#202 Debate - Sean Carroll, Alex Rosenberg vs William Lane Craig - God And Cosmology - 2014
About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery
2014 Greer Heard Forum *Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/MatthewJudge?ty=h *Twitch Channel: https://www.twitch.tv/darkviper88 *Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/MattTheJudge *Main Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/darkviper8888 *Video Debate Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/AtheistTheistDebates *My Gaming Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/DarkviperGameChannel
Comments
-
The theists on the panel are really whacky. It's sad to watch grown men devoting their academic lives down the tube on a delusion which is in gradual but inevitable decline. In 20 years I wonder if you will be able to find academic theists who would be willing to defend theism.
-
I'm a non-theist, but Dr Craig's closing statement was very good.
-
Notice how much emphasis theists place on the existence of a non-physical realm and in particular,the possibility of an eternal non-material existence.It all begs the question as to why a God would create matter at all.
Also,For what possible purpose would a god create comprehensible complex biological mechanisms?
Of course, the idea that there is no supernature and that matter is all we have, disposes of the such "Head scratchers" rather quickly and rather satisfyingly !!
Lastly,It always amuses me that facially,WLC looks like his is in considerable pain when others(particularly his opponents)are speaking. -
Craig, indomitable as ever.
-
I don't take issue with atheists. I have spoken with enough of them and am friends with enough of them to understand that their position is reasonable. I do, however, take issue with anti-theists. Saying "I don't know but here is what I think" is fine. Certainty that there is no higher intelligence or creator deity is a "God of the Gaps" argument in and of itself that demonstrates precisely how much you desire for there not to be a Creator to be accountable to.
-
I don't take issue with atheists. I have spoken with enough of them and am friends with enough of them to understand that their position is reasonable. I do, however, take issue with anti-theists. Saying "I don't know but here is what I think" is fine. Certainty that there is no higher intelligence or creator deity is a "God of the Gaps" argument in and of itself that demonstrates precisely how much you desire for there not to be a Creator to be accountable to.
-
Caroll says that 500 years ago theism was the best model. Well, only if you include irrational and faith based models.
There is no supernatural model that is rational and reasonable, because there is not even a method to investigate supernatural claims. -
Well done WLC!!!!
-
A scientist makes a hypothesis and then looks for evidence to back or refute his claim
If there was a creator God who loved and cared about us. The evidence would be as follows:
1 Everybody would know of him and his commands and expectations. Multiple prophets all telling exactly the same story.
2 We would be emotionally mature. No petty arguments or wars.
3 We would have been designed better, no backache, baldness or cancer.
4 The earth would not have a cooling crust that is susceptible to volcanos, tsunamis, and earthquakes.
5 Bacteria and viruses would not exist or we would be immune.
6 The world would be designed in a way that we all flourished. Some people throw food away and have water on tap, some people experience famine and drought.
7 Adults would not believe or tell children ridiculous stories about talking snakes or flying horses, told as literal truths on pain of rejection if you did not believe.
I could go on. There is no evidence for God. -
Shame WLC didn't get more time to speak or question what the others were saying. Fuckin' loved it at 1:11:18 though, when WLC was clearly thinking "Awww hell naw! He's not getting away with that bullshit argument!" ;)
-
The bit at 53:00 about semantics and scientific epistemology is very lucid. I like that he points out how, even though it technically isn't empirical, maths is considered a "science" because it establishes reliable and veritable grounds for its field of knowledge. Whereas, theism has not demonstrated its epistemic reliability, which is why it is not considered a science.
-
Rosenberg needs to work on his public speaking skills. I would never be able to take one of his classes if he stammers on and on like that for an entire semester. "Uhh, um, um, um..."
-
Sean Carroll again correcting William Lane Craig in all his fallacies.
-
One of the problems with discussions like these is that there tends to be a certain muddling of ideas that gets worse as the dialogue goes on and eventually it leads to name calling by one side or both. So, here are some ideas, that might add a little clarity. On the one hand, there is hardly anyway to prove that there is only one universe, except, in the sense that the word, in its original sense, was meant to entail. On the other hand, science deals with that which is testable or measurable with regard to mass and energy, the multiverse hypothesis is not strictly scientific, though many would like to think that it is; it actually is, strictly speaking metaphysics. That doesn't mean that it is right or wrong, only that it is untestable. There also seems to be some confusion here between the words belief and faith. In day to day usage, they are often confused and because we use other cues of speech or writing- gesture, tone, context- we just go with the flow. But the distinction is real enough. We can believe anything, but faith is associated with experience. This can clearly be seen in that scientists must have confidence in their results. When we speak of confidence limits, we speak to how much we believe something is reliable. Confidence has two Latin roots: con=with; fide=faith. Faith, formally speaking, pertains to predictability based on past experience. Belief is more expansive and entails faith and does not require evidence. Suppose that your new neighbor is going to the supermarket and you entrust him with some cash to get you a few items. Now suppose that it is your loving mother you give the cash to. You believe that your neighbor will do right by you, but you have faith in your mother because of life experiences. My lack of faith in your mother's reliability in no way effects your faith in her, nor does my denial of the validity of your experience or evidence, make your faith based on nothing. Keeping the discussion clean and the terms clear make for better discussion
-
Unchanging being
That is nonsense, since the act of creation is by definition a changing of somebody´s state. Before the act of Creation, the being is a being that has not created. AFTER the act of Creation the being is a being that has created. By definition and implication, a being that is unchanging, cannot create and has not created anything. -
who needs faith when wlc can almost prove the existence of a personal god
-
"Darwinism vs. Theism"?
Evolution is a process, not an origin, God is the origin, the process of evolution included. -
Your theology is a mental state, in fact it is so mental that it approaches retardation.
-
Hate when people start talking about multi-verses...theres only one universe..the observable one and thats it...
-
50:20 "I love science but..." Not a good start...
0m 0sLenght
52Rating