William Lane Craig: Why I am a Christian and believe that science points to God

William Lane Craig explains how he became a Christian and why he believes that science points to God.
For more debates, updates and an exclusive video of Sir Roger Penrose talking about his work with Stephen Hawking on Big Bang cosmology sign up at www.thebigconve...
This is an extract of celebrated mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose talking to renowned Christian philosopher William Lane Craig about God and the Universe.
The Big Conversation is a unique video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the Christian and atheist community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human.
Listen to more sparkling conversations every week via the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchri...
The Big Conversation Season 2:
1. Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein: Pt 1 • Alister McGrath & Bret... Pt 2 • Alister McGrath & Bret...
2. Roger Penrose & William Lane Craig: • Sir Roger Penrose & Wi...
The Big Conversation Season 1:
Jordan Peterson & Susan Blackmore • Jordan Peterson vs Sus...
Steven Pinker & Nick Spencer • Steven Pinker vs Nick ...
Derren Brown & Rev Richard Coles • Derren Brown & Rev Ric...
John Lennox & Michael Ruse • Michael Ruse vs John L...
Daniel Dennett & Keith Ward • Daniel Dennett vs Keit...
Peter Singer & Andy Bannister - • Andy Bannister vs Pete...
The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with the Templeton Religion Trust
Videos, updates, exclusive content www.thebigconv...
For weekly debates between Christians and sceptics subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchri...

[@Shulamitefire]

*_1 Corinthians _**_2:14_**_ But the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated._*

[@brethrenjc.3606]

YE YE YE OOOH HALLELUJAH GLORY TO GOD YE YE YE HALLELUJAH!!

[@emailkolar4517]

*_6 days Corinthians 9/11 But the natural, religious man shall not accept or welcome or admit into thou's cranial brain the gifts and chivalry and the enrichments of Science, for they are folly (Useless baloney) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them {of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better accepting with them} because thee are temperamentally indoctrinated, atomized intellectually, and un-acclaimed skeptically._* P.S. The Bible has some of it's grammar tailored towards 4th grade students, so I had to rectify some of it so that presentation-wise it is English.

[@bleirdo_dude]

I was ten asking the big questions. I read the Bible. It was nonsense. Good thing for PBS having BBC docs, Nova, and Cosmos.

[@20july1944]

Asshole: what is your cosmology, as you infer from the BBC and PBS? Do we agree there was a big bang?

[@20july1944]

Asshole: what is your cosmology, as you infer from the BBC and PBS? Do we agree there was a big bang?

[@x-popone6817]

Prepare to burn in hell for all eternity.

[@philosophicaltheist3581]

we want Stephen Meyers debate next season against Richard Dawkins

[@biggregg5]

Dawkins won't waste his time with him.

[@philosophicaltheist3581]

@@biggregg5 well yes i believe it too....he got scared against WLC too

[@20july1944]

Dawkins-Meyers would be good because they're both experts in the same field.

[@Matthew24.4]

Dawkins would get slaughtered by Meyer.

[@les2997]

@@biggregg5 Dawkins is a coward and he is very illogical.

[@sonofkingsolomon7900]

God created science

[@persiancarpet5234]

Even if god existed, that would not be true - how come that an omniscient, perfect god would create this imperfect construct of theories? It is a human creation, one way or another ;)

[@sonofkingsolomon7900]

@@persiancarpet5234 Man was created perfect

[@persiancarpet5234]

@@sonofkingsolomon7900 in what sense?

[@Shulamitefire]

@@persiancarpet5234 Creation was created perfectly by the perfect Creator but people like you and I messed with the environment at many levels in many dimensions. Do you honestly believe that creation is actually accidental or sheer happenstance or that there isn't actually intelligence and intentionality which indeed created creation? You aren't perfect or omniscient, are you? Do you know anyone grand enough who is? ;)

[@persiancarpet5234]

@@Shulamitefire Do mean that creation used to be perfect when we were still cavemen or even before humans existed? If so, why was creation perfect back then? I don't believe anything about how the universe was created because I don't have enough evidence to be very sure about it. I don't know anyone who would be great enough, but if I did I would tell them to help humanity out since it was their creation that shaped humanity into what it is today and has always been - a whole lot of suffering.

[@validcore]

I believe the bible points to God.

[@persiancarpet5234]

I believe the bible is a nice historical, but inaccurate source, nothing else.

[@andrewgraham6953]

I believe the Qur'an points to Allah. But neither proves them.

[@Trwillis9]

@@persiancarpet5234 Your claim is nonsense.. The Bible is clear on the following 1. Origin 2. Purpose 3. Destiny 4. Seperation and reconciliation

[@persiancarpet5234]

@@Trwillis9 I can also write a text that explains its origin from aliens, and that it's purpose is to communicate between aliens and humans, doesn't make it true tho :)

[@brendanl2580]

Haha, finally something both sides can agree on lol.

[@lawrenceeason8007]

If this is all gods design, and if that design gave mankind all the tools for bad behavior, then blame the manufacturer. It is bad enough that a god would create people knowing that because his design would result in unspeakable pain and suffering...even for children and infants...and then to tack on eternal suffering as punishment for your design is just cruel. It doesn't make any sense, as so much of the bible doesn't.

[@20july1944]

Strange to see you commenting here every day, since you've transcended belief in God.

[@aratiger6796]

William lane craig, he's a highest philosopher in the world, God bless him.

[@biggregg5]

Lol...no

[@20july1944]

@@carnap355 If they're real philosophers they should know the field enough to be aware of WLC

[@biggregg5]

@@20july1944 Most Christians don't know him.

[@20july1944]

@@biggregg5 Most Christians aren't philosophers.

[@20july1944]

@@carnap355 Theology is an aspect of philosophy. I don't like philosophy, I don't know the field.

[@singwithpowerinfo5815]

It’s funny that we see what we want to see I guess. Craig’s observations which lead him to believe in a god are exactly the observations that demonstrate for me just the opposite.

