William Lane Craig: Why I am a Christian and believe that science points to God

William Lane Craig explains how he became a Christian and why he believes that science points to God.

This is an extract of celebrated mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose talking to renowned Christian philosopher William Lane Craig about God and the Universe.

The Big Conversation is a unique video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the Christian and atheist community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human. 

The Big Conversation Season 2:

The Big Conversation Season 1:


The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with the Templeton Religion Trust
 

[philosophicaltheist]

we want Stephen Meyers debate next season against Richard Dawkins

[Shulamitefire]

*_1 Corinthians _**_2:14_**_ But the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated._*

[aratiger]

William lane craig, he's a highest philosopher in the world, God bless him.

[treasurecave]

I wish unbelievable would put roger penrose and hugh ross in a debate...

[idesel]

I never related to the question of what is the meaning of life or the universe leading to an existential crisis in my own head. My purpose is internal, it's related to my likes, dislikes and in general how I am as a person. I don't need the universe to have a purpose. I'm already here, so I need to survive, have a life that is worth living, in other words minimize pain for myself and others, both physically and emotionally. A bird has no worries about some grand purpose and so am I. I enjoy the sciences, astronomy, phylosophy, outdoors, beauty, etc without thinking "we all doomed without something like a God" ever crossing my mind. The only things that I can't wrap my mind around is existence of something instead of nothing, and being self aware i.e consciousness. I don't need a believe in a god to explain or make sense of anything,

[brendanl]

To paraphrase : 'Certain parts of astrophysics don't contradict theology (as long as you don't use the theology of the Bible). Therefore God exists.'

And this is their BEST argument in favor of God...

[Shulamitefire]

Known for breakthroughs in computing, David Gelernter of Yale University has been hailed as “one of the most brilliant and visionary computer scientists of our time.”


Gelernter - Wiki CommonsNow Gelernter has stunned the world by renouncing his belief in Darwinism.

"Like so many others, I grew up with Darwin’s theory, and had always believed it was true, ” he wrote earlier this year. No longer. “The origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain.”

The aftershocks of Gelernter’s announcement continue to come fast and furious. A video featuring Gelernter has attracted nearly a million views on YouTube. His apostasy has been written about by journalists in Canada, Britain, and Asia.

Prof. Gelernter directly attributes his loss of faith in Darwin to reading books by Discovery Institute Senior Fellows Stephen Meyer, David Berlinski, and David Klinghoffer. His change of mind is a testament to the power of the work being done by Center for Science and Culture scientists and scholars. And, it is a testament to the many who support Discovery Institute.

[askandwonder]

Even if the Kalam Cosmological Argument were to fail to explain the cosmogony of our Universe, in the big picture, the only thing that every scientist exploring reality is doing is to DESCRIBE something that is already there, at most, science discovers something that is ALREADY THERE. To top that off, the only known way to do this, is to be a rational being able to recognize mathematical patterns in the structure of the Universe, that are ALREADY THERE. The God question becomes more and more and more alive the more we discover and describe what is already there. It is an inescapable question. Science is an amazing tool to DESCRIBE, but not to CREATE. Inside the universe, creating something at a human level is not truly creating, but using what is already given in CREATIVE ways. The God question is alive and stronger than ever thanks to science. Both science and faith come out of the same human heart.

[arthdenton]

"I believe that science points to God" - and the key word here is 'believe'.
On the other hand, I no longer believe in Santi Claus even though Santi Claus clearly and constantly points to God.

[crazyprayingmantis]

I believe that science points to Zorg.

So how do we work out who's correct?

[daithiocinnsealach]

He believes it by faith. He believes that to doubt is from Sstsn. And that he hears voices in his head that he claims of God. It is these voices he accepts as truer than anything else out there. So that his entire ministry is a sham. All you need is to blindly believe that Jesus is Lord and never ever doubt it.

[jaymiddleton]

The KCA is debunked. That’s why the other guy laughs in WLCs face when he says the idea of a singularity supports it.

[july]

It couldn't be clearer -- science points to God on at least four main bases.

[MikeJunior]

Coming from the guy who literally said that even if ALL the evidence was against his position, he would still believe because of the Holy Spirit.


That should tell somebody enough. WLC is EXTREMELY biased.

[MilesDavisKDAB]

Still arguing Kalam? Premise 1 cannot be confirmed Premise 2 cannot be confirmed therefor the whole argument just fails before it starts.

[singwithpowerinfo]

It’s funny that we see what we want to see I guess. Craig’s observations which lead him to believe in a god are exactly the observations that demonstrate for me just the opposite.

[Grfan]

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as the practice of suspending the acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._*

And here is the evidence as to why I currently take such a position.

1. I personally have never observed a god.
2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god.
3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
4. I have have never been presented a valid logical argument which employed rationally sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that gods exist.
5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises.
6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
7. Dozens of proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
8. I have never experienced the presence of gods through intercession of angels, revelation, fulfillment of prophecy, the miraculous act of divinity, or any observation of a supernatural event.
9. Every phenomena that I have ever observed has emerged from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance or being) that was created instantly by the solitary volition of a deity.
10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable.

ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is, *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of gods.

I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Skepticism (atheism) is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. It is natural, rational and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones.

I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

[MrFossilabgfyth]

I like to ponder the BIG questions in philosophy. But I don't believe science leads to God. Science is neither for nor against the existence of God. You can't use science to prove nor disprove the existence of God.

[Trigger-xwgq]

Is it not grotesque when the representatives of an antiquated myth-sorcery, who believes in trinity, angles, devils, hell, virgin-birth, bodily ascension, making of water into wine, wine to blood, - when they want to impress us with their "science"? "
(Karlheinz Deschner)

[persiancarpet]

Would have been nice if an actual argument had been presented. What does the singularity have to do with the christian god?