Amen! Praise God for William Lane Craig! Keep going brother in Christ!!!

To hear that the philosophers here actually quote their opponents in their arguments is evidence that they are not threatened by them, and they have sound arguments.

These conversations are incredibly fascinating. And I like the way William speaks. I could listen to these all day.

This video is the perfect response to anyone who says "Yeah but once WLC is in the room with a scientist, his arguments fall apart!" I would've also said to the questioner demanding empirical evidence rather than arguments that *use* evidence, that there is no such *thing* as evidence without logic and reason. Indeed, science itself couldn't function without certain philosophical assumptions about what we perceive and what those perceptions really amount to.

That was absolutely fantastic!👏 Craig and Holder are a wonderful team.Both of them have helped me in this public lecture.🙏

Another brilliant presentation by Dr. Craig. Thank you!

All my life I've been wanting somebody to tell me God exists because I really need to know. Thank you so much for telling me !

"Has Hawking Eliminated God?" dunno man looks more like God has eliminated Hawking

The last person who ask the question is what exactly what I was thinking the whole time...

I just want to add that this has been, thus far, a very entertaining debate/discussion. You are very articulate, polite and knowledgeable. It has been a pleasure. Cheers! Now I'm going to go eat that pickle!

I am so happy to have heard William. I was sceptical, but now I am totally convinced. Every believer needs a Willy.

Nicely recorded. Thanks for uploading.

Excellent video and so important.

What tremendous lecture I wish all thinking people would listen to it!

This was really good : )

Craig is the man

I have certainly enjoyed our discussion as well.

This would've been more impressive if Billy Preston hadn't recorded the hit song Nothing From Nothing in 1974.

I do appreciate your open-mindedness, and your fairness in discussion. That book by Williams is very good, and moreover demonstrates that one can be as skeptical toward atheism as you are toward theism. A critical, well thought-out analysis is the only right way to approach this matter. But, that being said, it logically follows that "skeptical" isn't a fourth option.

Skepticism applies equally well to critically-thinking theists like the ones I mentioned. In fact, Peter S. Williams has written a book called "A Skeptic's Guide to Atheism", wherein it is pure, critical skepticism that causes Williams to reject the claims of modern atheists.

49:20 If God were to prevent suffering, He'd have to prevent our free will ability to be selfish, and imperfect, (which cause suffering). Therefore, He'd have to prevent our free will. Tho, without free will how could we freely love. Without free will we have no purpose, and we are nothing. In which case, life would seem to be meaningless.

1) I've been thinking more on this one and you may be right. There is a flaw in my explanation, I just need to examine it more to figure out if I'm thking about it wrong or explained it wrong.

Thanks for this reference. I will read this book as I'm interested in this side of the topic. That being said, I never take someone's past or objective as evidence that one side is right or wrong. I was a devout Catholic before becoming skeptical on this issue. I don't expect, nor want, that fact to have any impact on my arguments. I simply have the ability to relate to theists as I was one. My position is no more right or wrong because of if.

I do listen, and I respect the distinction you (and others) are trying to make. Indeed, the label really isn't that important. What is important is the burden of proof which accompanies a claim. The agnostic makes no claim, and therefore has no burden (unless they are the kind of agnostic who says it is impossible to know; in which case that is a separate claim that needs substantiation).

Associated with this state-function is K(c,f ) = | y(c,f ) |2. . . . Hence, K(c,f ) is a function of just a single configuration point (c,f ) [i.e., a single point in superspace, where each point represents a 3-space]: there is no (c1,f1) corresponding to an earlier configuration and time from which the system has "evolved." This is the precise sense in which the theory is said to predict the probability that the universe is created in various configurations "from nothing.”

Please point out one strawman or misrepresentation in this lecture. I assure you, Craig is not the only philosopher who has harshly criticised this book of Hawking and Mlodinow. I think Craig's criticisms here are exactly on-point and valid.

My philosophy professors taught me about possible worlds while I earned my philosophy degree. So I know the possible world idea is useful. But it seems to me that we can ask why someone or something exists in each possible world. Analytic philosophers say that truth is logically necessary when it's true in each possible world. Why not believe that a truth is true in all possible worlds because that truth is logically necessary. That way, you can explain what a possible world is in itself without a circular definition.