[@Grandmaster_Dragonborn]

Do you want, or not want to believe in God?

[@singwithpowerinfo5815]

@@Grandmaster_Dragonborn I have no desire for there to be a god or for there to not be a god. My desire is to know what is true, then live accordingly. My not wanting there to be a god won’t change whether or not there is one, and the opposite is true as well. My wanting there to be a god doesn’t make a god become a reality. It would be self delusion to “want” either one. Seek truth, not wishful thinking. I was a committed Christian for over 40 years. Over time I came to see that I was only “wanting” there to be a god, but I never had any real sense that there actually was a god. As I looked deep within myself, and I examined evidence presented for the existence of a god. I remained unconvinced of the existence of such a deity. Could that belief change? I suppose. If I found the belief in a god’s existence more plausible or convincing, my beliefs would naturally shift. As I said, I have no more hope or desire for there to be a god than I have for there to be no god. I don’t have a dog in the fight.

[@JOAKINGtube]

so, the god of the gaps?

[@ohiobuckeye5828]

@Joaquin Can you elaborate on why gaps in your understanding should be adopted by Christians? It would seem that you are attempting to foist your presuppositions onto Christians.

[@JOAKINGtube]

​@@ohiobuckeye5828 Not really, I was commenting on William's sentiment that since the universe had a beginning this validates the existence of (the theist or Christian) God. Many Christians around the world don't necessarily require any other argument than faith to justify their worldview.

[@ramigilneas9274]

@Nicholas Kayban Exactly… you are reaching theological conclusions, aka conclusions with no basis in reality. Unverifiable and unfalsifiable philosophical arguments aren’t evidence for anything… but since this is the only "evidence“ you got you obviously have to overstate how good it is.😂 And just because it’s in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology doesn’t mean that it’s a good argument or that it hasn’t been thoroughly refuted.

[@Trigger-xw9gq]

Is it not grotesque when the representatives of an antiquated myth-sorcery, who believes in trinity, angles, devils, hell, virgin-birth, bodily ascension, making of water into wine, wine to blood, - when they want to impress us with their "science"? " (Karlheinz Deschner)

[@daithiocinnsealach1982]

He believes it by faith. He believes that to doubt is from Sstsn. And that he hears voices in his head that he claims of God. It is these voices he accepts as truer than anything else out there. So that his entire ministry is a sham. All you need is to blindly believe that Jesus is Lord and never ever doubt it.

[@acemxe8472]

Blindly? Jesus used miracles to show that he is the Son of God.

[@jaymiddleton1782]

The KCA is debunked. That’s why the other guy laughs in WLCs face when he says the idea of a singularity supports it.

[@DBCisco]

It was debunked centuries ago because it an invalid Logical Argument. ANY logical argument that does not begin with IF is invalid. A valid KCA which even atheist "philosophers" hate: IF whatever begins to exist has a cause; AND IF the universe began to exist; THEN the universe has a cause.

[@20july1944]

What is your explanation for our universe?

[@20july1944]

@@DBCisco What is your explanation of our universe?

[@DBCisco]

@@20july1944 I see no need to make up lies to explain the unknown. Why do you ?

[@20july1944]

@@DBCisco So you have literally no explanation of our universe?

[@MrFossil367ab45gfyth]

I like to ponder the BIG questions in philosophy. But I don't believe science leads to God. Science is neither for nor against the existence of God. You can't use science to prove nor disprove the existence of God.

[@askandwonder18]

Even if the Kalam Cosmological Argument were to fail to explain the cosmogony of our Universe, in the big picture, the only thing that every scientist exploring reality is doing is to DESCRIBE something that is already there, at most, science discovers something that is ALREADY THERE. To top that off, the only known way to do this, is to be a rational being able to recognize mathematical patterns in the structure of the Universe, that are ALREADY THERE. The God question becomes more and more and more alive the more we discover and describe what is already there. It is an inescapable question. Science is an amazing tool to DESCRIBE, but not to CREATE. Inside the universe, creating something at a human level is not truly creating, but using what is already given in CREATIVE ways. The God question is alive and stronger than ever thanks to science. Both science and faith come out of the same human heart.

[@trybunt]

You are absolutely correct, science is simply trying to understand the universe we live in. But nobody is claiming that science created the universe. The god question is an interesting one, but I've spent enough time in my life worrying about the supernatural. I just try and live my life as best I can, i try and have a positive influence on as many people as possible throughout my life, spreading happiness, health and safety to every I possibly can. I don't care what people believe unless their beliefs hurt other people, such as Christians imposing a death penalty for being gay in Uganda. That's when I say enough is enough with this craziness, please think rationally and spread love, not hate.

[@20july1944]

@@trybunt Are you here to "spread love," Ben?

[@trybunt]

@@20july1944 hopefully I'll spread a little understanding, and the byproduct of that will be less hate. So, in a way, yes. I honestly try to approach every interaction I have the same way. I don't think that people naturally hate each other, I think that most hatred comes from not understanding each other.

[@trybunt]

@@20july1944 at the end of the day, I do make plenty of mistakes, I get angry and frustrated, just like anybody else, but that is honestly my goal in life, about anything else, to be a good influence on as many people as possible, spreading happiness healthiness, and safety. I hope that the little bit of good I can do will influence someone else to do a little more good. We can all make a little bit of difference in the world this way.

[@20july1944]

@@trybunt God is the Brute Fact in my cosmology. Do you have a brute fact in your cosmology?

[@publiusovidius7386]

lol. Saying "god did it" is weak tea. Mythology--whether Christian, ancient Greek, or Hindu,--doesn't answer big existential questions any more than a Mickey Mouse cartoon does. Craig feels there ought to be a god and that makes him feel better about his life. That's not answering any questions.

[@20july1944]

PO: Do you think there was a big bang?

