object. Its an abstract. Its a word that we use to identify a time in the finite past when the universe is curved or "compressed" to the infinite. Similarly, so is the word "infinite." "Infinite" is not actually a number. Its representative of an immeasurable series vector. So if you start subtracting 1 from 100 and you keep doing that over and over, without anything to put a stop to this chain of subtractions, you will reach infinity. Infinity is not an actual number. It represents what is immeasurable. So when scientists look back in time they are "subtracting 1s" When they keep trying to reach back they run into an infinity. An immeasurable curvature/compression of space, time and matter. You will often hear it said that "our math breaks down" at this point because the scientists don't know what to do with these infinities. You may have even heard scientists claim that the universe was compressed down to the size of a basket ball, but that would mean that the universe had dimension and wasn't infinite. In math we have negative numbers but we have them because we have arbitrarily assigned a value as zero. Take temperature. Zero degrees doesn't mean there is no temperature. Do you see how "measurement" is different then "counting?" When you measure something Zero is relative to a choice you made. Anything above zero will be measured as a positive number and everything below zero will be measured as a negative. On the flip side, if we were just counting the number of matchbox cars your sons has, we could count zero if he owned none. So when you measure the universe over the passage of time, you are making a measurement. You are not counting. If you were counting the number of electrons that existed in the universe at different points in time, you would come to ZERO at the "singularity." But if you are to measure the size of the universe as you look back in time, you will run into "infinity." So the way I see it, and I'm no mathematician and may be convinced otherwise one day, is that there is no better definition of "nothing" then saying that the universe was curved or compressed to the infinite. I think the scientists know this. They initially rejected the concept of the Big Bang because of the appearance that the universe came from nothing. Now they have math that suggests it did not exist at some point in the finite past and they don't like that either and so they tell us "the math breaks down," and they treat the singularity as a concrete object, when it really is just an abstract. So there is strong evidence that the universe had a beginning and that fits the definition of Premise 1 of the Kalaam. "Begins to exist" means that at some point in the finite past the "thing" did not exist. To prove this wrong, I think you would have to be able to point at the universe past the infinite but it would be impossible to point past an infinite. You never get to the end of an infinite to find something to point at.

Scientific law defines things in the natural world. Supernatural means "above or beyond nature/the natural". So a natural thing has to have a cause, but a supernatural thing doesn't.

@@snappycenter7863 What makes something “natural”? And, there’s no scientific law which states that all natural things must have a cause.

@@Homo_sAPEien I meant natural as in the physical world apart from the supernatural. And I was referring to the Law of the Conservation of Mass described above.

@@snappycenter7863 What do you mean by “physical”? And, the law of conservation of mass does not require that the universe has a cause, if the universe has existed since the beginning of time, and if there never was a time when no universe existed.

@@Homo_sAPEien What do YOU mean by "physical"? I said what I meant, and I'm seeking to clarify, because I've been in quite a few debates, so this is to determine if this is sincere or arguing for the sake of arguing.

It's embarrassing that you are still using that silly argument.

That's God. He exists outside the 3d material realm (the universe).

@@lightbeforethetunnel but it could be a non living paradox which creates the universe and maybe more, who knows, I'm not a fan of the multiverse idea

@@suzaneoriordan4366 You're just reasoning other cause to escape the fact that it's god.

@@jim3769 no I'm not. I'm only opening selection to things beyond just god. That doesn't mean I reject him, I'm just giving other possibilities and solutions to this argument

@@suzaneoriordan4366 There is nothing beyond god, if there is then that's the god we worship.

I don’t think anyone is annoyed you read a line and assumed emotions.

yahshua is the name of the prophet joshua, not jesus

@@asmodeus304 you are wrong. This is the hebrew translation.

@@CD-221 jesus is a greek name?? why would you translate a greek name into hebrew

@@asmodeus304 you are not educated. Jesus is the english translation of the greek translation of the HEBREW name. Jesus spoke hebrew and aramic

@@asmodeus304 its a hebrew name translated to greek and english

The argument does not say that everything has a cause but that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

@@kenandzafic3948 But why would God be the exception, not the rule?

the argument says everything that exists (except God) has a cause.