46:37 - If not Hawking, maybe Mlodinov. It'd be great to see him debate William Lane Craig.

(5 cont) In the Lottery example, even if we don't have exact numbers, we can estimate the probabilities and know that they are heavily weighed against. Being realistic, that is a good reason to believe you won't win. Therefore the position is not nonsensical.

How can someone no matter how many PHD's he has is so sure that the universe doesn't need God. Has hawking already travelled around the universe and study everything there is to know? We can't even fully understand everything here on earth.

12) I'm not postulating "nothing as I describe it". I am saying that we know what "something" is, and the absence of all "somethings" is described by the word "nothing", or by the phrase "not anything". And, since "somethings" need explanations for their existence, the complete lack of things to explain would require a complete lack of things... aka "nothing". That is why the question is "why is there something, rather than nothing".

I do agree. Normally, I'd be right there with you arguing the semantics (this is not meant negatively). However, there are far more positions on the spectrum of belief than theist, agnostic and atheist. Human opinion is just not that easy to classify. All I ask is that you listen to your opponent instead of arguing something that is beside the point.

Great man doc Craig

(correction: this is the actual final continuation of 5) The Universe is contingent for obvious reasons. One obvious indication is that it began to exist, and necessary things don't begin to exist, but are eternal. No one is assigning properties to "escape tough questions". God has always been defined as necessary (in the modal sense). Horses are contingent on a material Universe which is itself contingent. I can demonstrate God's necessity with two separate arguments, if you're interested.

(cont)... FOR atheism, not just the refutations of theistic arguments. Indeed, some of the ones I just mentioned, in their debates with Craig, said explicitly that it is wrong to think that no argument is needed for the atheist claim. 4) I would LOVE for someone to present to me the probability calculus by which you can judge that God's existence is "improbable". People say things like that willy-nilly and don't stop to think that there are no numbers to attach to this "probability". (cont)

Without watching a second of this video, I predict that Craig says that Hawking did NOT eliminate God.

Pardon me. You are correct. I mistakenly referred to "people who claim to be theists" as theists. That was a slip. However, I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant. That being said, my answer stands. To presume anyone's position based on fairly general categorizations is to invite error and misunderstanding. Your logic is sound IF, in the real world, these labels were understood by everyone. As there is some debate as to what an atheist or agnostic really is, to rely on the labels is foolish.

(cont 1) You are right, we have covered much ground. These 500 word responses aren't convenient for such a discussion so I will forego any further criticism of arguments that are still debated today. There are far more qualified people that can do that.

"Randomness is just an instance of human ignorance. Probably distributing spontaneous fluctuations?" That's a fairly bold claim, especially for a person who has not yet defined "randomness" or "spontaneous". In fact, you didn't even give enough of a hint as to your definition for me to know whether I agree with you or not! Caution.

I think there is a singularity pun at 26:44

5) Our comparison was your first two: "I know I won't win" vs "I likely won't win." Now you bundle those and add jumble together two discussions. The lottery has the luxury of having a known limited set of combinations, therefore the probability can be determined. I assume you mean to compare this with the lack of solid numbers for the probabilities that God exists. You are right, we have no exact numbers, but we can estimate them and -even conservatively- they will be big.

For the purpose of education, the search for truth should not limit itself by fear of where it should lead. Truth and knowledge may come from many different sources. One discipline should not maliciously attempt to cancel out another; free market of information will do this naturally. In the end , the educated public shall become the sole judge, and one's individuality shall be the mark of humanity's endowed with its own free will.

(cont 5) He is suggested as hypothesis. He is invoked to explain the unexplained, but methodological naturalism has shown that the unexplained can be explained. We are confident that we can continue to do so and until we can't, there is no need to propose an explanatory force like God until we need it. Right now, we don't need it as it is far too early to throw in the towel on things like the origin of life and the beginning (if there is one) of the universe. (cont)

(cont) 5) The point is that it is a different claim to say "I know I won't win" (which would require a good justification, like the fact that you don't play the lottery in the first place) or saying "I likely won't win" (which is based on odds with actual numbers attached to them) vs. saying "there is no evidence that I will win, and no numbers to calculate probabilities, so I should just default assume that I won't win". That last position is utter nonsense.