[@persiancarpet5234]

Maybe a kind of harsh allegation but true for many believers

[@JC-yb3zb]

@@20july1944 You didn't ask me, but my answer is "I don't know" -- a valid and honest answer, as opposed to "God did it."

[@20july1944]

@@JC-yb3zb So you "don't know" if there was a big bang? What IS your model of the origin of our universe?

[@JC-yb3zb]

@@20july1944 Correct. No one knows for certain; however, the idea for a big bang is based on empirical observation. I'm not convinced that really happened, but I'm much, much less convinced that a supernatural being created the universe.

[@arthdenton]

"I believe that science points to God" - and the key word here is 'believe'. On the other hand, I no longer believe in Santi Claus even though Santi Claus clearly and constantly points to God.

[@20july1944]

Arth: Are you interested in discussing God's existence using only science and logic (no reference to the Bible)?

[@kronos01ful]

What do you believe,and what's the evidence that is true ?

[@goldenalt3166]

@@20july1944 You mean god of gaps. You have never said a single positive thing about god.

[@arthdenton]

@@20july1944 What's so special about the Bible?

[@20july1944]

@@arthdenton There's nothing special about the Bible, I want to discuss the evidence of a Creator God using science and logic, if you're interested.

[@treasurecave431]

I wish unbelievable would put roger penrose and hugh ross in a debate...

[@philosophicaltheist3581]

Penrose agreed to this debate very difficulty....he is 88 he had someone with him to reach the studio....his eyesight is weak probably can't see him in another one...this debate was a treat

[@20july1944]

You're right that Penrose-Ross would be the ideal debate.

[@plasticvision6355]

20july1944 Ross would lose.

[@20july1944]

@@plasticvision6355 No, Ross would win -- but partly because he's a physicist/cosmologist and Penrose is a mathematician. Has energy always existed, or have you changed your mind on that?

[@plasticvision6355]

20july1944 I wouldn't be so certain. Physics and cosmology are all underpinned by math.

[@20july1944]

It couldn't be clearer -- science points to God on at least four main bases.

[@biggregg5]

Zero

[@biggregg5]

Confirmation bias

[@plasticvision6355]

20july1944 It could be be clearer? Really? It seems to me that this is only true if your are not being intellectually honest...

[@20july1944]

@@biggregg5 What has always existed, Big?

[@20july1944]

@@plasticvision6355 Has energy always existed?

[@MikeJunior94]

Coming from the guy who literally said that even if ALL the evidence was against his position, he would still believe because of the Holy Spirit. That should tell somebody enough. WLC is EXTREMELY biased.

[@20july1944]

Would you like to discuss God's existence using only science and logic? I'd like that, Mike!

[@MikeJunior94]

@@20july1944 Hmm sure, but it would be impossible to argue for a theistic deity with only science and logic. Would you like to argue for a deistic or theistic God?

[@20july1944]

@@MikeJunior94 Sure you can argue for a theistic God with only science and logic, but let's do the deistic God first. Do you think there was a big bang?

[@MikeJunior94]

@@20july1944 I think spacetime can "almost" be traced and calculated back to a single point in spacetime, yes.

[@onestepaway3232]

BecomingMike that is what the Bible says in the first verse.

[@Shf623]

Good to see willam craig admiting that he believes in god by wishful thinking.

[@Master-vc6hv]

You're a muppet Good luck with the destiny of your eternal soul. ...then again, luck won't help on the day of judgment when you're resurrected

[@greggphelps7643]

Turn the ovens on

[@brendanl2580]

To paraphrase : 'Certain parts of astrophysics don't contradict theology (as long as you don't use the theology of the Bible). Therefore God exists.' And this is their BEST argument in favor of God...

[@Tobi_237]

You’re mistaken, for a theist and especially a Christian at that, we don’t need arguments to convince us that God exists, one truly becomes a Christian through a spiritual encounter. However, to reconcile Christian theology with the world around us, the cosmological argument is only one of the many arguments FOR the existence of God. And I must add that many of these arguments have never been successfully refuted by the atheist when it comes to debating the true worldview that best explains holistically not just HOW, but rather WHY the universe and its complex properties even exists and WHO set the wheels of our existence in motion?

[@brendanl2580]

@@Tobi_237 I agree with you that Christians don't 'need arguments to be convinced God exists'. If that were the case it would be the death of religion. The mere fact that you have to 'reconcile Christian theology with the world around us' should be a huge red flag. If God created the universe, and the Bible is the word of God, then the two should be at least somewhat consistent. They are not. Not even remotely close. Saying that (in your opinion) the universe needs a creator, and that that creator must be God, therefore God exists... isn't scientific at all. It's your opinion. To say that 'atheists can't refute it' is laughable, because again, it's your opinion. How would one refute that? If you claim God created the universe then onus of proof is on you to back up your claim, not on science to refute it.

[@Tobi_237]

@@brendanl2580 Nice try, you conflate atheism with science and you conflate a metaphysical argument for the existence of God with mere opinion. The Bible, which is the source of Christian theology and the general Christian worldview, isn’t a science book, hence why we reconcile the world around us with our worldview. You assume science “debunks” Christianity, but nothing could be further from the truth, the Christian worldview isn’t incompatible with the natural world at all, as even the Bible itself has declared for thousands of years that the cosmos and all of nature itself is God’s handiwork. You might wanna look up history, as the belief in a Creator that ordered the universe is what kickstarted the scientific revolution. There’s zero conflict between science and faith.

[@Tobi_237]

@@brendanl2580 Oh and I’m not claiming I have some scientific proof for God, I’m saying there are good arguments FOR the existence of God, and atheistic attempts to refute those arguments have been insubstantial to say the least. Science isn’t the right tool for proving the existence of God, as the scientific method is used to deduce the observable natural and physical world around us, whereas God, by His very metaphysical nature and essence, is immaterial.

