William Lane Craig: The Origins of the Universe - Has Hawking Eliminated God? Cambridge October 2011

William Lane Craig responds in a public lecture to the claims in Stephen Hawking's recent book The Grand Design. Speaking to a capacity audience at St Andrew the Great church, Cambridge, Prof Craig outlined the weaknesses of the central arguments of the book. Rev Dr Rodney Holder, an astrophysicist, responded to Prof Craig.
This lecture was a part of The Reasonable Faith Tour 2011 sponsored by UCCF, Damaris & Premier Christian Radio.
For more information please visit:
www.bethinking....
www.premier.org...

[@drrocketman7794]

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

[@Mentat1231]

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

[@Mentat1231]

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

[@drcraigvideos]

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

[@Mentat1231]

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

[@gerhitchman]

I have no idea what you mean. People lack beliefs in God without (a) believing in Gods and (b) believing in the non-existence of Gods. Therefore these people can be properly described by the term "atheism." The word properly characterizes a set of people just as well as any other adjective. To speak of the existence or non-existence of *adjectives* seems like a complete waste of time...

[@michaelfalsia6062]

The lat Stephen Hawking typifies intelligent men who say and believe stupid things. Stubborn unbelief in the heart. It's that simple.

[@Mentat1231]

The question of whether God can create a rock too heavy for Him to lift is perhaps one of the weakest attempts to show logical inconsistency in the history of atheism. Omnipotence doesn't involve doing the logically incoherent. It's like asking God to draw a round square. It's a meaningless request. Science most certainly has NOT shown anything wrong with deductive logic, and indeed relies on the absolute truth of logic in order to function.

[@100percentrekkie]

A BA really isn't anything in the realm of being educated. You might pull off some authority with an M.A./M.S... But not a Bachelors. I have a Bachelors of Science... I would NEVER use that as leverage of my authority. Then again, I have plans to go for a masters and eventually a PhD, so I might simply have a higher respect for how ignorant I am.

[@Birdieupon]

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

[@blackfalkon4189]

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

[@Freddymack1000]

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

[@kaibricturner8836]

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

[@Vic2point0]

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

[@dagwould]

In fact, science cannot function without theism, Christian theism. The axioms about reality that it relies upon are theistic. Therefore the method of science is 'methodological theism', not 'methodological naturalism'. Naturalism's 'method' is merely that what is, is. This provides no impetus to ask why or to look for a regular objective causality. Christian theism does.

[@최출웅]

~ㄱ@♥︎ ㅡ4

[@dayweed85]

@@dagwould why is a relevant question in science? Oh wait, its not. Nice bias dude.

[@blackfalkon4189]

@@dagwould the jews gonna appreciate that one :|

[@williammcenaney1331]

How does Dr. Craig's case fall apart if God needs to exist for there to be anyone else, anything else, or both? If you argue scientifically for what science presupposes, your argument will be circular.

[@1StepForwardToday]

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

[@niche9015]

I haven't made it to that part in the video yet, but suffering has many sources, and not all are a result of our free will. Children born with severe and painful deformities, sickness and disease, natural disasters, nature in general, etc.

[@dayweed85]

@@niche9015 god is like: ill allow it.

[@jtheist32]

So there is no free will in heaven? Sounds terrible.

[@1StepForwardToday]

@@niche9015 Many (perhaps even all of those) may still be an effect caused by a chain reaction of misused human free will.

[@1StepForwardToday]

@@jtheist32 Idk? I tend to think that maybe in the afterlife people have free will, but not [moral free will]. In other words, we are free to do many things, but perhaps we're incapable of being unfair, unjust, selfish, indignant etc.

[@tedgrant2]

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

[@bible1st]

God not only exist but God is knowable. You can know him.

[@tedgrant2]

@@bible1st I've been told that God is outside space-time.

[@bible1st]

@@tedgrant2 Yea he is, but you can know him through his "word" and God's spirit is here on earth even among us and whoever loves God and does his commandments, God will manifest himself to that person.

[@tedgrant2]

@@bible1st As you know, you cannot choose to love someone. I didn't choose to love my wife before I met her.

[@tedgrant2]

@@bible1st For those of you that don't want to read the next sentence, look away now. God can't do that because he knows the sentence already.