@@guitart4909again, why is god an exception?

@@mcdawol I don’t think god should be the exception. I’m pointing out the fallacy of using a premise to allegedly prove god and then exempting god from the premise that allegedly proves his existence in the first place

Theory of gravity is a theory not much evidence to support it. In fact there is evidencd that goes against it. Yet you dont worry about floating away. The COSMOLOGICAL argument does get you to Jesus because it shows logical proof of a single personal creator, the father. Watch the video over

Also the Cosmo argument provides solid logic of a single creator much like the one described in the old testaments and by Jesus in the new testaments.

@@CD-221 "The COSMOLOGICAL argument does get you to Jesus because it shows logical proof" Wrong. Try again: it is called the cosmological ARGUMENT, not the cosmological EVIDENCE. Can you figure out why? Even if you accept all the premises of the argument, all it gets you to is an unidentified creator god. It does not get you to the god of the Bible, it does not get you to Jesus.

@@CD-221 "Also the Cosmo argument provides solid logic of a single creator" LOL. And the argument that Thor is responsible for lightening is supported by the fact lightening exists.

@@cnault3244 because of the cosmological argument We conclude that there is a creator. But now we can't call a human or any other being the creator. We need an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and immaterial being to make the universe. And that Being is the God of the bible. So we do end up with Jesus

Well Christians would say god

@@slenderman6925 But none of them have presented a god. All they have presented is a claim that this god exists and they define the god as always having existed.

Numbers

@@multienergy3684 What about numbers? They only exist as concepts, it isn't possible to show someone an actual number. All you can show them are symbols used to represent the number. For example, the number four can be represented using the following symbols: 4 IV

@@cnault3244 Not without speculating. It's also non-sensical to speculate on what happened before the big bang. Time requires space in order to exist and space didn't exist prior to the start of expansion. Its like asking what time was it before time existed? Its possible that the laws of reality in which the fundamental forces emerged from has always existed. The argument in this video is quite flawed logically.

If you had a gallon of gas in your car and it was the only gallon of gas in the universe and you burn that gallon of gas driving The gas doesn’t disappear it turns into energy, heat , gas and multiple other particles but that energy is now dispersed you can’t repackage it into another gallon of gas Same thing with the universe as the energy of the stars and galaxies is being burnt it’s dispersing into heat and gas and particles but it can’t be repackaged infinitely into “ another gallon of gas “

@@Ryan-xv6ob how do we know there's not a way it recycles that gallon? kinda like how we die and become fertilizer and more life grows out from our body?

I'm trying my best to honestly and openly explore this argument, but at the risk of being arrogant, it just seems so childishly simple. None of the fundamental assertions HAVE to be true regarding the existence of the universe. In fact, these are all, essentially, well crafted hypotheses that use logic that applies to the known universe to explain something that MUST be outside it! This, on its face, makes it untenable. We simply do not possess the ability, yet, to get the information we need to ACTUALLY prove or disprove any genuinely possible idea about this subject. If we can't test it, then it's just philosophy and philosophy is not fact. Am I wrong? What am I missing?

1. The first premise is a metaphysical principle that applies to all of reality, not just the physical universe. This is precisely why "this universe" is not included in the wording of the premise. It seems quite obvious that the idea of something coming into existence uncaused out of nothing is absurd, no matter whether it's within our universe or not. 2. It is false that things pop into existence uncaused at the quantum level. The cause of the coming into existence of quantum particles is the quantum vacuum itself, which is not nothing. 3. Something's being able to cause the existence of the universe without preexisting matter seems to be paradigmatic of the concept of "powerful." Moreover, if the cause of the universe did not begin to exist (since time plausibly began at creation), then it existed in a timeless state without the universe. It would be very strange to think that such a being had a cause, since its being timeless precludes its having a first moment of existence (i.e. coming into being). Finally, by calling the cause "Cthulu" or "Zhsakhjd," one is merely calling God by another name. That doesn't do anything to change his properties. - RF Admin

​@@drcraigvideos Point 1 assumes that cause and effect can happen without time or space which is absurd. Point 2 and 3 is kind of correct though. But point 3 assumes that Cthulu and Zhsakhjd does not have any other properties except for being "what caused the universe to exist". If your definition of god is only one thing "that which caused the universe to exist", then your statement is true. Finally, there is this one thing i havent ever really come close to understanding; how could something "cause" the universe to exist outside of time and space itself. Cause and effect literally only make sense inside of a universe. Time is basically an abstraction of movement in space.