[@brendanl2580]

@@Tobi_237 you brought up atheism, not me. And yes, maybe I do conflate metaphorical argument for God and opinion since neither are backed up by science (and are essentially the same). You're right, the Bible isn't a science book. But, if it was written by the creator of the universe you'd think it would be, or at the very least consistent with science. For example the geneology in the Bible shows about 2000 years passed between creation and the life of Abraham. Considering that all the evidence shows the universe to be billions of years old the Bible is comically inaccurate. And don't get me started on the flood lol. Why would such errors exist in the Bible? Because it was made up by people trying to answer questions they couldn't. Again, just because your opinion is that the universe requires a creator that doesn't make it fact. Why does it?

[@guuugyytty271]

William lane looks lije🐎🦄

[@Shulamitefire]

Known for breakthroughs in computing, David Gelernter of Yale University has been hailed as “one of the most brilliant and visionary computer scientists of our time.” Gelernter - Wiki CommonsNow Gelernter has stunned the world by renouncing his belief in Darwinism. "Like so many others, I grew up with Darwin’s theory, and had always believed it was true,” he wrote earlier this year. No longer. “The origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain.” The aftershocks of Gelernter’s announcement continue to come fast and furious. A video featuring Gelernter has attracted nearly a million views on KZbin. His apostasy has been written about by journalists in Canada, Britain, and Asia. Prof. Gelernter directly attributes his loss of faith in Darwin to reading books by Discovery Institute Senior Fellows Stephen Meyer, David Berlinski, and David Klinghoffer. His change of mind is a testament to the power of the work being done by Center for Science and Culture scientists and scholars. And, it is a testament to the many who support Discovery Institute.

[@20july1944]

He is a brave as well as brilliant man.

[@jaymiddleton1782]

20july1944 anyone who doesn’t understand/denies evolution, is a moron.

[@20july1944]

@@jaymiddleton1782 You should read Dr. Gelernter's critique of evolution. Do you think there was a "big bang"?

[@jaymiddleton1782]

20july1944 why bother with Gelernter when you could read Stephen Meyer’s “Darwin’s Doubt” which Gelernter doesn’t develop on much at all. Either way, it’s all just theological nonsense from religious conservatives. There’s no evidence, no facts, nothing to contradict evolution. Which is a fact. It has nothing to do with the Big Bang.

[@20july1944]

@@jaymiddleton1782 Gelernter is an atheist Jew with a PhD in some hard science. His argument against evolution has NOTHING to do with theology. I'm interested in discussing cosmology with an atheist like you, assuming you know something about the field. That's why I asked if you think there is a big bang.

[@idesel]

I never related to the question of what is the meaning of life or the universe leading to an existential crisis in my own head. My purpose is internal, it's related to my likes, dislikes and in general how I am as a person. I don't need the universe to have a purpose. I'm already here, so I need to survive, have a life that is worth living, in other words minimize pain for myself and others, both physically and emotionally. A bird has no worries about some grand purpose and so am I. I enjoy the sciences, astronomy, phylosophy, outdoors, beauty, etc without thinking "we all doomed without something like a God" ever crossing my mind. The only things that I can't wrap my mind around is existence of something instead of nothing, and being self aware i.e consciousness. I don't need a believe in a god to explain or make sense of anything,

[@HarryNicNicholas]

poor guy, there is no meaning to his existence, well, get ye off to heaven then, if you're so sure gods on your side. if you're so concerned about ceasing to exist stop wasting your life peddling lies and do something for society, apart from knitting up your eyebrows like you care. as penrose is an honest man, and obviously has a more realistic view of how the universe works, it's shame you edited him out, almost like you didn't want me to hear what he had to say about WLC BS. i take it back, nice little taster for the actual video, i hope believers watch the whole thing, i like penrose attitude, "maybe there is a god but i don't see what use that is" if you think science and reason is cold, the atoms in your body have travelled billions of years and billions of miles and find themselves in you, they existed since the beginning of time and science says they probably went through at least three supernovae to get to fly around the sun and then coalesce into the planet, and then make you. and when you die those atoms merge back into the eco system, float around again for billions of years, pass through more super novae and either they dissipate and then go to make up bits of millions of aliens, or by chance get together (in the infinity of time) and you actually do get born again, and if nothing else they will be flying around the universe until the end of time. who needs god.

[@MilesDavisKDAB]

Still arguing Kalam? Premise 1 cannot be confirmed Premise 2 cannot be confirmed therefor the whole argument just fails before it starts.

[@20july1944]

Miles: what would you say has always existed? Anything?

[@MilesDavisKDAB]

@@20july1944 I would challenge the concept of always. Can something exist before time begins?

[@20july1944]

@@MilesDavisKDAB OK, you believe that time *_began_* in the past? That's one approach -- is that really what you think?

[@MilesDavisKDAB]

@@20july1944 I don't know. Do you know? Of course you don't. Is it possible that time "began"? Perhaps but it is nonsensical to talk of time beginning because there was no "before".

[@20july1944]

@@MilesDavisKDAB Either time has always existed OR it began a finite distance is the past. Here's another possible approach: do you think there is anything that is infinitely old?

[@jamesgossweiler1349]

My greatest joy is to obey and serve the Lord. I embrace Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. Whether or not the Lord can be proven with a Gilbert Chemistry set or not is irrelevant to me.

[@MikeJunior94]

Taking pride in being a mental slave is not virtuous.

[@persiancarpet5234]

@@MikeJunior94 but enjoyable, at least if you're not living as a peasant in the middle ages - or as an ISIS member during the bombings of the disbelievers...

[@rodbrewster4629]

Unfortunately most God fearers aren't satisfied with keeping to themselves. They try to force others to live by their rules. So once brought into the public arena ""cuz it makes me feel good" is not an adiquate argument.

[@20july1944]

@@rodbrewster4629 Do you know there is no God, or you simply don't think there is?

[@rodbrewster4629]

@@20july1944 I see no good evidence for a theistic god or a deistic god for that matter. And if the Bible is the inspired word of god he should of found better writers.

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

I believe that science points to Zorg. So how do we work out who's correct?

