William Lane Craig Reveals Where Famous Scientists Go Wrong | with

Are natural scientists like Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss equipped to speak authoritatively on philosophical issues? Our friend, Dr. William Lane Craig, weighs in and explains why even some famous scientists often reach flawed conclusions.
📚 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀
Answering Stephen Hawking & Other Atheists MP3 👉📱bit.ly/3zBOEuw and DVD 👉📱bit.ly/3zE5RDN by Dr. Frank Turek
Podcast: 'Philosophy is More Certain Than Science 👉📱crossexamined.org/philosophy-...
🤝 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧 𝗖𝗥𝗢𝗦𝗦𝗘𝗫𝗔𝗠𝗜𝗡𝗘𝗗 (𝗧𝗔𝗫-𝗗𝗘𝗗𝗨𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗕𝗟𝗘) 🤝
● Website: crossexamined.org/donate/
● PayPal: bit.ly/Support_CrossExamined_...
👥 𝗦𝗢𝗖𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗠𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗔 👥
● Facebook: / crossexamined.org
● Twitter: / frank_turek
● Instagram: / drfrankturek
● Pinterest: pin.it/JF9h0nA
🗄️ 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗖𝗘𝗦 🗄️
● Website: crossexamined.org
● Store: impactapologetics.com/
● Online Courses: www.onlinechristiancourses.com/
🎙️ 𝗦𝗨𝗕𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗕𝗘 𝗧𝗢 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗣𝗢𝗗𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗧 🎙️
● iTunes: bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast
● Google Play: cutt.ly/0E2eua9
● Spotify: bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_P...
● Stitcher: bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
#Philosophy #WilliamLaneCraig #Apologetics #Christianity

[@CrossExamined]

Download FREE Cheat Sheet “The 4-Point Case For Christianity” 👉📱cutt.ly/ZYMC4nl

[@mhughes1160]

The scientific method is infallible 1: deny the possibility that God exist 2: if you can’t explain it add a few billion years 3: if you can’t find real evidence , fake it 4: never admit you’re wrong LoL 😂

[@kinggenius930]

@@mhughes1160 Do you have any examples of these 4 points in action?

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

​@mhughes1160 Have you ever completed a science course?

[@mhughes1160]

@@kinggenius930 richard Dawkins is a perfect example. He knows he has been wrong all of these years , but he will not publicly admit it As he is getting old the fear of the Lord is setting in

[@kinggenius930]

@@mhughes1160 How have you determined that?

[@JiraiyaSama86]

The problem is how many of them just shove it off as ancient, outdated things to be buried in the past. As though wisdom or those "old teachings" are just nonsense. It's the kind of attitude that someone who's immature and lazy can have.

[@dh4521]

Wisdom like how to commit genocide and take slaves? You are welcome to your fantasy beliefs, I'll stick to common sense and the innate sense of right and wrong that evolution has provided me with.

[@wet-read]

Some of it is alright. The problem is in thinking they are the best and only such things.

[@Aqua-ij3xs]

Exactly, their whole mindset is one of arrogance and intellectual superiority. “We’re smarter and know better than those cavemen of the past because we were born later” is an inherently flawed way of thinking and very conceited. The few areas where we actually do know more than those from the past are only because we’ve had the privilege to stand on the shoulders of giants, so to speak. Those people from the past made huge, groundbreaking discoveries that have enabled us to carry our knowledge farther than they could. To chalk it up to “we’re smarter than they are” is peak arrogance.

[@JiraiyaSama86]

@@Aqua-ij3xs I read that first line, and the first person I'm reminded of is Peter Atkins. He really has that mindset to an incredibly high degree. He's what I might call a Star Trekkian.

[@mattslater2603]

@@Aqua-ij3xs Nope, wrong. The fact is, we HAVE carried the ball further then they ever could. Did they contribute? Sure. But WE know more correct information of how the universe operates than they do. Those savages didn't even know where the sun went at night.... Or what germs were. They thought it was demonic possession... It doesn't get dumber than that.

[@gheorghebirca]

It’s not just that they don’t understand philosophy, they are too arrogant, they don’t consider philosophy a field worth their time.

[@lawrenceeason8007]

Philosophy has its place, science has its place.

[@JiraiyaSama86]

When you wrote that comment, Peter Atkins came to mind.

[@andres.e.]

And yet they keep making philosophical claims!

[@Bomtombadi1]

@@andres.e.people can wax philosophically. Just because they’re scientists doesn’t mean they can’t and vice versa. The difference is that philosophers think they’re also scientists.

[@andres.e.]

@@Bomtombadi1 I think you don't get the point of the video or our comments.

[@askywa]

I asked AI about whether we can interpret science without philosophy? AI: No, science cannot completely function without philosophy.

