I thought it made a lot of sense. I mean do you think the universe always existed? If you answered yes; then it contradicts that a finite thing can be infinite. If you dont believe the universe always existed; then the concept that nothing cant create something finite. there is always the beginning and something had to be without the boundaries of matter space and time to create something with matter space and time. Sounds pretty simple.
No the concept of the Big Bang still lacks the beginning brother. My question to you is "do you believe that something can be created from nothing?"
PS the answer is "nothing" created Everything. It's been repeatedly observed. ;] at about 4:20 he starts describing things that are definitely against accepted scientific knowledge about the expansion of space being real. at 5:27 he also claims you cannot be seen without matter, which is QUITE, QUITE WRONG. You cannot see anything without photons, Photons are not matter, they are electricity. So not only can you see things without matter, you could not see things without this non-matter. He then goes on to say that something that is without space is omnipresent, which is clearly not true. If something was everywhere like omnipresent, it would require space. That's just a flat lie to fit into his mold of Yahweh
the argument used is: an infinite sequence of events can't be created from a starting point by successive addition. but if the universe is an infinite sequence of events there IS NO starting point by definition, so the argument doesn't even apply. straw man to put it kindly. to put it more accurately it's a bullshit argument used by con men who absolutely know better (like William Lane Craig) to appeal to people who aren't used to using objective analysis over intuition. even if the universe is finite (which there is no reason to think is true) at best that's an argument for deism.
Repeatedly observed? You mean like protons and electrons popping in and out of existence? That has nothing to do with the finitude of matter/time/space. If you want to believe everything literally came from nothing (and I'd like to know what your definition of "nothing" is), then fine go ahead and believe that. But I don't know how you could call believers in God wrong. There is a plethora of air-tight arguments for a Creator, the beginning of the universe/space/time, and historical method that we can validate the Bible with. Not only does God exist, but that the biblical God is our Creator.
It's funny that you portray Craig as a con men; yet some of the most brilliant minds can't beat him in a debate. Usually a con can be exposed. Guess his con is iron clad eh?
If the universe is infinite then why is it operating on a finite timescale? Scientists know the universe had a beginning and know it will not always exist. There is a reason why when it was discovered that the universe had a finite beginning it was a huge thorn in the side for naturalists and materialists.
Space is something confined to matter, you are missing the point entirely. The point of the video was to show that matter/time/space are not eternal therefore there is something that transcends them.
When it's questioned; many would say its the mystery of the universe. We want to name it/he/she and they would prefer to just say "I don't know but it's not god"
You are breaking apart interpretations and not the concept. You are forgetting that a theist believes god is the universe but also outside the universe.
So you are willing to stand in the face of all modern science for the sake of your beliefs? I thought it was science that led you to atheism?
nobody would deny that craig is a world class debater - typically prepares better than his opponents and often comes off as more authoritative to the audience than his opponents. that doesn't make him right. he's just good at playing the game. almost nobody in scientific or philosophical circles takes his arguments seriously.
Pantheism is believing God is the universe, theism is believing that God is transcendent from the universe but is in total control of it, basically as omnipotent as conceivable.
Ah but that would only explain that he isn't a con man. And if this is something so important to most atheistic leaders; you would think they would come better prepared. Instead they just use names to try and distract the serious questions he gives that the greatest minds of atheism can't come close to answering.
So i'm missing the point that he's using individual items to prop up his belief, yet I can discredit his props?
But god created the universe and when we were created; he breathed the breath of life in us yes? That would mean he is just as much a part of the universe as being outside of it.
