Does Math Point to God? | Dr. William Lane Craig & Dr. Graham Oppy Debate

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

What makes this debate fun is that Oppy and Craig genuinely seem like they are having a good time.

[@alexiogomes955]

“Teach me like a 5 year old...” Craig and Oppy, “complex numbers and frame theory.” “Thanks”

[@gfujigo]

😂😂😂

[@Micah88]

😂

[@thecosmicgroanthecosmicgro8052]

So glad Craig is doing this as well as discussions online. Good on you Craig! I'm not a theist but I really appreciate your work and thoughts.

[@redeemedthroughchrist878]

I come in love, out of genuine care I want you to know the good news! You are valuable, not an accident from nothing. "When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.” - Isaac Newton. You and I, we broke God’s laws, whether you have have lied or stolen, said a bad word, hated someone, looked with lust, blasphemed (saying OMG), so on. A just judge is going to punish guilty criminals for their crimes and we deserve to go to Hell for our willful crimes. Imagine you are driving on the road and a police officer pulls you over for speeding and gives you a fine. So you say to yourself, "From now on I will not speed ever again" and you don't. But does that get rid of the fine you have already received? In the same way in our life, even if we try never doing anything wrong ever again and just do good things, it doesn't get rid of the punishment we deserve for the bad things we have already done. In the speeding fine example, the only way to get rid of the fine is to either pay the fine yourself or have someone willing to pay the fine for you. So in the same way, either we need to take our own punishment in hell forever, or we need someone who is perfect who is willing to take our hell punishment for us.God in His love despite our hatred toward Him, made a way for sinners to be forgiven without violating justice. He took on flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. He lived the sinless life we coudnt, and then offered Himself on the cross as a sacrifice for sin. Jesus took the wrath of God you and I deserved, then rose from the dead! If someone takes your Hell punishment then you can go to Heaven and only Jesus the only one who didn’t deserve it did that for us guilty criminals. Good works or trying to be religious can’t save you, only turning to God through trusting alone in Jesus can, and not only will He save you but change you so you won’t want to sin anymore. John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” I recommend reading the Bible, the Book of John to start. The Bible was written by 40+ authors in a span of 1500+ years with 66 books in 3 continents remaining consistent fulfilling 2500+ prophecies backed up with 25000+ archaeological evidence, with 57000+ manuscripts, 2.7 million+ texts. “The evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history.” (E. M, Prof Auckland University) Trust that Jesus took your punishment for you and so be 100% certain that you will go to heaven, causing you to start living your life for Him. We are not saved from our sins because the Romans beat up Jesus and killed Him! We are saved from our sins because when He was on the tree all of your sin was imputed to Him, and all the full force of God’s wrath of His holy hatred against you and your crimes, and me, and my crimes, that as a Holy God He must pour out. He poured out on His own Son! Trust alone in Him today, and tell others about the Good news of how they can be saved through Jesus as well!! “We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.” Scholarly fact. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jqqxpJiOmcllbJI Jesuscares.com kzbin.info/aero/PLIB6yPRxh47S75U6zAX10GPfygnbBoRIw kzbin.info/www/bejne/mGaymJttfqmartE

[@josephsack4918]

Why would you appreciate his work even if it's well thought out but you don't agree with any of it?

[@thapelomaraisane8705]

@@redeemedthroughchrist878 This is being purposely obnoxious man.

[@joshstory104]

@@josephsack4918 I’m a bit late, but for me personally I come from an area where people look at you indignantly if you don’t accept fatuous nonsense like “well I see God in a strangers face how can you not believe?!?” And it’s honestly refreshing as an atheist to be exposed to rigorous reasons to believe God exists, even if we don’t think they are valid in the end.

[@thucydides7849]

@@redeemedthroughchrist878 you can’t just get someone to believe that a hell exists and that non believers deserve eternal punishment by telling them Bible verses.

[@thebeargryllskid]

John Lennox on mathematics would be good!

[@johnbuckner2828]

If I ever create a rock band, I'm calling it: "Hyper Surfaces of Absolute Simultaneity"🤨

[@przemor1150]

Yeah, I didnt know that Dr Craig is so into psychics

[@Steve52344]

@@przemor1150 He ALWAYS takes his physics.

[@danielcalderone473]

Craig has no clue what he's talking about when it comes to relativity and time. I forget the context of the "hyper surfaces..." comment but I think it was in reference to some post hoc attempt to make his ideas of God and time fit with relativity. He looked especially dumb in his conversation with Roger Penrose.

[@johnbuckner2828]

@@danielcalderone473 honestly, I don't fault anyone for not knowing anything about time. In my opinion it's the most difficult of all philosophies (at least for me), with many theories from the physicist and the metaphysicists. Part of the problem is that you can't step outside of existence in time to observe how the whole thing actually is, because you end up in a paradox. So we seem to end up with our own little space capsules of "time" relative to other "entities."

[@danielcalderone473]

@@johnbuckner2828 very much agreed. I don't like Craig because he often puts too much weight on his own intellect and arguments... I think if he was more concerned with discovering the nature of the reality than he is with justifying Christianity, he would say "I don't know" way more often. As it is, many Christians look up to him as their intellectual rock... and it's very likely that most of his arguments are wrong. Because he claims to be able to argue things that he is too small to argue. We all are.

[@michaelburnette4518]

Thank you for this great discussion. I'm new to you Graham, and appreciate your civil and academic approach.

[@timsharpe6652]

I'd never seen or even heard of him before, prior to this 🙂

[@ricardooliveira9774]

@@timsharpe6652 neither did I. Awesome... these gentlemen are really clever, far more intelligent than I am haha

[@slightlychaotic8988]

I really appreciate how Dr. Oppy at 27:20 - 28:10 was so intellectually honest as to state a good example of Dr. Graig's argument without poo-poo-ing it or making a straw man to argue against. Dr. Craig did not do as well in his characterizations of Dr. Oppy's view at 1:26:50-1:28:00. But both men showed great intellectual honesty and respect, and did not try any cheap shots. This is how knowledge advances.