[@askywa]

AI: Here's why: * Scientific assumptions: Science relies on philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality, knowledge, and methodology. For example, science assumes an objective reality that can be studied through observation and experimentation. * Interpretation of data: Scientific data is never value-neutral. Scientists need philosophical frameworks to interpret data and draw conclusions. These frameworks help them decide what counts as evidence and how to weigh different kinds of evidence. * New scientific questions: Philosophy helps scientists ask new questions and develop new theories. By challenging existing assumptions, philosophy can push science in new directions.

[@askywa]

I use Gemini by the way

[@maxhagenauer24]

​@@askywaWhat philosophical frameworks?

[@askywa]

@@maxhagenauer24 from AI: A philosophical framework is a fundamental set of beliefs and principles that guide how we understand the world. It acts like a lens through which we interpret information and experiences. There are many different philosophical frameworks, each offering a unique perspective on core questions like: * The nature of reality (ontology) * The source of knowledge (epistemology) * The basis of morality (ethics)

[@maxhagenauer24]

@@askywa I don't see how science assumes either one of those listed.

[@tristramcoffin926]

is this full conversation on youtube?

[@joshuakarr-BibleMan]

Thanks!

[@Honorthetruth]

And if it's so true it needs to pay it's taxes like everyone else

[@Whatsisface4]

This is a knife that cuts both ways. Unless you're a scientist you won't properly understand what scientists are saying and have the full information to be philosophical with.

[@EdKidgell]

Rubbish!

[@Whatsisface4]

@@EdKidgell Nonsense, right?

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

Is ruling Intelligence, capital 'I', the same thing as saying, 'God might have done that', about some things?

[@bohem5568]

Boils down to what you choose to believe.

[@maxhagenauer24]

"Science doesn't say anything, scientists do." And where do the scientists get the information that they say?

[@alexanderjosephross]

From the evidence obviously. But the point is that the evidence has to be interpreted by a scientist, at which point philosophical biases come into play.

[@maxhagenauer24]

@alexanderjosephross Well no you can get the information without listening to the scientists opinion on it, especially if you become a scientist yourself.

[@alexanderjosephross]

@@maxhagenauer24 So we see that there is hard science and then on the other hand there are the likes of Neil DT, Stephen H, Lawrence K spreading philosophical nonsense in the guise of “science”.

[@maxhagenauer24]

@alexanderjosephross Well sometimes yes but if general public non scientist people have like a wrong interpretation of things then the scientists who know it better than anyone can point what's wrong. Like if the big big for example was actually the beginning of the universe or if the evidence never lead to that and that is is just simply an event that happened 13.8 billion years ago.

[@alexanderjosephross]

@@maxhagenauer24 Big Bang Theory is a great example of something that is not hard science but is widely accepted as established fact by laymen because it is spread by these scientists as if it is true. When they demonstrate hard science they should be believed, but if you believe them on the origins of life, (a sphere in which they have no authority), you are greatly deceived.

[@helpmaboabb]

I've heard Frank talking about entropy. Hmm.

[@andres.e.]

I doubt Frank was being dismissive of the whole field of Physics and trying to change the meaning of what entropy is. ;-)

[@helpmaboabb]

@@andres.e. nope, he just couldn't resist dipping in when he thought he had an intensifier, knowing his teenage audience wouldn't argue

[@PioneeringPhilosophy]

legacy ❤

[@warrenallen4200]

I find it curious how many science apologists wax philosophical in their defense of science.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

?!? What is a "science apologist"?

[@mattslater2603]

That is simply, nonsense.

[@chriscuomo9334]

Just a thought: just because it’s a presumption doesn’t mean it isn’t true

[@tigdogsbody]

Only fools and Christian apologists rely on presumptions.

[@chriscuomo9334]

@@tigdogsbody atheists rely on the presumption that it’s possible for everything to poof into existence from nothing and form moral conscious life based on a self correcting four dimensional quaternary code based bioinformation system … all by … accident. That’s what you think. You think that’s possible.

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@@tigdogsbodyand assertion, and assumptions, etc

[@mattslater2603]

So there goes christian apologetics lol. Thanks Chris. Lmao

[@chriscuomo9334]

@@mattslater2603 how did all this get here?

[@Stoyd333]

I don't know what to say, I'm so early...

[@dragonsigner]

I looked up the meaning for that saying what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander Meaning of that saying is to say that One situation a person should be treated the same as the next person or situation The way I'm understanding that definition Is to say that everyone should have the exact same like-minded hive mind complex.. It's like when people hate being compared to someone else Like me.. I don't want anyone else comparing me to someone else.. I am my own person with my own thoughts and beliefs and ideals.. diversity is not always a good thing Is this a good right way to think about how that saying is interpreted?

[@armandoc.3150]

Of course not. I understand your sci-fi approach but hive mind is not always negative as you're painting and picturing it in your mind. He means to say as one understands it in philosophy so should the other because it's good practice. Doctors being like other doctors at work doesn't have and shouldn't have anything to do with your individuality or personality. It's really like math, we all use the same formulas and think the same when we see them because that's how it works and should work. You can make your own interpretation but the basic or classical understanding is the same for everyone because that's how it was designed. Make sense or did I lose ya?

