How William Lane Craig misrepresents science

[@MajestyofReason]

✅✅✅ADDITIONAL NOTES✅✅✅ NOTE #1 Phil has issued a slight correction. At 27:07, he said that the Hartle-Hawking No Boundary Proposal only has a beginning in imaginary time whereas in real time it's infinite toward the past. However, what he *should* have said was that the model can be *interpreted* as having an infinite past in real time. But this can be disputed. Thomas Hertog does not agree with Aron Wall on this issue. NOTE #2 At 1:15:05, I wanted to summarize the problems with Craig’s use of the BGV theorem. I didn’t provide the most helpful summary in the video, so here’s a summary: (1) At best, the BGV theorem shows that a spacetime region which has been expanding on average throughout its history could not have been expanding forever. Such an expanding region must have begun its expansion at some finitely distant point in the past. This does *not* imply that all of spacetime *itself* has a beginning because all of spacetime may not have been expanding on average throughout its history. In such a case, the BGV Theorem would be inapplicable to the whole of spacetime itself. In fact, as pointed out in the video, both Guth and Vilenkin explicitly say that the BGV theorem only says that the *inflation* of the universe has a beginning, it doesn’t say that the *universe as a whole* or *spacetime as a whole* has a beginning. (2) Recent literature purports to give grounds to doubt the BGV theorem. Whether or not this recent literature is correct, it reveals that this is not a settled issue. Instead, it is an active area of research and debate. Relevant papers here include Lesnefsky et al (2023) journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.044024, Geshnizjani et al (2023) link.springer.com/article/10.1007/JHEP10(2023)182, Nomura (2012) arxiv.org/abs/1205.5550, and Aguirre (2007) arxiv.org/abs/0712.0571. (3) The BGV theorem is only a theorem about classical spacetimes. But we probably don’t live in a classical spacetime. We have good reasons internal to the standard model and general relativity for thinking that these theories will be surpassed by a new theory able to incorporate both. So our current understanding of spacetime will be replaced by something else. So the BGV theorem does not apply to the spacetime we live in. (4) Even if we do live in a classical spacetime, the Malamant-Manchak theorems show that, in all likelihood, we couldn’t ever know enough about the global structure of spacetime to know that *the whole* of spatiotemporal reality had a beginning. (5) Even if the BGV theorem shows that the past is finite - and, as explained above, it does not - we cannot infer that the universe (i.e., the totality of all physical reality) began to exist, for the reasons given in the section of the video entitled “Past finitude does not entail beginning to exist”. Another point Dan makes in our other video responding to Craig’s scientific case: (6) The BVG theorem requires us to commit to a substantive physical theory concerning spacetime. Craig frequently points out that the BVG theorem does not require that spacetime satisfies the Einstein Field Equations and so does not require General Relativity. And he’s right: the BVG theorem is a geometrical result that goes beyond General Relativity. But the BVG theorem is not a result that holds for absolutely any spacetime theory whatsoever. For example, if space, time, or spacetime are discrete - as suggested in some proposals for quantum gravity theories, such as causal set theory or loop quantum gravity, or in some metaphysical theories - then the BVG theorem is inapplicable. Moreover, the BVG theorem requires that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Craig holds to an alternative to Special Relativity called Neo-Lorentzianism. While Neo-Lorentzianism is compatible with the view that nothing can go faster than light, Neo-Lorentzianism does not require that nothing can go faster than light. Ergo, given Neo-Lorentzianism, we do not have good reason to endorse the BVG theorem. Lastly, the BVG theorem requires that there is no prior cosmological epoch during which spacetime was contracting. While Craig may be able to point out some deficiencies in some of the cosmologies that have been proposed and that include a contraction epoch, that’s distinct from making the positive inference that there was no contraction epoch. We don’t shoulder the burden of ruling in any such epoch with an explicit model; instead, Craig has the burden of ruling out the live possibility of such an epoch. NOTE #3 Someone objected to one of our points in the video, and I want to address their objection here. Their objection is that Craig *does* believe in _certain_ abstract objects - namely, *creatable* abstract objects. Here's my response to this: The strong sense I get from reading “God Over All” and Craig’s work on the Kalam (where he addresses the Platonic objection to his actual infinity stuff) is that he favors some form of anti-realism across the board about abstract objects. He considers a plethora of full-blown anti-realist views - fictionalism, figuralism, pretence theory, etc. - and repeatedly labels them as “attractive”, “plausible”, and so on. He also writes in the conclusion of “God Over All” the following: “The overriding point, however, is that there is just no compelling reason to be a realist.” (207). He also objects to absolute creationist views of abstract objects according to which God creates abstract objects. He concludes his book with: “For my part, I find a combinatorial approach to abstract objects to be most plausible. [This combinatorial approach involves combining insights from the various anti-realist views he canvasses.] … Such a combinatorial approach makes good sense of the many insights of the diversity of anti-realisms.” (207) He also repeatedly lampoons realist views of abstracta as ontologically profligate, metaphysically idle, and so on. In light of this, I think it’s safe to say Craig adopts, or at least is most attracted to, an anti-realism about abstracta simpliciter. Of course, the distinctive challenge he is *most* worried about comes from uncreated abstracta, and created abstracta don’t pose that distinctive worry. So the objector is right that he wouldn’t be too worried about created abstract objects. But this is a different issue from whether he himself actually believes in created abstracta! Another crucial point is that I cannot see any reason to accept created abstract objects that wouldn’t also be a reason to accept the problematic kinds of abstract objects that Craig must reject - i.e., mathematical objects, propositions, possible worlds, properties, etc. Such reasons almost always have to do with the ontological commitments of ordinary language, or explaining the apparent objectivity of certain discourses, or indispensability to certain successful theories or inquiries, or worries about whether (e.g.) Beethoven’s symphony would cease to exist if the Earth was destroyed, etc. But all these reasons equally motivate accepting infinitely many necessarily existent abstract objects, and Craig has objected to both the infinity and necessity of abstracta - the former because of Kalam considerations, the latter because of theistic considerations. [And if we think (quite plausibly) that some of these other sorts of abstracta would have to be uncreated - say, because we think properties could not be created without viciously circular dependence - we’d also get the uncreated-ness worry.] In light of this last point, it is still true that accepting even *created* abstracta would pose a very serious challenge both to Craig’s theism and his Kalam. So the criticism in the video stands. NOTE #4 Another point I didn’t mention in the video about Craig’s use of abstracta: these aren’t actually counterexamples to my more carefully formulated material causal principle, which only quantifies over material objects that begin to exist. Abstracta are not material objects. So abstract objects are irrelevant to the most plausible version of the criticism from material causality. NOTE #5 Another thing we forgot to note: Craig clearly misrepresents of Grayson's statement here: “It’s only intellectually honest to be agnostic about whether our evidence or theories points to a beginning of the universe. And again most cosmologists would agree with this.” What does Craig say in response? “Grayson is simply wrong that most cosmologists agree that the universe did not begin to exist.” What? Grayson obviously did *not* claim that most cosmologists agree that the universe did not begin to exist! Grayson said that we should be *agnostic* on whether our evidence points to the beginning of the universe, and that most cosmologists would agree with *that claim* - i.e., the claim that we should be agnostic on this matter. Craig misrepresents Grayson as saying that most cosmologists agree that the universe did not begin to exist. As we also note in the video, Craig misrepresents Grayson as denying that anything begins to exist. Grayson explicitly says, “This chair is a thing that began to exist. Somebody put together this chair.” So Grayson is explicitly saying that things begin to exist. Craig just misconstrues Grayson. He isn’t saying chairs and whatnot don’t have beginnings; he is instead saying that they don’t have beginnings *from nothing*.

[@brando3342]

Dr. Craig already responded to this in a recent video 👍

[@MajestyofReason]

@@brando3342 ? That’s presumably the video that we’re responding to in the video. He doesn’t give any good responses to any of these points, as explained in this video.

[@lalahahalah7680]

Here is a recent video by PBS Spacetime, a working non-religious astrophysicst (sidenote which none of your panelists are) talking about the BGV theorem: kzbin.info/www/bejne/foPUc3qkiN2tr6ssi=2ap7WwafkhbUdG2x Roughly he says that the BGV theorem has exceptions, but the kind of universe we live in makes singularities and past boundaries probable and infinite past universes very improbable. He says current evidence is that the universe probably had a beginning, even though we don't know because of no theory of quantum gravity. It's a quite nuanced video which I think should supplement this. I think it's fair to think of the BGV theorem, as one that eliminates a lot of infinite past boundary universes in one go. The simplicity of the theorem is what gives it's appeal. It's not proof that the universe began to exist, but it's something that raises the probability that it does. Luke Barnes and Aron Wall talked about this more in detail. It's like a scythe that cuts down other models. Exotic models are inherently less likely.