[@MrPeaceGuy54]

Perhaps Dr Craig had a different interpretation of what Dr Oppy was attempting to argue. I think, and I could be wrong here, that Dr Craig meant that when we talk about the "uncanny" applicability of mathematics, we are assuming that this applicability need not exist, but the fact is that it does. If it was necessarily applicable, then it probably would not be uncanny as it would be impossible for mathematics to not be applicable. Therefore, maybe Dr Craig is suggesting that Dr Oppy ended up trying to dissolve the problem instead of resolving it. It could be akin to a friend and I coming together to discuss who stole my watch from my room and my friend proposing that the house itself does not exist. While this could be a powerful argument, I think we would acknowledge that this shifts the topic of the discussion as it shatters the prior assumption that was thought to be held by both of us about the existence of the house. As a Hindu from India, I sincerely hope that discussions like these will continue to occur. In a world saturated with antipathy and apathy, every drop counts. Namaste and love from India! I hope that peace and love prevail in the world! 🙏🇮🇳☮️☮️

[@lennyrobo4293]

Hearing the intellect of these types of discussions makes sense now why Dawkins won’t debate Craig.

[@markfullbrighton5070]

For your information, Dr. Craig did debate Dawkins. The funny thing is that you can say the same thing but in reverse in regards to Craig's fear of debating Jeffery Jay Lowder, who is the best atheist debater there is. If you don't believe me, then watch his debates with Phil Fernandes and Frank Turek where he absolutely destroys both of them. With how good of a debater Jeffery Jay Lowder is, you can see why Craig has been ducking a debate with him since the late 1990s.

[@lennyrobo4293]

@@markfullbrighton5070 Thanks will check that debate out. Haven’t heard of Jeffery so will interesting to hear him as you think he is great debater. Not sure why Craig won’t debate him. What are Jefferys qualifications? I’ve heard Craig say that he will only debate other scholars and not educated layman’s. I’m not sure you can call the Dawkins and Craig a proper debate. You talking about the one in South America? Dawkins even admits he won’t debate Craig as he says all Craig is is a professional debater.

[@lucasetienne1098]

Same reason why Craig won’t debate Matt Dillahunty. Arguments from authority.

[@levimays55]

On behalf of Graham Oppy: Logic necessarily applies to the world. If it doesn't, then one could say "there is a possible world in which [insert some logical contradiction] exists", which nobody reasonably can. Given that the physical world must abide by the laws of logic, then any metaphysical truth, basic or derived, must apply because metaphysical truths are logically derived. In a similar fashion, if there is a world in which concrete objects exist, then statements about quantities and qualities can be made ('how many?', 'how much?'), which is what mathematics does. Following the applicability of basic mathematical truths, higher mathematical truths must also be applicable because they are logically derived from the basic ones in the form of "mathematical proofs." Therefore, it is unsuprising, and in fact necessary, that a world with concrete objects would be mathematically describable - even in a highly sophisticated way! Now, perhaps a law of nature could be mathematically indescribable if one or more of its constants randomly varied. At leadt, this could be the case, until one realizes that utter randomness cannot actually exist since it entails events happening without full explanations, which equates to events happening without a cause. On behalf of Bill Craig, in response to the above, and given Einstein's quote (late in the video): Perhaps it is unsurprising to find mathematical applicability in the world, but what is still surprising is how people can perceive that. Think of instances where an engineer uses an Analytical method or a Numerical method to describe some system. In an Analytical method, the problem is accurately solved by narrowing one's focus on a few set of equations which describe the dominant physical phenomena at work. In numerical methods, there are too many other physical phenomena that are significantly interacting with the system for the engineer to neatly calculate his solution based on one or two specifics equations, and so has to approximate the seemingly indeterminate behavior using a computer algorithm a.k.a. Numerical Method. If all of nature behaved like some chaotic mess where the physical laws can't be sufficiently isolated, then it would be impossible to analyze nature to the point where certain aspects of it can be fitted or at least approximated with a mathematical equation. (This nuanced version of the argument seems more epistemic in nature, because mathematics applies in this 'chaos world' but it is indiscernible.) The best explanation for why the laws of physics in the real world can be distinctly observed such that mathematical solutions can be applied is not likely due to chance or necessity. This leaves design, or God, as the remaining explanation. Can we be better than agnostic about God's preferring a world in which people can apply mathematics? He might prefer some reality if it brings about moral and aesthetic goods. Creating a world that does not behave as a chaotic mess brings about aesthetic goods. Moreover, creating persons with rational minds in a world where they can thrive brings about moral goods such as "fellowship with God", "creaturely freedom", "happiness", etc. A world in which rational creatures can thrive must be one that can be rationally discerned, hence the perceivable applicability of mathematics. -> It is like a sort of meta fine-tuning argument which doesn't focus on particular constants and quantities but on the very nature of the physical laws themselves.

[@alexiogomes955]

Who hurt you...

[@Serenity5460]

Wonderful comment! Great insight, thank you for clarifying this part of the discussion 💪🏻

[@ednad8582]

Congratulations, Dr. Craig. What an excellent enlightenment!

[@blazemordly9746]

came for the conversation~ learned how much paint i need for my living room. God Bless

[@charliep5072]

Such a polite debate. Great job!

[@yaserthe1]

Poor Cameron. This whole debate went over his head 😂😂😂 Kind of went over my head too TBH. These 2 guys are just Giants!

[@manne8575]

@@HoneybunMegapack You didnt watch the debate then or you're just a toxic youtube atheist

[@manne8575]

@@HoneybunMegapack Yep, and I'm sure if you were to debate him, you would wipe the floor with him, right?

[@manne8575]

@@HoneybunMegapack Sure

[@RatedDehydrated]

@@HoneybunMegapack hit the nail on the head. If I snapped a pencil in half with my hands, you could explain the phenomenon with mathematics and physics, but if you asked me what happened I wouldn't explain in mathematics and physics, I would just say "I snapped the pencil in half" and william is saying "isnt it amazing that mathematics has a precise answer to the question of how the pencil was snapped in half" and then somehow that proves God. Is that what dr. Craigs argument is?

[@brando3342]

Watched this live, excellent discussion!

[@LoveYourNeighbour.]

Watched this (on here) after it was recorded, still an excellent discussion! I love Cameron's channel!

[@MarcoAmadori]

Nice Boardagame collection Dr. Oppy. A lot of really great titles there.

[@kylekloostra5659]

I simply love how even their hairstyles are in opposition to one another.

[@mattb7069]

Two nerds “nerding out.” At some point I think Cameron either checked out and started reading a comic book or a dictionary...

[@blazemordly9746]

dictionary, but in comic book form.

[@susannahwhite7561]

You can't have music without math. God created math and created the world including music.

[@bastiaanvanrijswijk6119]

So the first cavemen banging rocks together first calculated the circumference of said rocks?