[@G8rfan61]

I doubt anyone will take you up on that challenge. It serves to prove a point that few will even examine their convictions. Peace.

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

@@G8rfan61 They don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter what they believe science points to. Because it's still just "their" belief. Anybody could believe science points to all sorts of things, but who cares? You have to show that the thing actually exists first before you start talking about whether science points to it or not. Why can't everyone see that it points to Zorg!! It's so obvious To "me"

[@gmacdonald87]

"I believe that science points to Zorg." Now let's try to be clear in what Dr. Craig is trying point out. He's saying that the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological argument is supported by the scientific evidence for the standard model of the big bang. In this sense, he would say that science points to God: a certain model is the best model for interpreting the cosmological data regarding the big bang and that this model supports the second premise of an argument that leads to the conclusion that the universe has a cause. With that made a bit more clear, it would seem as if you are stating that the conclusion of the argument doesn't point to God or that the conclusion of the argument is too vague to pick out a certain deity? Is that right? If the former is the case, let's remember that there are two parts to the kalam argument. The second part of it analyzes the nature of the cause. The result of the analysis is that we are left with a god-concept: a very powerful mind endowed with freedom of the will. One might say that this is still too vague to pick out which deity is responsible for the cause of the origin of the universe. I would agree with that, no doubt. However, Dr. Craig's case for Christian theism includes an argument for the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. If God raised Jesus from the dead, then it would seem as if he has vindicated Jesus' radical personal claims for which he was crucified. This would pick out Christian theism as true, and thus the God that is responsible for the cause of the origin of the universe would be the God that raised Jesus from the dead. What do you think about that? Also, do I have you objection correct?

[@G8rfan61]

@@gmacdonald87 The fallacy of the first premise is that it has not been established. You have to first demonstrate that something can, in fact, *_begin to exist._* No phenomenon (entity, process, substance, event, object, being) has ever been demonstrated to have a beginning. If it were true you would be able to designate and measure the exact beginning of the phenomenon. In other words the phenomenon, if it had an actual beginning, would have to transition from non-existence to existence instantly (independent of time). This is not what we observe in our natural world. Any phenomenon, witnessed and agreed by all observers as to being present at a given moment, would also agree to have been present the instant before. No observable event just pops into existence instantly. ALL observable phenomena *_emerge._* And they do so in a process of transition from necessary and sufficient antecedents *_over some amount of time,_* no matter how brief that transition. Ask yourself, have you ever seen any entity appear INSTANTLY? A piano for instance. If 1000 observers watched the same video of a piano being produced and were asked to designate the instant when the piano began to exist, they would mark 1000 different times on an accurate millisecond stopwatch. And let's say we averaged those times to get a consensus such as 2:17:53, and then you stopped the video one second before that time and showed the still frame from the video to another 1000 observers, they would all recognize the object to be a piano. The piano never began instantly, it emerged. Another problem with the concept of beginning is ambiguity. When does the piano begin? When the decision to make it enters the producers mind? When the first piece of wood is stripped form the bark? When the frame of piano is recognizable? When the strings are installed? When the last coat of lacquer is applied? When the piano is tuned for first time? When it is delivered to destination? When the first person sits at the stool? When the first note is played? Do you see the problem with beginning? So a proper first premise would state. "Whatever has emerged into existence has at least one cause." This is a sound premise for it can be established to be true. The fallacy of the second premise is the unsubstantiated assertion that the universe "began to exist". This premise must be established to be true. The Big Bang Theory is a mathematical model developed from two known and established facts. The first fact is 1964 Bell Lab recording of Cosmic Microwave Background that reveals an evenly spread 'residue' of radiation throughout our universe caused by entropic factors congruent to and explained by Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics. This entropy proves that the universe had a greater singularity and complexity in its past than it has presently. The second fact is Huble's 1925 discovery of red shift dopler effect occurring when observing other galaxies. This red shift proves that our universe is currently expanding and at an accelerated rate. Additionally, the farther away galactic bodies are from us (or any point of reference) the faster the rate of acceleration of this expansion (Hubble's Law) These two facts are *_direct_* evidence that the universe is 1) presently expanding at an accelerated rate, and 2) that the universe had more singularity (and thus, less differentiabililty) in the past. Then there is the *_implied or theoretical_* evidence based on these two discoveries and first proposed by Georges Lemaitre in 1927. He theorized that if a universe were currently expanding it could be reasoned that by extrapolating backward ('rewinding the cosmic clock') using established laws of physics, you could predict the time when the universe came to a singularity. The mathematical model states, logically, that if the universe is current expanding now that it must have been more compact the further you go back in time. At some point the classic Newtonian laws of physics breaks down at an unobserved point that is assumed to be a singularity of unfathomably dense energy. It is important to understand that this is a mathematically inferred hypothesis and *_not_* an actual observation. There is *_no demonstrable evidence_* that the universe began at this point. Nor does this Theory claim such. Only that a unfathomably rapid expansion is theorized to have occurred at this point known as the inflationary epoch. Nor is there any evidence that our universe was created from nothing. At the moment of rapid inflation, there was still the same amount of energy we have today. There just was no matter. Alan Guth, a theoretic physicist and cosmologist and one of the pioneers of cosmic inflation, postulates there were likely equal amounts of energy and dark energy for some zero effects but the same potential energy none the less. "While we can understand how the universe we see came to be, it's possible that the Big Bang was not the first inflationary period the universe experienced. I have recently come in favor to believe we live in a cosmos that goes through regular cycles of inflation and deflation, and that we just happen to be living in one of these phases." Alan Guth, PhD, Professor Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "Extremely Big Eyes on the Early Universe", Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics Symposium, 25 Mar 2019, Kashiwa, Japan. There is no reasonable justification to claim the universe began at the Big Bang, or that it was created by an ubsubstiated mythological deity. If the first two premises cannot be demonstrated to be true, then the whole syllogism cannot be considered sound. Though the syllogism *may* be valid (if the conclusion deduced is the only deduction), the premises must all be true for the argument to be sound. In my opinion, the Cosmological Argument is a disaster and a joke. WLC's disingenuous atttempt to include the resurrection myth into his alteration of the KCA is pathetic in my opinion. He is only attempting to plug up the holes in the original argument due to the criticism he has received over the years. This time it was the repeated criticism that the Abrahamic god isn't even mentioned either in the premises or conclusion of the argument, yet he insisted that it was "proof" of the Christian god creating the universe. He does this often. WLC is a master of plugging up holes in his arguments with pseudo science, mininterpretations of scientific Theories, and building straw man arguments. And because he understands all too well the power of confirmation bias, he knows he can pull the wool over the eyes of his only "paying" audience - gullible Christians. His arguments are *_not_* geared toward atheists as he would have you to believe, but toward those that will purchase his books, videos, and guest appearances. There will always be a multitude of those derelict in reason, rationality and skeptism that will open their wallets.