@@flinkstiff Dude. There is always like one logical person in these Christian Apologetics videos, and you are that person here. Thank you 🥹

@@drcraigvideos 1. Which is where you are wrong. Everything we observe and any rules we make based on it, are based on our experience inside of this universe. That tells us literally nothing about how any other universes might behave, or how things go outside of our universe. "Not making sense to the human brain" is also not a good reason to believe something to be true. The quantum world involves teleportation as well as things existing at different locations at the same time. None of that makes the least bit of sense to our brains, because at the level where they experienced the world, none of it happens. It's still a fact of reality. Going back far enough, something either had to have come from nothing, or just always existed. There is literally no other explanation. Yet neither of them make sense to our human brain. They dont have to, which doesnt change that there is no other option. But there is no reason whatsoever to arbitrarily assume this "something" to have been an infinitely complex creator being using literal magic. Not only does this shift the problem, it makes it more complex and introduced the supernatural. None of which is necessary, since we can equally well assume that some natural laws either always existed or came from nothing.

it’s not the best defense

@@nicolehawley3111 are you a teacher? You have a lot of lectures on your youtube.

@@IgonDrakeWarrior yes I am!

@@nicolehawley3111 What's the best defense?

I think there are many that are better than the Kalam Cosmological argument. As far as the "best" would mostly depend upon who I'm talking to. But I think the Fine-Tuning argument is one of the most convincing for many people: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e6tnadGoztPZhGQ.html But I think that the best argument for God in my own life and many others is the personal encounters I have had with Him and others have had with Him. God is real to me not because I've reasoned that He must exist but because I've encountered Him and felt His love for me and others @@CesarClouds

Not only has a divine cause never been observed, it's not even clear to me what such a thing would look like.

@@piecrumbs9951 exactly

Oh please stop rambling. Your rambling does not prove anything. If you have the counter-arguments to Lane Craig's, tell us here...

Basically you are saying, Craig is dishonest and afraid of debunks and that there are videos of the Kalam being debunked in that wall of text.

The answer is simple. Because none of the supposed "debunkings of Kalam's cosmological argument" actually debunk it. They're all just arguments made by people with low logical and/or scientific literacy... or by people who don't understand what "debunking" actually means.

@@lightbeforethetunnel I couldn't watch 2 minutes of that video without cringing.

@@ExNihiloNihilFit319 Is that your best debunk of Kalam's cosmological argument? Perhaps you don't *WANT TO* believe it's true but that doesn't have any impact on whether it is actually true.

Pretty much lol

i dont understand why 0+0 made the universe, therefore atheism is correct.

@@motashaiye Atheism isn’t a declaration. It is the rejection of claims. Religion has created claims that we reject. Just because religion is the norm does not mean that it is correct.

This video has so much evidence and science and then you say that?? Seems like they do get it 😂

Craig gave three justifications in the video for the former proposition, remember?

@@legron121 Why is it “everything that begins to exist requires a cause,” as opposed to just “everything that exists requires a cause”?

@@Homo_sAPEien I'm not sure what you mean. Again, Craig gave three reasons for thinking that "everything that begins to exist has a cause". So we should believe that. On the other hand, what reasons are there for thinking that "everything that exists requires a cause"?

@@legron121 The same reasons as he gave for why everything that begins to exist has a cause. Everything we observe existing has a cause.

@@theoallred5105 Right. So, I don’t think the universe necessarily had a cause.

The KCA isn't specifically about biblical Christianity. It just purports to show that the universe had a transcendent cause. But why think that biblical Christianity is asinine to begin with? - RF Admin

@@drcraigvideosso it can be swapped onto any religion making it even more asinine

@@IgonDrakeWarrior Unfortunately, your comment shows that you're unfamiliar with the breadth of variety of world religions. There are many religions which deny that the universe had an absolute beginning (Mormonism and some forms of Hinduism, for example), so they wouldn't be able to affirm that the universe had a transcendent cause. Also, Dr. Craig's analysis of what it means to be a cause of the universe includes the property of being personal. This would preclude any religion which has an impersonal cause of the universe. - RF Admin

@@drcraigvideos the beliefs of those other religions are still equally unsupported by evidence and logic as your own religious beliefs.