[@larrywilliams5490]

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

[@maync1]

Another brilliant presentation by Dr. Craig. Thank you!

[@alwaysflat7996]

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

[@titus3264]

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

[@SOREMX]

Craig is the man

[@myopenmind527]

Pity that he wasted his life misrepresenting the truth to preserve an irrational belief.

[@KevinKilgorepage]

Everything falls out of the Minds that are opened too far .... more than 60 percent of ALL of the Nobel Prize Winning Physicists from 1900 to 2000 were Christians ... Is it your "belief" they wasted their lives also ? Or is it your "scientism" that dictates this to your open mind ?

[@dayweed85]

@@KevinKilgorepage their life didnt revolve around religion. big difference there. as for WLC, i dont think he wasted it either. hes clearly doing this just for money.

[@romney27]

hawking's a clown

[@alwaysflat7996]

romney27 The real Hawking was a Christian, so was his wife, and died in the early 70s, this one was another clown presented as himself. Anyway this is what many believe, and as you said, this is irrelevant, what matters is that these atheists talk more nonsense than anybody else, because they've got a much louder voice and they know there are gullible masses of sheeple who would worship them.

[@dayweed85]

@@alwaysflat7996 um, thats a nice projection you got going on there :D

[@ManForToday]

The guy simply demanding 'evidence' misses the point entirely, not just of the arguments but of metaphysics and science itself. What's the evidence that he isn't a simulation in the matrix, or that he loves his wife? What's the evidence of Einstein's special relativity theory being better than Lorentzian theory? None, but it's a better theory based on non-evidential principles i.e. mathematical elegance, parismony, simplicity and other such theoretical virtues.

[@EasternRomeOrthodoxy]

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

[@nsp74]

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

[@stpnpl]

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

[@jemmerx]

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

[@Mentat1231]

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

[@Mentat1231]

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

[@SPR4GOD]

This was really good : )

[@mike-cc3dd]

oh snap. Craig picks apart stephen hawking piece by piece. Exposing the ridiculous claims and illogical assertions in his grand design book. Ouch. Hawking,... in need of some serious burn cream.

[@dayweed85]

Youre such a fanboy lol

[@officeskivy]

Excellent video and so important.

[@jemmerx]

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

[@zelmoziggy]

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

[@tedgrant2]

I'm so glad those pesky scientists have discovered the universe had a beginning. If we didn't know it had a beginning, there would be no reason to believe in God. And without a belief in God, there would be no point in life. Brilliant !

[@raysonraypay5885]

Great man doc Craig

[@Birdieupon]

@JaydeeOldBoy "-The evidence or lack of it, begs to differ, the "argument from authority is not necessary." Sorry, you said the AFA fallacy was "bullshit", so by your rules I'm allowed to use it and say God exists! "The way you tried defending the Genetic fallacy was so pathetically childish im not going to even respond to it." I'm calling your bluff: you're incapable of responding to it. And when you talk about "ACTUAL TRUTHS" you're talking philosophy. In fact, your arguing now uses it!

[@williammcenaney1331]

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

[@dinopad10]

The audience questions are some of the dumbest I’ve ever heard, especially the one who surmised that we’re here for God’s entertainment because of the problem of evil.

[@andrewwells6323]

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

[@andrewwells6323]

1. Straw man, he was critiquing Hawking's book not trying to prove God. 2. Yes it can be proven by argument, Sciecne assumes the universe is rational and that we exist, but for sciecne to prove that woud be begging the question only Philosophy can get you that. Futher more what you're objecting to here is deductive logic when that's out the window so is science. 3. What? Craig wasn't trying to prove God's existence! Did you watch the video? 4. "No God" That's an absolute claim, Prove it!

[@Risenfors]

You're way out of track. WLC gives good reason to believe in God in his videos regarding that topic. If you stop reading the comments, scroll up and watch the title you see "Has Hawking Eliminated God?", which they repeatedly in the video state as the topic. Summa summarum; WLC does exactly what he's supposed to do - proving God is not disproven. If you want to see another topic, you're free to go to another video.