1) You can't use the term "skeptic" the way you're trying to, because many people are theists specifically because of the same skeptical style of reasoning. They don't find the arguments for atheism at all compelling (and they recognize that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), and so their skepticism is just an approach to the matter; not a fourth position. I agree, and I think many atheists are suspending their critical thinking when it comes to the arguments for God.

4) All cosmological evidence points to the Universe having a beginning. It isn't about "belief" per se. But you mentioned what Hawking meant in his model, and so I made it clear that Hawking's model includes a beginning to the Universe. As does Vilenkin's. As does Krauss'. According to Vilenkin, ALL the evidence points to a beginning of the Universe. Moreover there are philosophical arguments that show the past cannot be infinite.

Wow the 1st question is like : Why the triangle has three faces ?

@Birdieupon BTW, is that you, birdie, in the front row? :)

I find a very profound and abundant possibility of becoming more confused and deconstructed intellectually, when having so called "intellectuals" tasked with giving evidence on matters which are rather simplistic in nature!! This is what happens when people like William Lane Craig and Jordan Peterson for example, are asked rather simple questions....they seem to spew a bombardment of words and phrases that soon take a whole different meaning of their own!!

1) I certainly don't question a theists' ability to think skeptically. Since theist, agnostic and atheist are positions on the claim that God exists, I am using the term skeptic to define the unaccounted for position. I am agnostic on some topics, for example whether Jesus was a historical figure. I did not mean to imply that believers lack critical thinking, however, even one who is an adept critical thinker can suspend that critical thinking on certain topics that they are biased towards.

2) To say that nothing has ever been observed which requires postulating the supernatural is both biased and irrelevant. It's irrelevant because we are not postulating the supernatural as a hypothesis to explain some hole in our knowledge. And it's biased because it cuts out large areas of inquiry (like the logical entailments of certain terms and their meanings, or of certain categorical facts like the contingency or eternality of a thing).

Craig RULEZ.

(final continuation on 5) "Existing outside the Universe" is not semantically, logically, scientifically, or in any other way synonymous with "not existing at all". Even the popular "multiverse" idea (with no empirical support whatsoever) would constitute a vast reality outside our Universe.

4) I could easily write a book to explain all the reasons I think his existence is improbable and the implications of those reasons, especially if I'm talking about the Christan God. Even if every one of those reasons can be argued to be shown to be inconclusive by itself, it doesn't negate a weight of probability. It is hard to assign the probability, but even starting with conservative numbers, the picture is grim. (cont)

If the majority of people claiming to be "theists" happened to not believe in God, what would you say to these people? Would you re-define the term to fit their obvious self-contradiction? Or would you instruct them to stop using the term "theist" since theism means the belief in God?

(cont) 5) Because of the probability, I can state with confidence that I won't win, the prediction is a sound one. But my answer to your question would have been, "I don't know I won't win, but the likelihood is that I won't." Modern atheists only need to show that God likely doesn't exist or that lack of belief in him is the default position. (cont)

Is it just me, or is Peter Williams usually front-row-center at these Craig events?

14) If a biologist wrote a book in which he said that Physics was outdated and irrelevant, and then the biologist went on to outline a biological theory to answer all the deep questions of Physics, the community of physicists would certainly be annoyed, and they would critique the book. Biologists aren't qualified to speak on Physics. Likewise, Hawking and Molodinow are laughed at for their naive, uninformed ideas and for the hubris of speaking so far outside their area of expertise.

1:16:38 The one thing I really dislike is when you clearly see an idiot who tries to be a smart ass as if ah got you, they come up with some childish and most ridiculous arguments and you see that little condescending arrogant grin on his face, where most of his arguments or statements stemmed from ignorance. 1) For example: Some parts of the planet are inhospitable? This generates fallacies and assumptions. a) The earth is not inhospitable, if you bring penguins to live in the tropics they may die, if you take fish out of the water it will die, if you take other creatures out of their natural habitat they may die or adapt (if possible) I hardly consider this as an inhospitable parts of earth. Other life elsewhere, this is another assumption, who said there is no other life? Perhaps a life that we know of, but isn't it a little arrogant and pretentious to make such a statement? As for a potential collision with our galaxies has he seen any of it? And who says that we would be around? I suspect life as we know it on this earth will be over by then, so I wouldn't worry too much. These are silly arguments made primarily out of ignorance and assumptions sprinkled with arrogance to give it an edge.