[@harlowcj]

​@@lalahahalah7680Title of the Barnes and Wall video?

[@andresjimenez1724]

​@@MajestyofReasonJoe...

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks for having us on , was really fun

[@Goat-e3g]

When will you book be on amazon. Can't wait actually when I heard it's from Chicago university press

[@PhilHalper1]

@@Goat-e3g not sure. It's not coming out til Spring so may be a while

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i watched your talk with aaron ra, i wasn't aware of the caveat to the first law of thermodynamics, and that there are models of a "something from nothing" universe, more than interesting, maybe yet another video going into the "something from nothing" as it's a favourite for theists to throw at us?

[@shassett79]

The excitement I felt when I saw that you'd dropped a two-hour philosophy video about Christian apologetics indicates that I should really be stuffed inside a locker somewhere.

[@joshuagodin405]

This made my night 😂

[@christianidealism7868]

Yeah, I generally agree with your points in the video. I have a friend who's pursuing a PhD in cosmology, and he often says that what appears in the literature is just about 20% of what's actually being discussed behind the scenes. Cosmologists are constantly coming up with new models that don't imply a beginning to the universe, and to establish that the universe did have a beginning, you'd need not only a cosmological model that entails that but also one that is far more plausible than rival models. So far, no one has accomplished this, and Craig, while a philosopher, isn't a cosmologist. Even the best cosmologists can't agree on which model is correct, which makes the data point itself highly contentious. Moreover, if the universe were indeed eternal, that could arguably imply even greater value since it would mean God has always been creating worlds (or at least that the world He creates has always existed). There’s a strong theistic case to be made that an eternal universe is plausible within theism. If that’s true, finding out the universe had a beginning could actually disconfirm theism, assuming our axiology favors the greater value of an eternal universe. So even if Craig kept up with the written cosmology literature, he might still be missing a lot of what's being discussed behind the scenes. By the way, my friend is a theist too, so it’s not like there’s any atheist bias going on!

[@zelmoziggy]

What’s the strong theistic case that an eternal universe is plausible within theism?

[@semitope]

People's pet ideas don't matter if they can't publish. Also, it's not logically possible to have an eternal universe. At least an one with an actually infinite past. Why? Because then we wouldn't be on KZbin. The present would never come because the past is eternal

[@zelmoziggy]

@@semitope That logic depends on a tensed model of time. Plenty of theorists subscribe to a tenseless model of time in which there is no actual flow of time.

[@blakejohnson1264]

@@semitopeit does seem to me that many cosmologists refer to their personal belief about this but don’t make the explicit claim that the data is stronger for an eternal universe instead of a finite universe. It seems like coping from a dogmatic commitment to naturalism most of the time. They also mention “there are eternal models” as if that’s relevant. I don’t care what’s “possible”, lots of things are. What is the most plausible? Which models have the most predictive power and are less ad hoc and have stood the test of time? Funny enough, Alan Guth years ago sent Sean Carroll a picture or something for his debate with William Lane Craig about his personal belief that the universe was eternal. Last time I checked, he never published any evidence or data showing that’s plausible. Just trying to make theism look less plausible while acting as if his personal belief is shaped by the data. Here’s some relevant quotes from this article ( freethinkingministries.com/sean-carrolls-dishonesty-the-debate-of-2014/ ) that are extremely telling. Consider Guth’s 2007 paper Eternal inflation and its implications. In the abstract Guth writes, “Although inflation is generically eternal into the future, it is not eternal into the past: it can be proven under reasonable assumptions that the inflating region must be incomplete in past directions…”Perhaps Guth is saying that inflation is not eternal into the past but the universe itself can still be eternal into the past? No. On page 14, Guth writes, “If the universe can be eternal into the future, is it possible that it is also eternal into the past? Here I will describe a recent theorem [43] which shows, under plausible assumptions, that the answer to this question is no.” Guth then describes the 2003 BGV incompleteness theorem. An interesting footnote demands examination. A theorem is considered most powerful when it has the widest possible applicability. The footnote discusses earlier theorems on the topic which were not as powerful as the 2003 version: There were also earlier theorems about this issue by Borde and Vilenkin (1994, 1996) [44, 45], and Borde [46] (1994), but these theorems relied on the weak energy condition, which for a perfect fluid is equivalent to the condition ρ + p ≥ 0. This condition holds classically for forms of matter that are known or commonly discussed as theoretical proposals. It can, however, be violated by quantum fluctuations [47], and so the applicability of these theorems is questionable. The added value of the 2003 theorem is that it applies to a much wider set of models. The earlier theorems could be violated by quantum fluctuations but Guth appears to be saying that criticism does not apply to the 2003 theorem. Guth’s paper then goes on to describe a cosmological model that evades BGV theorem, the Aguirre-Gratton model. Earlier Guth had commented that no model with “reasonable” or “plausible” assumptions could evade BGV theorem. One must conclude that in Guth’s judgment the Aguirre-Gratton model does not have reasonable or plausible assumptions. But this is the model Sean Carroll endorsed in the debate. When I saw the picture of Guth holding the sign, I thought perhaps he was planning to publish a new paper describing a model with reasonable assumptions that could evade BGV theorem. Six years have passed since the debate. I no longer think a paper is coming or that such a model is possible. And below is an extremely important quote used in the article Perhaps people who don’t want God to be more implausible (in their eyes even though God is compatible with an eternal universe) *want* the universe to be eternal. Here’s what is actually said about THE DATA AND NOT THEIR IRRELEVANT PREFERENCES. Regarding BGV theorem, in his book Many Worlds in One, Vilenkin writes: “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” (176)

[@moleratcon]

I think the fact that cosmologists *still* want an eternal universe after 100 years of failed theories is good proof for the first premise of Craig's version of the Kalam.

[@aron679]

GRAYSON: “it’s only intellectual honest to be agnostic about whether our evidence or theories points to a beginning of the universe. And again most cosmologists would agree with this. CRAIG: “Grayson is simply wrong that most cosmologists agree that the universe did not begin to exist.” Craig, my dude, I’m begging you to please pay attention

[@Venaloid]

10:55 - This is proof that WLC is intentionally ignoring his opponent's objection. He has heard this objection many times, and every time, he misunderstands it, even after his opponent clarifies. The objection is that causation ex-nihilo (with only an efficient cause) is not what causation means in any other situation where we use the word, and thus the accusation is that Craig is equivocating the word "cause" in his argument. WLC then recasts this accusation as if it were saying that nothing ever begins to exist. He did this 10 years ago in an exchange with TheoreticalBullshit (Scott Clifton), and he's doing it again now. WLC is simply a dishonest liar.

[@MalachiWhite-tw7hl]

He is asserting his belief system; a system that may be wrong, but he is hardly a "dishonest liar"--or if he is, we all are liars, or hypocrites.

[@bass-dc9175]

@@MalachiWhite-tw7hl Craig has lied about multiple topics on this video. And I really mean "Lie" as in: Saying what you know ain't so. Knowingly stating a falsehood. Example on the BGV Theorem. In his debate with Dr. Sean Carrol from 2014, he was confronted by Dr. Carrol stating: "You might think that you know there's a theorem by alen Guth and Arvin bord and Alex blankin that says the universe had a beginning. I've explained to you why that's not true." continueing with him pointing to a direct interview he had with one of the lead writers: Alan Guth, which says: "I don't know whether the universe had a beginning. I suspect the universe didn't have a beginning. It's very likely Eternal but nobody knows." Craig knows that the BGVT does not state that the universe had a beginning, yet he still claims it does. That makes WLC: A dishonest liar.

[@joehorn1762]

Youre not making a point.​@@MalachiWhite-tw7hl

[@rewrewrewrewr2674]

This video was a pleasant surprise, it seems like Grayson greatly appreciated it. It would be interesting if you brought on Linford or Malpass to discuss the flaws in the epistemology of new presuppositional apologetics which are popular at the moment, though I could also understand why the topic may not interest you.

[@francisa4636]

I agree, this would be cool. Although some of the practitioners of presup are pretty vacuous.

[@jeevacation]

I would like to see a video on this topic as well.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i like how craig complains that grayson only addresses the first part of the argument and neglects the rest, when craig is only addressing the first part of grayson's argument and pretending that's all he said.

[@bengreen171]

I think the takeaway here is that Craig doesn't care about the actual physics or the consensus, or even what individual physicists say - his goal is to stitch together a suitably impressive sounding speech that leads his audience to assume he's saying something in line with what the experts say. He does the same thing with biology. It's a scam.

[@radscorpion8]

like most theists, they constantly misrepresent science and philosophy. And they LOVE debates, because its the one forum where you can get away with these sorts of deceptions. In a peer-reviewed paper no one falls for rhetoric or lack of on-the-spot knowledge in a high pressure 5 minute rebuttal. Thankfully we have new atheists like Joe to help expose these people

[@shassett79]

The question I always have about Craig is how much of it is just a grift, and how much of it is deliberately lying because he figures and that misleading people to religion is better than letting them live in sin or whatever.

