@H

[Jamesman42]

So, you are a William Lane Craig fan now, eh? What do you like about him and his religious beliefs/philosophy?

[Ħ]

wat

[hefdaddy42]

Sounds interesting, but probably over my head.

[El JoNNo]

I don't think anything that comes from William Lang Craig is over anyone's head.

[hefdaddy42]

I don't think anything that comes from William Lang Craig is over anyone's head.

Granted, I just glanced over a wikipedia article.

[William Wallace]

I don't think anything that comes from William Lang Craig is over anyone's head.

Except perhaps Richard Dawkins.

[Ħ]

Don't know how you guys couldn't know about WLC!  That guy's the leading Christian apologist.  But anyway, my attempt to troll Cole failed greatly.

[William Wallace]

Don't know how you guys couldn't know about WLC!  That guy's the leading Christian apologist.  But anyway, my attempt to troll Cole failed greatly.

He's certainly a reputable philosopher, despite the musings internet atheists.

[Jamesman42]

Don't know how you guys couldn't know about WLC!  That guy's the leading Christian apologist.  But anyway, my attempt to troll Cole failed greatly.

oh

ok

[hefdaddy42]

Don't know how you guys couldn't know about WLC!  That guy's the leading Christian apologist.  But anyway, my attempt to troll Cole failed greatly.

I don't care about apologetics.  That's how I don't know about him.

[William Wallace]

Don't know how you guys couldn't know about WLC!  That guy's the leading Christian apologist.  But anyway, my attempt to troll Cole failed greatly.

I don't care about apologetics.  That's how I don't know about him.

Next time you plan to read Crossan, read Craig instead.

[hefdaddy42]

Don't know how you guys couldn't know about WLC!  That guy's the leading Christian apologist.  But anyway, my attempt to troll Cole failed greatly.

I don't care about apologetics.  That's how I don't know about him.

Next time you plan to read Crossan, read Craig instead.

Craig will most likely be proceeding from starting points that I don't accept, if he is like most other apologists I've come across.

[William Wallace]

Don't know how you guys couldn't know about WLC!  That guy's the leading Christian apologist.  But anyway, my attempt to troll Cole failed greatly.

I don't care about apologetics.  That's how I don't know about him.

Next time you plan to read Crossan, read Craig instead.

Craig will most likely be proceeding from starting points that I don't accept, if he is like most other apologists I've come across.

So? I nearly vomit from laughter when I read the Jesus Seminar's publications. But I still read them.

[El JoNNo]

And Hef will vomit with laughter at this guy, he's a joke. I can handle some of the other apologists because they at sound like they genuinely believe what they are saying. There is something about Craig that anything he says makes him sound like an ass. It's bad enough that most of his statements/claims are terrible. 

[hefdaddy42]

Don't know how you guys couldn't know about WLC!  That guy's the leading Christian apologist.  But anyway, my attempt to troll Cole failed greatly.

I don't care about apologetics.  That's how I don't know about him.

Next time you plan to read Crossan, read Craig instead.

Craig will most likely be proceeding from starting points that I don't accept, if he is like most other apologists I've come across.

So? I nearly vomit from laughter when I read the Jesus Seminar's publications. But I still read them.

Great.  But I don't read apologists.

[William Wallace]

Don't know how you guys couldn't know about WLC!  That guy's the leading Christian apologist.  But anyway, my attempt to troll Cole failed greatly.

I don't care about apologetics.  That's how I don't know about him.

Next time you plan to read Crossan, read Craig instead.

Craig will most likely be proceeding from starting points that I don't accept, if he is like most other apologists I've come across.

So? I nearly vomit from laughter when I read the Jesus Seminar's publications. But I still read them.

Great.  But I don't read apologists.

Sure you do. Crossan qualifies, just not as an apologist for evangelical Christianity.

[hefdaddy42]

Now you're just name-calling.

[William Wallace]

Now you're just name-calling.

Other than an apology,what would you call work designed to put Thomas on the same level as the Canonical Gospels?

[hefdaddy42]

Now you're just name-calling.

Other than an apology,what would you call work designed to put Thomas on the same level as the Canonical Gospels?

Historical scholarship.

[snapple]

You know, I may be the worst Christian ever.

I hate Christian music and Christian books. I feel like a moron whenever I listen to worship music and even LOOK at a Christian book. I honestly don't care if other people do. But for me, it just feels lame.

edit

But, I like books written by Christians, or music by Christians, that have nothing or little to do with being a Christian.

[William Wallace]

Now you're just name-calling.

Other than an apology,what would you call work designed to put Thomas on the same level as the Canonical Gospels?

Historical scholarship.

lol.