[@yaserthe1]

Munchin university, that just floored me! 😂😂

[@jessiemoreno5493]

These clash of the titans are so rare, that there should have been more time for direct back and forth discussion, and not so many questions from the public.

[@Rave779]

I love how both of them enjoyed the conversation. I’d love to see them both touch up on stuff like this from mathematics to The Gettier Problem and agnoiology to better understand and question the process of what one must achieve to help satisfy the conditions that meet the requirements for our dimensional unit measures of those values that justifies our understanding and limited thresholds of “knowledge;” and how one comes to “know,” in relation to that of God and the universe and how God himself may define and answer that problem himself in relation to regarding the statement of The Gettier Problem itself. Especially where Learning theories are involved in mapping and understanding learned potentials of the world around us in nature, rather than outside of it and how that can be effective for the case for Christ.

[@SteveBene]

Dr Oppy was unable to justify necessity.

[@anglozombie2485]

Listen to his follow up with Alex Malpass. He fleshes out his ideas a bit more there.

[@levimays55]

@@anglozombie2485 Link please?

[@descartergosum]

Same with Craig

[@josecantu8195]

@@descartergosum I agree. There is a certain point where you reach rock bottom on both the naturalist or theist.

[@descartergosum]

@@josecantu8195 kzbin.info/www/bejne/b2bVdXakYtihfbM

[@justinshadrach829]

Great discussion! Neither came across as "I'm better than you or you're a duche!" LOL! agreements and disagreements expressed respectfully....no ad hominem. Just downloaded some of Oppy's books (already got some of Craigs) Oppy comes across as a descent guy! Plus Craig said he was one of the most intelligent people he's debated......so defo worth hearing what he has to say.

[@banterforbelievers8491]

Great topic!

[@lpcruz5661]

The aesthetic - is an example how pure mathematicians construct axiomatics systems like algebras and groups. So Craig and Wigner is correct, when he talks about set theory having more or less axioms. Further is an example of how Saunders MacClain propose category theory the axioms here are quite nice.

[@jamesoneill7263]

Great discussion well done!

[@JoshuaMSOG7]

Dr.Graham lost me at 1:03 going forth. He really didn’t answer the question and give a reason why he believed the naturalistic story in depth details logical or any central explanation he just said “ It’s better .” That’s a subjective though not a objective truth or sort of conclusion that would lead to that truth “ BEING NECESSARILY.”

[@paulkelly1162]

Imagine it turns out to follow from the laws of physics necessarily that the stars spell out "this is the voice of God, hello scientists". Is it enough to say it's necessary, or would the epistemic (?) improbability of it still validate a theistic interpretation? That's what's at issue when Oppy says that naturalism can explain maths applicability by saying it is necessary.

[@charlescarter2072]

I think Dr Craig won this debate although Dr Oppy was very interesting too.

[@deviouskris3012]

I would have to disagree. Oppy played with him and steelman'd WLCs point better than he did in return. Before Oppy easily slapped it down with a Euthyphro dilemma style on logic..At which WLC collapsed..

[@charlescarter2072]

@@deviouskris3012 nah. Oppy seems to rely on the ‘science of the gaps’ approach like S Carroll. Clever guys..they just miss the point.

[@deviouskris3012]

@@charlescarter2072 Incorrect. Maybe you should take WWLC's aadvice and read Oppy's book. Oppy is far more practicle. When looking at 2 proposals, the one that comes with the least epistemic baggage, is always the better. Naturalismm does not require adding a trinity, which is agaianst occram's razor,, via adding more individuals. Theists have all the added baggage of proving alll the omni attributes and the claims of a personal deity etc. Naturalism cashes out far cleaner, with aa simple brute fact. Theism is a mess of additional claims.

[@charlescarter2072]

@@deviouskris3012 a brute explanation does not equate a brute fact

[@deviouskris3012]

@@charlescarter2072 so we can dismiss the deity explanation as just that? Great. Hitchens razor in effect.

[@lpcruz5661]

Wigner is not entirely wrong as Oppy alleges when it came to complex numbers. There is some symmetry found in mathematical structures which mathematicians do find in nature so the idea of beauty is not physical, that is not what necessarily what Wigner means ( I doubt that is what he wants to come accross), yet even if Oppy is correct that Wigner's aesthetic premise of how the complex numbers got invented, still, the question that Wigner poses - stands - ie why does it work?

[@zenbanjo2533]

Cams needs to get out more if he doesn’t know what Munchen is.

[@Unknown2Yoo]

I was surprised he didn't know how to pronounce Munich as well.

[@josephusrivero3533]

I kinda sympathise with him. As an English speaker I’ve gotten used to always hearing English formulations of names like Munchen. For example I only realised that Köln was the same place as Cologne embarrassingly recently

[@cchang2771]

Oppy's unreasonable insistence that classical mechanics is a false theory exposed the weakness of the foundation of his arguments. He obviously is not a scientist and does not really understand how science is pursued. From that point on I realized that he lost the debate.

[@abhishekandstuff]

Same

[@corradosomebroyo4286]

I'm really curious as to what that series of books is on Craig's top shelf of his bookshelf. Anybody know?

[@gregorsamsa1364]

I suspect his own

[@charlescarter2072]

Good question. Did you ever find out?

[@corradosomebroyo4286]

Unfortunately, we haven't

[@charlescarter2072]

@@corradosomebroyo4286I just asked reasonable faith and they said they will ask Dr Craig and get back to me with an answer. Once they do I will let you know what they say.

[@charlescarter2072]

Dr Craig replied that the books are Dictionnaire de théologie catholique.

[@danielcalderone473]

Dr. Craig: complex numbers arise naturally from the only sensible way to define multiplying by a negative number (switching the side of the number line) and the only sensible way to define a square root ("half" of a multiplication). Half of a flip from one side of the number line to the other requires moving out of the number line which requires inventing two dimensional numbers. If you're interested, Grant Sanderson's videos (3blue1brown) on analytic continuation and the Riemann hypothesis as well as his prequel video on complex number theory are excellent. saying complex numbers are mysterious is like saying that 2D rotations are mysterious.

[@danielcalderone473]

@@HoneybunMegapack yea the guy loves quoting things and is in general a lot of hot air.