[@bengreen171]

@@shassett79 I honestly don't think he cares about anyone but himself. imo He bought into the religion and now he just wants to promote himself as a great thinker. This is all about him wanting to persuade everyone else that he's an intellectual. A salesman doesn't care how easy your journey to work will actually be, they just want to sell you the car because they get a bonus.

[@jimbob8992]

Regardless of his ' new' Kalam argument and all the updated scientific claims he makes( and all the ones he conveniently misses out) I'm always reminded of an interview in which he said that even if their was undeniable evidence against the resurrection, which showed it never happened, Craig would still believe, because he has felt the holy spirit, and knows God loves him. Craig isn't interested in finding the truth because if it doesn't know and love him, it ain't true.

[@goldenalt3166]

Craig's argument is definately designed to sound good. I contend it's also split into two parts so that the second part can avoid scrutiny by anyone who might be skeptical. This also explains why so many skeptics think that phase 1 is the argument.

[@81caspen]

21:17 Craig either sloppily or disingenuously depicts Grayson’s statement as “most physicists agree that the universe did not begin to exist”. Grayson explicitly emphasizes *agnosticism* on the question of the universe’s having begun to exist. I mean, Craig offers sloppy or disingenuous evidence in the reverse direction, as if physicists presently agree that the universe did have a beginning, but I object to the mischaracterization as well.

[@thescoobymike]

"Non-metric time" breaks my brain

[@Venaloid]

1:41:20 - Abstract objects can have only efficient causes? Cool, so Craig thinks the universe is an abstract object? Or, Craig thinks that abstract objects exist physically? Interesting.

[@fanghur]

By the way, there’s something I’ve always wondered, and if Dan sees this hopefully he might be able to answer it. If we take the BVG theorem seriously, it seems to show that inflation cannot be past eternal. But what I’ve always been unclear about is whether it would also imply that the period of inflation we’re ‘within’ right now is the first one? That is, is it possible under the theorem that there could have been a past-eternal chain of past-finite periods of inflation? I’m not sure if that’s basically what Roger Penrose’s model is, but I think that it’s not quite the same. I don’t think anyone has ever asked Vilenkin this question specifically, but like I said, it’s always been something I’m unclear about.

[@DannySmith862]

Such a shame that only the smartest philosophers of physics can be saved.

[@oftenincorrect]

😆

[@Crystan]

Or just the ones dumb enough to cast aside reason for a belief in magic. The kalam argument solves literally nothing. It's an assertion that the universe had to have a cause - we have literally no evidence to suggest it needed a cause. It may have always existed. It also fails the most basic of sniff tests - if everything HAS to have a cause, then whence comes God? Did he too have a 'cause'? Because if not, it literally undermines the entire argument. If God can exist without a creator, then so too can the universe. QED. Furthermore, how exactly did God create something out of nothing? Magic? So, the universe STILL didn't actually have a cause - because that "cause" was literal god powers. If you're still struggling to see why this is a dumb argument then you're probably the one who needs saving. From yourself.

[@SamLowry42]

Rebutting Kalam is a noble cause, but I’ve often wondered if there’s a single person who ever heard it and switched from atheism to theism as a result. Rather, it seems to me that people are either born into theism or move to it for emotional or societal/ community reasons unrelated to these intellectual and philosophical arguments. Lane’s role seems to be to prop up the notion that Christianity is fully compatible with reason, which is absolutely not the case and I suspect the average religious American has never even heard of the cosmological or ontological arguments

[@utubepunk]

Exactly. Kalam has always been post hoc in my experience. And since the original argument was proposed by a Muslim, does that make Islam more true than Christianity?

[@Nitaijonjoedasa]

Many atheists become theists because of the the kalam argument. I'm right here

[@CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

2:00 Awesome! I wonder whether there will be an audiobook as well. I can't wait to get it! I've watched Phil's videos since 2016, when he published his documentary on Guth's eternal inflation. His channel is gold!

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks

[@annestephens9631]

WLC has somehow wrung a considerable amount of Physics out of his preferred reading of the Tanakh. The Kalam is a nice set-up for a Glass Bead Game, deserves its place in the History of Ideas, but I'm baffled as to how it might be expected to deliver a Craig flavoured Theology?

[@calebp6114]

Thanks for the video Joe! Helpful stuff on the BGV Theorem. I enjoyed reading Linford's dissertation last year.

[@daniellinford9643]

Glad that you enjoyed my work!

[@shanesullivan460]

18:29 I've heard Craig make this reductio before. I wonder if he realizes it is, almost verbatim, a Zen koan ("Show me your original face, the one you had before your mother and father were born") meant to trigger enlightenment. Not that he would care.

[@81caspen]

39:02 WLC’s argument as I understand it from Joe is roughly the same as saying: “There are numerous problems with all the explanations of various persons having shot JFK. We are perfectly justified, therefore, in assuming he wasn’t shot at all and was simply disastrously allergic to Texas pollen.”

[@harlowcj]

@@81caspen More like "there are numerous problems with all the explanations that say a gun just went off and killed JFK without a person behind it aiming and pulling the trigger. Therefore, we are perfectly justified in assuming that the gun went off when a person aimed and fired it." Nobody argues that the gun doesn't exist or that the gun was never shot with great accuracy. The argument is about what aimed it and pulled the trigger. The skeptic says, "well you can't PROVE that a person pulled the trigger in the case of cosmic inflation and big bang cosmology. Therefore we are justified in withholding judgment about how guns go off."

[@81caspen]

@@harlowcj The exaggeration was significant, sure, but only for humorous effect. Theistic speculation is not *quite* on the same scale of difference to naturalism as a bullet is to allergies. But the point I had hoped to make is that if you want to call Oswald acting alone and a second gunman and a Secret Service conspiracy and Soviet implant detonation all highly unlikely scenarios, cool, but it does nothing at all to enhance permission for other quite unlikely scenarios. The other comparison is a washout. It would work if we knew with the same certainty that we do that guns are manufactured that universes were. It would work if the concept of a god were anything close to being as coherent as the concept of a person is, and if we had anything like the certainty that such a concept had ever been realized as we have for the reality of people. But if these things were anything near to similar, there simply would not be this intensity of debate on these points. Gods are not mundane propositions. Creation ex nihilo- not strictly a Biblical proposition by the way, and relatively recent in any case - is not a mundane proposition in the same way that a man firing a gun is. Theism tries to smuggle this stuff in all the time, and I think its proponents like Craig have it in them to do better. Let’s insist that they do.

[@harlowcj]

@@81caspen I think my trouble with your analogy is because your explanatory options are all intelligence driven, other than the allergy explanation. So to me, the allergy explanation is the only physicalist explanation available while the other explanations are all variations on intelligently based explanations, which we universally accept to be true despite not being clear on the specific details of the intelligent agents involved. The concept of a god need only be an intelligent mind powerful enough to cause the universe. I don't think it's an incoherent or confusing concept any more than to say an intelligent being pulled a trigger is incoherent or confusing, albeit vague. It's teleology vs disteleology. There's not many starting points to choose from.

[@81caspen]

[I hate the way KZbin or creators delete replies without even the courtesy of telling you they’ve done it. If I’ve said something wrong, please tell me so I don’t get violated like this again in future, please.]

[@Boundless_Border]

​@harlowcj This can be broken into two parts. The first is the type of background knowledge being utilized to infer the cause in the assassination example. And how this would relate to discussions about the universe The other side is considering the concept of a god. To open. There are things we know about guns and how they work along with the circumstances present that allow us to consider that this shot was likely made by some person. This simply isn't analogous to the universe. Regarding the second, based on what we do know. We have no reason to believe that a mind independent of physical systems can exist not to mention also have the capability of creating a universe in some way. Besides our familiarity with the concept, it does seem to be largely nonsensical.

[@Overonator]

How many times have I seen videos that call out Craig for misunderstanding the objections actually offered to his arguments? And his misunderstandings are always strawmen that he can most easily dispatch.

[@MoralHoplite]

Inject this into my veins yesterday

[@Benedictcourt2]

If the component of the universe has a material course why won't the universe have a course ? If the universe has a progressive event of time why won't the universe has a beginning of time since we can count the event and if we start to count back the event from it conceptual material course we can actually count one and then zero, another is that when we are talking about God not being a material being, we are saying that this immaterial being is all powerful qualitatively sufficient to course the universe BCS is not a composition or aggregate of parts

[@haasklaw764]

Joe rn "It didn't have to be like this..... Dr Craig"

[@jenst.]