[@dragonsigner]

@@armandoc.3150 i think I understand it. Give me time to process it .. I think it's hard for me to think clearly ATM. It is over 90° here in South Carolina..for the past two weeks. But I do understand that hive mind is not always negative.. Christianity kind of wants to be like a hive mind.. sort of.. Maybe I need context for me to understand this better. .. need a better example I'm trying to figure it out Google is no help anymore.

Judge not lest you be judged by the same measure.

[@dragonsigner]

@@armandoc.3150 is it like having one Truth for everyone? Or in the terms of how I say it Perspective is everything As in what I mean by that as There is the one truth but everyone looks at that one truth differently.. Everyone looks at the same object but sees it differently from their own perspective.. most times. Or maybe another way to understand is everyone has their own opinions.. But there is only one simple objective truth..

[@armandoc.3150]

@dragonsigner The latter rather than the prior. The way to see it is, everyone will have their opinion about the truth but the truth won't change. So an example is like everyone can believe they can fly but they will jump off a cliff and find the reality out whether they believe it or not. Others will find their way around the truth and say we use things to fly so we can fly, either way it's ignoring or masking the truth. The best way to see it imo, in terms of perspective, is understanding what you want to be true vs what is true. Another way to see truth is to separate it from the person so we don't confuse what's my truth vs your truth or often the times of anecdotal problems. We all find different truths about reality but it all leads to the same overall truth. There is an order and design and we come together with a hive mind to try to figure that out, if it leads to god then so be it. If it doesn't then so be it. That's what being objective really means, separate what is true vs what you want to be true. The harsh truth is we got a glimpse of a creator throughout history, so what are we to do with that? Ignore it or don't ignore it? Know what I mean?

[@mattr.1887]

It's funny how this God can't reveal himself clearly enough to these scientists. God is conquered by the heart of ignorance of man. Why is that?

[@tigdogsbody]

I love Buddies' teeshirt, which features symbols of all the major religions in the world. They all have one thing in common: the utter lack of evidence of their gods. Does Buddy think all these gods exist; such a thought is blasphemous, said Church Lady.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

@tigdogsbody Spoken like a (not particularly bright) 6th grader.

[@brando3342]

Quite shocking how terribly you have misread his shirt 😂🤦‍♂️ It says “contradict” there buddy 😂

[@lawrenceeason8007]

Indeed. All religions have that in common

[@gi169]

By buddy, I believe you are referring to Jorge Gill, and he is wearing the contradict shirt. It is not meant to suggest that the gods of those religions are real, but, in a sense, they exist. Rather , this is the anti-statement to the coexist logo with similar symbols of world religions and a belief that all religions lead to salvation. If you venture out from under your rock you might have understood.

[@andres.e.]

Why do you waste your time with us dumb believers? You know you won't change anyone's mind, since we just believe in fairy tales just because. ;-)

[@joanschutter5863]

Reading the comments is enough to get my head spinning (partly due to the poor grammar). Philosophy is baffling! I am thankful for Dr. Turek and Dr. Craig who bring it down to the layman's level.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

Do you believe either Turek or WLC provide ANY _sound_ argument for the reality of the Christian god?

[@joanschutter5863]

@@Theo_Skeptomai Of course! Turek gave me the Cosmological, Teleological, Moral and Historical arguments for the existence of God. Now I have plausible evidence for God's existence to back up the deep peace I have in knowing I have been forgiven of my sins and will spend eternity in heaven.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

@joanschutter5863 Let's consider these arguments one at a time. We can go in the order that you mentioned them. First, I want to ensure that we both share a common understanding of an argument. An argument is a set of true premises leading to one and only inevitable conclusion based on the laws of logic and the rules of proper inference. Do you agree? Yes or no.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

@@joanschutter5863 Well, do you agree?

[@joanschutter5863]

@@Theo_Skeptomai Yes

[@MichaelKunz-mt2oo]

I taught high school physics and chemistry for 28 years. Read Richard Dawkins book "God Delusion" is like reading high school student essays.

[@Mavors1099]

Well, Dawkins taught biology in Berkeley and Oxford.... maybe it's too complicated for a high school teacher.

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@@Mavors1099lol

[@mattslater2603]

This is a soft admission that Michael is outclassed by high school essays.

[@wjckc79]

@@Mavors1099 Dawkins book, "The Selfish Gene" for which he should be remembered is fantastic. But when he steps into religion, theology, philosophy, he is out of his lane and out of his depth. It's all sophistry and grandstanding.

[@Moist._Robot]

@@wjckc79 What’s fantastic about ?

[@sumitino]

Is Scientism and Naturalism synonymous now?

