William Lane Craig Is Still Wrong about Cosmology

So someone (owchywawa) thought I failed to refute Craig's garbage, so (ironically) he was nice enough to point out that Craig is even worse at physics than I thought.

[rationalsceptic]

Craig actually doesn't do Philosophy or Science: he does Theology and Apologetics dressed up in Philosophy or Science!

[osmosis]

"And if you're a fan of Craig I can understand how you're not familiar with that concept"

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[SuedeStonn]

I watched that Sean Carroll/WLC debate last week, and it was great. It perfectly shows what happens when you throw a philosopher, who tries to use science,  in the ring with a physicist that actually knows the science... the philosopher gets his ass handed to him. Carroll took each of WLC's arguments head on, WLC avoided Carroll's refutations religiously (pun intended). For those of you that haven't watched it, highly recommended.

non est deus

[Cecile]

Poor Christian apologists are losing all debates and poor Republicans are losing their fight against gay rights. What's the world coming to?

[RealParadoxBlues]

It's people like Craig who give us a reason to use the phrase "So stupid it's not even wrong".

[beakeclipse]

My chandelier chain has turned into a salamander.

[jeradclark]

In all actuality even if we grant Craig's premises we still do not arrive at god as a conclusion. A posteriori arguments are posterior arguments, as in looking "back", back on our experiences and observations. How can we then postulate a disembodied mind, something no one has ever seen as a conclusion? This argument would actually yield abstract entities as the creator of the universe. Creatio ex mathematica, basically something along the lines of Pythagoras. Ask a premodern question get a premodern answer.

[MahraiZiller]

WLC wants physics to follow metaphysics, instead of the other way around.

I don't think it's quite that he misunderstands concepts in modern physics - it's that he wants us to ditch them altogether, because they don't sit well with his philosophy.
He's even made this very argument on more than one occasion - that the conclusions of physics should be lead by philosophy - most directly, the philosophy he finds most comforting.

The problem is that physics and science doesn't give a fuck about what philosophy dictates - not in that way. And it certainly doesn't give a fuck about a philosophical system that is characterised by conformation bias and the refusal to accept new evidence that runs contrary to that philosophy.
Science adapts, every day, and if the philosophy is unable to adapt to it, then tough.
If the philosophy demands science ditches everything it learns in favour of that philosophy, even worse. And that's exactly what WLC is arguing for at every turn.

He even declared that we should ditch Einstein because, in his own paraphrased words, he doesn't like it, it doesn't sit well with his philosophy. That was basically his entire argument. "Get rid of Einstein, I don't like what relativity means!"
Heads up, Billy-boy, science doesn't give a crap what you like and don't like about it. It doesn't give a crap what you think, period.

[CurtisDyer]

You could feel Robert Duncan McNeill's spirit breaking in Threshold.

[AtheistRex]

Isn't that a clip from the debate where Craig claims he understands Alan Guth's theorem better than he does?

[themplar]

How can any being with a brain be a fan or buy what Craig is saying... are people really that desperate to safe their unjustifiable believes in a god concept?

[RaspK]

[slow clapping]

Seriously, I cringed at half the things owchywawa used as counter-arguments.

[cassandraxiv]

"Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
- Wolfgang Ernst Pauli

[gabrielbutcher]

Your videos are always great, but sometimes when you are refuting other videos, and you also appear in those videos is a little confusing, I think it can be easily solved if you make those videos a little smaller (with some kind of background around), so when we see you in full screen we can know is not part of older videos, and when we see the smaller videos then we will know those are the older videos. ( Please excuse any mistakes as English is my second language ).

[johnniemeredith]

Lol at the comments on ochywawa's video claiming that their "philosophical proof" is misunderstood.  The only thing that philosophy proves is that an idea doesn't contradict itself.  This means it is possible not even probable or in the least bit actual.  Use all the logical arguments in the world for something... I'll believe it when there is physical evidence for it.

[TurnaboutAkamia]

Heh. Well, he's wrong in a lot of places, and _not even_ wrong in some others...

Hey, Owchywawa. Let's get one thing straight: William Lane Craig may be a philosopher, but when he does this kind of shit, it's not only bad philosophy, it's -borderline- utter sophistry.

[tycho_m]

Philosophers who try to make statements about the universe and consciousness without any mention or even knowledge of the underlying theories deserve no credibility anymore.

Sean Carroll's argument also transfers to the soul and Jordan's whole alternate fairyland reality. For example, substance dualism like Descartes proposed was a very thought-provoking and interesting idea at the time, but since we've learned about DNA, field theories for force carriers, basic neuroanatomy and neurophysiology, any statement about the soul or the brain which completely ignores all of the science underpinning it can pretty much be discarded as useless nonsense.

It's sad that baseless ideas that make people feel comfortable and important while completely ignoring facts of reality are so much more popular than verifiable theories that try to explain and PREDICT things to the best of our ever increasing knowledge.

Even if his point would be true and the universe actually did have a cause and a creator, WLC seems to automatically assume that it must be the warmongering protagonist of a pre-scientific collection of allegories which contain nothing true that can't be seen with the naked eye, but do revere alcoholic 500 year olds on a raft in the ocean with cold blooded animals and assorted carnivores... Not to mention the magic sky-jew. Couldn't he have mentioned at least one tiny little true detail about reality like the atom or the existence of bacteria or the distance to the nearest star in there?

It takes a ridiculously massive leap to go from arguments of semantics about the beginning of the universe to the sand-god of the Bible who cares about which types of crop you plant in the same field. I guess it's a small step for a dishonest, exploitative asshole who profits off lying through his teeth. The minimum donation on his website is $50.

[TalladegaTom]

Well said sir.
Craig's inability to distinguish between a crane and a skyhook continues to be obvious. (ref Dennett) 

Sean Carroll for the epic win.  That particular debate was excellent!

[markIOP]

WLC knows modern physics like a rock knows about water " nothing " !!!

An advice: In videos that have quotes inside quotes you might want to use some kind of visual guide of what is part of your video and what is a quote. This time it was obvious when is your voice quoted inside a quote and when is it outside quotes because there was a drop in the audio, but that might not always be the case.