Ca. 1h49min on abstract objects: my objection would be much simpler. It may very well be that abstract objects can have non-material causes. However, the argument is clearly about some physical object (or even the totality of physical reality) beginning to exist. He therefore needs to show that these kind of objects can begin to exist without material causes despite our experience that they always require such a cause.

[@niceguy191]

Plus, it reveals how readily God can just be a concept without actually existing as a thing in reality

[@jimothy9943]

If it was shown that literally all of the cosmological science disagreed with Craig, how likely is it that he would stop being an apologist?

[@tonybanks1035]

fun little philosophy of religion trivia. Maimonides actually found the Kalam to be an extremely weak argument. Dialectically weak. And the whole Kalam metaphysical frame to be intellectually flawed.

[@daniellinford9643]

Aquinas also rejected the Kalam argument.

[@parallax7819]

Was it Rambam or Aquinas?

[@daniellinford9643]

@@parallax7819 Huh?

[@tonybanks1035]

@@parallax7819 both

[@fanghur]

I just get home from a rough day at work, and this is what I find. Awesome! :)

[@christianodenwald]

As always, top tier thumbnail

[@ellyam991]

There is no way Craig, after more than a decade of being corrected by scientists both atheists and theists, continues to misrepresent information - with a good chunk even being points he's been corrected before ad nauseam. Don't get me wrong, I'll misrepresent things all the time because I'm a Certified Idiot™ when it comes to physics, but when corrected by more knowledgable professionals I'll adjust my knowledge or just abstain from arguing physicis more until I have understood better. Craig on the other hand doesn't try to do that for reasons a handsome, cynical viewer with a cool name might interpret as a lack of intellectual honesty... if not worse. Either way, hope videos like this and Phil's help see people why the Kalam is mid, and why Craig isn't this intellectual powerhouse he's shown to be to those getting into apologetics.

[@zelmoziggy]

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” -Upton Sinclair

[@danielkirienko1701]

There's a reason many people refer to him as Low-Bar Bill.

[@bigol7169]

Only Christian apologists can waltz into fields of cosmology and evolutionary biology and proclaim certainty over all genuine practitioners !

[@logans.butler285]

I've always been infuriated by that. But then again, that is why the being specialists and scholars on the field to interview them, and that kind of helps lay people feel convinced about what apologists are saying. Andrew Loke for instance is just a former medical doctor and now a philosopher and an apologist and the claims about physics, cosmology, and history he makes are kind of a big deal, but so far I've never seen anyone seriously debunking him or rebutting him. And he ALWAYS replies. Someone who doesn't know what he’s talking about wouldn't be so passionate about defending his or her ideas (I say his or her instead of they because there are Christians here and I don’t wanna trigger them lol)

[@PhilosophyUnraveled]

Lol stay mad

[@shassett79]

@@PhilosophyUnraveled "LOL THIS DUMB THING I'M DOING ANNOYS PEOPLE LOL"

[@PhilosophyUnraveled]

@@shassett79 looks like ur mad lol

[@makaveli2.03]

@@PhilosophyUnraveledlooks like YOU are mad lol

[@Goat-e3g]

Is effective casuality really a property of a material casuality?

[@patrickskarajew3386]

Hey could someone give me a hand with something discussed here? The lads in the video are talking about the idea that God has a finite past however didn’t begin to exist. I was under the impression that the typical notion was of how God exists outside of time, and so would saying he has a finite past imply he exists within it? I’m pretty sure I’m missing something here, it could be really obvious but I figured I should check. Cheers Oh also Joe your videos are great, really inspiring and helped me get through some tough times. Thanks for all your work mate.

[@MajestyofReason]

@@patrickskarajew3386 great question! So we were only talking about *Craig’s* view of God there. According to Craig’s view of God, God exists in time since the universe began. But yes, many theists disagree with Craig and take God to be outside of time altogether. Notably, our criticism that past finitude doesn’t imply beginning to exist still holds water even for theists who take God to be timeless simpliciter, since our criticism just uses Craig’s view as a toy model for how the universe or some physical object might be beginningless but still have a finite past - our criticism doesn’t rely on the truth of Craig’s view

[@patrickskarajew3386]

@@MajestyofReason Oh I see, I actually wasn’t aware that was Craig’s view so big thanks for clearing that up, I must’ve misunderstood him on another interview or debate. I guess that has pretty huge implications for ideas about divine foreknowledge, so I’ll have to sus out his book on that. Thanks Joe, absolute Champion

[@Joe_mammma]

Is his dissertation called "Alex O'connorism and the beginning of physical reality" after the rebrand?

[@daniellinford9643]

It’s a coincidence that my dissertation and Alex O’Connor’s KZbin channel have similar names. I was inspired by thinking about skeptical theism. Originally, I was going to call it “skeptical cosmology”. But then my dissertation director told me I should call the view “cosmic skepticism” instead.

[@Joe_mammma]

@daniellinford9643 Oh I know mate it was just a joke 😅

[@goldenalt3166]

I have a philosophy question. When you say that premise 1 is true if nothing has a beginning. Would you say that you need to accept that some things have beginnings to even challenge the first premise?

[@MajestyofReason]

@@goldenalt3166 if one wants to give a counterexample to the first premise, then yes, one must say that at least one thing begins to exist (and lacks an efficient cause). But one can criticize premise (1) without trying to prove its falsity; for instance, one can try to offer undercutting defeaters

[@daniellinford9643]

It’s also worth noting that if nothing begins to exist, then the first premise is only *trivially* true. It would be trivially true because it would have no instances. Here’s another example: All unicorns are purple. That statement is also trivially true. And since it has no instances, it tells us nothing about reality. Moreover, if the first premise is trivially true because nothing begins to exist, then the second premise is false. If nothing begins to exist, then the universe didn’t begin to exist.

[@goldenalt3166]

@@daniellinford9643 The question was specifically about whether you could argue with the first premise even if you thought nothing begins to exist. From your example, no reports of unicorns claim they are purple. So if unicorns did exist, i wouldn't agree with that premise.

[@daniellinford9643]

@@goldenalt3166 Sorry, I think we are speaking past each other. According to the first premise, anything that begins to exist has a cause. If nothing begins to exist, that premise is trivially true. Why? Here’s one way to re-write the first premise: If x begins to exist, then x has a cause. Abstractly: if P then Q. Any conditional statement with a false antecedent is true. So, if P is false, then the entire statement is true. So, if nothing begins to exist, P is false, and so the statement is true. Compare: if x is a unicorn then x is purple. There are no unicorns. So P is false. So, the statement is true.

[@goldenalt3166]

@@daniellinford9643 That's exactly the kind of reasoning that I'm objecting to. I'm not going to accept your premise that makes unjustified claims simply because it's irrelevant.

[@gitstanfield2863]

Dan Linford is one smart cookie.

[@daniellinford9643]

Thanks!!

[@harlowcj]

Ill definitely read the book, im interested in what you bring in chapter 8.

[@MajestyofReason]

@@harlowcj if you can’t afford it, just email me!

[@tomaszrasolomampionona5609]

It sounds awefully like a scientific experiment is not a good way to prove or disprove the existance of god.

[@Venaloid]

1:03:28 - Bookmarking this section for the Borde Guth Vilenkin theorem which only requires that inflation has a beginning.

[@tshepangmohale173]

Very pleasant video. I have a really curious question. Have you read nietzsche and what do you think about him

[@aaron5128]

Why don't you do a video with Dr. Craig to clarify his arguments in person?

[@EnglishMike]

Have you asked Craig if he would do a video with them?

[@andreasplosky8516]

Craig refuses to talk with philosophers, of which he knows they will pulverize his nonsense. He has refused to discuss his magical fantasy world with Halper and Lindford, and many more. Craig tries to keep the magical fantasy alive.

[@Nitaijonjoedasa]

Wrong

[@thephilosophicalagnostic2177]

Craig tries to play a cosmologist on TV, but fails.

[@LouigiVerona]

Craig's script didn't significantly change in the last 40 years. Videos from the 80s show him making largely the same arguments.

[@ThePresident001]

Well, when you ignore the reasons you're wrong, you really don't need to change much.

[@oftenincorrect]

Craig is either unintentionally misunderstanding these counter arguments, in which case 🤦‍♂️, or intentionally misunderstanding these counter arguments, in which case 🤦‍♂️…

[@jeevacation]

The latter is far worse than the former.

[@Goat-e3g]

24:28, hawking was wrong there. After some years in 2000s String theorists came to a conclusion that all vaua are actually branches of one thing called landscape. In 2003 there came up KKLT mechanism that showed all possible solution (vaua) could be ultimately one or Landscape meaning the universe is eternal branching out from a bigger land known as landscape

[@Petticca]

@1:41:46 To Grayson’s point about the semantics. Craig is absolutely equivocating here. What is meant by ‘beginning’ to “exist” here, with his “equator” example, is not an example of some physical, mind independent element of reality, that can be said to “begin” to “exist”, in the same way that Craig uses the terms with “universe” and he knows it. It’s as flagrant a switcheroo between concepts as is done when apologists point to something (often a computer these days) and say, you can’t present a natural, undesigned, uncreated explanation for that… Therefore the you can’t explain a natural, sans creation, sans-designer explanation for the universe, /humans QED.