[@Mentat1231]

It's a weird situation for me because, on the one hand, I don't think the Argument from Mathematics works at all, and I agree with a lot of what Oppy said. But, on the other hand, I can't say it enough: Oppy needs to come to grips with the fact that only a very small subset of objects could even be candidates for necessary existence, especially as the ultimate end of the explanatory chain. That means the necessity is indeed explained, and you need a fuller account rather than just granting something "necessary existence" because it's explanatorily convenient.

[@Mentat1231]

@@HoneybunMegapack The terms "necessary" and "contingent" here are being used in terms of modal logic. So, "necessary" means "impossible that it could not exist", which clearly doesn't apply to the Universe. It is "contingent" because a different Universe, even just slightly different, might have existed instead. Or even no universe at all.

[@Mentat1231]

@@HoneybunMegapack Well, for one thing, there is very good evidence that it hasn't always existed, and the set of necessary things is a subset of the set of eternal things. As to whether it could be different, the alternative is to believe it had to have exactly this much energy (no more, no less), exactly these properties of exactly these particles, this exact ratio of particles and anti-particles... I mean, given that there is no contradiction entailed by supposing these could be slightly different, and cosmologists routinely make consistent models where it's different, you'd need some sort of overriding reason to think it isn't contingent. It would be like thinking Earth or the Moon could not have been otherwise than they are.

[@Mentat1231]

@@HoneybunMegapack The necessary is a subset of the eternal. So the Earth and Moon are not necessary. It is perfectly logically consistent for them never to have existed. Likewise for the Universe. Besides, there is no contradiction entailed by them being different or failing to exist at all. All the evidence in cosmology and astrophysics says time itself began to exist. So, the Universe is not eternal and therefore not necessary. It is contingent.

[@Mentat1231]

@@HoneybunMegapack It has been one of my main topics of study. What do you think I'm missing? Also, the nature of time is not going to solve your problem for you: It is still coherent to postulate different properties for the Universe and even its non-existence. So it is contingent, not necessary.

[@Mentat1231]

@@HoneybunMegapack It's coherent unless a contradiction is entailed. Can you name one? Besides, what do the mechanics of a thing have to do with whether the thing itself exists?? It only has any mechanics (or any properties at all) if it already does exist. General Relativity has no such implication. You're thinking of the Special theory, but even that one doesn't require that time is illusory. That's just one way of understanding it. Read Dr. Tim Maudlin's work on that sometime. In any case, the expansion of the Universe only points to the Universe having a beginning precisely *because* we extrapolate using General Relativity. Without GTR, it wouldn't be standard cosmology to say the Universe had a beginning. But it is (check any standard text you like).

[@jotimo1192]

I wish I was in the possible world where Cameron doesn't cut out Graham and Craig at 1:14:20 and let them bounce back developing their position.

[@guillaumest-laurent2548]

I think Oppy is correct when he says that there is no need to explain what’s necessary. But that doesn’t mean that these claims about necessary truths can just be arbitrary metaphysical stipulations, even if we grant that there will always be unjustified axioms in any theory. These axioms might not need further justification insofar as they seem to be intuitively self-evident, that is, insofar as one can’t see any sound positive reason to doubt them. But that doesn’t amount to arbitrary stipulation. We always need to see reasons to make any claim, even though we don’t always need to articulate these reasons.

[@vinoverita]

Craig wants us to believe that basic math maps onto reality, but higher complex numbers are a whole different ball of wax. In other words, a principled, metaphysically grounded understanding of mathematics gives way to mystical mathematics in higher order math.

[@brunoestelatodeodoro6088]

Please anyone can make a caption in portuguese for this debate ? thank you !

[@greenstarpharmacy964]

Mathematics is the only international language that has been existed which is unknown to men, but from the “O” which has no beginning and no end. The circle

[@Imadkaram]

WLC vs. PINKER! Make it happen!

[@suntzu7727]

What issue would they debate? Pinker is not really interested or knowledgeable in arguments for God's existence.

[@rafaelallenblock]

The problem is, even when you're a 'smart guy' like Dr Craig, Graham knows your argument better than you do. His super-power is being able to describe how stupid his interlocutor's arguments are without calling them dumb for believing that garbage.

[@itamarbispo5830]

Doutor Craig, eu o Amo, o senhor tem em ajudado muito na minha vida cristã, vi hoje o seu vídeo sobre: uma visão para a vida, e me sinto como o senhor ao querer fazer um doutorado na Inglaterra, porém, eu não quero um doutorado, só queria mesmo um dia ter a oportunidade de conhecê-lo pessoalmente e poder ser um discípulo seu. Não tenho condições alguma pra isso mas tenho fé que se Deus quiser isso irá acontecer, ajude-me por favor.

[@michaeljaques77]

Dr. Craig's basic argument boils down to: "math is brilliant, precise, ties into physics, and can be seen in the physical world, therefore god" That's a huge leap of faith.

[@lpcruz5661]

Not exactly a leap of faith, I think his logic runs like this - the mathematical enterprise of modelling nature a priori assumes there is an objective reality that math can describe because if this is not true, why does math work? We know it works, and so, who put that objective reality which is outside us there, like the laws of nature like gravity etc etc. Then the one who put that there must be God. The naturalist explanation - well it is just that way, is not adequate.

[@michaeljaques77]

@@lpcruz5661 what you said, while elegant, is utter bullshit. You're looking for a creator of math/physics with no indication it requires a creator. Same old tired argument.

[@lpcruz5661]

@@michaeljaques77 unfortunately the high schoolish pontification that my position is "bull shit" does not deal w the reasonable necessity of the question. Arguement by hand waving is futile.

[@michaeljaques77]

@@lpcruz5661 I'll let the late great Carl Sagan say it better than I ever could: "If the general picture of an expanding universe and a Big Bang is correct, we must then confront still more difficult questions. What were conditions like at the time of the Big Bang? What happened before that? Was there a tiny universe, devoid of all matter, and then the matter suddenly created from nothing? How does that happen? In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?" - Carl Sagan, Cosmos

[@lpcruz5661]

Since the direction of this is by authority I will bring up mine, as per Borge, Guth, Villanking's BGV Theorem any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary. in effect, not eternal, cannot alway be that way, instead one must face, a Causal Agent outside space time, that created, space, time, matter and energy. Before Sagan' asks who created God, he must first admit, his existence. Then we can proceed from there. He is jumping the shark in there. Best wishes.