@@allstarwatt7246 Either the universe is eternal or it's not, so clearly the evidence will favor one view or the other, which means they are not "equally unsupported," as you claim. - RF Admin

god still isn't real

@Gil Yair No

Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. That is the premise. The universe began to exist. Besides, our everyday experience shows that things don't just pop into existence without a cause. We have sufficient proof to establish that something cannot create itself rather it has a cause always.

The fact is the claim that the universe popped from nothing is not made by the theist but by the atheist and scientist. We, the theists, claim that the material universe came to existence not from nothingness but from a cause, God.

The modern science points to the fact that the universe began to exist because it cannot exist infinitely in the past. Because of that the scientist are left with no option but to conclude that the universe began from a starting point and it continues to expand. Even though the scients may say that they are agnostic to what was there before the beginning of the universe it only stands as an excuse. Even primordial soup is still material and anything material must cause and the material causes will go on an infinite regress. The Kalam cosmological argument points to a probable cause of the universe. And in this case the immaterial, timeless, personal, all-powerful God stands as the most probable cause.

@Airator - Gaming Thank you for the response. To point you are making, I can only say that I am agnostic to how God makes something out nothing. However, with the Kalam cosmological argument, it points to God, an immaterial being, as the plausible cause for the universe. Moreover, God by definition is omnipotent who can certainly be the author and finisher of material substances which we see and experience everyday, which includes bringing something to existence. Having said that, if we agree that God is beyond the natural and God could perform supernatural act, then creating something from nothing is not something that is hard for us to comprehend. With that, even if we are completely agnostic to how God brings something from nothing, that still doesn't derail the deduction of the Kalam cosmological argument that God must exist. I do not claim to know everything and in this case how God creates. By the way, I suppose, we all should take that position because that teaches us to be humble and be modest.

This is not the law of thermodynamics, it is law of conservation of energy. And it goes, "energy that has started to exist..."

@@habtamutalew9798 I think you might want to check that. Where did you hear it?

Not quite accurate. The implications in the laws of thermodynamics is that the net energy must be zero. How can you get something from nothing without violating this? Simple, you can get (-1) and (+1) from zero. In this context the (-1) is anti-matter and the (+1) is the matter we interact with. It allows for the creation of matter provided an equal amount of anti-matter is also created without raising or lowering the net energy from zero. One of the biggest mysteries of the cosmos centers around the missing anti-matter or asymmetry being matter and anti-matter.

You are correct - not all things that exist are required to have a cause. The first premise of the argument, however, says "Everything that *begins* to exist has a cause." Since the universe began to exist, it must have a cause. - RF Admin

@@drcraigvideos What proof do you have that the universe "began" to exist any more than God did?

@@thepubliusproject The video outlines several evidences for the beginning of the universe. - RF Admin

@@drcraigvideos I certainly didn't see those. I saw claims, but not evidence. What timestamp should I review?

@Rick Soldier of God Wow, surrender much? An argument doesn't become invalid because no one can answer it over time. In fact, it becomes more compelling over time. Your attempt to insult, rather than defeat it, is a concession that you have no better tool available. I accept your acknowledgement, and am glad you were willing to post it.

@@theoallred5105 but even that it still doesn’t work

No, free elections have a cause, the cause is the personal agents themselves.

@@kenandzafic3948 ok then, we can test this. Can you choose to want to choose something? To be clear im not asking if you can make yourself do something you don’t want to do and im not asking if you’re able to change your mind, im asking if you can choose to change how you feel about a choice without any outside influence. Because if you yourself are the cause for your free will then you should be free to choose your underlying perceptions on what you value. Let me give you a more specific example. Can you choose to like something you absolutely hate for no reason, Or vise versa? Can you just decide without reason to genuinely enjoy being in physical and mental anguish for example? Once again im not asking if you can choose to put yourself in mental and physical anguish im just asking if you as you are now can choose to just WANT to experience that without any underlying reason or cause or reservations about it? As a personal agent as you describe you should be able to do this, but psychologically that’s just about impossible, you can’t force yourself to want to want something that process just happens automatically based on your past experiences and personal preference, neither one of these you can change freely, one you’re born with and the other you experience from the world external to yourself. You can’t choose to change the core of who you are.