Nothing (or "non-being") cannot produce anything. To say "non-being" is to entail the lack of EVERYTHING (including causal power, potentiality, laws, etc). Indeed, Alex Vilenkin, in his book (and in interviews) has indicated that the only feasible answer he can think of is that the laws of nature must exist as "Platonic entities" and they cause the initial quantum tunneling effect which produces the Universe. Of course, if Vilenkin were a philosopher he'd know Platonic forms have no causal power

1) Perhaps there are reasons but if there were _good_ reasons then they would have convinced a good portion of skeptics by now. It is the evaluation of these reasons that separates theists and skeptics. (I'm going to use the term skeptic to refer to the group of people who call themselves atheists but are not by your rigid definition).

🤺☦🇷🇺They ducked that cliche question of that clown, and didn't answer him on such an easy one, I can't believe it!🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️All they needed to answer is: if everything in the universe stated at one point then there must be a point in the beginning of something that is uncreated which created the first creation and so on - that is just fact🤷‍♂️

Their position is that God just is - timeless. Rather than the concrete observable universe. So to say that time is an illusion.

1:16:49 the questioner is quoting Christopher Hitchens.... verbatim!

@AgApE010 The one or two dimensions we perceive as time didn't exist prior to the big bang. If you wish you can google the big bang and read up on the many theories of time . some say it's one dimensional so say multidimensional. but whatever it is it's existence coincided with the beginning of the universe.

16) Pyle specifically says that saying "there isn't enough evidence for God" or "none of the arguments for God are any good" is compatible with THEISM, and that absence of evidence leaves you only with agnosticism. How on Earth did you interpret that to be agreeing with you?? Dacey even more directly condemns your viewpoint, since he says people are WRONG to say "you can't prove a negative". Tooley defines atheism point-blank, and it is as I've been saying; not as you have. (cont)

1) Spineless is a euphemism for being a coward. How does making fun of ANYONE make a person a coward? I'm really trying to riddle through this one. 2) Mocking rape IS insensitive. I didn't say it wasn't. 3) I maintain that he wasn't mocking rape. He was mocking you. 4) Yes I know the difference between a BA and a BS. It's virtually negligible, and varies more from university to university than it does from BS to BS. Mine's in mathematics. 5) Thanks for being so pleasant about this. ^_~

15) Matenoway was indeed wrong, and you really should let go of this idea that a claim that "X does not exist" is not a positive claim in its own right. For example, if I said that there is definitely no gold on Pluto, I would need to give reasons to think so. The absence of evidence isn't good enough; I need to have good reasons to believe that there is certainly not any gold on Pluto. A "responsible" atheist addresses his burden of proof, and does not try to shirk it. That's all.

Since nothing has no properties then what it would produce could have any properties, Be it space/time and mater or God himself.

(cont 1) We really are covering a lot of ground now, but I can tell you very confidently that Godel's argument cannot be parodied, and Leibniz's premises are rock-solid. Leibniz's argument relies on nothing more than a first principle of metaphysics (which, if false, would bring down science, most rational thinking, and day-to-day life along with it) and the premise that the Universe is contingent (which is obviously true).

Atheists face the same problem. We are constantly told what we "believe" or not. I am totally with you except on the default position. If we take this stance as the default position, then literally any claim that is both unprovable and unfalsifiable would be considered "unknowable." This is simply universal skepticism.

Mathematics is the descriptive language of science and can hardly be separated from it. The presuppositions of science may didn't require philosophy even though they have been greatly covered by philosophy. It would be erroneous to say that science depends on philosophy. They both emerged from the same reality, but one depends on concepts and the other on the real. The search for truth has not advanced all that far in philosophy in several millenia, whereas science flourishes.

