Evidence for creation discussed

Why wouldn’t be? Were we there, did what happen have living witnesses we can ask what occurred? Is the current evidence we all have access to here for everyone to see? If what we see has an explanation, wouldn’t have to be reasonable, in court beyond a reasonable doubt is the best we can hope for! To get an explanation with certainty is not a realistic standard. 

I think you misunderstand me. I think it's legitimate and from what I can tell, so do you. I was just confirming that we both agreed.

Brain-fart mine, didn’t realize it was you I was replying to sorry.

Have you watched it?

@TruthMuse - why not pick what you see as the 'detective's' strongest point and express it in your own words?

@stephen_33, why not just listen to it? It's been there for quite some time, and I know you have in the past watched other things brought here to give them a fair assessment that you knew going into that odds were you were not going to agree with. I've already given you a brief overview and touched on the topic.

Because it's over an hour long and people don't always have that kind of time. And if they think they're going to disagree with it or that it's not going to be worth their time, then they're going to be even less inclined to watch it. I myself prefer sources I can read. In this case, a transcript.

May 2021

Yeah, I hear you, but there are an unending number of informational videos and books to watch and read. I have more books that I want to read and plan to get to that I'll probably never have time to actually read. But I can still read a transcript faster than I can watch a video. So is there a transcript available?

It would more than likely take me longer to find one than it would for you to watch/listen to it. Things like this I from time to time listen 🎧 while driving because my daily commute is long.

You're unable to summarise even a couple of points made in the video?

Surely, if the presenter is laying out his argument in a logical and cogent way it should be possible to outline that in a few paragraphs?

I have given you enough and it seems to be unimportant and uninteresting so I will not bother you with anyone.

You have to give people more if they are requesting information in a different (non-video) form. I just found a transcript that already exists at the same link as the video. If you expand the description, there is an option to "show transcript." This option would have been helpful to know from the start. 

Also, would have been helpful to know the video talk is based on a more in depth book the guy wrote called "God's Crime Scene." Again, this would have been useful information to know from the start.

The next step I'd want to take is to see if there have been any published reviews of his book by professional cosmologists or philosophers. 

It doesn't take long to provide additional information for @stephen_33.

Wallace is a cold case forensic detective. He is also an adjunct professor with Biola University of which William Lane Craig is also associated.

His talk is based on a book he wrote called "God's Crime Scene."

He starts off by comparing the issue to forensics investigation determination of whether the crime scene is explained by "inside" or "outside the box." If all the evidence can be explained by what's "inside the box," then it wasn't a murder. If the evidence requires us to look "outside the box," then we're dealing with an intruder 

He applies the same analogy to the universe and lists eight evidences that he says require an explanation "outside the box," that is "outside" the universe (Interesting analogy. I like the concept. Right off the bat though, I suspect there will be objections by philosophers to this analogy, because the explanations for outside the box in a crime scene still involve things that we can empirically study; namely, human perpetrators).

The eight evidences remind me of similar arguments by Craig, Antony Flew, and others on things like the origin of the universe, fine-tuning, origin of life, design in biology, consciousness, morality, etc.

In the video, he focuses on the fine-tuning argument. He quotes/references cosmologists and philosophers, including Paul Davies, Laurence Krause, Alan Guth, and Antony Flew.

Here is a copy-paste of my most recent post on the subject in response to SPickwick:

SPickwick wrote: Ok, assume that the multiverse exists. What created that?

I'll say this much. I think you raise a very important point with the fine-tuning argument, which most people think is just about whether or not a universe will be hospitable to life. But it's so much more. For example, if the strong nuclear force was weaker, the universe wouldn't simply be inhospitable to life--atoms wouldn't exist!

It just seems that there is an astronomical number of ways to go wrong compared to 'right' when it comes to fine-tuning. 

This astronomical number of possibilities, in turn, would seem to suggest that the universe is contingent (i.e., it's possible for it not to exist), which would further seem to entail that it is not uncaused, but requires a cause external to itself.

So essentially just a rehash of old arguments for divine creation? Anything at all that's fresh in his approach?

We must remember to view our Universe 'in the round' - that's to say what natural processes were involved to bring about the Universe we see today.

We can be very confident that the early Universe was composed of little more than Hydrogen and Helium and many millions of years were required to fuse these simple elements into the heavier ones required to allow the formation of rocky planets and then, in the case of our own, life itself.

I've yet to hear any variation of conventional divine creation that makes the least sense within the context of what we know of the development of the Universe.

Again, the video only covered the fine-tuning argument. So "old news," in that sense, but still a phenomenon that "conventional" naturalistic views have not been able to "make the least sense" of. It's a fair point that suggests the universe is not eternal and/or uncaused, but contingent.

Evidence discussed from a perspective of someone whose life work is collecting evidence.

For something to exist there needs only to be the probabilistic possibility that it can exist.

In the absence of any clear idea of what the underlying initial conditions were from which our Universe emerged, how can we hope to draw any conclusions about how unlikely this particular composition of the Cosmos is?

What we can be very confident about is that what followed the Big Bang appears to have been entirely naturalistic.