@@someoneonyoutube8622 1. This is a meaningless question because you are what you choose, so if nothing caused your choice, it is only yours and shows what you are like. 2. That you can change your opinion without any external influence. 3.I didn't understand this part about perceptions. 4. Yes you can, but you won't because your choice shows who you are as a person, so it's not just random things, I think you're confusing causelessness with randomness. 5. You can but it's not likely unless you're a psychopath. 6. It seems that your point is whether I can just change drastically for no reason and logically yes but probabilistically no. 7. No those things are inconsistent with free will as I said you are confusing the causelessness of free choices with randomness.

@@kenandzafic3948 what the heck are you on about I never said any of that you’re replying to things I never said. So either you don’t understand or you’re being intentionally dishonest. But Im going to give you the benefit of the doubt. "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." - Arthur Schopenhauer This is the point im trying to get at. None of what you said addresses this.

@@someoneonyoutube8622 I disputed that too, his point here is false because what you choose is you and it is simply pointless to ask the mogul to choose what I will choose when you choose.

Yes, because an infinite series of causes does not explain anything.

@@kenandzafic3948 but a finite series would/could. I mean, you look at metaphysics in the ancient world, and they all pretty much had that view. No where is there the idea that God/the first principle can just directly make the world.

@@2tehnik 1. As far as I understand you are defending the position that there is simply a brute fact, however that is irrelevant to the Kalam argument. 2.Again the cause of the universe must be a timeless, extraspatial, immaterial, immutable, eternal, supremely powerful entity with free will.

@@kenandzafic3948 1. No I’m not. What gives you the idea I am? I’m just talking about the possibility of metaphysical mediators. If it’s a brute fact to assume for there to be mediators, then it’s also one for there to be none. 2. Ok. Is that a problem? Why should there be only one immaterial existent? I would also say that Kalam’s argument for the first cause having something like libertarian free will pretty bad, as it relies on it being eternally imbedded in time rather than in divine (timeless) eternity. And I know he says the exact opposites at certain points, but that just goes to show how Craig contradicts himself when he starts talking about God changing and the idea that something like the One would necessitate an eternal universe (which I think is certainly false).

@@2tehnik 1. There are several reasons why the cause must be 1. 1) Occam's edge says that we don't multiply entities unnecessarily and since we don't need any intermediaries they are simply ad hoc. 2) In order for two things to exist, there must be something that distinguishes them, however, nothing would distinguish two immaterial entities, which would then be one entity. 3) Do their wills conflict, if not, then they have only one will and then simply all mediators become unnecessary and must prove themselves. 2. Free will is compatible with a timeless God, Craig believes that God enters time at the moment of creation, I as a Catholic do not accept this but in any case it is not a problem.

Don’t you love this? Ironically the young earths love saying the kalam proves the universe had a beginning, but that beginning was billions of years ago 😂

@@NeedSomeNuance lmao, creationist use the Kalam argument?

@@Homo_sAPEien omg yes it’s hilarious

@@NeedSomeNuance hahahaha

I think you guys need to study Genesis 1 alot more. No where in the Bible does it say the age of the earth or the universe. Infact, the word "created" used through out the Bible in it's original translation implies that "created" or "Bara" in Hebrew also means to "Shape" which could mean to "give purpose to" the heavens and the earth, which means "give purpose to" the universe and the earth. The word used in Hebrew could also be used in the context of "a sculptor shaping his clay." In an English translation, we could mistake this translation as "a sculptor creating his clay". It wouldn't be accurate, if you don't know what the word means in it's original translation. Clearly the sculptor is giving the clay purpose, not creating it. This also clarifies why people seem to think the creation account wasn't done in the proper order. It makes sense that the earth was given purpose before the sun and the stars, because why would the sun and the stars be given purpose to measure time without the earth having any purpose to begin with? This would explain the reason why the word "Bara" puts the earth before the sun. Of course there are disagreements on this between biblical scholars, but going by the Bibles original translation and how the sentences are structured it's very plausible. Not to mention, the way Genesis 1 is translated today differs from the sentence structure of the epics around the region, like the epic of Gilgamesh. If you were to make sense of Genesis 1 the way I explained, it would be more inline with the way ancient people's of that time used their vocabulary and sentence structure. Just something to think about, and gives us more context to what we already know. I don't claim that these translations are correct, but it makes a lot more sense coming from that time, region and how we see the universe in modern time.

