W.L. Craig Argues for the Existence of God.
Why his approach doesn't help.
Existence of God debate.
W.L. Craig, Christian apologist, tells atheists who they are. He says--
@ “Typically atheists say the universe is eternal and uncaused.”
He doesn't ask them, he tells them. How wonderful.
The deal is, the secular view teaches a caused universe, not an uncaused one; part of the Big Bang model says the known cosmos had a beginning and wasn't eternal.
W.L. Craig says, “But there are good reasons scientifically to think that the universe began to exist.”
Did he figure that out all by himself?
About infinite causes, he says @5:35 “Mathematicians recognized that the existence of an actual infinite number of things leads to self-contradiction.”
But he can't say what exactly an infinite number of things is.
Besides, infinity is a notation in math, not a number.
He says “For example what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically you get self-contradictory answers.”
He doesn't know what he's taking about. Infinity isn't a number to begin with. Mathematicians use the notation of infinity to denote an indeterminate numerical value.
Even W.L. Craig says, “This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind but not something that exists in reality.”
Okay. But God is supposed to be infinite. So, by the same token, an infinite God doesn't exist in reality; it's just an idea in your mind.
Pursuing this business of infinity a little further, Craig says, @6:00 “David Hilbert ... wrote, ‘The infinity is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinity to play is solely that of an idea.’
"But that entails that since past events aren’t just ideas but are real, the number of past events must be finite.”
Well, the Big Bang theory already says that the observable universe had a beginning. But what was responsible to make it come, we don't know.
Empirical events are observed in terms of General Relativity theory, which has a speculative limit (it's what's called the Planck unit, a really tiny measurement.) General Relativity can't account for empirical events beyond the Planck unit.
W.L. Craig intimates that a reality can't exist prior to the Big Bang as it would be unknown to science.
He doesn't make sense there.
Craig says, @7:00 “What makes the Big Bang so startling is that it represents the origin of the universe from literally nothing.”
No it doesn't.
Science says that its origin is from nothing we know about; physical laws, as we know them, break down before the advent of the Big Bang. Scientists are trying to come up with new physics for it; quantum physics, for example, postulates the existence of a force field prior the Big Bang.
The Big Bang model doesn't say that there was nothing.
He says, @7:00 that the late British physicist Paul Davies stated that the Big Bang had no cause.
Well, in an interview, Paul Davies said the cosmos came from literally nothing, sounding as if he meant nothing at all. But Davies also said: "You push it further and further back until you reach the point we call the Big Bang, and naturally enough you want to ask, ‘Well, what made the big bang go bang? What caused it? What was there before it?’ And the scientific answer is – nothing! And by ‘nothing’ I don’t mean empty space. I mean, no matter, no energy, no space and no time. In other words ‘no thing’ in the normal sense of the word ‘thing’. In particular, there simply was no before for anything to happen in, because time itself began with the big bang.
There was "no thing" in the normal sense of the word thing. It's what physicists have been saying all along.
But, W.L. Craig, out of ignorance, or disingenuousness, misspeaks himself.
W.L. Craig quotes astrophysicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler, both Christians. They say that the cosmos came from nothing whatsoever.
Hitchens vs Craig: The existence of God part 3
@00:00 Craig: "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo. (John Barrow & Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 1986, page 442)."
Ex nihilo translates to “out of nothing.” W.L. Craig claims this quote represents “contemporary cosmology” while he quotes from a book that's about twenty-five years old.
(Besides, the authors speculate on "if the universe orginated at such a singularity.")
Craig writes, “[T]he scientific evidence supports the conclusion that the origin of the universe was absolute in the sense that all matter and energy, even physical space and time themselves, came into being a finite time ago. So we have really good grounds for affirming the immateriality of the First Cause.”
Something immaterial (transcendent) causes something material.
I get this feeling that he simply makes things up.