[Omega]

And Hef will vomit with laughter at this guy, he's a joke. I can handle some of the other apologists because they at sound like they genuinely believe what they are saying. There is something about Craig that anything he says makes him sound like an ass. It's bad enough that most of his statements/claims are terrible.

I hope that is a joke. Care to enlighten us which of his statements are "terrible"? I'll be laughing at your comment in the meanwhile.

[hefdaddy42]

Now you're just name-calling.

Other than an apology,what would you call work designed to put Thomas on the same level as the Canonical Gospels?

Historical scholarship.

lol.

It's a free country.

[El JoNNo]

And Hef will vomit with laughter at this guy, he's a joke. I can handle some of the other apologists because they at sound like they genuinely believe what they are saying. There is something about Craig that anything he says makes him sound like an ass. It's bad enough that most of his statements/claims are terrible.

I hope that is a joke. Care to enlighten us which of his statements are "terrible"? I'll be laughing at your comment in the meanwhile.

This.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZU-_lRGLcQ

He begins his argument on false premises ie the universe coming out of nothing. He then posits that everything that exists must have a cause and concludes with no reason or evidence that the cause must be god. He goes on the claim that the cause must be "uncaused, changeless, timeless"..Where the fuck does he get off assuming anything like that. Oh and "it must also be personal", give me a break. He knows nothing about the big bang theory and mocks it.

[Ħ]

Wow dude.

[El JoNNo]

He wanted an example of terrible and that is prime.

[Ħ]

Not really dude.

[El JoNNo]

So pulling a reductio ad absurdum on the big bang theory. Then claiming something needs to have an intelligent cause and that cause is "uncaused, changeless, timeless" and "personal", doesn't qualify as terrible to you?

Really? That's the equivalent of saying germ theory states that germs appear out of nowhere and infect the body when really it's leprechauns. Those leprechauns have always been there and there is a personal leprechaun for each one of us with a unique hatred and disease. That is the level of stupid in his argument.

[Omega]

And Hef will vomit with laughter at this guy, he's a joke. I can handle some of the other apologists because they at sound like they genuinely believe what they are saying. There is something about Craig that anything he says makes him sound like an ass. It's bad enough that most of his statements/claims are terrible.

I hope that is a joke. Care to enlighten us which of his statements are "terrible"? I'll be laughing at your comment in the meanwhile.

This.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZU-_lRGLcQ

He begins his argument on false premises ie the universe coming out of nothing. He then posits that everything that exists must have a cause and concludes with no reason or evidence that the cause must be god. He goes on the claim that the cause must be "uncaused, changeless, timeless"..Where the fuck does he get off assuming anything like that. Oh and "it must also be personal", give me a break. He knows nothing about the big bang theory and mocks it.

God this must be a joke.

No, no, no, no. Don't make a mockery of his arguments.

The argument in question is the comsological argument. Let's state it formally:

• Whatever begins to exist has a cause
• The universe began to exist
• Therefore, the universe has a cause

1) Premise 1 is commonsencical. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. If you deny premise 1, then you'd have to explain why just anything doesn't come into existence randomly. In other words: if premise one were not true, then one would expect anything to randomly come into existence; spontaneously existing objects (let's hope you don't deny premise 1, as this would mean that we're dealing with a special type of looney).

2) This is a given. The universe began to exist. This is a fact. An overwhelming amount of comsological evidence and simple philosophy (namely, out of nothing, nothing comes) assure us this is true. The law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy, the expansion of the universe, results from experiments from CERN, all point to the definite beginning of our universe some 14 billion years ago. Any physicist with any semblance of repute and self-respect will agree to this. Denying this given reveals that you are either scientifically ignorant or too blinded by pride or emotion to conceed this fact, in light of the complications it imparts on an atheistic worldview. In fact, in 2003, three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary in their famous Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem. On the beginning of existence of our universe, Vilenkin wrote:

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning".

And just what is our universe? Space, time, energy and matter. This means that space, energy and matter (which is synonymous with our universe) had a beginning. This leads us to premise 3.

3) From premise 1, it follows that the universe must have a cause. Taking into account that space, time, energy and matter began to exist, the cause of our universe, by definition, must be transcendent of space, time, energy and matter. Whatever caused the universe to come into existence must be timeless, changeless, immaterial, and omnipotent.

Why personal and fruther explication from the man himself? I direct you here: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8429

Notice that no mention of God was made in the argument or post; this is mere comsology and basic reasoning.

Your post was light on the reasoning and arguments but heavy on the ad hominem. This is the kind of useless offal of psuedo-philosophical and psuedo-rational objections and arguments that define the intellectually bankrupt New Atheism movement.

[yeshaberto]

move back to the discussion of the man/subject rather than each other

[GuineaPig]

God this must be a joke.

No, no, no, no. Don't make a mockery of his arguments.