[@Pauldyke]

Complex numbers theory originated from trying to solve: X^2 + 1 = 0

[@rud69420]

Distracted by Oppy's tongue action while WLC is talking haha

[@zenbanjo2533]

Three big takeaways: 1. The “fit” between math and the world is NOT perfect, only “close enough”, a problematic concept. 2. Craig says there is no “explanation” for the “laws of nature” and mathematical order. But Oppy has an explanation, that they are necessary truths. Craig says that is not a very good explanation, but that is an entirely different point. 3. Craig wins the charisma contest, but his argument gets tattered along the way.

[@yashathebelgianmalinois348]

To say mathematics is a “necessary truth” doesn’t negate the question of where they came from and why.

[@erastusc4908]

1. Some mathematical theories may end up being only approximate, which Craig argues does nothing to his argument. 2. Obviously, Craig thinks God is the explanation for the laws of nature and mathematical order. 3. I think Graham was right about reformulating the argument or concept without the "aesthetic" bit.

[@GodOfMySalvationIsYeshua]

Get two PhD to have a debate about math. It’s going to fly over your head unless you’re willing to study

[@HauxYZ250]

I would love to hear a discussion between these two about mathematical ontology.

[@phillwithskill1364]

They would agree too much

[@HauxYZ250]

phillwithskill 1 Maybe, but even then, the minutia is where my interest lies in the subject.

[@joshuamorris4238]

Game night at Oppy's?

[@greenstarpharmacy964]

Because all human being are imperfect, don’t expect that the sciences that we happen to discover through time will be perfect until we are at the feet of the ONE who made everything even you Mr. William

[@jaclo3112]

Science makes no claim to perfection. Perfection isn't its purpose. And wanting to be enslaved by a crazed, hysterical and morally depraved deity like the abrahamic god is just mentally u stable. Get help.

[@greenstarpharmacy964]

What you do not know, first you need to research it because the hand of God is in every law of science

[@mbrum3230]

and it's also a miracle that crayons so closely describe the colors of nature (especially the 64 box).

[@rebanelson607]

Does the miracle lie in the pigments used to make the crayons or the complexity of the human eye to see color or the existence of the natural, visible world?

[@vol94]

Yeah but the descriptions on a box of crayon have been put there by intelligent beings describing concepts they themsleves have come up with. That's completely different from non physical entities like mathematical equations near perfectly describing the blind unguided physical operations of the universe. So the crayon box analogy is a complete misrepresentation of the argument.😊

[@aquestioner3004]

1] Creating, willing is an action/motion. Time is motion/action. We have standard time/motion, such as one turn of the earth is one day, to which we compare other motions. Willing the universe to come into existence is for there to be time before time, which is a contradiction. The creation of the universe is fundamentally self contradictory. 2] There must be a real infinity for there to be a potential infinity. What you are speaking of is fictional infinities in math. 3] Only composites can begin to exist. Fundamental particles cannot begin to exist. They are everlasting. The universe is ultimately the sum of all the fundamental particles. Anything else in the universe is a composite of fundamental particles. From composites of fundamental particles begin to exist it does not follow that fundamental particles begin to exist. The universe, the sum of fundamental particles cannot begin to exist. Therefore the second premise, that the universe began to exist, is false. 4] To be timeless, outside of time, is to never be real. 5] to be spaceless, outside of space, is to be real nowhere. 6] To be physical is to resist acceleration. To be nonphysical is to have no resistance to acceleration, which is to be completely empty. Craig's god is nonphysical, timeless, and spaceless. Nothingness, nonexistence, is nonphysical, timeless, spaceless. Craig's god is nothing at all.

[@bkhan19]

Existence can be nonphysical, timeless and spaceless. A Photon is a fundamental particle that exists but to itself it is without time. It is also massless. It also does not accelerate. For example, we see the sun' rays around 8 minutes after they have left the sun. We observe those sun rays and know they exist. But to the sun rays that whole process of getting created, travelling in Space-time and then hitting our eyes does not happen. However, the Sun Rays are NOT nothing. They are Photons.

[@gwledosman9744]

@@bkhan19 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾amazing response that shushed Me up

[@elliotpolanco159]

Bill craig won

[@Pauldyke]

Classical mechanics is not a false theory 😭😭 it’s an approximation. I thought this guy has a maths degree!

[@JamesFodor]

Oppy absolutely destroyed Craig with one simple question: "Could God have created the universe in a way that would not be describable using mathematics?" Craig says that God could, thereby admitting that he has no explanation at all for why the universe is describable using mathematics. An explanation needs to be able to say why A rather than B. Craig's "explanation" doesn't do that, since he acknowledges God could do either but has no explanation as for why he does one, and not the other.

[@28_ubaidsiddiqui37]

Bcoz he(God) wanted to make a puzzle.. with which, Dr.Oppy can play ! And why he made a puzzle, instead of a simple creation, we don't know!😅

[@Miatpi]

I think Craigs argument is more in the lines of expectability, that an intelligent designer is much more expected to create an intelligible universe rather than one that isn't.

[@guillaumest-laurent2548]

That is exactly why God can’t explain anything : because it could explain just any contrary state of affair.

[@mannycano4599]

Mathematically white holes exist or can exist but we have not seen one yet

[@yaserthe1]

The presenter added nothing, infact he even agreed he understood none of it.

[@timsharpe6652]

It mostly went over my head too. Although for me im not the presenter . thankfully ! However his pronunciation of Munich at the very beginning , was awkward for myself ! 😬

[@cheemsburmger6289]

Man straight up called electrical engineering "simple". Lmao

[@MichaelMendis]

The Argument from Aesthetics and Beauty is really a non-starter. Neither Wigner (in his 1959/1960 paper) nor Craig (in this discussion) made any effort to specify how mathematicians decide which mathematical solutions are "beautiful" and which are not. We have to ask: Is there such a thing as "ugly" mathematics? That is a question Craig is not willing to address. What is wrong with the Argument from Beauty is that beauty is a highly subjective matter and what is beautiful to one mathematician may well be "ugly" to another. Einstein was notorious for his belief in "beauty" when it came to mathematical explanations, and he considered the mathematics of quantum mechanics "ugly" simply because it did not fit into his neat little "beautiful" mathematical formulation of Relativity. Time has shown that Einstein's belief in "beautiful mathematics" led him astray, for he rejected quantum theory and wasted the last 25 years of his life pursuing dead ends, while quantum theory proceeded to advance without him.

[@greenstarpharmacy964]

Then Dr. William, who has the law of nature and who really knew the law of nature?