[@ILoveLuhaidan]

Some time ago I noticed Craig sounds like Optimus Prime and I cannot unhear it now every time he speaks.

[@PercyTinglish]

What Optimus Prime are you listening to? 😂

[@dominiqueubersfeld2282]

Here is the real weakness of all Christian apologists, that almost nobody seems to see: they claim they prove the existence of a generic God, and then with a sleight of hand they replace this generic God with the God of the Bible, rather than the God of the Qur'an or of the Veda. The act similar to a tobacco salesman who says: "Tobacco is good for you, therefore Marlboro"

[@patricksee10]

Aquinas and many other philosophers did exactly what you say is not done, that's distinguish between arguments about the necessary existence of a creator on the one hand and the Christian concept of God being a Trinity etc on the other

[@bman5257]

That’s just simply not true. For example Frank Turek has a lecture in four parts where the first three argue for God’s existence and then with that as a background to argue for the veracity of the NT. Craig has arguments for the existence of God, but he also has arguments for the Resurrection of Jesus. So it’s just not true that they prove God’s existence and then just claim that this entails Christianity.

[@thescoobymike]

WLC looks like an adorable sweet grandma

[@tonybanks1035]

still waiting for that "how Dawkins misrepresents philosophy" video and maybe also some rebuttals to Dyllahunty and Woodford. You know, just for the sake of agnostic balance 🙂

[@MajestyofReason]

@@tonybanks1035 no need to wait! I’ve already criticized Dawkins in here 😁 kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z6iZfoWtrqqmoLMsi=hvoOmZafplz_NO23

[@tonybanks1035]

@@MajestyofReason it was tongue in cheek obviously ^^ even though you do spend quite an amount of energy on the anti-theist wing of agnosticism. Reflection of a philosophical shift maybe?

[@MajestyofReason]

@@tonybanks1035 I know haha, I couldn’t resist though! It’s actually just a reflection of my interest. I’m just much more interested in theistic arguments than atheistic arguments. And I tend to disagree with the theistic arguments that pique my interest most

[@imadmoussa1998]

​@@MajestyofReason I'm curious is causal finitism a majority view or a minority one among those that work in your field

[@imadmoussa1998]

​​@@MajestyofReason There is a recent video responding to your critisism on new atheists im curious on ur thoughts on it

[@nielsmikkelsen7312]

No sane person would reject causality

[@geomicpri]

17:50 Let’s say God “speaks” creation into existence the way a computer “speaks” a virtual reality into existence, by the structuring of information in a mind. The “matter” of which VR objects are composed are not rearrangements of that matter. They are material only in that reality. A computer simulating a tonne of bricks is not heavier in our reality than when it was simulating nothing at all. Even after the structuring of information, the so called “objects” remain pixels on a screen until some mind recognises them as objects. Gods mind exists relative to our reality how a material processor exists relative to a computer simulated environment. The computer has all the power, all the knowledge, & is not limited to or governed by the time & space it “speaks” into existence.

[@cogitoergosum3433]

And you know how god’s mind exists how exactly?

[@geomicpri]

@ generally by deduction. We can’t actually know exactly how Gods mind exists, but we know a fair deal about how it can’t exist & how it probably exists.

[@resurrectionnerd]

"Consider, first, the kalām cosmological syllogism: Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. The universe [= the natural causal order] began to exist. (Therefore) The universe [= the natural causal order] has a cause of its existence. What shall a proponent of this argument say about the global causal order? Does it begin to exist? Because Naturalist supposes that the global causal order just is the natural causal order, Naturalist can say: if the global causal order began to exist, then it cannot have - and so does not need - a cause (whence the natural causal order cannot have - and so does not need - a cause, and the first premise of the kalām cosmological syllogism is just false); and if the global causal order did not begin to exist, then the natural causal order did not begin to exist, and so the second premise in the kalām cosmological syllogism is just false. When we consider the matter from the proper perspective, it is obvious that the kalām cosmological syllogism provides no reason at all to favour Theism over Naturalism." - Graham Oppy, The Best Argument Against God, pg. 26. - "Mirroring Craig’s kalām argument, Oppy replaces ‘the universe’ with ‘causal reality’, a felicitous term for naturalists to use. This is a logically valid argument, and as causal reality cannot have a cause of its existence, one of the premises must be wrong. If (2) is wrong, then causal reality could be said to be infinite, undermining the purpose of a first cause argument. The problem may also reside with (1) which is identical with Craig’s first premise. It would seem that not everything that begins to exist must have a cause.... To clarify, if God exists, God belongs to ‘causal reality’ but not to ‘natural reality’. According to many non-theists, however, causal reality just is natural reality." - Raphael Lataster, The Case Against Theism: Why the Evidence Disproves God’s Existence, pg. 53

[@terryleddra1973]

Stephen Meyer is another one that misrepresents science

[@Goat-e3g]

What is the greatest argument aganaist Theism. Is it POE. I think it's POE. Have you responded to mark c Murphy's ideas

[@Devious_Dave]

PoE is only an argument against a god if prevention of evil (harm, suffering?) is in its definition - e.g. the god of Christianity inflicts & allows harm so the PoE doesn't apply. As a case against a theistic god which wants itself to be known to us, I think divine hiddenness is pretty solid.

[@Skibidisuuui8940]

You really should consider doing formal (if possible physically) debates.

[@Sveccha93]

I’m gonna start signing my emails with “As Josh Rasmussen says, god exists”

[@johnonymous1592]

You need to put this to Craig and have him respond/debate this.

[@MajestyofReason]

Making this video is itself putting the criticisms out to Craig (and the public) and giving Craig the opportunity to respond on his show if he wishes.

[@Crystan]

@@MajestyofReason It's just a shame it's full of so many ridiculous assertions that it makes Phil look like he bought his PhD on Ebay. Rather than actually address the majority of his arguments, Phil instead pulls a strawman out of his backside, often unrelated to what was ACTUALLY said and attacks the imagined argument instead. Much easier than having a genuinely honest discussion. Also kinda ironic he went on to say you should check facts yourself, despite citing papers that can be easily debunked by anyone with even a basic understanding of physics.

[@lalahahalah7680]

​@@Crystanwould you mind elaborating on what Phil was wrong on

[@MalachiWhite-tw7hl]

Well, I put it to you, that you sucked off a horse.

[@Akira-jd2zr]

Please break up these videos into smaller clips. I would like to watch this but two hours is just too long

[@PhilosophyUnraveled]

Watch it in intervals

[@Akira-jd2zr]

@@PhilosophyUnraveled No shit sherlock. I'd rather not have to skip though to find parts I am interested in. If he divided it into clips, he would also title the clips with relevant information about the clip and I could decide if it was something I was interested in.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@Akira-jd2zr there are chapter marks for one thing, but how lazy do you have to be to not want to move your finger from right to left and back a few times. maybe employ a butler? take a sheet of paper and a pen and make a note of the timestamps. i don't know why you'd be watching these guys if you don't understand rocket science. 😅

[@Akira-jd2zr]

@@HarryNicNicholas Don't you think content creators would get more views if they make their content more easily consumable to more viewers? It's just a recommendation for Joe to get more views plus helps the viewers. Do you disagree?

[@Devious_Dave]

Low Bar Bill would have to raise his standard of intellectual honesty if he were to address these issues properly.

[@OriginalAndroidPhone]

I don't think the objection to why there hasn't been a heat death yet was sufficiently addressed. Just saying well maybe there was a reset at some point...not saying Linford is wrong, but give us some actual food for thought by explaining why that would be possible within current scientific understanding please.

[@jimmyfaulkner1855]

I would love to hear your thoughts on the news today about Philip Goff’s “conversion” to progressive Christianity

[@harlowcj]

28:32 I want to hear the REASONS they don't believe the singularity is real, not just a list of people who don't believe. You can find groups of people who believe almost anything. And physicists are not some protected class from believing wrong things. For example, a 2016 poll found that half of all physicists surveyed believe that the measurement problem in quantum mechanics has been solved. Half!

[@daniellinford9643]

I canvas a number of reasons in my dissertation and elsewhere. In any case, here are three reasons to think big bang type singularities are not real. First, we typically think that our physical theories apply only within a finite domain. In order to say that the Big Bang singularity is real, you need to extrapolate the physical theories we currently have to infinitely large energy and space-time curvature. That seems completely unreasonable. Second, our current theories of gravity and particle physics include internal inductions that those theories break down at sufficiently high energy. So, if you take those theories seriously, you should take extrapolations from those theories to arbitrarily high energies seriously. Third, we currently use General Relativity to describe the Big Bang. General Relativity replaced Newtonian gravity. If you describe the Big Bang in Newtonian gravity, you end with equations very similar to those we have in general relativity but without a beginning. Since we are now interested in whatever theory will replace General Relativity, it’s unclear why we should think that that new theory would include a beginning.

