You have to have people to have morality. Therefore, God exists and morality comes from God. Wow! Brilliant reasoning! hehe There comes a point when someone professing to be a philosopher is using such bad philosophical reasoning, they have excluded themselves from the domain of actual philosophy. I've heard Craig's arguments to flesh this stuff out and they are TERRIBLE. Watch his debate with Shelly Kagan to see why. Also BAD morality is NOT morality. Dr Craig is unfamiliar with basic morality.

@zozottine No I don't think I invented something new. Epicurus did and this is his invention. I see no flaws in that syllogism, if you are saying that it's false, you need to demonstrate premise 4 to be false. Otherwise, it is correct and christian god doesn't exist.

My comment wasn't just for this video; Craig is quite notorious for making bad arguments sound intelligent. If you are a fan of his, I very much doubt you understand most of what WLC says. Some of what he said in this was valid speculation regarding necessity, but as in all his debates, he never offered anything to suggest that the god he was pondering about actually exists. Like so many of his talks & writings, this was just a bunch of idle "maybe god is like this..." theological chatter.

@FutureHyperion Do you think you invented something new? Please review "free arbiter".

@army103 Could you say why? Did you even understand what he said? The difference between the necessary existence and existence by contingence? (And not arguing that this is a proof of existence, but if he exists, the necessary existence makes more sense). I very much doubt it.

WLC would be a great used car salesmen.

Secondly, christian god is logically impossible: 1. God is all powerful 2. God is good 3. God is all-knowing 4. Not preventing evil even if you can is immoral/evil 5. There is evil in the world. Conclusion: christian god doesn't exist. Very simple syllogism. Christians all agree on the first three premises and the fifth one is also patently obvious. So if someone thinks that there still is a christian god he has to point out that I've done a mistake with premise 4 Waiting for your objection.

Creator isn't a logical necessity. Firstly, we don't know that much about the origins the universe or the nature of the universe to say that universe has to have a creator. We simply don't know and human intuition has been proven by science to be wrong on many things (quantum mechanics). So it's extremely arrogant and pompous to say that just because we can't think of any other explanation there must be a creator.

Hey, Jon (I believe) I think Craig does think the Ontological argument is sound now, though you are correct that he isn't defending it here.

None of Lane Craig's arguments are convincing in the least. His entire argument for god's existence is based upon a special pleading for how god's nature MUST be. Craig side steps the requirement to actually PROVE god's existence & then to PROVE god's characteristics Craig says "A perfect being is worthy of worship". Says who? What is so great about being perfect? Where is the struggle. Can a perfect being show courage? No, he can't, thus he is not as virtuous as us mere mortals

I agree, that a Creator is a logical necessary.

ah i found it lol the fallacy. its when you say that morality is contingent of god. morality is something we find irrelevant of religion based on our surroundings, our necessities and our upbringing. with that the argument for a god falls apart into mere speculation.

Whuh?

Did you know that there is no largest real number? The real numbers have no god.

@army103 Yes it's amazing isn't it! It's almost plausible. He almost brings you in.... then you realise that it's all entire nonsense! This is the core of theology I guess- presenting 2000 year old fairy tales as philosophy. It must be challenging, Craig must be a smart man.

@100huntley what I think he means by logically impossilbe is that out of the millions of God in the world what make you think that "God" happens to be exactly how you interperate it. -

@army103 exactly - And how he gets away with that is amaxing - Make you wonder if William Lane Craig know what he is saying is BS. for people like Ray Comfort for instance - you can say he is just ignorant but what is William lane Craigs excuse

@Purushadasa "You are an expert at employing the straw-man logical fallacy." How so? That charge might carry some weight if you could actually support it. No, I'm not interested in engaging strawman. I'm interested stating correctly the views of others so they can be considered logically and rationally. If I've mischaracterized Craig's views (or your own) feel free to correct me. Pretending that logic is on your side isn't an argument. You actually have to apply it.

@hazydavey You are an expert at employing the straw-man logical fallacy. Next, you should try your hand at valid logic -- you are sure to find it more satisfying in the long-run. atheist total fail

But he didn't say impossible -- he said "imposable." There is only one God.

@hazydavey Ofcourse; I agree 100% that saying something is logical doesn't make it logical. This argument is not the best of arguments but if a person truely understands it then they can appreciate waht it means. I guess logic doesnt work with the christian concept of God.

@Oo786oO Saying that something is "logical" doesn't make it logical. You actually have to use valid logic and supportable assumptions. Sure, it WOULD be clever if the argument worked and wasn't so deeply flawed. But the flaws in the ontololgical argument have been exposed centuries ago. An the argument Craig presents here is entirely circular (i.e., question begging).

@100huntley I think that's because some of the christians lower the nature of God and say he made himself present on the contingent earth, i.e. in the form of jesus. This is a flawed belief by some christians and totally negates the essense of God going against all arguments FOR God.

@hazydavey Hazydavey, that statement is the misunderstanding of this argument. This argument is the ontological argument and uses logic alone to prove the existence of God. It may have it's flaws, but nevertheless it is a clever way to think about it. It is like saying 1+1 = 2