Which god are you referring to?

@@cnault3244 paranormals are real, death isnt end. Over discussion. You lost

@@cnault3244 prove that not

@@jakubdub7557 Your comment is a blatant attempt to shift the burden of proof, a tactic employed by children.

@@cnault3244 I am good boy. Moaw moaw 🐈‍⬛🐈🐱

God chose the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 1 Cor 1:21

E=mc2 The Speed of Light Jesus Christ rainbow 🌈! Energy Yellow Sun ☀️ Habakkuk 3:4 Psalm 84:11 Luke 1:78-79 Because of the tender mercy of our God, With which the Sunrise from on high will visit us, TO SHINE UPON THOSE WHO SIT IN DARKNESS AND THE SHADOW OF DEATH, To guide our feet into the way of peace

You invite infinite regression which is logically untenable.

They confuse faith with knowledge. A con man always needs your faith for the con to work. Once you stop putting faith in him, the con falls apart, because that's when you will ask for the promise to be fulfilled. Surprise, surprise....It won't be. It'll just be a bunch of double talk or the cold shoulder.

religious faith is delusional.

And, as every single six year old should be answered, the concept of God is of a being that is not created, so if it's a being that's created, it's not God. - RF Admin

@@drcraigvideos if God is not created, how do they exist?

@@ImHeadshotSniper Asking why a necessarily existing being exists is like asking why a bachelor isn't married. - RF Admin

@@drcraigvideos the assumption that the necessarily existing thing is an intentional being who also influences the world post-creation (as is the idea of a fundamentalist Christian perspective), is purely a culturally and emotionally biased, as well as ultimately uncertain faithful belief. who says the universe can't necessarily exist by itself without an external necessarily existing thing? if you are applying this logic to the universe, you can just as easily apply it to a God. since we're quite sure the universe exists in some form, it seems to be that case that it necessarily exists. whether anything else external necessarily exists, while a valid assumption, is nothing more than an assumption. to feel confident that you know exactly what the root necessarily existing thing is, seems quite hubris, as we're impossibly tiny aspects of this universe, and i personally wouldn't count on the idea that we are even capable of understanding the root of reality.

That's not even the point of the argument, the point is to show that God exists, which he did.

Prove it.

@@jakubdub7557 Prove the universe "began to exist". Thanks for playing.

@@con.troller4183 Prove that universe always exsisted.

@@con.troller4183 BTW. I like you.

@@con.troller4183 Can you be my friend?

u know its heretical to write it out or attempt to pronounce it, right? also thats not even the right name there are no Js in hebrew

How?

before I reply do you even know quantum mechanics theory? @@RealAlpha_Bricks

@@WeiWenqing If Quantum Mechanics proved the Kalaam impossible then all the scientists would be using it as their argument as well as all the professional philosophers. So at best, the fact that they aren't demonstrates that you only think quantum mechanics proves the kalaam impossible. Would you care to explain which part of quantum mechanics makes it so? Maybe you have a new idea that hasn't been considered. I also think I have a new idea that hasn't been considered with regards to quantum mechanics. We can share are thoughts, if your interested.