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

@@gmacdonald87 Who decides that the creator of the universe has to be someone that was resurrected?

[@persiancarpet5234]

Why does it bother humans so much to have no obvious purpose in the universe? Why trying to collect pieces of evidence to stitch them together to a relatively weak argument? And all of this while being confirmation biased because of the existential threat of not having purpose?

[@20july1944]

Would you like to know whether God exists or not?

[@persiancarpet5234]

@@20july1944 I don't want to have a false positive

[@20july1944]

@@persiancarpet5234 A false negative would be worse. What is the rational response to a potential threat, like God's anger?

[@persiancarpet5234]

@@20july1944 well the answer to that would be believing in god and doing everything he wants to avoid his punishment. But I don't want to believe in a god, just because I'm threatened (by the way, why would he do that while he is the loving father?) Also, what about other religion's gods that claim to be the only gods? Shouldn't we be afraid of them too and believe in all of them?

[@20july1944]

@@persiancarpet5234 I wouldn't say God is a Loving Father. Would a loving father punish his children or would he allow them to harm each other or do stupid things that could burn the house down?

[@plzenjoygameosu2349]

Lmao this comment section is hopeless. The atheists down here are misunderstanding everything Bill is saying. (Definition of faith, definition of apologetics and hominem attacks etc) This is ridiculous.

[@trybunt]

Well, I don't agree with people doing that, but maybe now you will understand how we feel when we are completely misrepresented, misunderstood and receiving ad hominem attacks. The amount of time I've been told i am wrong about what atheists believe, even though i am an atheist, is, as you said, ridiculous. So I feel your pain. In our defense, the sensible atheist comments aren't addressed, so they get buried by the rude ones that are responded to.

[@jaymiddleton1782]

Plz Enjoy Game osu what about the majority of atheists who aren’t misunderstanding what he’s saying but just disagree with it on rational grounds?

[@trybunt]

@@jaymiddleton1782 easy, they get ignored. It's easier to argue those strawmen atheists that don't understand anything. Probably the same ones that say that God doesn't exist, the universe came from nothing, and we evolved from rocks by chance alone.

[@persiancarpet5234]

Would have been nice if an actual argument had been presented. What does the singularity have to do with the christian god?

[@persiancarpet5234]

@Truth Matters in how far does that point to a god, or more specifically, the Christian god?

[@20july1944]

@@persiancarpet5234 Do you think there was a big bang?

[@persiancarpet5234]

@@20july1944 as far as we humans know, it's likely that there was, yes

[@20july1944]

@@persiancarpet5234 Agreed. I think there was a big bang as well. Do you think that matter and energy began with the big bang, or they already existed?

[@persiancarpet5234]

@@20july1944 I have no idea about it, and I think at this point nobody is able to give an answer to that

[@kimhorton9836]

I would rather shove bamboo shoots down my nails than debate this guy.

[@G8rfan61]

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as the practice of suspending the acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._* And here is the evidence as to why I currently take such a position. 1. I personally have never observed a god. 2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god. 3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 4. I have have never been presented a valid logical argument which employed rationally sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that gods exist. 5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises. 6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 7. Dozens of proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 8. I have never experienced the presence of gods through intercession of angels, revelation, fulfillment of prophecy, the miraculous act of divinity, or any observation of a supernatural event. 9. Every phenomena that I have ever observed has emerged from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance or being) that was created instantly by the solitary volition of a deity. 10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable. ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is, *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of gods. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Skepticism (atheism) is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. It is natural, rational and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones. I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

[@20july1944]

You said "Every phenomena that I have ever observed has emerged from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception." Fair enough. What is the first thing that ever existed, in your cosmology?

[@jaymiddleton1782]

20july1944 is that another question? You’re a moron, friend.

[@G8rfan61]

@@20july1944 I do not know.

[@20july1944]

@@jaymiddleton1782 I always ask questions. How about we ask each other questions back and forth, and answer them?

[@20july1944]

@@G8rfan61 Please think about it -- what COULD have always existed that had any causative power? You can always say you "don't know", but if you "don't know" anything relevant to God's existence, your opinion has no weight.

[@MrSeadawg123]

So I am going to have to react the way Penrose did. And laugh at Billy! He has taken science twisted it and perched it to his own end! What a pathetic person Billy is!

[@20july1944]

Allan: I'd love to discuss God's existence using science and logic. Are you interested?

[@20july1944]

Allan: I'll wipe the floor with you in a discussion of cosmology and the question of God's existence.

[@MrSeadawg123]

@@20july1944 lol, now I know you truly are a brainwashed religious person. Because you believe in Miracles! Give it your best shot big boy! If you have to resort to philosophy to prove the existence of a God! You have already lost the argument. Think about it! Now I am in and out all day. But will respond as time permits. But, real quick. Do you believe in the literal story of Noah. Or see it as a story?

