Thursday, November 21, 2024
Latest:

Similar Posts

37 thoughts on “William Lane Craig on Daniel Dennett”

  1. atheists,"There was a quantum vacuum before the big bang that enacted its 'at the moment' unguided choice, which created the expansion of this magical infinitely dense singularity that just decided to explode because the quantum vacuum whispered in its ear". Forgive me but this quantum vacuum theory, as properly named, sucks.

  3. It is true that Dennett’s response to the Kalam if accurately portrayed by Craig was bad. But Craig has no reason to feel smug since he is also a professional philosopher and his arguments suck even harder. The Kalam for instance is about as sloppy and fallacy ridden an argument as you are likely to find in the god debate.

  6. The problem is that dr. Craig things that the Universe follows the three dimensional Dynamic of cause and effect… where we all know that the universe is quantum mechanical and cause and effect are completely meaningless… not to mention that pretty much every cosmologist nowadays agrees that the universe we see is only one of an infinite number of universes.. which means there was not a point in time or space where there was nothing before something ..there has always been something infinitely in the past and infinitely in the future. but even if you admit a time where there was a creator then you must ask what was before the first cause or who created the Creator.. just pustulating that God didn't have a beginning because he is omnipotent immutable Eternal is like when you tell your kids it is so because I said so..utterly void of any explanatory meaning..circular reasoning.. so not even his Layman's argument holds water regardless how stupid his premise is

  7. I think many atheists don't spend enough time looking with good faith at the arguments, I'll have a crack at one here
    Cosmological argument: okay, you've proven there must have been a cause to the universe. What reason do you have for not assuming it was something quantum mechanical, rather than a deity? Our reason doesn't work at the small and high energy
    Everything needs a cause, but we can observe virtual particles randomly popping into existence. I believe this is the reason for Hawking radiation, a real measurable thing from nothing
    If you apply positive force to something it will go faster, but if you did this to a photon it would maintain it's speed
    We only know the physical rules of our current universe, the big bang is just the point at which these break down. Atheism does require a leap of faith, but it seems to me that the difference is that you're applying characteristics onto this cause which simply aren't played out in our negligibly habitable and deeply imperfect universe. I have a lot of respect for Craig though, and I think there's enormous value in the Christian tradition. I hope any replies will be hospitable, thanks for taking the time to read and consider my layman rambling

  9. Craig please stop using your 6th grade science education to try to explain the beginning of universe. By definition, the beginning of the universe is the most complex science question which thousands upon thousands of dedicated scientists have not been able to answer. You think your 6th grade science education is going to get it done?

  11. Craig looks and acts like a 1980's car salesman. Cosmological argument applies to everything except your god…talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

  16. Daniel Dennett said that if he were confronted with strong evidence that race and IQ were related, he "would be sorely tempted to misrepresent it to the public" for their own protection
    So that sums up Dennett for you. He doesn't trust you with the facts. He wants to feed you the "right" conclusions and then give you the carefully selected information that will lead you to said conclusions.

  20. I agree with Craig. So, just because you have been told by your parents that Hitler is the achetype of evil doesn't make it true. What are the facts? The 'holocaust' narritive is the victor's story after it incernerates Germany's men, women and children. That is another narrative . Which is true? Everyone can find out for themselves if they are open and hear the evidence.

  23. +Dogma Slayer What you say is contradicted by the facts, such as Craig publicly rejecting Young Earth Creationism as "embarrassing". Also, it's worth noting that this isn't a retreat in the face of modern science. St. Augustine in the 300’s in his commentary on Genesis argued that the days needn’t be taken literally nor need the creation be a few thousand years ago. He didn’t even envisage special acts of creation. He said the world could have been made by God with certain potencies that unfolded in the progress of time. This interpretation was enunciated 1,500 years prior to Darwin.

  24. WLC: "I was shocked, this man is an eminent philosopher". So when addressing what Dennett says you strawman him first. So WLC, is this how to be an eminent philosopher?

  25. Is faith reasonable if it is contrary to the evidence? According to WLC, faith trumps evidence (Christian faith that is), so let's not take anything he says too seriously.

  28. It's not this tired conversation about science and god that's important. The important thing is who can run fastest. Is it Muhammad? Or Buddha? Or The Holy Spirit or Krishna or Jesus or Donald Trump?

  29. Can't argue with that 'logic'.
    The universe ,before it existed, created itself,……of course!, it was so obvious and I couldn't see it,

  30. Hello atheist, if you don't buy what Craig says, then tell us what is your view on how things that are 'are' rather than not. I would be quite interested in how you atheists explain it. Well, of course scientist like Krauss tried it but he really did not answer why there are things rather than not. You'd better give a better answer than what Krauss gave.

  33. The Infinite Regress problem cuts both ways. Physics has never found what came before the universe, except to suggest there is a multiverse. But then where did the multiverse come from. If the universe caused itself, then God could likewise cause Godself. Also look up Deism, Pandeism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Panpsychism. Finally, who says that God has to be supernatural, why can't God be natural? Theism and Atheism get nowhere. And who is to say the Universe and God are not one and the same thing? The information required, the physical laws, something rather than nothing, consciousness (for there to be any of the aforegoing), can all be aspects of a God (or change the word if you wish) of some type. Theism and Atheism are like two sides of a coin, but the truth lies in the middle – hence I say God and the Universe are one and the same (although there are different ways of looking at this, hence I mentioned to look up Panentheism etc.). Yes the world it tired of the negativity that Theism brings, but gosh how does Atheism help beyond this ?

Comments are closed.

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com