[@kasperg5634]

So mathematics creates a 'quantum' level to help understand and answer fundamental questions..... a bit like creating a 'god' level to understand and answer fundamental natural questions.

[@humbertogallegos5259]

LOL, yes like if we're 5 to understand, hence the Lord used parables, maybe this might help this topic, LOVE it nevertheless....

[@greenstarpharmacy964]

That’s not true because all the sciences that are available form the complete picture of understanding the universe. Since you cannot even understand your own self as a human body so does all the sciences together will never come to a full understanding of the universe.

[@117-d7r]

Seems like a "God of the gaps" argument. If mathematics was somehow the underlying substrate of the universe it still wouldn't mean "therefore god" and definetely doesnt mean "therefore Yahweh"

[@deczen47]

seems like “god of the gap gap” argument, I cant understand the argument, so it must be god of the gap argument

[@user-ei9ns9hq6b]

Here's a topic I haven't heard discussed previously on this channel: the connection between atheism and communism. Is it any surprise that leading atheists like Hitchens were also communist? Or that every communist dictatorship ever has an official policy of State Atheism?

[@CoranceLChandler]

Really? I had no idea Hitchens was a communist

[@UnkownSoldier100]

Communism is a thoroughly materialist philosophy. Materialism is the natural conclusion of atheism. That’s a very basic layout of the connection, but yeah it warrants a video by Dr. Craig. Especially since a bunch of young commies are tearing down statues and looting buildings right now.

[@hoolioh3721]

@Roof Korean also he gave up on that

[@superdog797]

@@CoranceLChandler He was a Marxist in his youth and continued to be one, but essentially advocated for pluralistic democratic-republic values and some benevolent social policies.

[@habaconia]

41:13 WHAT THE WHAT?!?!?!?

[@thepath964]

dr william elaine greg looks like leland from twin peaks. dr gramma pee looks like jaws from james bond. and the host fella looks like he just tried out as the italian looking guy for a new, hot, not-at-all-gay christian boy band. what a nightmare. but the conversation is amazing. well done!

[@aquestioner3004]

1] Since it is not possible for there to be no uniformities in nature, it is no wonder that mathematics applies to nature. Consider "there are no uniformities in nature." If it is true, then it would itself be a uniformity in nature. It contradicts itself. It is necessarily false. The only alternative left to be true is that there are some uniformities in nature. Likewise for "there are no invariant relations in nature" and "there are no absolutes in nature" and "there are no consistencies in nature" and "there are no constants in nature." There are necessarily some invariant relations in nature, necessarily some absolutes in nature, necessarily consistencies in nature, necessarily constants in nature. 2] "By definition god is such and such" means "I am making god up to be such and such." 3] We created math to work from its beginnings 10,000 years or more ago. We discard math that does not work and only keep that which does work. Math is language and we use language that works and discard language that does not work. So it is no surprise that math works in nature. 3] Our mathematical physics theories, even the best ones, can be wrong. For example, quantum field theory predicts that the energy density of space time is 1 X 10 to the 120 power times higher than the measured value. QFT is wildly wrong about that. This may mean that Einstein was right, quantum mechanics is incomplete. This is called the vacuum catastrophe. 4] The history of math shows that we invented it. Our language (math) reflects the world. The world does not reflect our language. Theism has it backwards. So theism explains nothing. 5] Making up fictional characters, such as Gods, to explain nature has a 100 percent failure rate. 6] Counting only the times that math succeeds in describing nature and not the failures is called the fallacy of confirmation error. Confirmation error is why some people think that prayer works. When prayer is subjected to the scientific method of a double blind study, prayer is demonstrated to "work" no differently than blind coincidence, even though according to the bible prayer is supposed to work with certainty [e.g. Mark 11:24, James 5:15, and about four more passages].

[@erastusc4908]

As a matter of fact, it is possible that there would be nothing at all, and yet here we are.

[@RaptureReady2025]

Second time listening lol. Clearly they can’t both be right. So who’s the winner?

[@bastiaanvanrijswijk6119]

Maybe they’re both wrong?

[@yaserthe1]

Oppy's main issue is he does not understand Craig's argument.

[@superdog797]

Maybe because it's incoherent

[@erastusc4908]

He understands it, he is searching for a way to deny it as he cannot accept that God exists.

[@exmateria1]

"The University of Munchin"

[@Richard_Rz]

iS cameron wearing a rainbow to show solidarity with the gay movement?

[@renlamomtsopoe]

I was thinking the same

[@romantisanon4647]

He covered this in the comments of the original video: it’s a shirt of a Polaroid camera

[@greenstarpharmacy964]

I understand your point of view Mr. William, but one thing that we have to know is that as human we are always in a process of discovering what has already been existed by God.

[@bigol7169]

The University of Munchin 💀

[@thanksforbeingausefulidiot9016]

You're asking an apologist if math points to God? Apologists, by definition, must argue, regardless of what the objective truth points to, that EVERY fact points in the direction of proving their point. That's what it means to be an apologist = to be a dishonest proponent of one's position. They decide, in advance of the facts, what is true, and then pretzel-bend every fact that comes down the pike to "support" their beliefs.

[@FindleyOcean]

Craig didn’t want to debate Kalam probably because he knew he’d get spanked by graham

[@Greg-xi8yx]

The great thing is that intelligence will, over time, always aggregate around truth. It’s why Dr. Craig is ultimately unsuccessful here. People like Oppy will ALWAYS be there to pull the rug out from under his somewhat tired, if perhaps well meaning parlor tricks. Apologetics has ultimately failed and will continue to fail because over time smart people will always find the truth, congregate there, and explain why it is in fact true. Thanks, Dr. Oppy! 🙏🏿😎

[@MessianicJewJitsu]

59:24 Dr. Craig's reaction

[@robjohnston1433]

As usual, Craig "defines the issue" purely in order to reach his pre-defined conclusion -- I.e. God. Also, as usual, he is completely WRONG in his initial premise! He says (before contradicting himself when he runs around!) that mathematicians invent new techniques "for the beauty of it"; in fact, they ONLY develop new Maths when existing techniques are defeated by new problems! Complex numbers were invented by an Italian dude to win a "Maths Duel" -- popular in the C16--C17! Sir Isaac Newton developed Calculus to help solve difficult problems and kept it secret for over 20 years ... so only HE could solve certain problems, WAY quicker than others! Leibnitz "reinvented" Calculus for the same reason! New Maths were developed to cope with Quantum Mechanics etc!