[@therick363]

Only to apologists who can’t be honest

[@reytejero4732]

VERY WELL SAID

[@mattslater2603]

NOPE

[@reytejero4732]

@@mattslater2603 lol

[@mve6182]

Funny how the pot calls the kettle black! At 1:35 mr. Turek accuses regular scientists of "ruling out intelligent design in advance", while in reality it is mr. Turek who rules out anything other then intelligent design in advance. A real scientist is open to any possible claim, as long as the evidence supports it. However, people like mr. Graig and mr. Turek believe the Bible is Gods word and therefor 100% true. This means that any claim that does not align with the Bible, must be rejected. This is literally the opposite of the scientific method.

[@EdKidgell]

You must be very young......

[@andres.e.]

You are misrepresenting Turek's position. I suggest you check them again, carefully this time.

[@mve6182]

@@andres.e. because......?

[@therick363]

@@andres.e.Turek has misrepresented many things when it comes to atheism and science

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

Question: So a natural world, the world science investigates, and a world that is supernatural, where miracles happen and where God intervenes, these two worlds are not mutually exclusive?

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

To whom are you asking your question?

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

@@Theo_Skeptomai To my mind this is a very general question that every thoughtful person should have an immediate answer to. Or that will give a thoughtful person pause.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

Are you asking if the realms of natural (reality) and supernatural (if such exists) are mutually exclusive?

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

@@Theo_Skeptomai That is exactly the point of my question.

[@mattslater2603]

@@arthurwieczorek4894 It would appear to be the case... due to the lack of ANYTHING supernatural happening... ever. That we can evidence.

[@lawrenceeason8007]

I always go to a non scientist for advice on science

[@TheGuy..]

Have you noticed the thread we were chatting in is missing?

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@@TheGuy.. I hadn’t noticed. But I haven’t gotten a notification come to think of it

[@TheGuy..]

@@lawrenceeason8007 You were right about dinosaurs appearing before birds, but even with that being the case I sent my best rebuttal and poof, the whole thread is gone, lol. I'm sure we'll cross swords again!

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@@TheGuy..10-4. Looking forward to it! Cheers

[@Steblu74]

How can you see your own heart? How do you investigate the thing that is investigating?? This is the problem with all humans… We have desires, world views that screen every bit of data we take in, and when our heart is wrong, that is when we don't want to believe in God, every observation is tainted and steered by the disposition of our hearts. The concept of "neutral" data acquisition is flawed. It must be interpreted, and therein lies the rub…

[@darthmalicos9973]

Human intellect is overrated, we are so dumb and ppl think human kind knows how cosmos works lol

[@lawrenceeason8007]

That’s why we investigate…to overcome ignorance

[@JiraiyaSama86]

Humans are foolish and will remain foolish. It's truly the fools that think that a future similar to that of Star Trek's Earth is possible.

[@darthmalicos9973]

@@lawrenceeason8007 and that's the problem, as much as the human kind gets to know, the more arrogant it becomes...

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@@darthmalicos9973some people are arrogant. Some aren’t. But evidence makes us more knowledgeable

[@andrewschafer7790]

Another 2mins of word salad from people with insufficient evidence saying the other guy is wrong so wrong.. when asked to defend their position they make debate rules that prevent them from having to leave their written script. Shallow at best always leaving something to be desired.

[@andrewschafer7790]

Bill most always leaves out that he signed a confession of faith to get into seminary and that he requires all the students of his school to do the same.. Bill is correct here always figure out peoples bias before discussing these topics.

[@smoothinvestigator]

Scientists don't need philosophy. It doesn't hurt to know it, but it's not necessary. The great physicist Paul Dirac, one of the founders of quantum mechanics, thought philosophy was interesting but unnecessary for science.

[@reytejero4732]

FACTS!

[@mattslater2603]

Lol... NOPE

[@therick363]

What facts?

[@reytejero4732]

@therick363 Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior, God Almighty is the only one worthy of worship EVERY knee WILL bow and EVERY tougne WILL confess that Jesus is Lord Weather whomever want to believe that or not. PERIOD!

[@therick363]

@@reytejero4732asked for facts….

[@reytejero4732]

@therick363 FACTS don't care about your feelings or opinion.. Weather you believe it's true or not. I've already stated, EVERY knee will bow and confess JESUS is YOUR GOD!

[@lawrenceeason8007]

I love it. A non scientist telling scientists how to think

[@gi169]

Somebody has to tell them Barbie, because they usually lack wisdom.

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@@gi169girl that is laughable

[@harryfaber]

@@gi169 What film was that where the family went to a 'Barbie museum' only to find the Barbie in question was Klaus?

[@gi169]

​@@harryfaber You have the humorous comments today brother, I was just reading your comment about the devout atheists and my wife was asking me what I was laughing at...