[@harlowcj]

@@daniellinford9643 I appreciate the reply, I've started working my way through your dissertation and I've been finding it well written and interesting. I'll save my questions for when I'm done it'll probably be a few weeks.

[@daniellinford9643]

@@harlowcj Cool! Looking forward to hearing from you.

[@Pabimra85]

The first time I came across W L Craig I thought he was impresive. That lasted pretty much until the second or third time I came across him, and mybestimation of him has ever been decreasing, specially after videos loke this. He is an exceptional debater and a great public speaker. No doubt. But other than that he is just a more refined and less assholey version of a Tirek-type apologist. His mind is made up, his conclusion is decided beforehand and he's just very good at talking around the facts to make them fit his worldview. Right now he's almost as annoying to me as Capturing Christianiy's Cameron Bertuzzi... That might be a low blow though.

[@Pabimra85]

Also, and somewhat unrelated, though not entirely Trent Horn is a smug dumbass.

[@oldpossum57]

Interesting that you found him “impressive” as a debater. I found him annoying from the outset, as he appears to have memorized a speech, and memorized set responses to points made by his opponent. He does not appear to be listening. Or genuinely curious about what he could learn. Lecturers in the old days read aloud a text: students took notes.) I do not think he genuinely responds to people. I remember Sean Carroll asking WLC asking why he didn’t actually construct a model to see if there could be any empirical consequences. WLC never responded.

[@Pabimra85]

@@oldpossum57 that's exactly why I found him impressive the first time I saw him. I had no context, once I saw the second and third debate I noted exactly what you're talking about. We're making the same point. I was just a bit more nuanced about it.

[@oldpossum57]

@@Pabimra85 ok

[@jonrendell]

Is William lane Craig transitioning or is he merely overly made up?

[@casaroli]

This shows the main difference between scientists and theologians. Science is an ongoing process, theology looks for final immutable truth. By the very nature of their subject. God can’t change, the universe can only change.

[@tomardans4258]

Craig implicitly believes big things have bigger causes. Have you ever seen that sequence of dominos falling, starting with tiny to enormous? Defeater.

[@detoutetapensey]

Hey, I’ve not yet watched the video, but I was recently having doubts about the Kalam argument itself. Now I think the Kalam can be true. That’s in fact one of the reasons it has attracted much attention. Nevertheless, my doubts were caused by the uncertainty of scientist on the issue. Dr. Bill Craig whom I’m personally a fan of gives the impression that it is a settled issue, whereas scientist don’t agree on that. I’m a theist myself. And my use of the Kalam is not as a prove that God exists, but as a way to show that the theist is not irrational or unreasonable in thinking there is a God.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

it's telling what craig leaves out. if you're christian can you remind god he can't just go around killing people and burning them alive for eternity just because they disagree with him, we have rights. and while you're at it, can you aski him about cold fusion, if god isn't going to do anything about putin (heart attack or something that looks natural), if he's not going to stop the war, (when did he ever stop a war) then the least he can do is hint as to how to get cold fusion working - has he seen my electricity bills since the ukraine debacle started, there's a love eh. don't be pushy though, god has a short fuse.

[@walkinghenry7905]

Come on you Gunners!

[@PietCarlos]

I promise you, without any reasonable doubt of any kind. The last time I met a being that was timeless spaceless immaterial and so on it was non existing. So I was forced to abandon my imaginary friend. Actually thats what most people do whit their imaginary friends. Its called growing up.

[@caiomateus4194]

Craig believes in certain abstract objects, namely: creatable abstract objects. In any case, it would be perfectly conceivable that Beethoven's symphony exists and, therefore, is created by a mind (which is immaterial). This would require restricting material causality to material objects. But our intuition that it is possible for there to be a singularity (i.e., for an object to begin in a singular way) is at least as strong as the induction of material causality from real events. It is not at all strange that an object arising from a progressive increase in volume does not require a prior material cause (because there is no point at which it could occur). "But perhaps it is impossible for there to be an efficient cause capable of acting without a material cause" There is a relevant reason to limit our induction in this case: the finiteness of physical causal agents. But there is no relevant reason to limit efficient causality (remembering that something can be both an efficient and a material cause of the same effect).

[@MajestyofReason]

Thanks for the comment! I’ll (somewhat) briefly touch on your first point, since I figured someone would bring up a distinction between different kinds of abstract objects. I prolly don’t have time to address your other ideas here, though! The strong sense I get from reading “God Over All” and Craig’s work on the Kalam (where he addresses the Platonic objection to his actual infinity stuff) is that he favors some form of anti-realism across the board about abstract objects. He considers a plethora of full-blown anti-realist views - fictionalism, figuralism, pretence theory, etc. - and repeatedly labels them as “attractive”, “plausible”, and so on. He also writes in the conclusion of “God Over All” the following: “The overriding point, however, is that there is just no compelling reason to be a realist.” (207). He also objects to absolute creationist views of abstract objects according to which God creates abstract objects. He concludes his book with: “For my part, I find a combinatorial approach to abstract objects to be most plausible. [This combinatorial approach involves combining insights from the various anti-realist views he canvasses.] … Such a combinatorial approach makes good sense of the many insights of the diversity of anti-realisms.” (207) He also repeatedly lampoons realist views of abstracta as ontologically profligate, metaphysically idle, and so on. In light of this, I think it’s safe to say Craig adopts, or at least is most attracted to, an anti-realism about abstracta *simpliciter*. Of course, the distinctive challenge he is *most* worried about comes from *uncreated* abstracta, and created abstracta don’t pose that distinctive worry. So you’re right that he wouldn’t be too worried about created abstract objects. But this is a different issue from whether he himself actually believes in created abstracta! Another crucial point is that I cannot see any reason to accept created abstract objects that wouldn’t also be a reason to accept the problematic kinds of abstract objects that Craig must reject - i.e., mathematical objects, propositions, possible worlds, properties, etc. Such reasons almost always have to do with the ontological commitments of ordinary language, or explaining the apparent objectivity of certain discourses, or indispensability to certain successful theories or inquiries, or worries about whether (e.g.) Beethoven’s symphony would cease to exist if the Earth was destroyed, etc. But all these reasons equally motivate accepting infinitely many necessarily existent abstract objects, and Craig has objected to both the infinity and necessity of abstracta - the former because of Kalam considerations, the latter because of theistic considerations. [And if we think (quite plausibly) that some of these other sorts of abstracta would have to be uncreated - say, because we think properties could not be created without viciously circular dependence - we’d also get the uncreated-ness worry.]

[@jimbob8992]

I honestly get the feeling that if we discovered that there was indeed a cause, and this cause could be described as a God, but this 'God' had zero affiliation with Craig's Christian God, Craig wouldn't be able to expect this fact, because he desperately needs his Christian God, with his preferred set of attributes, and no other God will do.

[@Goat-e3g]

Interia don't have a cause. Does that disprove 1st premise of KALAM

[@aron679]

Craig is only able to say that the Carroll-Chen model has a beginning because he is modifying their model and inserting new a feature that is explicitly rejected by Carroll and Chen - namely, the A-theory of time. Sure, if you throw away their model and replace it with something else that they explicitly reject, then maybe it has a beginning. But then you aren’t engaging with their model. That would be like me taking the Kalam, changing premise 1 to “everything has a cause” and then declaring victory because God doesn’t have a cause.

[@asd35918]

It’s very odd they rely on the opinions of scientists rather than what the scientific method can show us. Scientists’ opinions beyond their results don’t count for much

[@asd35918]

Oh never mind I just got to 1:10:00 😂

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i think pinecreek has the record for response videos, he went on hamzas den and then made a response video on that to which hamza made a response to that to which digital gnosis did a response followed by pinecreek responding to digital gnosis, and so on. repressively.

[@PietCarlos]

I truly wonder how relevant wlc still is. It seems that he is more relevant to content makers than to the public. I might be wrong though.

[@caiomateus4194]

If the universe began in a singular way, then at T0 the universe did not exist (because at T0 matter has "volume 0", which means it does not exist, because matter is by definition extensive, and the universe is by definition material). This is why it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the universe has a timeless phase. A "wave function" (assuming, for charity, that it makes any sense to suppose that such a mathematical artifact exists) would be, at most, the abstract cause of the material universe, which also falls into absurdity. It does not even make sense, in A-theory, for the universe to be "fundamentally timeless". Time is already fundamental, and something temporal has no "atemporal aspects" (and vice versa).