[@tyronerounds7120]

I have seen that modern mathematicians are in fact engaging in mathematical theory for its own sake, but that is not how math started. It seems that the historical origins of math is more in line with a utilitarian origin ...which is the view that Oppy holds. When I was in a mathematical proofs class(not to be confused with geometrical proofs which are actually useful) , I wondered what exactly was the purpose of such nonsense. There was so much talk about the beauty of a proof but all I saw was obfuscation, and tautologies with a numerical twist. I thought mathematical proofs should have died with Bertrand Russel's nonsensical 'Principia Mathematica' since both rely heavily on obfuscation, and the 'philosophy of math.' Russel's (atheist author of "Why I am not a Christian" who is actually the pre-cursor of Richard Dawkins and his book, "The God Delusion" both of which are childish, fist-shaking, angry-atheist diatribes) book seemed to be the pinnacle of theoretical ramblings about math for its own sake rather than practical use of math, and it's major points were debunked long ago. Either way, I find it strange that the practical side of math, which was usually a theistic point of view is being argued today by an atheist, Oppy, and the overly theoretical view of math which was usually an atheist point of view is being argued by a theist, Craig. Interesting.

[@SYHLEF]

The first premise should be that mathematics arises from both (to some extent) aesthetic impulses and (to some extent) problem solving. Unfortunately for WLC, this argument starts to seem far less convincing if he accepted this obviously true first premise. --- In fact, for Dr. WLC's adopted argument to work, he needs claim that mathematics in no way comes from problem solving, and so it's surprising that it's effective at solving problems. To me, that's absurd. Or, conversely make an argument for why, if mathematics arises from problem solving, that it is surprising that it helps solve problems --- although it became clear that WLC does think there is an argument for that to be surprising, the case was never effectively made. --- Regarding whether mathematics are causally linked to the real world, there is one causal chain: Humans saw the real world and made our mathematical statements to mirror it. So there's a causal chain in the direction of real world to our mathematical statements. So is it that really surprising that our mathematical statements work? --- A second point that WLC made is that it's surprising that we have the ability to make little models of the real world in our heads using maths, but an argument for that wasn't really made - it was more of a hidden assertion. A good case could be made that if the world was computationally equivalent to a turing machine (which the church-turing thesis makes extremely plausible), and so are our minds, then it is unsurprising that the mind can make mental / mathematical models of the world. --- The combatants should also consider that there's no ab-initio reason why a god should produce a world so chained to mathematical formulae. Most minds that we're aware of, when inventing a moral arena in stories, create a world dominated by motives, thoughts and emotions, not one with strict mathematical laws. Theists need to come up with an explanation for why God needs strict mathematical laws, when He could easily have just made the world without them. Why did God choose to give us the gift of a mathematically obedient universe but not the gift of a malaria-free Africa. The idea that there seems to be a sort-of gift here is evidence for god, implies that the presence of much stronger anti-gifts is evidence against God. === It also seems a lot like this is an example of pointing to a philosophical difficulty, and then saying that because it's a difficult problem, therefore there must be a God, and not making any real argument that shows or suggests that God would solve the problem without introducing new problems of its own.

[@bkhan19]

I would like to know how you came to conclude on the causal chain. Do humans see the real world and then make our mathematical statements? Or at times can humans make mathematical statements without the need of the real world?

[@plasticvision6355]

@@bkhan19 All you have to do is look at the observed 2nd law of thermodynamics. It clearly states that energy can’t be created or destroyed. What can’t be created does not require a creator and must exist necessarily.

[@arionkelmendi2702]

On very simple terms, it seems to me Dr Williams is applying arguments for design in biology, to arguments for design in mathematics. I dont get how mathematics proves God, it merely asserts mathematics, that's it. Also, which branch of mathematics proves God? 1 + 1 doesn't add up to God

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

I’d say Feser’s version of the argument from mathematics (and universals) is better

[@yaserthe1]

Arion you have missed the point entirely. Its OK for you to disagree with Craig, that's fine. But the fact that u don't even see how one may come to his conclusion tells me you have missed everything Craig said.

[@robjohnston1433]

NEVER trust what Craig says about an expert Physicist's views! He often quotes Guth and Vilenkin on Cosmic Inflation -- and points out that their views seem to "agree with" whatever point Craig is trying to "prove". BUT ... when Guth was shown the video in which Craig quotes him, he gets pretty annoyed -- because, not only has Craig completely misunderstood the point, but then gone on to DELIBERATELY MISLEAD the audience about Guth's actual theories!

[@erastusc4908]

Not true, don't mislead us about this.

[@lingillott8890]

Graham needs to do his homework on pronunciation and grammar.

[@josecantu8195]

The English in australia is a bit different if that's what you're referring to.

[@dereklaing2929]

Craig, you better do a segment on "the deception of old earth" that you espoused. For a smart man, it seems you're rather foolishly missing some points that obliterate your position.

[@dereklaing2929]

Or, admit you aren't a Christian, which you have been leading me to believe the last few months.

[@lotus9865]

You keep telling yourself that buddy!

[@tofubaba1315]

No.

[@aquestioner3004]

In his books Craig says that something cannot come from nothing. He also says that his god created something (the universe) from nothing, which is a contradiction.

[@johnvirgilio5323]

I believe he says it's because God is outside of time and space. He makes that stipulation.

[@jaclo3112]

@@johnvirgilio5323 so how did a being make something out of nothing? What is the process? Where did the matter come from?

[@johnvirgilio5323]

@@jaclo3112 I can't tell you much more than by his power, through his word he spoke it into existence.

[@jaclo3112]

@@johnvirgilio5323 so magic spells. Lol.

[@Syrnian]

Maths are man made. Maths are a set of robust langues with strict definitions, postulates and proofs that humans created to describe our observations. All man made.

[@rebanelson607]

All concepts and hypotheses are "human made". How else can we learn if we don't generate the questions, concepts and hypotheses? But what we learn about the physical world is a non human made wonder.

[@Syrnian]

@@rebanelson607 How does one get from that to WLC's argument, maths require god?