[@harryfaber]

@@gi169 I started contemplating 'devout atheists' a number of years ago. I had been asked to help with a house clearance, an old lady, moving to 'sheltered accommodation'. One of the items was a concrete 'tile' with the words'God couldn't be everywhere so He invented mothers'. Theologically wrong, tacky thing, useful as a base fill for laying concrete maybe... anyway, I had thrown it down to keep a gate open while we moved stuff. A passer by, who I did not know, who did not know me saw the stone and looked me in the eye and said "You don't believe in all that god rubbish, do you" And he walked on. That got me thinking. What caused that person to stop and take notice of a chunk of concrete, that wasn't mine, that I was using to keep a gate open, what then caused him to express his opinion? Any person of moderate intelligence would have linked the loaded car, the open gate, the open front door with an understanding that we were just moving 'property', they might have even stopped and asked if we wanted a hand with the heavy stuff. Trust me, brother, I did! But no, he chose to attack God, whose name was on a bit of 'junk' that has indeed later become part of a foundation. If the mere seeing of the word 'God' can spark that kind of reaction, I wonder how he would react if a bunch of us carried out a Corpus Christi parade through the streets. Most atheists, sadly also most Christians, just live their lives, but some take the time and effort to attack, to denounce, to celebrate their wickedness. They choose to parade their fallen nature as if it is something to celebrate, something to rejoice in. If we understand (from the sermon on the Mount) 'Blessed are they that mourn', and we understand the difference between regretting our sin, rejecting and denouncing our sin, and rejoicing in it, we are on the right path. We are all sinners in need of Grace. Some of us enjoy our sins, some of us mourn them. I better start contemplating 'Blessed are the peacemakers'. I am about to go and cut a hedge that has caused arguments between two rather old neighbours.

[@gi169]

Thank you CrossExamined.

[@somerandom3247]

Ever think that maybe the evidence just doesnt point to a god? That explains why none of you can ever present evidence of a god.....

[@JimCastleberry]

The evidence certainly does point to the necessity of God's unique and exclusive attributes to explain what we do know. You are simply lying (or ignorant) to claim Dr Craig and others present evidence of God. Typical atheist.

[@kinggenius930]

@@JimCastleberry "You are simply lying (or ignorant) to claim Dr Craig and others present evidence of God." Is this a typo? Did you mean "do not present evidence..."?

[@BlasterMaster80]

@@kinggenius930 Navel gazing isn't evidence. They can't provide anything that's novel and predictive based off of a God. That's the kind of evidence we need. It appears God is an unfalsifiable proposition and can be dismissed as such. I mean, how do you think evidence works? From my understanding for something to count as evidence, it should indicate that a proposition is true. Things like the arguments from design or the Kalam, are not evidence, they don't provide any sort of predictive models at all. And they have been refuted a thousand times over. But it's all besides the point because philosophy alone is never evidence, you need science to provide that.

[@therick363]

@@JimCastleberrywhat’s this evidence you speak of?

[@JimCastleberry]

@@therick363 Fine Tuning, Physical beginnings, Information in Nature, Design and engineering in nature, Moral ontology...

[@harryfaber]

This seems to be one of those 'my expert is better than your expert' arguments. There also seems to be a lot of 'read my book' stuff going on. Very few of us mix daily with 'top scientists', in daily life we mix with bricklayers and farmers, bakers and butchers. Some of them believe in God, some of them don't and the majority are somewhere in between. However, Christ teaches us to know them by their fruits. To see for ourselves which of them are more, or less, loving. As I reflect on people that I have known throughout my life, I realise that many of them did not talk about their religion or lack thereof. The sample that I offer is rather random and proves nothing. The best two police officers I knew were Christians. The best hardware store owner I knew was a Muslim. The best garage proprietor I knew was a Baptist. The best former colleague in my last employment was an Anglican. The only serious scientist I know believes that there is a 'higher power' although he admits he doesn't know how to explain that. The worst CO I served under openly mocked those who believe in any god. The worst colleagues in my last employment were devout atheists. In my first job after leaving school, the best colleague was a Catholic, closely followed by a Muslim, last time I worked in London, the best two staff I had were a JW and a 7th Day Adventist. Proves nothing, but it is a reported observation from my life.

[@gi169]

Devout atheists... 😅😂🤣 Awesome brother. God bless.

[@harryfaber]

@@gi169 They were very devout, they attended their chapel with great regularity and took their communion drink in vast quantities, singing their hymns and reciting their creeds. By their works, I knew them. They were such a lovely group that I took early retirement and moved country. At the time, I did all the sums, early retirement cost me £290,000. Money well spent to get away from that 'world'. There is a wonderful prayer that includes the line 'blood of Christ, inebriate me'. Worth some thought. I don't expect you have ever received 'the Blood' in a Catholic Mass, but when you do, you get barely enough to moisten your lips and tongue, and it truly does 'inebriate'. It enters every cell of your being. Those devout atheists delighted in getting inebriated in a different manner, but it took copious quantities of their communion cup. And they did not become nicer people for it.