[@Incubator859]

@AgeOfReasonXXI "here in my comments do I claim that becasue Craig is a shameless fundy and a hack, his arguments fail?" "rather, he loses the right to be taken seriously by any honest scholar and only has the right to be exposed." So you're basically saying that because he's a fundie and a hack, his arguments shouldn't be taken seriously, which what you're really trying to say is that his arguments are automatically debunked. Nice ad hominem. Congrats for the self pwnage

[@karlwashere123]

Hawking only feels that way because he has what you would call a"good model". un like this some people..hum..some people are "why?" people and some people are "why not!" people... I'm bettin this guy's a "why?" guy.

[@gerhitchman]

"May that be because you are closed minded and think the world = usa?" No, because we're discussing this in the comments to a video by WLC. "You clearly have problems with this. Why not just use words like "non religious" or "non believer"; or is that common sense beyond you?" Atheism is a synonym for non-believer. "Dictionaries has an entry for GOD. Does that mean this GOD exist?" No. It means that God is a word with a coherent meaning, just like atheism.

[@gerhitchman]

It is true that most people on earth are atheists with respect to most (obsolete) Gods. That is why when we speak of atheism in public, the implication is that we are discussing the "God of the day", in this case Yahweh in America. If you were having trouble with this part, perhaps investing in some common sense would help. By the way, why do you think dictionaries have an entry for atheism if it has no use as a word?

[@gerhitchman]

I think your blind rage is getting in the way of your critical examination. Atheism describes a lack of belief in God/Gods. In America, the term 'atheism' is obviously meant to refer to Yahweh. People who don't believe in Yahweh are then referred to as atheists. If you don't find this to be a useful label, that's your opinion. But to say that the word has no meaning, and that atheists don't exist (i.e. that there are no people who lack belief in God) is idiotic.

[@gerhitchman]

"Putting an -ism behind a word implies it is a group doctrine." No it doesn't. -ism: a tendency of behaviour, action or opinion belonging to a class or group of persons; the result of a doctrine, ideology, principle, or lack thereof" Please don't make easily falsifiable lies - google is just a second away. Atheism is an ism characterized by a lack of belief. For example "racism" has no *doctrine*, just a tendency to think in a particular way.

[@100percentrekkie]

I didn't miss your point, and it's not befitting a rational discussion to accuse a person of such. You might try your hand at posing your points again and pointing out why what I think is a valid response is not. 1) I've already explained why those questions are nonsensical. 2) My explanation does not involve special pleading unless you would assert that the universe has creative power. 3) Craig DOES have evidence AND arguments for his God. Unsoundness is not the same as nonexistence.

[@Mentat1231]

If atheism does not exist, then how is everyone an atheist? Which is it? Also, if atheism is the lack of belief in any gods, then how can people who do believe in one god be "atheists"? The existence of God is not asserted without evidence. Moreover, your own maxim ("what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence") is itself asserted without evidence, so it condemns itself.

[@100percentrekkie]

[A] I'm an atheist. I just don't like it when people who don't understand philosophy try to assert untrue things. [B] Because of [A], I don't feel obligated to justify his madness, but I will say that your 2nd, 3rd, and 4th questions are pretty much nonsensical, as God would be the creator of all physical things, (2) therefore non-physical, (3) and also the creator of time itself. (4) Please actually read up on his arguments. I did a lot of research before I allowed myself to dismiss them.

[@Mentat1231]

(cont 16) Finally, Stephen Law also gives an argument FOR atheism, completely counter to your claim that you can't argue for a negative, and that atheists have no burden of proof. Did you even watch the clips?? I am utterly bewildered that you could watch those and hear Dacey say point-blank that you were wrong, hear Tooley say it again, and hear Pyle say that you are an agnostic, and yet think they somehow agreed with you! Wow...

[@Mentat1231]

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

[@Mentat1231]

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

[@Mentat1231]

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

[@Mentat1231]

13) Omnipotence doesn't involved doing something logically incoherent. And there is no strawman here. Part of the definition of "stone" is that it is an object. Part of the definition of omnipotence is the ability to move any object. Therefore "stone that can't be moved by omnipotent being" = "stone that isn't a stone" = "x and ~x". That is a self-contradiction just like asking if the omnipotent being can draw a round square.

[@Mentat1231]

11) I am not appealing to ridicule; I am simply ridiculing, and with very strong reasons to do so. There are so many independent sources refering to Jesus and his cruficixion, that it is truly ludicrous to doubt it. Most figures in antiquity are less well attested. Moreover, Bart Ehrman is not afraid to "rock the boat" or challenge commonly accepted beliefs (especially about Jesus). And yet he finds it utterly ridiculous that people should question so well-attested a fact as Jesus existence.