(cont) As for philosphers, they are in question right now as this is the whole point of the book reviewed in this video and a mojor part of our discussion. I love philosophy but it seems to have become disconnected with the real world -and may always have been. Regarding falsifiability, he has been shown by many to be logically incoherent, but since God is a malleable concept, those arguments are easily explained away by clever theologians. Are the arguments compelling? Not really. (cont)

(Cont 2) Finally, while this argument may not be positive evidence for atheism, it is a feast for a skeptic. We've already agreed that you aren't arguing with an atheist but rather an agnostic leaning on atheism (which I am referring to as a skeptic). The argument adds weight to the probability against God's existence (only a probability since there is a chance that He exists despite the likelihood that he was invented). (Cont)

Antony Flew invented it. He called it "negative atheism" (as opposed to "positive atheism" which asserts that God certainly or almost certainly doesn't exist). He did so in the 20th century; that makes it recent. Previous atheists (like Sartre, Nietzche, even Russell) knew that atheism was a knowledge claim. "Knowledge" is "belief that is both true and warranted/justified". If the atheist BELIEVES God does not exist, and thinks she has warrant for that belief, she is making a knowledge claim.

I have just looked into a 3 page definition of nothing from a philosophical dictionary and I which I could type all it says, to be fair. But since it is too difficult I will say just that there are basically two definitions of nothingness: the negation of everything that there is, or not being. I am still not sure how to fit a quantum tunnel , or quantum gravity or and eternal probability wave function. net energy=0 nothing? like winning the lottery and losing it all on the casino, not nothing

6) I agree, these arguments can be embraced by theists. I know because I was one of them. My quest lead me here. Results will vary for others. I have no need for the belief. I don't actively disbelieve (didn't I explain this before?) As I said before, the hypothesis solves no problems, or is far to early to be invoked. Lack of evidence doesn't warrant active disbelief but certainly supports my lack of belief. It adds weight to the improbability. What reason do I have to consider this belief?

Also, scholars will default to the generally accepted position unless they have go reason to disagree. Many do not want to rock the boat or see no reason to. Like it or not, the existence of Jesus and that of his disciples is in question. I stay respectfully agnostic on the matter.

cont3) You CAN argue against anything, but there are things that it is wise NOT to argue against. You are essentially arguing that, despite "unicorns" being defined as "horned equines", there might be a unicorn with no horn. That is, obviously, ridiculous. If you found an equine with no horn, you wouldn't say "this unicorn just has no horn"; you'd say "this is not a unicorn".

(cont 1) I agree that Godel and Leibniz are great thinkers and accomplished philosophers. That does not take away from the fact that purely logical proofs, while they sound fascinating, are deeply unsatisfying, especially for those who know there is something wrong with the argument even though it is difficult to pinpoint. Both of these arguments are highly questionable. Leibniz in premise, and Godel depends on modal logic, which can be turned on itself to prove the opposite.

If it is acceptable to say that the universe is eternal and/or that it came from nothing, than it is just as acceptable to say the God is eternal and/or came from nothing. Both theories postulate that something came from nothing and/or that they have always been. To say that one theory is possible but the other is not is a logical fallacy.

... terms, why not just pick the one with the definition that actually suits you. For example, if I don't actually believe in God, but just think it's possible that God exists, I should try re-defining "theism" to include me, I should accept the proper label of "agnosticism".

There are no negative beliefs. Beliefs must be positive. You either believe or you don't. There is either X or Not X. Not X does not equal -X. Again with the fallacy of careful selection. Responsible or true athiests? That depends on whether they are saying what you want them to. (cont)

My man...

Our will. What we want is partially set by genes but can be altered through appelation and by experience. Our will is natural and not made up as in pretended. The same would go for any beings will. It's not made up unless we use cognition to monkey someone else by idolisation, through appelation. Capricious would be someone who mostly acts on whim and don't really use free will/cognition abillety. Our thoughts go on impulsively. It just is a developed operation in this part of the universe.

To your final point: 6) There is nothing missing in language unless you're looking for a loophole. People who have never considered the matter of God's existence lack belief in Him. They also lack belief in the claim that He does NOT exist. Some people who HAVE considered it, remain in this noncommital state (agnostics). Others claim that He does not exist, but then try to have the same immunity from supporting their position as those who have no position at all. This is simply poor form.