[@20july1944]

@@MrSeadawg123 I didn't offer to discuss the Bible, and I'm not defending the Bible or asking you to infer there is a Creator God from the Bible. No, I don't think the Noah story is very literal at all, I definitely don't think there was a global flood. *_What is the FIRST thing that you are confident existed?_*

[@MrSeadawg123]

@@20july1944 unfortunately all I can do is qoute science. Which, I do have confidence in, and that the answers from science will change. With new information. The evidence of the tiny particle that the universe expanded from. Is a very well researched and agreed upon theory. With no creator needed as Penrose states. No God is needed. Why should I go against the consensus of science? Certainly not because of Billy's BS and his logic. So what am I missing? I am still on vacation. So only have limited time for replies. But you probably can't beat Billy's insanity. But if you can. I'm up for it.

[@khreanos]

As it has always been taught, we never know the reasons behind things. And science just points to the processes what's explain things. We don't have the mind of God, and we are learning that language. It doesn't have to be a boiled down for the masses interpretation of some old text. That is the fallacy of all current religion.

[@kronos01ful]

Fallacy ? What is the fallacy to believe in the God of the bible as creator?

[@goldenalt3166]

@@kronos01ful Yes, it's circular reasoning to assume the bible is true because it says so. If reality proves god, the bible is unnecessary.

[@khreanos]

The fallacy is to believe in words that don't mean the same today as they did then. The language is an evolving thing. If you can't look at yourself and see fallacies then you have no retrospective thought. So enjoy the ostrich party. Burying your head in the sand.

[@kronos01ful]

@@goldenalt3166 that is not what the bible claim , maybe you heard that from your mom . The bible is a remarkable book give an account of the reason and porpoise for the beginning of life. It give you a moral frame work to make sense of reality and were you will go after death. The bible constantly warns to not believe just because it says so. It encourages you to challenge what you believe by putting it to the test and if it holds truth then put your faith on it, rational faith not blind faith like atheist believe. If there's no God reality will not make sense this is why science can't provide moral compass as to how live a ethical life .only God can, and it was proven at the cross. God dying for the rebellion of hes creature what greater evidence that God is real and by denying that you denied living in reality.

[@kronos01ful]

@@khreanos christ is call the Logos, God never change .a truth never change no matter language

[@johncart07]

Understanding natural processes doesn't explain "why" natural processes exist. Either you believe all of reality can produce itself with no cause, or you believe there is an intelligence cause.

[@oscaroscar914]

...and therefore you believe that this "intelligence cause" has no cause itself, which should be as troublesome as beliving that the other natural events have no cause.

[@johncart07]

@@oscaroscar914 But natural events are contingent.

[@oscaroscar914]

@@johncart07 can you elaborate on that?

[@20july1944]

@@oscaroscar914 What do you think is NOT contingent? Anything?

[@oscaroscar914]

@@20july1944 not sure what your point is... but here we go: I would say gravity is not contingent

[@nargacuga4597]

I believe in sky daddy because I want him to save me from the scary hellfire that awaits me in the afterlife. As long as I believe, I will be saved even if it means dismissing logic, rationality and morality along the way cause he is the only one that matters in the end. Checkmate athiest. We win in the end and we've got nothin' to lose. Basically summarizes the christian worldview.

[@20july1944]

Narga: Would you be interested in discussing God's existence using only science and logic -- I'd like that.

[@nargacuga4597]

@@20july1944 your point is?

[@jamesgossweiler1349]

Narga. People end up going where they want to go...heaven or hell.

[@nargacuga4597]

@@jamesgossweiler1349 you think people want to go to hell?

[@20july1944]

@@nargacuga4597 Do you think there was a big bang?

[@GeoffreyHowells]

Who needs the Bible or attend church? We have science?

[@20july1944]

Geoff: Are you interested in discussing God's existence using only science and logic (no reference to the Bible)?

[@jamesgossweiler1349]

The life answers I need are in Scripture, not Scientific American magazine.

[@oscaroscar914]

I would say that the answer to your question lays on the complexity of the explanations each of them provide.

[@timothykamei7194]

Scientific enquiry is a gift to mankind from Christian thinkers. Consider who were the people who started scientific research in 16th century. They did as a way of worship to the Creator. Look at the religion of other continent and see why science was born in Europe (a Christian continent).??

[@Shulamitefire]

So, you would profess publicly that your religiosity and righteousness is scientism, that you willfully and wantonly worship at none other than the altar of science, that your grand gods glorified include Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss?

[@coolmuso6108]

Craig wrote his dissertation on the Kalam and it was published in 1979. It's the most discussed argument for God's existence in the contemporary philosophy of religion literature and still completely defensible, and yet, atheists have the audacity to go around pretending that it's been 'debunked'...

[@jaymiddleton1782]

cool muso it *is* debunked. 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause 2. The universe began to exist 3. The universe has a cause If the first two premises are true, the conclusion is necessarily true, right? Wrong. Premise 1 isn’t necessarily true. We don’t know what “begins to exist” means, sounds very unscientific. And we don’t know that everything that “begins to exist” has a cause, either. It’s something maybe we could assume, but not something we know. 2. We don’t know if premise 2 is true or not, put simply. So if we don’t know if our premises are true, we don’t know if the conclusion is true. But here is the reason why the KCA is debunked - it’s conclusion is fallacious. If everything that exists within the universe has a cause, that doesn’t mean the universe itself has a cause. That would be like saying every fish in a school of fish has a mother, therefore the school of fish itself has a mother. It’s not “atheists” who say the KCA is debunked. Theists also acknowledge that it’s debunked. It’s only intellectually dishonest conmen like WLC who have a lot of money riding on it that pretend it’s a good argument.

[@fogboquiz5700]

@@jaymiddleton1782I note the known scientific evidence agrees with premise 1 & 2 so the evidence supports the conclusion. It is no reason to throw the KCA out. I would be interested to know which Christian philosophers acknowledge the argument is debunked, if you have the time.