[@Mentat1231]

8) Arguments for God's necessity (including the various Ontological Arguments) will need to be done via PM. We have no room for them here, unless you want to make them our sole topic, and handle one topic at a time. As it is, this discussion has become a jumbled mess. 9) The Christian version of theism actually DOES predict this behavior, and did so long before Evolution was thought of (even in its original Greek form). 10) If we are not geared for truth, then we can't trust our inferences.

[@Mentat1231]

5) Actually, the properties of fairies and spaghetti are rather well known, and agreed upon. If you wish to refer to something else that is not like the typical fairy or spaghetti, you should use another term, and we can work on that new topic. But, the point remains the same: We believe those things don't exist because we have reasons. 6) LOL.You... should really look up Inflationary Theory before you make any more statements about it. Trust me, you've got the whole matter confused

[@Mentat1231]

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

[@Mentat1231]

3) The Universe is most definitely NOT defined as the set of all things that exist. That is ridiculous, and any philosopher or cosmologist will tell you just how absurd it is. The Universe is just a set of *physical* realities, and may not be the complete set (since multiverses are collections of Universes; they are NOT just bigger Universes themselves). I'm sorry, but you're WAY off at this point.

[@Mentat1231]

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

[@Mentat1231]

jemmerx, again this is way too many points to respond to all at once. We need to bring this down to some main points: 1) Pure mathematics occurs entirely beyond the purview of empiricism, and is therefore not at all just descriptive language for science. This is a truly naive view on your part. And your view of philosophy is no less naive and uninformed. Philosophical presuppositions permeate science, and therefore cannot be addressed by science. An easy example is the Copernican Principle.

[@jemmerx]

You like making absolute statements, don't you? Matenoway is not wrong. There are no positive claims against his existence, it is a rejection of the claims of his existence. That's it. You can refute arguments that try to prove he doesn't exist, but that does not change the default position that until something is proven to exist or that it's existence is necessary, it is assumed not to.

[@jemmerx]

But an omnipotent being who cannot make a stone that he cannot lift is not omnipotent. You created a straw man by avoiding the crux. Oh, the feathers are ruffled, alright, and the reponse is ridicule. It is the resort to tirades and ridicule that give them away. The scientists cannot be failing so badly in their reasoning otherwise they wouldn't be where they are. Science has simply shown that philosophy is starting to show its age.

[@jemmerx]

I am reading the book now. Ehrman has a good case, but nothing solid. Truth is not decided by consensus. Fringe or not, there are arguements to be made against, or futher casting doubt on his existence. To say "no serious scholar doubts" is a fallacy. First, the seriousness of the scholar looks like opinion on your part based only on whether the they doubt or not. Secondly, it is an appeal to ridicule, trying to make anyone who disagrees feel foolish. (cont)

[@jemmerx]

In 300 years of observation, nothing has ever required the supernatural as an explanation. We've never observed it.To invoke it requires explanations of the supernatural which adds levels of complexity, a sure sign that the explanation is wrong. It is inductive reasoning, but until such time as this principle is turned on its head, there is no reason to change it. If philosophy argues for complexity before simplicity then the lack of substantial results is explained by its backward method.

[@jemmerx]

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

[@Mentat1231]

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

[@Mentat1231]

Honestly, jemmerx, you posted so many responses, that they've jumbled up, and mixed 5's and 6's together. I can't keep it straight, so I'll need to just respond to your points, without numbering: "Philosophical nothing" is just the semantic meaning of "nothing", which is "not anything" or "the lack of everything". This is not a thing to be observed, but a concept which doesn't require anything at all for its actualization. Whereas any "somethings" would require something.

[@Mentat1231]

(2nd cont of 6) As Patricia Churchland (an avid evolutionist and atheist) has put it: Our cognitive faculties evolved for the four "f"s: fighting, fleeing, feeding, and... reproducing ;-) You want proof of Jesus' existence? Read Bart Ehrman's new book on the topic. He is absolutely merciless in his criticisms of the fringe of scholarship that actually doubt Jesus' existence. No serious scholar doubts Jesus' existence, or that he was crucified.