[@merrybolton2135]

Does bone censer in children point to god ,is more to the point

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

That would be an issue of God and natural evils. As Dr. Craig notes, there's no logical incompatibility between the existence of God and natural evils. For example, see his Question of the Week #350: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/gods-permitting-natural-evil - RF Admin

[@charlescarter2072]

@@ReasonableFaithOrgcan I ask…what are the series of dark green looking books on the top shelf behind Dr Craig.? I am so intrigued to know. Thanks

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

@@charlescarter2072 We'll ask him and get back to you! - RF Admin

[@charlescarter2072]

@@ReasonableFaithOrg brilliant. Thank you

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

@@charlescarter2072 From Dr. Craig: "Ah, this is a precious Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, an unsurpassed resource which an antiques dealer was able to find for me after searching for several years! Bill" - RF Admin

[@moodswing29]

Dr Oppy is really going to be disappointed when he is in front of the Great White Throne. I wish him the best in his unbelief.

[@swamygee]

On that other hand, what are you going to do when you face the Great Dark Blackness?

[@20july1944]

I don't wish him well in his evangelizing atheism: if he's so smart, he recognizes he really can't know either way about God so the wise approach (and approach to be enjoined on others) would be cautious, passive atheism at most.

[@defenestratedalien1448]

@@GhostFireElectronicsbasically Pascal' wager. What if at d end, the being u r face with prefer people who believe things based on good evidence and hates sycophants, the atheists r saved and d theists r doomed. What if it does not care about humans and just wants to chill with his trees. In addition to its flaws, it is highly anthropomorphic.

[@redeemedthroughchrist878]

I come in love, out of genuine care I want you to know the good news! You are valuable, not an accident from nothing. "When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.” - Isaac Newton. You and I, we broke God’s laws, whether you have have lied or stolen, said a bad word, hated someone, looked with lust, blasphemed (saying OMG), so on. A just judge is going to punish guilty criminals for their crimes and we deserve to go to Hell for our willful crimes. Imagine you are driving on the road and a police officer pulls you over for speeding and gives you a fine. So you say to yourself, "From now on I will not speed ever again" and you don't. But does that get rid of the fine you have already received? In the same way in our life, even if we try never doing anything wrong ever again and just do good things, it doesn't get rid of the punishment we deserve for the bad things we have already done. In the speeding fine example, the only way to get rid of the fine is to either pay the fine yourself or have someone willing to pay the fine for you. So in the same way, either we need to take our own punishment in hell forever, or we need someone who is perfect who is willing to take our hell punishment for us.God in His love despite our hatred toward Him, made a way for sinners to be forgiven without violating justice. He took on flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. He lived the sinless life we coudnt, and then offered Himself on the cross as a sacrifice for sin. Jesus took the wrath of God you and I deserved, then rose from the dead! If someone takes your Hell punishment then you can go to Heaven and only Jesus the only one who didn’t deserve it did that for us guilty criminals. Good works or trying to be religious can’t save you, only turning to God through trusting alone in Jesus can, and not only will He save you but change you so you won’t want to sin anymore. John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” I recommend reading the Bible, the Book of John to start. The Bible was written by 40+ authors in a span of 1500+ years with 66 books in 3 continents remaining consistent fulfilling 2500+ prophecies backed up with 25000+ archaeological evidence, with 57000+ manuscripts, 2.7 million+ texts. “The evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history.” (E. M, Prof Auckland University) Trust that Jesus took your punishment for you and so be 100% certain that you will go to heaven, causing you to start living your life for Him. We are not saved from our sins because the Romans beat up Jesus and killed Him! We are saved from our sins because when He was on the tree all of your sin was imputed to Him, and all the full force of God’s wrath of His holy hatred against you and your crimes, and me, and my crimes, that as a Holy God He must pour out. He poured out on His own Son! Trust alone in Him today, and tell others about the Good news of how they can be saved through Jesus as well!! “We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.” Scholarly fact. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jqqxpJiOmcllbJI Jesuscares.com kzbin.info/aero/PLIB6yPRxh47S75U6zAX10GPfygnbBoRIw kzbin.info/www/bejne/mGaymJttfqmartE

[@gwledosman9744]

Our sins cannot be simplified and the ticket example doesn’t suffice in comparison thus for someone innocent to receive punishment is UNJUST willing or unwilling it’s just not JUST if I stole and got 60 years I wouldn’t want my mother to take it even if it was for a day only my self will not allow it , to teach a kid that’s it’s ok for someone to do your time and it’s beautiful is immoral absurd ridiculous wrong

[@TheWeebs1968]

Millions of people having cats, and showing other people their cats, feeding their cats and taking their cats to the vet, watching cats playing the piano , watching cats give birth to kittens would indicate that cats are real and exist an no one can deny the fact, if we needed maths to prove cats exist, well then they don’t exist. That’s just clutching at straws. If things exist it takes almost no effort to prove it to anyone. You know like science does on a daily basis.

[@Whatsisface4]

To answer the question, no. Maths is absolute and non contingent and would be the same and couldn't be different whether God existed or not

[@bennyredpilled5455]

Where would it be grounded?

[@Whatsisface4]

@@bennyredpilled5455 The answer is in my post of course. Ask yourself, could 1+1=2 be any different?

[@magnifico0000]

Huh........

[@itamarbispo5830]

Minhas palavras ainda são poucas para o quanto eu desejo conhecê-lo e poder ser abençoado pela sua vida, porém eu estou em um contexto em que não tenho ninguém ao meu redor que possa me ajudar com a vida que almejo ter e o ministério que desejo desenvolver em Cristo. Se me responder já será de muita valia para mim. Deus o abençoe 😭😭❤️❤️

[@sralf1]

Try in english man. O doubt that someone there speak portuguese. Manda em inglês

[@john211murphy]

No. No it does not.

[@matteuslucas4223]

Wow what a great argument, good job

[@ds19771]

Why is everything Craig says so dumb? Why doesn’t he try to say things that aren’t dumb sone of the time?

[@SkepticalMantisCHANNEL10]

father, son, holy spirit (3) = 1???

[@EMoney007]

.33, .33, .33 = 1

[@SkepticalMantisCHANNEL10]

@Roof Korean it's symbolic though, clearly they're not literally 1 person. The trinity needs to be seen as literally 1 person, otherwise christianity becomes polytheistic.

[@pascalarancibia5199]

@@SkepticalMantisCHANNEL10 kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZniVhGiwnqmWhZI

[@beholdhisglory1657]

1x1x1=1

[@bryanbursiek1593]

If a person means the same thing as essence or being than its a contradiction but it does not. So God is 1 in being/essence and 3 in persons is not a contradiction. Of course God having this attribute is not possible for us to compare it to say water, vapor and ice as that would be bad.