[@mve6182]

Like you said, it proves nothing. So what's your point??

[@harryfaber]

@@mve6182 If you add my observations to those of others, you can start to create an hypothesis, maybe a theory, perhaps one that can be measured and tested scientifically. Bottom line is, I find theists to be nicer people than atheists. Not all of them, but generally. The most awful people that I have known did not accept the teachings of any higher authority.

[@mve6182]

@@harryfaber So your hypothesis seems to be: theists are nicer people then atheists. But, since your evidence is purely anecdotal, and being 'nice' cannot objectively be measured, the opposite might just as well be true!

[@anguschiggins2161]

Lol. "Naive scientist like Stephen Hawkins....". Thankfully we have the genuises Frank and WLC spouting off on KZbin while those other naive guys are off wasting their time being recognized as world leading experts in their field.

[@stephenkeen6044]

They're naive in regards to philosophy, that's the whole point of the video. They are making bold statements and conclusions touching on the field without understanding in that field. Frank, WLC, et al will use experts "properly" by quoting them in the areas they are actually knowledgable in. This is the significant difference being highlighted.

[@andres.e.]

I've seen several comments like this one, all showing a lack of basic interpretation of speech... How in the world can somebody be so off in their understanding of a 2-minute video? 😂

[@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn]

It's funny they call them naive because they don't understand philosophy, since the vast majority of philosophers are atheist.

[@BlasterMaster80]

@@andres.e. You have yet to explain what any of these people are actually mistaken about.

[@andres.e.]

@@BlasterMaster80 See? You're proving my point: you have to ask what I mean, since you don't realize! Atheists have this idea they're rational, logical, unbiased people, yet so many lack the critical thinking skills to realize comments like the OP here are a strawman... Some even think these are valid arguments!

[@RangerRyke]

You are upset that scientists don’t go beyond science is what you are actually saying here.

[@mattslater2603]

Bingo.

[@Johnny.G.]

That's your god right? And you just wait on your scientist to tell you what to believe. But you never really gone out and thought about something for yourself or experienced or tested anything for yourself. You just kind of rely on them to tell you what to think.

[@Wmeester1971]

What a load of bollucks. Philosophy is the nomansland between science and theology. Or even better, philosophy is the art of using ambigious languange to support your presupposed conclusion. Yes a little philosophy is not bad, but craig fails using that correctly in his own Kalam argument, does not give any hope that it ever will on the same grounds as science.

[@CaptainFantastic222]

But philosophers can comment on science? A topic they clearly no nothing about as evidence by the content in this channel

[@doriansw305]

As a philosopher, you can comment on science because science is a subset of philosophy, so a phisolopher understands what grounds the science bases itself on, while it's not true the other way around.

[@CaptainFantastic222]

@@doriansw305 I’d disagree with that but let’s assume that’s true. Just because you are a biologist for example doesn’t mean you are qualified to speak about archeology

[@TheGuy..]

​@@CaptainFantastic222 If you are skilled at detecting assumptions or other logical fallacies, as philosophers are, then you can comment on any subject or profession. Even if you don't have career hands-on experience in a profession, you can read much about it and keep up with the latest in a particular field and make reasonable judgements about whether or not those working in the field are coming to correct interpretations of the data they are making conclusions on. This is what Craig and Turek does.

[@doriansw305]

@@TheGuy.. on point, philosophers are literally taught to handle and spot logical fallacies, imcoherencies and such. And with basic understanding of the subject they can engage and make logical assumptions.

[@CaptainFantastic222]

@@doriansw305 the irony here is Craig makes some of the most logically fallacious arguments 😅😂🤣

[@angelisserivera]

U dropped your pin can I have it

[@angelisserivera]

Oop

[@NextWorldAssociation1962]

Lol

[@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn]

So we shouldn't listen to scientists when the topic is God, we should listen to philosophers? Well OK then, please explain why 62% of professional philosophers identify as atheists. Your argument backfires on you completely.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

These athiest philosophers don't live anywhere near me. I believe I am the only atheist in all of the southern states.

[@mattr.1887]

Maybe we should check in with both.

[@Whatsisface4]

They're saying this because philosophy is all they've got.

[@jamesw4250]

William Lang Craig gets it wrong. Science and philosophy don't mix. No they are not doing any disservice to the average person. You are Craig.

[@JimCastleberry]

I noticed you asserted your empty lies, but gave no specific example, evidence or demonstration of anything Dr Craig is wrong about. I predict you won't - because you can't. You're just lying. Typical atheist.

