William Lane Craig Is Wrong about Cosmology

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. Premise 1: Craig has debated several high ranked scientistsPremise 2:None of them have gotten into detail and said that he was wrong about the components of cosmology Conclusion:This YouTuber "all knowing" wannabe is just trying to act like he knows everything but all he can do is record himself on top of WLC vids cause he knows that if he was actually debating him face to face he wouldn't be able to compete to his level of intellect
2. Craig studies and works with some of the top cosmologists in the world- Im pretty sure he knows a little more than flunkie youtube atheists..... hell, it looks like he knows more than the top cosmologists in every debate against them-- nice try tho---
3. You do a great hick impression Martymer.
4. He even butchers math. He says that "no mathematician says that literally infinitely many things can exist because it leaves to self contradiction." This hasn't been the wide opinion since after Cantor. "Hypothetical infinity" hasn't been a serious part of mathematical discourse in like half a century. I know this because I know a philosopher of math who gave a talk explicitly on the history of the notion of hypothetical infinity.
   
   The man is so desperate that he claims Hilbert's Hotel is "contradictory", by which I think he means he's too stupid to get that a certain class of objects can act differently than another. Come to think of it, that's exactly what the error in Kalaam is.
5. 3:00 And this is why creationists hate set theory.
6. You can't fool me Marty! You're the evil twin! The goatee gives it away every time.
   
   Wait... does that mean the good twin is... a creationist woo peddler?! Mind=blown.
7. P1: NOTHING can conjure a universe into existence.
   
   P2: GOD can conjure a universe into existence.
   
   C: Therefore GOD is NOTHING (He / It doesn't exist)! ;)
8. Do you believe then that the Universe came into being without any cause/reason? Then why don't anything and everything come into being like that as Dr. Craig says?
9. I thought you suddenly became amputee for a second :D
10. in my experience, all Creationists are exceedingly scientifically illiterate......few of them have even the barest understanding of what science actually is, much less how it works, or why the conclusions are so significant....
11. Anyone else think Craig sounds like John de Lance?
12. You've explained WLC and his tactics perfectly!
13. Dude, I was like: "Is he an amputee? Where is his arm??" in the first seconds LOL 😂😂😂
14. A cosmologist talks about stupid, you got to be kidding. I have heard so much bunk from cosmologist it is insane. "we found a planet that is made of total diamonds. Wow that's amazing what space probe found that. Black holes, you cant see them, never sent a probe to study them and from a bazillion miles away you know all about them. We draw pictures of the inside of them for text books. We have pictures of the inside of the earth and yet we have not actually been more than a few miles down. We even have charts of what the inside of the sun looks like, Where did you get that info. We know that the Universe is 15 billion years old and that the universe expanded 60 light years across in the first trillionth of a second. How can you even define the age of the universe if time and space expand like that. Maybe the big bang hasn't happened yet, at 60 trillion light years per second we may have gone back so far in time we aren't back yet. The truth is we are totally amazed every time we send a probe to a near planet. but cosmologists know all about what is going on 30 light years away. Cosmologist look at radiation coming from the stars, fiddle with math and become experts. How stupid is a man who thinks he is an expert on France and yet has never been there, never met someone who has, and never read a book from someone who has been there. Sorry i got to do some more math calculations so i can learn to speak French if I ever go there.
15. These people have trouble understading the concept of time, that's why they keep throwing sentences like "before time was created"... But perhaps they can understand a simpler concept: space! Space and time are not indivisible, they exist combined in what scientists call the fabric of spacetime. To take an action, we need to take it somewhere, it's impossible to do something in no place at all. Therefore, it's just nonsensical to imagine doing anything (like "creating universes") before there's a space where to undertake that action.
16. I always support a WLC comeuppance, but this raises a few questions for me.
    
    I thought that the laws of nature were an abstraction and not a thing to themselves. If this is the case, how could they prompt a universe to form in the absence of of anything else?
    
    Or am I misinterpreting that and what you really mean is that we can abstract the same laws from nothingness' automatic transformation into a universe? But if this is the case, doesn't that require nothingness to actually be something? How do you abstract anything from nothing?
    
    If it isn't too much to ask, would you mind explaining which is wrong and the source of my misunderstanding? Thanks.
17. What does it mean to "cause time to begin"? ----- that phrase means nothing to me
18. Where did the laws of physical reality come from then????
19. My understanding of the mathematics of GR is very vague and I haven't read the paper (and probably wouldn't understand more than 3% of it if I did). But I get the impression from the quotes you put up and listening to WLC that his use of the BGV paper is a bit like YECs quote mining Punctualists to support their contention that "there ain't not transitional fausils".
    
    From your quotes, the target of the paper seems to be current thinking on inflation, not every single inflation model (let alone every single Big Bang model). And the target of punctualists was (is) gradualism, not every single Natural Selection model.
20. we know the universe exists and can be defined the problem with 'god' is that neither of those things are