[@zelmoziggy]

Just point out that with respect to premise 1, Craig commits the logical fallacy of proof by example.

[@andrewrebera7987]

Awesome shirt. Alarming to think it's probably from a season before your birth!

[@andrewrebera7987]

Less alarming for you than for me :)

[@caiomateus4194]

Reinterpreting the Hartle-Hawking model so as to eliminate the crazy concept of imaginary time implies the existence of a metastable state (if it is to be a realistic model of the universe. If Aron Wall and others want to argue that the model probably does not preserve such a feature that should be expected, then so much the worse for the model), which cannot be infinite in the past. Therefore, the absence of a singularity does not imply the possibility of an eternal past. "But why would a universe not be eternal without a singularity?" If we know anything about matter, it is that it is unstable. Most people are not skeptical about our ability to know fundamental laws of physics. So, for most people, it will be convincing that the finiteness of metric time implies the finiteness of matter itself. Not only that: confidence in scientific realism implies our ability to make correct predictions regardless of the ontological nature of what we are referring to. Therefore, it matters little whether composite things do not exist (mereological nihilism), or whether fundamental reality is fields instead of particles, or whether time is defined by A-theory or B-theory. Empirically confirmed fundamental laws of physics must imply the same observations, today, yesterday and forever (as in the singularity of the BGV theorem).

[@oliviawilliams6204]

It’s kind of a wonder how Craig ever got his Doctorate in Philosophy while being this sloppy in presenting his arguments.

[@TheOtherCaleb]

Super based as per usual.

[@TouchTheUniverse]

That there was a big bang is the starting point of debate. To go beyond that an invoke that the big bang was not the starting point you are invoking an equally impactful event as a big bang which science holds today, so the impetus is on YOU to justify reaching towards something as significant as a big bang and deeming that not good enough to justify a beginning but reaching beyond it - towards something as equally large. You cede the argument by speculation beyond known playing field of a big bang. Don't do that. Even the notions that causation can exists without time can exists without invoking some epoch pre big bang. Keep the argument in one universe, one big bang or cede the argument imo.

[@linuxisbetter0]

When physicists mention models that don't have an absolutely beginning they always qualify themselves "I'm not saying I believe in any of these..."

[@Petticca]

@2:00:08 Craig is insufferable. Dress it up however.. this proprietary definition of “spaceless” “timeless” “immaterial” from which to spring the absurd “disembodied mind” etc section of ass pulled attributes assigned to his God , is *the* most flagrant multi-level mother of all special pleading, right up there with “great making properties”. It’s downright comical how much effort has been put into arguing the universe into what the argument requires is a “timeless” “spaceless” “immaterial” … non existentence… Just to stand up and pull an “uncaused”, ‘beginningless’ eternally of existence… “spaceless”, “timeless”, “immaterial” “special pleading trait” “more special pleading traits” “this is just absurd now trait” out of his ass. It is actually god damned absurd

[@TremendousSax]

More low bar Bill doing what he does

[@harlowcj]

24:03 Sabine Hossenfelder's youtube channel is where these "ideas people are kicking around" go to die.

[@andresjimenez1724]

@@harlowcj ???

[@jonathanw1106]

Yeah not gonna lie, most all youve raised here are counterarguments to Craigs positions. You feel he is wrong on some topics but thats not the same as misrepresenting. Why dont you have him on so you can smirkingly correct him on his misgivings? Lame

[@danielkirienko1701]

Because he's WILLFULLY presenting part of the story despite having been corrected MANY times.

[@WolfLeib]

@@danielkirienko1701 Disagreeing with the so-called "corrections" is no ground to dishonesty.

[@danielkirienko1701]

​@WolfLeib willfully refusing to learn more and having the knowledge that people who do know more will tell you that you are wrong does qualify as misrepresenting the science. I'd not argue he's committing fraud, like many here, but I would say he is deliberately making statements in bad faith.

[@WolfLeib]

​@@danielkirienko1701 It does not. He was an editor to a 2017 book on the scientific evidence pertaining to the beginning of the universe, in which many physicists contributed. These contributors shared, at least on the scientific part, the same opinion as Craig. They know as much as Linford and Halper, if not more. Craig is passionate and confident, but that is not equivalent to bad faith, even if he was wrong in the end. Even Lawrence Krauss admitted it after a live debate with him.

[@lament22]

shoutout willy lane "pro gęnơcįdę" craig

[@HarryNicNicholas]

crikey, he's still peddling the kalam? how many times do they have to be trounced in debate before they concede?

[@harlowcj]

The skeptic is always on their back foot in these responses, arguing from a place of skepticism rather than positive argument. Don't get me wrong, skepticism is great and necessary and you're doing the world a great service by examining the Kalam, but it's the same sort of approach that young earth creationists (for example) take to examining the available evidence as they withhold their conclusion in hopes that more evidence comes to light that supports their position rather than continue to cast doubt on it. Same problem with the fine tuning argument. There is just not a convincing rebuttal available except for those who are actively looking for any reason at all to doubt what the available empirical evidence suggests. Skepticism gets more and more difficult to justify at a certain point when empirical evidence strongly suggests a particular conclusion to be likely, more likely than 50% at least.

[@shassett79]

This is such a strange perspective. There's simply no parallel to be drawn between one person who doubts theistic claims about the strength of the Kalam and another who rejects the totality of multiple scientific disciplines because they prefer to believe in special creation. I mean, the fine tuning argument doesn't require "a convincing rebuttal" because, much like discourse around the Kalam, it's mostly just an effort to post hoc rationalize one or more gods.

[@harlowcj]

​@@shassett79 Not strange at all. The theist has a ready explanation for why inflation began. What set the spark. What lit the fire to the equations that make up the fine tuning. Then the theist has a ready explanation for why the inflation itself was fine tuned, which is completely separate from the question of what sparked inflation. Why would a universe not only inflate, but inflate in such an interesting manner? The theist has an answer. The theist has a causal explanation for how we got from what we call initial conditions (which are very mysterious in their own way) to this universe that has chemistry and even observer participants. The skeptic has...skepticism and theoretical models, which are NOT science. People get this confused way too often. Then beyond that, the theist has a ready justification for the possibility of knowledge. A ready justification for consciousness and the existence of experience. An explanation for why that which we call matter not only doesn't appear to exist apart from being observed, but presents itself to us as qualities, while matter is by definition that which has no qualia, only measurements. But there is no hard problem of consciousness for the theist or idealist. The theist has a basis for the existence of abstractions, concepts, and logic. The theist has a ready explanation, and even expectation, for the growin science of NDE's. And it goes on and on with evidence that favors the theist, with the skeptic constantly needing to rely on their skepticism more and more. It's like 300 years post enlightenment, with much effort and brain power dedicated to proving how our observable universe can exist apart from a mind, and yet a Mind remains the best and most theoretically plausible explanation for the existence of not only anything at all, but our universe, ESPECIALLY given the discoveries within quantum mechanics and physics the last century.

[@shassett79]

@@harlowcj "The theist has a ready explanation for why inflation began." Rather, I'd say that they _assume_ they have an explanation by way of an ineffable agent who, conveniently, they've granted unlimited explanatory power. If the two of us were out in a field somewhere when an 8-ball fell from the clear sky and onto the ground in front of us, in what sense would you have explained this occurrence by saying it must have been god? "The skeptic has...skepticism and theoretical models, which are NOT science." I don't understand this statement at all. Are you under the impression that skeptics don't base their positions on science? "The theist has a basis for the existence of abstractions, concepts, and logic." Again, the theist merely asserts that they have such a basis, and can provide no compelling explanation for the position that the very existence of logic requires their preferred god. "a Mind remains the best and most theoretically plausible explanation for the existence of not only anything at all, but our universe" It really doesn't, but I guess you could start by demonstrating that nonphysical consciousness is even possible and work up to something grander like an eternal, nonphysical consciousness that can unilaterally manifest and direct material reality.

[@harlowcj]

​​​@@shassett79I do not understand your hypothetical. We know that humans manufacture cue balls and gravity makes things fall. What is your perceived conflict with theism here? What do you think science is, if not empirical observation? Science isn't skepticism and handwaving. Science isn't empirically unverifiable models that nobody can agree on. A theist asserts these things, because a theist HAS an explanation for these things. This seems obvious. I say that a mind is the best and most plausible explanation for the existence of not only anything at all, but our universe. You reply by denying this to be true, and then offering me some vague mythology about consciousness. I do not accept your vague mythology about a disteleologically derived consciousness to be a more plausible explanation for the existence of not just anything at all, but our observable universe than a mind. I also reject your notion that experience can emerge from the theoretical abstraction that we call matter, which is by definition NOT experience by nature, and I have a wealth of scientists including physicists and computer scientists and AI developers who I can point to that argue this for me. Elaborate on why your mythology is better than a mind or bugger off.