[@harryfaber]

Science and philosophy must mix. There must always come a point when a scientist has to reflect on whether, just because 'we can' justifies whether 'we should'. We watched the progress with cloning Dolly the sheep. Well, at least, in the UK we watched that. As a non-scientist, it certainly went through my mind that if we can do it with a sheep we can use the same or similar techniques with a human. But should we? Much science has recently used 'stem cell research' and I freely admit that I have no clear picture of how that works or how the stem cells are harvested, but at some point, there must be the philosophical and ethical arguments about whether that is or is not the way to go. A scientist working on the modification of seed might need to use some philosophy and consider whether the direction that leads agriculture and 'society' is the way we want to go. The clever people building wind and solar energy 'farms' might want to stop and reflect whether a hillside is better for the world, better for our well being, if it is left without turbines or solar panels.

[@JiraiyaSama86]

@@harryfaber "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could. They didn't stop to think whether they should." That's quite haunting, isn't it? There's always some fool who's just dumb enough to open Pandora's Box.

[@harryfaber]

@@JiraiyaSama86 We normally do not take the 2 minutes to look at why we do what we do. Earlier this year, I was clearing stinging nettles to create space to grow tomatoes. Preparing ground, starting tomato seeds, watering, training, feeding tomatoes is hard work with an uncertain outcome. Stinging nettles require no work, they just grow, abundantly. Never occurred to me that I could eat stinging nettles. Until this year. We all need to stand still and think from time to time and not just follow whatever path we think we are on.

[@JiraiyaSama86]

@@harryfaber Amen

[@dongee1664]

And if you were interested in FACTS rather than philosophy, which can take you wherever you want to go, you wouldn't expound so much nonsense here, in this gathering of the gullible.

[@festushaggen2563]

Scientists that ignore the existence and truth of God are flawed and biased at their core. All you'll get is wishful theorizing and guesswork to explain our origins, existence and the true meaning of life. It's destined to be wrong.

[@jeffphelps1355]

Their contempt for religion exposes their biased position

[@nikorn24]

​@@jeffphelps1355There's nothing biased about it. God doesn't factor into our scientific understanding of the universe, so why expect scientists to shoehorn him in as and explanation for anything? THAT would be biased

[@festushaggen2563]

@@jeffphelps1355 Absolutely. As our Lord said, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Matthew 12:30

[@Birdlab]

I'm a scientist and in my field of study (chemistry) little if any focus is on explaining our origins, existence, and the meaning of life.

[@tigdogsbody]

Scientists ignore the untestable, such as the gods and unicorns.

[@katamas832]

Ah yes, Cross Examined delivering a message about speaking in fields you have no expertise on... No irony there. Nope, none at all.

[@jakeel85]

Tbh it's equally hard to take a guy seriously who thinks adam and eve weren't real and that the earth is billions of years old.

[@lawrenceeason8007]

You have got to be joking

[@maxhagenauer24]

Can you explain 1 illogical thing about the earth being billions of years old?

[@HandledToaster2]

Bro what

[@firmamental4900]

Discovering what we can prove for ourselves is a freedom that's been taken from us by the tyranny of experts. The earth is stationary, flat and level.

[@therick363]

Support that….

[@firmamental4900]

@@therick363 Do your God given senses tell you you're hurtling through space at breakneck speeds in four different directions, NO. Have the constellations remained in the same position for thousands of years without parallax, YES. Do the fluid dynamics of water give it the ability of bending and sticking to the outside of a thousand MPH spinning ball, NO. Can we see much further than a globe would allow, YES. Do we see the stars move through the night sky instead of us, YES. The globe is supported by the tyranny of experts in order to hide God and our true purpose.

[@firmamental4900]

@@therick363 Our God given senses have been highjacked by these all knowing tyrants of scientism. I wrote an earlier reply supporting biblical cosmology but it got taken down. Tyrants are everywhere keeping us confined to the globe delusion.

[@gregorymoore2877]

Where did you observe the Earth being stationary, flat, and level?

[@firmamental4900]

​@@gregorymoore2877 Everywhere I look. Where did you observe it rotating, spherical and curved, television?

[@stephenkaake7016]

Frank, I am God, I designed Philosophy

[@mattslater2603]

The hypocrisy just radiates out of Frank, here

[@TomMichael5678]

That's rich, coming from one of the biggest hypocritical 😭 on here, if not the biggest. And "biggest" as in crybabies, peewee, lol.

[@mattslater2603]

@@TomMichael5678 Tu quoque fallacy and genetic fallacy from the Goof, here. Fail.

[@benjaminnketsiah460]

What hypocrisy?

[@TomMichael5678]

​@@mattslater2603 Sorry to break it to ya, cup cake, a tu quoque and genetic fallacy played as an "immunity from hypocrisy card" doesn't exempt you from being the 😭 hypocrite you are. Epic fail. Try again and *do better.*

[@mattslater2603]

​@@benjaminnketsiah460Turek says that scientists "rule out intelligent design in advance"... While he rules intelligent design IN... in advance. He's a hypocrite.

[@kinggenius930]

Sorry Frank, I don't have enough evidence to be an atheist

[@dongee1664]

There is zero evidence for theism.