The argument in question is the comsological argument. Let's state it formally:

• Whatever begins to exist has a cause
• The universe began to exist

[/b]

• Therefore, the universe has a cause

1) Premise 1 is commonsencical. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. If you deny premise 1, then you'd have to explain why just anything doesn't come into existence randomly. In other words: if premise one were true, then one would expect anything to randomly come into existence; spontaneously existing objects (let's hope you don't deny premise 1, as this would mean that we're dealing with a special type of looney).

2) This is a given. The universe began to exist. This is a fact. An overwhelming amount of comsological evidence and simple philosophy (namely, out of nothing, nothing comes) assure us this is true. The law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy, the expansion of the universe, results from experiments from CERN, all point to the definite beginning of our universe some 14 billion years ago. Any physicist with any semblance of repute and self-respect will agree to this. Denying this given reveals that you are either scientifically ignorant or too blinded by pride or emotion to conceed this fact, in light of the complications it imparts on an atheistic worldview. In fact, in 2003, three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary in their famous Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem. On the beginning of existence of our universe, Vilenkin wrote:

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning".

And just what is our universe? Space, time, energy and matter. This means that space, energy and matter (which is synonymous with our universe) had a beginning. This leads us to premise 3.

3) From premise 1, it follows that the universe must have a cause. Taking into account that space, time, energy and matter began to exist, the cause of our universe, by definition, must be transcendent of space, time, energy and matter. Whatever caused the universe to come into existence must be timeless, changeless, immaterial, and omnipotent.

Why personal and fruther explication from the man himself? I direct you here: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8429

Notice that no mention of God was made in the argument or post; this is mere comsology and basic reasoning.

Your post was light on the reasoning and arguments but heavy on the ad hominem. This is the kind of useless offal of psuedo-philosophical and psuedo-rational objections and arguments that define the intellectually bankrupt New Atheism movement.

We don't know if the universe "began" to exist.  It is equally plausible that it has always existed. 

Also, saying that anything that "begins" has to have a "cause" is strange (and somewhat loaded) wording.  And not true.

[Sigz]

Notice that no mention of God was made in the argument or post; this is mere comsology and basic reasoning.

Whatever caused the universe to come into existence must be timeless, changeless, immaterial, and omnipotent.

Sorry, but lol.


This particular universe had a beginning, but there's no reason to assume that it had to spring from nothing, whether you're talking about multiverses, a big crunch (though that's been pretty much disproved) or Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. Either way, there's far too little evidence one way or the other to say what occured before the start of the universe. To immediately jump to "it had to have been caused by a omnipotent immaterial entity" is just as illogical, and has nothing to do with cosmology or basic reasoning.

[El JoNNo]

God this must be a joke.

No, no, no, no. Don't make a mockery of his arguments.

The argument in question is the comsological argument. Let's state it formally:

• Whatever begins to exist has a cause
• The universe began to exist
• Therefore, the universe has a cause

No reason to call the cause god.

1) Premise 1 is commonsencical. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. If you deny premise 1, then you'd have to explain why just anything doesn't come into existence randomly. In other words: if premise one were true, then one would expect anything to randomly come into existence; spontaneously existing objects (let's hope you don't deny premise 1, as this would mean that we're dealing with a special type of looney).

No one is denying that something happened in order for the universe to begin it's current state, .notice I said current state. As the Big Bang theory does not state the universe came from nothing. It doesn't Craig is willfully ignorant as I'm sure he has been corrected.

2) This is a given. The universe began to exist. This is a fact. An overwhelming amount of comsological evidence and simple philosophy (namely, out of nothing, nothing comes) assure us this is true.

Big bang theory does not claim from nothing.

The law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy, the expansion of the universe, results from experiments from CERN, all point to the definite beginning of our universe some 14 billion years ago.

Beginning of it's current state.

Any physicist with any semblance of repute and self-respect will agree to this. Denying this given reveals that you are either scientifically ignorant or too blinded by pride or emotion to conceed this fact, in light of the complications it imparts on an atheistic worldview.

How the shit does the Big bang impart complications on atheism, if anything it would bolster it. Also there is no such thing as an "atheistic worldview", not believing in god is not a worldview. You can be an atheist and believe the big bang never happened or we live on a disc supported by a turtle. Atheist = lack of a belief in a god/gods...period.

In fact, in 2003, three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary in their famous Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem. On the beginning of existence of our universe, Vilenkin wrote:

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning".

I looked this up, it is another Craigism, surprise surprise he is wrong and quote mining (what a fuckwit).