[@Mentat1231]

(continuing on 5) Again you have not given me a single molecule of reasoning that indicates that the supernatural is "unlikely". There are no numbers, nor is there any limiting factor we know of which would decrease the likelihood of the supernatural. God is not being invoked to explain the unexplained. Deductive arguments are given, and they conclude to a being of a particular kind. Plain and simple. This is not "god of the gaps", as so many naive popularizers imagine.

[@Mentat1231]

Way too many posts at once, my friend! Take it easy, my time is limited ;-) 5) Technology does not testify to science being the "only real knowledge that can be counted on". Indeed, mathematics are just as critical to technology, so pure mathematics has the same testimony. Moreover, practical day-to-day use is not the only measure of the value of an epistemological approach. Indeed, science relies on numerous philosophical presuppositions, and so Philosophy is just as relevant if not more so.

[@jemmerx]

1) I've thought about it and I must concede that I am an atheist, through and through. But I realise that the definition of atheism is wrong, or your understanding of it is wrong. Matenoway brought it up in his discussion with you. Atheism has nothing to prove. It is not a thing. It is a position on a claim. Theists claim there is a God, we reject that claim based on insufficient evidence. God was invented before he was defended. He was not derived from existing phenomena.

[@jemmerx]

It is amusing to see philosophers get their feathers ruffled. It is clear that the philosophers who criticised this book were more interested in details than in the message. These men do science. Their work is based on 300 years of knowledge obtained though the scientific method which is the most -possibly the only- successful explanatory device in the history of man. These men don't hide behind words or thoughts, they stand on tested fact. They have grounds to make their declarations.

[@jemmerx]

(Cont 5) Only if we start with nothing can we demand 'something' to have an explanation. 'Nothing' needs to be explained before we proceed from it. Otherwise nothing is a self-cancelling concept. How do you know nothing can come from nothing? Without actual proof, this is a baseless assertion. Scientists at least have a leg to stand on even when they propose outlandish theories. Perhaps 'nothing' isn't really nothing, as Lawrence Krauss describes.

[@jemmerx]

5) Philosophical nothing makes no sense. Such a concept does not exist in the universe, by definition. I've never heard a good explanation why the default position is, "Why should there be something instead of nothing?" Since we are hear and we observe 'something,' a good question to philosophers is, "Why should there be nothing instead of something?" Nothing may be just a concept. With no proof that nothing can actually be, we cannot assume that is the natural state. (cont)

[@jemmerx]

(cont 6) Societies believing in deities? There is a far simpler explanation that requires no actual supernatural beings. It is the result of evolution. Michael Shermer has a good model for it. The machinery that gives us logic and math... That is easily explainable since we are the products of a causal universe. Historical argument for the resurrection? Questionable. There needs to be reasonable proof of Jesus' existence before you can base an argument of of that existence. Please go on!

[@jemmerx]

(cont 6) Reasons: Contingent reality? Reality is not necessarily contingent. This is the fallacy of composition. It's parts can be contingent but that says nothing about the whole. The beginning of the universe? We don't know if the universe "began." And don't go quoting Hawking and Penrose like WLC because that isn't what they are saying. Ontological arguments? No one is very impressed or convinced by them, even great Christian thinkers. These are philosophical self-gratification. (cont)

[@jemmerx]

6) I disagree. The believers claim something and so bear the burden of proof. Lack of evidence means it is not to be considered or believed. Atheists are decided on the subject but do not bear burden of proof to disprove something that was never proven in the first place. Besides, if we were to accept lack of evidence as a neutral position then we'd have to accept every crazy theory until proven false, such as fairies, the celestial teapot and the flying spaghetti monster. All in the same boat,

[@jemmerx]

(cont 5) The only real knowledge we have that can be counted on (technology testifies to that) is the scientific and that is based on observations and testing to provide naturalistic explanations of phenomena. Science doesn't close it's mind to the supernatural, but there is far too many natural possibilities before needing to invoke the supernatural. A supernatural being with God's properties is even less likely therefore his is the least probable explanation for anything. (cont)

[@jemmerx]

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

[@jemmerx]

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

[@jemmerx]

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

[@jemmerx]

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

[@Mentat1231]

cont5) God doesn't come from anywhere; He is defined as a necessarily-existing, eternal entity. God isn't suggested as a hypothesis. The arguments for His existence are deductive in nature, and conclude to a being with certain properties (which, by the way, you don't HAVE to consider "God"). Supernatural explanations are NOT least probable (again there are no numbers or calculations that yield that idea; it is purely subjective bias). And the arguments have only one possible conclusion.