I think Sean Carrol already makes clear. But I can expand. Quantum mechanics show things able to exist but not needing cause (example is virtual particles). Second issue is time itself, before the expansion of big bang time itself was not linear so no sense of speaking of causes then. If only quantum vacuum exist then time not exist and no sense to speak of casual inferences @@blusheep2

​@@WeiWenqing I figured that is what you were going to use. The problem is that this is a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. Quantum Mechanics does not suggest that particles can appear from nowhere without reason. There is always a conservation of energy, even in quantum mechanics, so when a particle appears to come into existence in one place, there is a reduction of a particle or energy in another place to account for it. You never have "creation ex nihilo" of any particle, even on the quantum scale. The fact that the conservation of energy is still honored at this level speaks to a cause behind the relationship between the new particle and the energy/particle that was lost somewhere else because of it. Your second example is new to me. Or at least I haven't heard it phrased the way you have phrased it. I am curious with your statement, "before the expansion of big bang time itself?" You say it wasn't linear. Where does that come from and what do you know about "before the expansion of the big bang." I think what is happening with this explanation is that you have been hearing colloquial explanations of it which often distort what I understand to be true about this point in time. People refer to the "singularity" as if its a thing with qualities like "non-linear time." When our math is worked backwards it leads to the infinite curvature of space, time and matter. You will often hear it said that "our math breaks down" at this point because the scientists don't know what to do with these infinities. You may have even heard scientists claim that the universe was compressed down to the size of a basket ball, but that would mean that the universe had dimension and wasn't infinite. "Infinite" is not actually a number. Its representative of an immeasurable series vector. So if you start subtracting 1 from 100 and you keep doing that over and over, without anything to put a stop to this chain of subtractions, you will reach infinity. Infinity is not an actual number. It represents what is immeasurable. So when scientists look back in time they are "subtracting 1s" When they keep trying to reach back they run into an infinity. An immeasurable compression of space, time and matter. In math we have negative numbers but we have them because we have arbitrarily assigned a value as zero. Take temperature. Zero degrees doesn't mean there is no temperature. Do you see how "measurement" is different then "counting?" When you measure something Zero is relative to a choice you made. Anything above zero will be measured as a positive number and everything below zero will be measured as a negative. On the flip side, if we were just counting the number of matchbox cars your sons has, we could count zero if he owned none. So when you measure the universe over the passage of time, you are making a measurement. You are not counting. If you were counting the number of electrons that existed in the universe at different points in time, you would come to ZERO at the "singularity." But if you are to measure the size of the universe as you look back in time, you will run into "infinity." So the way I see it, and I'm no mathematician and may be convinced otherwise one day, is that there is no better definition of "nothing" then saying that the universe was curved or compressed to the infinite. I think the scientists no this but they initially rejected the concept of the Big Bang because of the appearance that the universe came from nothing. Now they have math that suggests it did not exist at some point in the finite past and they don't like that either and so they tell us "the math breaks down," and they treat the singularity as a concrete object, when it really just an abstract. So I would have to ask where this "quantum vacuum" existed? If it exists then it exists outside of the universe and how does a scientist know whats outside of this universe. The "quantum vacuum" hypothesis wasn't pushed by Carrol but presented by Lawrence Krauss in his book that tried to explain how the universe could come from nothing. Suffice to say, it didn't cause waves in the scientific community and was largely ignored by everyone but the New Atheist crowd like Carol and Dawkins, because it didn't actually explain how the universe arose from nothing. Krauss just equivocated the term nothing and then proposed something... a quantum vacuum... which is still a thing, as an explanation. ___________________ My quantum hypothesis has to do with miracles. Thesis: God's quantum creation allows God to perform miracles without the violation of the natural laws He put in motion for the universe. Justification: The universe is fundamental on the quantum level. On the quantum level everything is measured in probabilities. All particles exist in a wave form of probabilities that are collapsed into particles upon observation or measurement. Its curious though that, though quantum mechanics suggests that a particle could collapse into any number of probabilities, the universe still seems to be incredibly predictable. This might be because you can't just have just one wayward particle collapse into one unlikely possibility and expect to notice it. Only if billions of these particles collapsed into one of its least likely probabilities would we even know it happened. God though, is defined as all-knowing and all-powerful. He, by definition, would have intimate knowledge of every single particle and wave form. Though our observation and measurements may be powerful enough to collapse a photon in wave form to a photon collapsed to a particle, as has been demonstrated, God could theoretically collapse any, and as many, particles as he wished. Being all-powerful, He could also then collapse them into one of its probabilities through His own choosing. So I went skiing with a friend and he went face first into a snow blowing machine and broke a bunch of bones but the most important bones he broke were 3 in his hand. His father had abandoned the family and he had to help mom support him and his three sisters. He did so by swinging hammers on a construction site. Now he couldn't hold the hammer so he tells me hes going to pray that God would heal his hand. When I saw him the next day, his hand was completely healed. He could hold things, there was not pain or swelling. He went to the doctor later that day and got an xray to confirm it. We know that bones don't heal in 24 hours. Its perfectly predictable it seems. Quantum Mechanics would suggest that though we never see it, its not impossible for the bone to heal if all the particles required for healing collapsed into a highly unlikely configuration, in a very short amount of time. So if there is an all powerful, all knowing, observer that can cause collapse anyway it sees fit, then this miracle can happen without violating any of the laws of physics.