Here is the article he is refering to.
https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf

No where in the artical does it state that there was nothing before this boundary in fact here is a quote from the article

 
What can lie beyond this boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary
of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of
the Universe in a quantum nucleation event [12]. The
boundary is then a closed spacelike hypersurface which
can be determined from the appropriate instanton.
Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear
that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation
alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of
the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order
to determine the correct conditions at the boundary

Looks like the opposite to me

3) From premise 1, it follows that the universe must have a cause. Taking into account that space, time, energy and matter began to exist, the cause of our universe, by definition, must be transcendent of space, time, energy and matter. Whatever caused the universe to come into existence must be timeless, changeless, immaterial, and omnipotent.

The current state of the area of space that we call universe began expansion at the big bang. Please read up on the theory, holy shit man.

Why personal and fruther explication from the man himself? I direct you here: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8429

Notice that no mention of God was made in the argument or post; this is mere comsology and basic reasoning.

First I must point out lolz " I am no longer an atheist but now a humbled agnostic"

this cause is itself uncaused, beginningless

He pulls this out of his ass, just bald assumptions.

So a changeless state must be a timeless state. Even on a non-relational view of time, time could at best be an undifferentiated time in which literally nothing happened; no change occurs. Third, its spacelessness. Anything that exists in space must be temporal, as it undergoes at least extrinsic change in relation to the things around it. So our cause must transcend space and time, at least sans the universe.

What? That's like fish saying fish saying "our master must trancend water!". Just because there is a localized area of space that we at the moment cannot measure beyond does not mean the universe was created by a timeless being.

This rejoinder is futile because if the initial cosmological singularity is a physical state of affairs, as you think, then it is the first state of the universe (its initial boundary point) and, hence, began to exist a finite time ago. It cannot have come into being out of nothing, as you agree. So there must be a transcendent cause of the first state of the universe. Here my second argument, borrowed from Swinburne, for the personhood of the first cause becomes relevant. As I explain, there are two types of causal explanation: scientific explanations in terms of laws and initial conditions and personal explanations in terms of agents and their volitions. . . . Now a first state of the universe cannot have a scientific explanation, since there is nothing before it, and therefore it cannot be accounted for in terms of laws operating on initial conditions. It can only be accounted for in terms of an agent and his volitions, a personal explanation (Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 192-3)

Big bang does not say it began from nothing.. I feel like a broken record. I'm not reading any more of this. I've gotten half way through and all he does is misrepresent cosmology and jump to conclusions.

Your post was light on the reasoning and arguments but heavy on the ad hominem. This is the kind of useless offal of psuedo-philosophical and psuedo-rational objections and arguments that define the intellectually bankrupt New Atheism movement.

This coming from someone who follows a quote-mining charlaton. Craig needs to stop lying about science to prepetuate his own career of being an expert in lies. It's funny how you claim us to be intellectually bankrupt when we have most of the leading scientist on our side and they are speaking out more and more.

[Omega]

We don't know if the universe "began" to exist.  It is equally plausible that it has always existed. 

Also, saying that anything that "begins" has to have a "cause" is strange (and somewhat loaded) wording.  And not true.

We know for a fact that our universe began to exist. If our universe had existed for an infinite amount of time, the freely available energy in the universe would have all been used up and the universe would be in heat death an infinite amount of time ago. Not to mention the philosophical problem of an infinite number of past events. If it's still not clicking, an analogy would be a hot cup of tea which is still decently hot. Were the cup of tea left in room temperature for an infinite amount of time, the cup of tea would be cold (in other words room temperature). Anyone who clings to the belief that the universe has existed forever is either gravely misinformed or merely being intellectually dishonest.

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning".

[Omega]

Notice that no mention of God was made in the argument or post; this is mere comsology and basic reasoning.

Whatever caused the universe to come into existence must be timeless, changeless, immaterial, and omnipotent.

Sorry, but lol.


This particular universe had a beginning, but there's no reason to assume that it had to spring from nothing, whether you're talking about multiverses, a big crunch (though that's been pretty much disproved) or Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. Either way, there's far too little evidence one way or the other to say what occured before the start of the universe. To immediately jump to "it had to have been caused by a omnipotent immaterial entity" is just as illogical, and has nothing to do with cosmology or basic reasoning.

Sorry, but lol.

This particular universe had a beginning

You said if yourself; our universe began to exist. This means that space, time, energy, and matter began to exist. This necessitates the cause of the universe to be beyond time, energy, space and matter. Denying this would only lead to the fallacious conclusion that the universe, before coming into existence, began to exist. That conclusion is, though patently and ludicrously illogical.

So let's say that the universe is part of a multiverse, for which there is no evidence for and which was thought up merely to attempt to evade the conclusion of the beginning of existence of our universe. But all you are doing is merely extending the same problem and the same conclusion to the problem at once; the existence of the multiverse itself would require an explanation. So all you are doing is merely extending the problem of beginning of existence to the multiverse.