[@shassett79]

@@harlowcj "Science isn't skepticism and handwaving." I get the imrpession you're using the word "skepticism" in some idiosyncratic or domain-specific way? Colloquially, skeptics are those inclined to question positions they deem insufficiently supported. Empiricism could reasonably be characterized as a fundamentally skeptical endeavor, so I'm not sure about this hard line you desire to draw between skepticism and science. "A theist asserts these things, because a theist HAS an explanation for these things." To be clear, I don't view "god did it" as a useful explanation for anything, since you can't even tell me what god is or demonstrate that it exists. Claiming to have an explanation and being able to relate that explanation in compelling terms are different things. "Elaborate on why your mythology is better than a mind or bugger off." I wasn't proposing a mythology; I was appealing popular characterizations of the Christian god. Anyway, you're free to assert that minds are the most plausible explanation for whatever you want, but don't expect anyone to care if all you're going to do is assert it.

[@thesuitablecommand]

Kalamity 😭💙

[@linuxisbetter0]

Joe Schmid v WLC on UnBelievable

[@matthieulavagna]

Our team interviewed Villenkin in 2022 and he said that the universe had a begining...

[@MajestyofReason]

@@matthieulavagna Which is precisely what Phil says in the video. Phil explicitly says Vilenkin thinks the universe has a beginning at 1:09:03. So *nowhere* do we say Vilenkin thinks the universe doesn’t have a beginning. The point is that Vilenkin *explicitly* says that *the BGV theorem* doesn’t say the universe has a beginning, only that inflation does [given certain assumptions that are likely false of the universe - see the pinned comment]. It is irrelevant whether the author of the theorem thinks the universe began to exist; what’s at issue is whether the *theorem itself* says this. And it does *not*, as Vilenkin himself explicitly says. So your comment misses the mark. (And, of course, Vilenkin is just one physicist among a sea of disagreeing physicists on this point. Guth, for instance, thinks the universe may not have a beginning. As we explain in the video, there is no consensus among cosmologists about whether the universe began to exist; this is an area of active debate and research, not a settled question. Craig misrepresents the state of science by indicating otherwise.)

[@matthieulavagna]

@@MajestyofReason ok I had not seen the entire video before commenting!

[@detoutetapensey]

Hey, I’ve not yet watched the video, but I was recently having doubts about the Kalam argument itself. Now I think the Kalam can be true. That’s in fact one of the reasons it has attracted much attention. Nevertheless, my doubts were caused by the uncertainty of scientist on the issue. Dr. Bill Craig whom I’m personally a fan of gives the impression that it is a settled issue, whereas scientist don’t agree on that. I’m a theist myself. And my use of the Kalam is not as a prove that God exists, but as a way to show that the theist is not irrational or unreasonable in thinking there is a God.

[@shassett79]

Who is your team? Do you have a mouse your pocket? Does the mouse complain about the content of videos before watching them too?

[@matthieulavagna]

@@shassett79 where did I complain?

[@rodrigorivers2469]

While I understand the need to respond to Dr. Craig, the way you've done it has made me lose a lot of respect for your channel. It's a shame because at one point, I really liked it.

[@MajestyofReason]

@@rodrigorivers2469 what, precisely, did we do in our response that justifies loss of respect? I’m happy to hear constructive feedback and take it into account if the feedback identifies real issues that justify loss of respect. In my estimation, nothing in our video is problematic. We are respectful, avoid insults, say several times “in fairness to Craig…” while noting something favorable to his case, and so on. If you’re referring to the title of the video, it is simply factually correct that he misrepresents the state of science (as well as the consequences of the BGV theorem); and in our video, we extensively document various ways in which he does this. So the title shouldn’t be an issue; it is perfectly accurate. If there are other issues, I’d like to know about them. I don’t think there are, but I could always be mistaken.

[@rodrigorivers2469]

@@MajestyofReason I think you know full well that a title doesn't have to be factually incorrect to be disrespectful. If you ask me, the right way to handle this would have been to invite Dr. Craig and let him defend his point of view live. Instead, you've decided to gang up against him to create a video whose title gives the impression that he is some sort of scam artist-something corroborated by your followers' comments. Would it have been hard, for charity's sake, to use a title like: "William Lane Craig is wrong about the science" or "William Lane Craig misunderstands the science" or "William Lane Craig relies on outdated science"?

[@MajestyofReason]

@@rodrigorivers2469 I don’t get that impression at all; I only get the impression that he inaccurately characterizes science. This is true, and I don’t see anything disrespectful in pointing out that someone has misrepresented science. This is a very common sort of criticism of papers, talks, etc. in philosophy - that a view or state of a field is misrepresented - and at least in philosophy, it is *not* taken to be disrespectful to mount such a criticism. As for “ganging up”, there is nothing wrong with making a video with guests responding to someone else without inviting them on to talk about it, especially when they have their own (much larger) platform to publicly respond if they wish. Not all sides need constant representation in every video; there is a place for focused, in-depth response videos. (We certainly wouldn’t have been able to cover as much ground if this were a discussion.)

[@jeevacation]

​@rodrigorivers2469 Dr Crag has done this with Phil Harper's debunking the Kalam videos, too. But even if you disregard that, if you look at videos like academic papers which are commentaries on published material or certain arguments, you should find it rather odd that they include the other side in their critique as they're making the paper. This is just not that kind of a video. If, instead, you feel as though Joe et al., in the video, have misrepresented what Craig has said, that would be fair. But, you should cut to the chase and present said misrepresentation instead of imploring Joe et al. discuss with Dr. Craig of what you percieve might be misrepresentation.

[@shassett79]

"I don't like your channel any more because the video title is mean." lol Craig is a sophist. He's been told, _over and over again_ about the mistakes that he's making by a host of subject matter experts and he evidently doesn't care. But he's not dumb! Indeed, he's far more intelligent than he'd need to be to understand the criticisms leveled against him and, at this point, it's hard to interpret his mischaracterizations as anything other than deliberate. He's lying about the science on purpose.

[@stevedoetsch]

The second you talk about consensus and science in the same sentence, you are not talking about science, but you are talking instead about an ideological belief, aka, a faith. Science is merely a series of steps to investigate material reality. The belief that material reality constitutes all of reality is not science.

[@shassett79]

That's a curious outlook. I'd offer that consensus as demonstrated by replicability is a key aspect of the scientific process. If you claim to have a room temperature super conductor but nobody can reproduce your work I suppose nobody could stop you from claiming to be doing science, but I wouldn't stay up waiting for the Nobel committee to call.

[@stevedoetsch]

Correct, science must be observable, testable, and reproducible. Consensus is not science; it just means everyone is wrong, but at least they have a good feeling that they're wrong together. 😂

[@shassett79]

@@stevedoetsch I will agree that consensus itself is not science, but it remains an important aspect of science, and so, your opening statement is false. But don't worry-- we don't have to agree.

[@stevedoetsch]

​​​​​​​​@@shassett79We don't have to agree you just need to admit you're an idiologue who is anti-science. As long as you demand consensus, you are fundamentally anti-science at your core. Demanding consensus is precisely the opposite of science. That is why people like you are a danger to science and academia, because you do not allow freedom of thought, but demand consensus even tho history has shown over and over again how dangerous that is and how it in fact never leads to scientific truth at all. A simple example is that evolutionists have demanded consensus and held back the study of epigenetics for decades, yet they have never apologized for the severe harm they have done to the scientific investigation of the genome by calling the metadata in DNA "junk DNA" Ideologue who believe in consensus are not neutral; they utterly destroy science and are a cancer to it.

[@shassett79]

​@@stevedoetsch"Evolutionists"

[@alriktyrving5051]

Majesty of reason is keeping himself busy arguing against christian theists as usual. What’s new.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

as long as frauds like lane craig are feeding BS to people, atheists will be pointing at them and shouting fraud. ask yourself this, why do you need apologists? you need apologists cos if you take the bible at face value - as it is written in black and white - it clearly promotes immorality, slavery and genocide, reading the bible at face value is why people leave religion, craig's sole aim is to cover up that immorality, make excuses for the slavery and genocide and keep you sheep in line. how many people do you think would leave christianity if it weren't for a plethora of apologists dealing with "doubts" and "struggles"? and physicists are only trying to get an understanding of how the universe works, that's why there is a different hypothesis for every cosmologist, if you can figure out how stuff works you can make space ships or kettles or medicines - craig is trying to prove god exists, he is motivated to make ANY fact fit god. he is also under the impression that god is watching him 24 / 7 and one word out of line and he will burn for eternity - he cannot be trusted to tell the truth, it's not possible for him to conceded even ONE POINT to an atheist. his word counts for zip.

[@zerksez9963]

1st

[@robbaggett1127]

Craig sure is getting a lot of attention from others!