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=8429Notice 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.