[@AngelZamorano-ug9jx]

@@dongee1664many evidence including scientific ones. It’s a scientific fact the universe begun to exist and if it begun to exist then it has a cause. This cause must be immaterial, spaceless, timeless, powerful, conscious.

[@dongee1664]

@AngelZamorano-ug9jx You can believe what you want, but nobody knows the origin of the universe. It would be better if you did not use science to suit your beliefs. Science research gives us the best explanation given the latest understanding. This changes as we learn more. A theist believes, unquestionably, what was written thousands of years ago by people who knew very little. It is a simple fact that everything has a beginning. We don't need science to tell us that, BUT you don't get to say I don't know so it must be god. Stick to faith, it's all you've got.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

​@AngelZamorano-ug9jx Are you asserting there is a peer-reviewed scientific study published in an accredited academic journal that states in its conclusion that the universe had a beginning? Yes or no.

[@dongee1664]

@@Theo_Skeptomai I doubt he will reply...

[@SavedbyGraceAlone1962]

TRUMP/CRAIG 2024

[@lawrenceeason8007]

Criminal 2024

[@JiraiyaSama86]

I like Bill, but I don't think he'd take it. Plus, it's not how he can best serve people.

[@JiraiyaSama86]

The true criminal is the one in the office right now and his handlers. His handlers need to be charged with elder abuse. I may not like the guy, but what they're doing to him is clearly elder abuse. The trials are clearly a sham. Only fools are falling for the stunt.

[@SavedbyGraceAlone1962]

@@lawrenceeason8007 Demented lost confused diaper-wearing nursing home Joe 2024

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@@JiraiyaSama86 a true MAGA. Someone who has no regard for American elections nor for judicial process. Unamerican

[@normanmiller604]

It's humorous that these guys think Hawking and his fellow scientists are naive. They're apparently naive because they would rather say "we don't know" than ascribe a divine hand to unanswered questions. I don't see the bible offering solutions to any problem.

[@davonbenson4361]

No, there’s philosophical arguments for the existence of God, that they choose to ignore.

[@Jill-jb1jg]

Here’s one problem it gives an answer to: How do I get right with God?

[@normanmiller604]

​@@davonbenson4361They ignore philosophical arguments because they have no bearing on our understanding of nature, science or health.

[@normanmiller604]

@@Jill-jb1jg I don't believe in any gods so I don't have to get right with any of them.

[@Xiy114]

They don't know as much about philosophy as they do science.

[@NewCreationInChrist896]

They believe in aliens before they humble themselves and believe in Jesus Christ. Psalms 14:1

[@mattr.1887]

What if you humble yourself, but you don't believe that Jesus is still alive?

[@NewCreationInChrist896]

@@mattr.1887 And you continue to make my point.

[@michelangelope830]

God is necessary and atheism is a logical fallacy. The truth matters. The truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. The idea of God is not religious. The idea of God is philosophical or scientific. Was the universe created by an intelligent entity? Did God decide to create the universe?. Atheists believe the creator of the universe is fantasy or dogma of faith that belongs to religion. Is it possible to know if the universe was created by an intelligent entity?. Can the reality you experience and you are part of be eternal? If the universe can not be eternal God exists. Reality is eternal because from nothing can not be created something. Something always existed. I am talking about knowledge, logic, I am not talking about religion. Spinoza discovered the nature of God centuries ago and atheists have been lying all along to protect religion. I am going through what Spinoza went through, history repeats with the same heroes and villains. Spinoza's God is like atheism, except the universe was created from something incredibly intelligent and powerful, so why atheists censor and lie about Spinoza and me? Why atheists refuse to ask for proof that the Quran was memorized? What atheists live for if they don't believe in God and lie to protect religion? I want to end the nightmare of the war with knowledge. Do you dare to know the truth? Can you memorize the Quran? I invite you to memorize the first page to have a taste of the effort and dedication required to memorize the rest of the book. If your God doesn’t exist you are deceived, for real, for eternity. God is necessary for God's sake. Thank God God is necessary, otherwise it would be a nightmare. Imagine if we had to believe in God without evidence. The world is changing in front of your eyes, here and now. Trust me. Emergency! Thank you.

[@kinggenius930]

"The truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist." False

[@therick363]

Back with the copy paste lying huh? Why don’t you ever stay and back up your claims?

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

Are you willing to answer some straightforward questions concerning your comment?

[@Bomtombadi1]

You’ve copy/pasted this before. If you’re not going to engage the criticism, why do you keep posting this?

[@TheoSkeptomai]

Apparently not.

The Laws of Thermodynamics and the Ontological Principals prove the existence of God the Creator.

[@Mavors1099]

😂😂😂😂

[@duderama6750]

How?

[@somerandom3247]

How?

[@lawrenceeason8007]

Everybody is waiting for you to explain your claim. Can you?

[@kinggenius930]

How?