because religious people are incredibly gullible

That's actually a mischaracterization. It's no part of the argument to say that "God used Nothing as raw material to create something." That would be material creation. Rather, the claim is traditionally known as creation ex nihilo, that is, God did not use any preexisting stuff to create the universe. So, the universe lacks a material cause. But, of course, it does have an efficient cause, namely God. By contrast, the atheist account lacks both a material *and* an efficient cause. If lacking a material cause is absurd, then the atheist account is doubly absurd and therefore cannot be rationally affirmed. - RF Admin

@@drcraigvideos then both points are disproven and the argument is left unresolved. We don't accept a creator because no creator hasn't been proven.

@@person8064 How have the points been disproven? Neither premise has been shown to be false. Moreover, the universe's having an efficient cause without a material cause simply follows from an analysis of what it means for the material universe to have a cause, whether one likes that analysis or not. - RF Admin

@@drcraigvideos I was referring to your last sentence, where you call both the atheist and theist points absurd. Even granting both premises, the conclusion does not necessarily point to god. It can be any number of unverifiable, unfalsifiable causes. That's the main problem -- that without any way of interacting with the outside of the universe, it is impossible to prove anything. Focusing on the premises, premise one is false as it extrapolates what occurs inside the universe to the unobserved outside. The universe could have popped into existence without any cause. Premise two is false as again, we simply don't know. Our current models of physics break down in the extreme environment of the big bang. We call that the beginning of the known universe, but ultimately it is unknown what exactly happened during the big bang.

LOL light, most certainly is physical. Do you think light exists in the same manner as a number or an ldea?

Full? how so? There are two premises in this version, both are reasonable. The conclusion is a logical imperative if both premises are true.

@@jon__doe the 2 premises NEVER lead to a god, or a conscious agent of any kind. The conclusion doesn't lead to any gods either. Also people who use this argument always stop at God. But if God existed, by the same argument, they would also need a cause. Anyone who disagrees with that contradicts their first premise, making it an invalid argument.

@@wyett123 you don't pay attention

@@user-we2gk7tf8e This is a 4 minute introduction video to the philosophical argument that fills volumes and has endured for centuries. There is much more to this, and even deeper proofs would be from Aquinas. The descriptors of God have a logical reason. God as creator would explain all causes and would not require a cause, this is how descriptors are derived. In order to be an uncaused cause, God must exist outside the physical universe. Descriptors are properties that, logically, a creator God must have. Why do you believe what you do? Why do you believe it enough to assault the alternative beliefs of others? You care enough to comment here, why?

First, the argument doesn't purport to show that the cause is specifically the Christian God. It merely shows that the universe had a cause with properties we normally associate with a generic monotheism. We conclude that this God is specifically the Christian God via Christian evidences such as the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. Second, the scientific evidence shows that the entire physical universe had a beginning. There is no such thing as a void universe with no beginning. It's not as if there was some vague beginningless non-physical universe that served as a container for all of the physical things that began to exist. Rather, the evidence shows that the whole physical universe -- including the quantum realm -- had an absolute beginning in the finite past. - RF Admin

@@drcraigvideos .. you know, seeing religion from the outside always makes me see how crazy it really is. "historicity[sic] of the resurrection of jesus"... like..... how do y'all believe this

@@RichConnerGMN How? By studying how history is actually done and applying those standards to the New Testament texts. - RF Admin