[@jemmerx]

(cont 5) Where does God come from, anyway? WLC's proposed characteristics are hard to swallow. Why is God even suggested as a hypothesis? His proposed existence doesn't solve any problems, it causes more of them. If you say he would solve the problems of where the universe comes from, etc, then you must explain why the very large, but finite, number of simpler explanations are ruled out first. He being supernatural makes him the least probable hypothesis.

[@Mentat1231]

5) The term "nothing" involves a lack of everything, including all causal power or potentiality. As such, the probability of something coming from nothing is zero by definition. And having "something" requires an explanation (usually in terms of causes and laws). Not having anything doesn't require any explanation at all. Your last statement is utterly backward. Nothing can come from nothing (as I've established above), so it follows that the Universe didn't do so. Probability = 0.

[@Mentat1231]

I've not seen much weaker, but I certainly didn't mean that as a put-down to you. The argument just really is very bad. And "stone that cannot be lifted by omnipotent being" is an incoherent concept of the same class as "round square". So asking God to make one is equally absurd. If there is any crack in deductive logic, it instantly spreads to the whole system and to anything resting on it. Science cannot survive if deductive logic isn't absolutely airtight.

[@jemmerx]

5) Where do you get this probability? Because Parmenides said it before Christ was born? Until we are able to observe "nothing" and study it, we won't know if this concept is even possible or viable. The question that is asked is, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" but as equally relevant, if not moreso, is, "Why should there be nothing instead of something?" Clearly we have something! Now if the universe DID come from nothing then the probability is exactly one.

[@jemmerx]

One must be careful when making such claims about the cluelessness of these men, or any. The do make bold claims about philosophy, and they aren't alone. On the flip side, philosophers (eg WLC) make bold claims about science that they clearly don't understand or are deliberately misrepresenting. The domains of these disciplines are untouchable by the other. But right now, scientists lump these bold philosophers in with new age cranks. It's thought vs observation.

[@jemmerx]

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

[@Mentat1231]

6) The position that there is no sufficient evidence for God's existence can be embraced by THEISTS! Indeed, many theists (e.g. fideists) have welcomed refutations of the arguments for God's existence. So, clearly this is not "atheism" or anything near it. The bottom line is that you believe God does not exist, and that lack of evidence for Him warrants that conclusion. That means you are an atheist. However, "lack of evidence" is insufficient warrant, which leaves you in a bit of a pickle.

[@Mentat1231]

(cont) Philosophy, as a discipline, is not in question except by those who don't like getting their hands slapped for trespassing on the philosopher's domain. It is so evident in Hawking and Mlodinow's book that they have no clue about these deep philosophical concepts. God, as a concept is falsifiable; it's just that all the attempts to show Him to be incoherent have failed misterably (without a single alteration in the concept of "God").

[@jemmerx]

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

[@jemmerx]

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

[@jemmerx]

6) I still disagree. Your definfition suggests that I am neutral on the subject. I am not. I actively disagree with your claim that a God exists. Until I see proof, I have been presented with no reason to even entertain the hypothesis. The claim is not that he doesn't exist, but that you have no grounds to even claim he does. This position clearly falls just outside agnosticism. Probably in a narrow crack between that an atheism.

[@jemmerx]

5) With such an abstract concept as God, there are no exact numbers. But the concept requires explanation, therefore any probability assigned to him is _at least_ the same as any probability assigned to the universe coming from 'philosophical' nothingness. Since adding God to the explanation of the universe adds a step and doubles the entirety of the equation, Whatever the numbers are, they are BIG!

[@jemmerx]

(cont) An example is, "Can God, who is all powerful, lift a rock that he, himself, made unliftable?" This is not a strong argument, but it shows logically inconsistancy. But since reality has revealed itself to be unintuitive and, in some cases, seems to defy logic, scientists and skeptics are not willing to engage in a purely logical proof. Without solid evidence, logical proofs of this kind are not pursuasive (eg the Ontological Argument).

[@jemmerx]

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