WLC is always so shaky when answering the crowds. C'mon Will, you should be solid! Jesus is your rock!

Well . . . someone had to do it.

It amazes me, as a scientist, how much we say we know about the universe and its beginning on extremely limited knowledge. Sure, we have the finest minds debating if God created the universe or not. How can any mind really understand the existence of the universe when our data is based on our earthly existence. The earth is but a tiny piece of dust in the scheme of the universe. In fact, our entire solar system, is merely a dust particle in the universe.

I do understand what you mean, but notice the difference. If it's just people misapplying a label then we correct the people. If we first concede that these really are theists, despite the contradiction, then we beg the question. Don't you agree? To presume that a person who chooses to bear a label must live up to *minimal* requirements of that label is both appropriate and necessary for rational discourse. That's why we have standard references. Rather than debate the meaning of the...

(cont 5) Also, WLC says God is a timeless, spaceless, changless, immaterial being... Wait! This definition places him outside of the universe, therefore outside of the set of existing things. So he doesn't exist. But, he is defined as a necessarily-existing, eternal being. So he's a necessarily-existing nonexistent being who is both timeless and eternal. This is tongue in cheek, but you can't have all these together. (cont)

@AgApE010 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"

You are right, the dictionaries agree your definition. However, you may have noticed that atheists almost universally disagree with the dictionary definition. Either we proceed forward with a word that doesn't define the target segment or we accept what that segment defines it as. Atheists identify with the word as they understand it. They are without belief in god. You can either accept their definition or not. The latter is willful ignorance.

If it is acceptable to say that the universe is eternal and/or that it came from nothing, than it is just as acceptable to say the God is eternal and/or came from nothing. Both theories postulate that something came from nothing and/or that they have always been. To say that one theory is possible but the other is not is a logical fallacy stemming from ones preconceived indoctrinations.

@GSpotter63 Yes, it is just as acceptable, however it is not that simple. In the case of the universe coming from nothing we have one explanation. In the case that God came from nothing then made the universe we add a step that doesn't need to be there since the universe can just come from nothing or be eternal. No scientist will disagree that a god could have arisen in the same way as postulated for the universe, but why the extra step especially without evidence to suggest or support it?

(cont 5) The universe must have come from something, but God doesn't need the same? That is special pleading. To convince anyone you'll (figurative) have to do better than carefully assign properties so he can escape the tough questions. How is God a necessarily existing? Who decided this definition? Is a horse a necessarily existing being? Do real objects gain this as part of their definition? Why is God special in this way? A demonstration of necessity is required to be accepted. (cont)

WLC does not ignore their position; he points out that their position is not actually "atheism". If he were debating against a self-proclaimed "theist" who happend to not believe in God, he would inform them of their error as well. A word whose etymological meaning is "belief that no God exists" should never change to mean "maybe God does exist" just because of popular vote. So are YOU! You are not an atheist, and so you also lack understanding of what it's like to be one.

Let's go through this a point at a time: 1) The arguments that people like Bill Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Kurt Godel, etc have given throughout time constitute "reason to suggest such a being". God's existence could be falsified, and many atheists have tried (from Mackie and Nietzche to Tooley and Law). 2) There is good reason to think that men are incline to invent gods. To think that that in any way invalidates the possible existence of God is a textbook Genetic Fallacy. (continued)

Q: 1:32:25 A: 1:33:26 . Red Herring. He unnecessarily brings in another aspect of the debate. A: 1:34:00 . Non-answer. He still does not answer the fact that some people would rather not have that opportunity than risk failure. @ the man at 1:36:50: No wonderful taste, beautiful sound, or luxury granted to ME would, to ME, justify the evil which occurs in the more pernicious parts of the world. I AM grateful for what I have; if there were a benevolent god, he would give to them as well.

1) Of course I can use that way, don't be absurd. My position on God's existence is one of skepticism. My method is critical thinking which is available to everyone. Theists, by definition, are not skeptical on the position even if they approach the subject skeptically. I also agree that some/many atheists suspend their critical thinking when it comes to this argument. I've argued against bad atheist arguments before. I didn't single out theists. I said even adept critical thinkers.