[@jaymiddleton1782]

FogBo QuiZ no, the “evidence” does not agree with premise 1 or 2. And like I said, the whole thing is a composition fallacy so it isn’t a legitimate argument.

[@fogboquiz5700]

​@@jaymiddleton1782Pease feel free to show which evidence disagrees with either of the two premises.

[@coolmuso6108]

Jay Middleton No. Firstly, I don’t know why anyone would think the first premise is controversial. Everything that comes into being as either a material cause, efficient cause, or both. We have good reasons to think that the universe began to exist, based primarily on philosophical arguments which show that an actual infinite cannot exist temporarily into the past - e.g. Grim Reaper Paradox. Any scientific evidence for the finitude of the past is just icing on the cake - and we do have it. Therefore, it follows that the universe has a cause. By the way, not all part-whole arguments commit the fallacy of composition because it depends on the content of the argument. For example, if you have a collection of items, and each item has zero mass, that means the set as a whole has zero mass. So there really is no reason to think that the universe is the only thing that came into being uncaused...

[@walterdaems57]

God if you really must but for God’s sake, forsake every religion.

[@trybunt]

Penrose laughs because his new theory makes the kalam cosmological argument impossible. Lets see how many theists agree with him now, or do they only agree with him when his theories alllign with their assumed conclusions? But no, they don't cherry pick data, they just follow the evidence where it leads, unless it doesn't seem to lead towards god, then they ignore it altogether, but other than that, all the evidence is viewed objectively, no bias at all ..

[@20july1944]

Ben: Do you actually believe Penrose's CCC?

[@trybunt]

@@20july1944 no, I consider it, that's what theories are for, not basing philosophical arguments on. The kalam cosmological argument, which William Lane Craig is obsessed with, has the ridiculous assumption that the universe had s beginning. Not just our observable universe, but everything ever. There is no reason to believe that is true, and no science to back it up. Theists will say "everything has a beginning" to which I say "does UP have a beginning" or "does YES have a beginning" For all we know time is circular, and what we think is the beginning of our universe is the beginning of our universe. I'm not saying this is definitely the case, just pointing out that WE DON'T KNOW.

[@20july1944]

@@trybunt OK. Since you don't agree that everything, ever, had a beginning: What MAY have always existed, except something non-material?

[@trybunt]

@@20july1944 the universe could possible be something that simply always exists. Without more information we just don't know. There is so much that we would need to have s better understanding of before we could say that the universe had a beginning. Personally I think this is much like Aquinas Argument from Contingency, which goes like this- In the world we see things that are possible to be and possible not to be. In other words, perishable things. But if everything were contingent and thus capable of going out of existence, then, nothing would exist now. The problem is the assumption that things go out of existence, in other words, that things are destroyed. Its not Aquinas fault that they hadn't discovered that matter cannot be created or destroyed in the 13th century. But we are supposed to assume we have it all figure out now? I don't think so.

[@20july1944]

@@trybunt OK, -- matter can't have "simply always existed". -- energy can't have "simply always existed". So what is left that "simply always existed"?

[@stuckmannen3876]

👍

[@DBCisco]

"I make tons of money off my beliefs therefore I believe it is perfect truth." - WLC

[@20july1944]

Do you know enough physics/cosmology to have an informed discussion pertaining to God's existence?

[@DBCisco]

@@20july1944 Which deity are you calling "God" ?

[@20july1944]

@@DBCisco The Creator God, Who either exists or doesn't, whatever His name. Do you know enough physics/cosmology to have an informed discussion pertaining to God's existence?

[@20july1944]

@@DBCisco This is a good, short thread with your name on it. Let's continue here. You said that quantum fluctuations occur without cause. Perhaps that's true, but fluctuations aren't anything permanent or even physical. What is the significance of a quantum fluctuation to the issue of the origins of matter and energy and other aspects of our reality?

[@jaymiddleton1782]

20july1944 more stupid questions, no actual point.

[@joedennehy386]

Faith is belief in the absence of evidence

[@cleo-lazy]

Faith is complete trust in someone or something. It has nothing to do with evidence or the absence of evidence. I can have faith in the professionalism of a surgeon that I have extensively studied - the results of their past surgeries would make my faith based on evidence. I can have faith in the abilities of my workmates or hypothetical teammates, because the hypothetical job required several qualifications (so only professionals would be employed) or I can faith that you’ll respond to me respectfully, although I have no evidence that you will. Faith can happen with or without evidence. To assert that ALL faith is unsubstantiated would put the burden of proof on _you_ to prove that every theist that has ever ‘come into existence’ or claimed belief in a supreme power had *no reason* to believe what they believed in.

[@κπυα]

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. = Crap 2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. = Huge Crap

[@onestepaway3232]

In the beginning God, nothing else

[@persiancarpet5234]

In the beginning Allah, nothing else

[@onestepaway3232]

Luck Searcher Allah is not the God of the Bible. Jesus confirmed that

[@persiancarpet5234]

@@onestepaway3232 Mohammed confirms Allah is the only god.

[@onestepaway3232]

What did Mohammed do for you to trust him? He never gave one single prophecy? Per the Bible anyone that comes in by God does prophecy. That is how you know the person is a prophet of God. I don’t trust Mohammed why do you?

[@persiancarpet5234]

@@onestepaway3232 because he was married to a 6 year-old. Jokes aside, I don't like Islam, I don't like its morals. I just wanted to show that you can apply the 'in the beginning' thing to any god, not only the god of the bible.

[@wilfred1980]

I beleive science points to Thor, Odin.. Now prove this😂.. This is literally what this lol guy Craig is doing everywhere 🤣

[@yourfutureself3392]

Even as an atheist, i can realize why the abrahamic God is much more likely than Thor and Odin. All theistic arguments based on science point to a single uncaused, inmaterial, spaceless, timeless, changless, begginingless, eternal, very powerfull, highly inteligent mind with a will that caused all of space-time and matter. Thor and Odin obviously don't fit those descriptions.