William Lane Craig

Two things I want to point out about this video:

1. WLC unwittingly admits that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. This is important because creationists continue to claim that without an explanation for the origin of life evolution cannot be a valid scientific theory.

"In order to recognize that an explanation is the best you don't have to have an explanation for the explanation."

2. WLC's Kalam Cosmological Argument creates an infinite regress but then demands that it not be addressed. Let me explain:

The short version of his argument is that anything that had a beginning must have had a cause. He then claims that the Universe had a beginning, therefore, it must have had a cause. He then infers this cause to be an "Intelligent Designer". Then, illogically and arrogantly claims that this Designer had no beginning, therefore It had no cause. But why? Because his argument requires we accept this premise.

So... Richard Dawkins, rightfully so, has asked; who created The Designer? WLC's response is that we can't ask that question because it would "destroy science" and lead to an infinite regress of cause and explanation. Ignoring completely that science is ONLY concerned with explanation and in no way accepts unfalsifiable premises as explanations. So we have a circular line of reasoning which brings us back to square one and shows that the KCA does nothing more than infer design based on incredulity.

Here is WLC's complete reply:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Wow that archeologists parallel is so bad.

Perhaps Dawkins is too thick to understand science can't explain everything.

Opposed to direct censorial evidence

Nothing can exist unless we can scientifically test it 

Nothing can exist unless we can scientifically test it 

No, but we do have to doubt the existence of things we have no evidence for.

Nothing can exist unless we can scientifically test it 

Non scientifically tested things can exist, but why believe in something that hasn't been seen a sign of? Fire breathing dragons might also exist, but I don't believe they do as there hasn't been a trace of them. 

What does that have to do with realizing science can't explain everything?

Perhaps Dawkins is too thick to understand science can't explain everything.

with this. he doesnt

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on December 21, 2010, 09:45:21 AM

Perhaps Dawkins is too thick to understand science can't explain everything.

with this. he doesnt

Why does he hold everything to a scientific standard then?

Quote from: Beorn on December 21, 2010, 10:48:09 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on December 21, 2010, 09:45:21 AM

Perhaps Dawkins is too thick to understand science can't explain everything.

with this. he doesnt

Why does he hold everything to a scientific standard then?

Because that's how you come closest to the facts.

What does that have to do with realizing science can't explain everything?

Who has ever said that it could? Why introduce strawmen?

Because the OP specifically referred to Dawkins.

Quote from: Beorn on December 21, 2010, 10:48:09 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on December 21, 2010, 09:45:21 AM

Perhaps Dawkins is too thick to understand science can't explain everything.

with this. he doesnt

Why does he hold everything to a scientific standard then?

Because he's a scientist, perhaps?

I think you're missing the point of the argument. The point is not that god does not exist but that the KCA is not proof of his existence.

Because the OP specifically referred to Dawkins.

still don't see the relevance

Well nothing is proof in science either.
However, some theologians can use it as evidence.

Well nothing is proof in science either.
However, some theologians can use it as evidence.

Still you haven't explained why you think Dawkins thinks that science can explain everything.

Well nothing is proof in science either.
However, some theologians can use it as evidence.

Yeah, and?

There is no "proof of evolution". No one with any scientific integrity has ever suggested that there is because science does not deal with proof. There is only evidence in favor of evolution. Contrast that with the existence of god, of which there is no evidence.

That's the simple point of the OP. That the KCA is not evidence of god.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on December 21, 2010, 11:11:48 AM

Well nothing is proof in science either.
However, some theologians can use it as evidence.

That the KCA is not evidence of god.

Why not? Theology is not restrained by scientific standards. Only science has to specifically be falsifiable and ideally repeatable.

Quote from: Dave on December 21, 2010, 11:17:37 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on December 21, 2010, 11:11:48 AM

Well nothing is proof in science either.
However, some theologians can use it as evidence.

That the KCA is not evidence of god.

Why not? Theology is not restrained by scientific standards. Only science has to specifically be falsifiable and ideally repeatable.

Yes if you redefine evidence you can.

  So the only evidence has to be scientific evidence?

Quote from: Dave on December 21, 2010, 11:17:37 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on December 21, 2010, 11:11:48 AM

Well nothing is proof in science either.
However, some theologians can use it as evidence.

That the KCA is not evidence of god.

Why not? Theology is not restrained by scientific standards. Only science has to specifically be falsifiable and ideally repeatable.

Because the syllogism is incorrect.

So the only evidence has to be scientific evidence?

No, but when someone presents an argument that is supposed to be based on logic, and the logic fails, it cannot be regarded as evidence no matter how you define it.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on December 21, 2010, 11:19:27 AM

Quote from: Dave on December 21, 2010, 11:17:37 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on December 21, 2010, 11:11:48 AM

Well nothing is proof in science either.
However, some theologians can use it as evidence.

That the KCA is not evidence of god.

Why not? Theology is not restrained by scientific standards. Only science has to specifically be falsifiable and ideally repeatable.

Because the syllogism is incorrect.

Proof?

So the only evidence has to be scientific evidence?

Scientific evidence is the strictest, and thus most reliable evidence. Theological evidence might be historical evidence but you can't find evidence on something else in a book of myths.

If your argument is that science cannot explain everything and evidence of a theological nature is not confined to scientific scrutiny then why present arguments based on logic (science)?

If you want to believe in god based on whatever it is that you consider evidence that's fine by me. But when someone creates a syllogism and claims that it is evidence of god's existence I think it's only right that it's shown to be incorrect (when it, in fact, is).

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on December 21, 2010, 11:23:49 AM

So the only evidence has to be scientific evidence?

Scientific evidence is the strictest, and thus most reliable evidence. Theological evidence might be historical evidence but you can't find evidence on something else in a book of myths.

You act as if theology doesn't change.
Why does strictest automatically=most reliable?

Quote from: Beorn on December 21, 2010, 11:30:42 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on December 21, 2010, 11:23:49 AM

So the only evidence has to be scientific evidence?

Scientific evidence is the strictest, and thus most reliable evidence. Theological evidence might be historical evidence but you can't find evidence on something else in a book of myths.

You act as if theology doesn't change.
Why does strictest automatically=most reliable?

Do I really need to point out the obvious? "We believe that this and this happens" vs "We believe that this and this happens, we test it under strict conditions, we repeat the test, we give it to peer review and let others repeat the test and if it all gives the same result we can reasonably say that this and this happens."

North Korea has the strictest media guidelines. Therefore they must be the most reliable.

Proof?

Well, first of all, the 1st premise automatically excludes god.

"Everything that began to exist" becomes a meaningless premise when you have already concluded that god did not begin to exist. Why exclude god?

Secondly, the Universe as we know it may have "began to exist" at some unknown instant but this in no way implies that it came from nothing. It's like saying that you began to exist the moment of conception while ignoring that the constituents of "you" have existed prior to your existence. In other words, we don't know what existed prior to the Big Bang so this premise is also flawed.

Third... the conclusion cannot follow from two flawed premises.