7. Worst Objection to Kalam Cosmological Argument: Equivocating 'Begins to Exist'

[MeanieKitsch]

Time is an emergent concept that arises secondary to the presence of motion and forces (eg. the Sun, the expanding Universe). No two things that aren't causally related can be said to happen simultaneously. A different "time" that is not relevant to us is possible "before" the point of singularity. DUH.

[jordan6030]

Dr CRAIG...please stop embarrassing the atheist.

[drcraigvideos]

@jordan6030 If you think about it, atheists are only embarrassing themselves when they use these arguments.

[jordan6030]

@drcraigvideos Yeah...they try so desperately to avoid god.

[Sacklome]

Okay way must this cause prior to time be 'God'? I don't understand where God comes into this argument? all the argument pretty much states is that the universe must have a cause prior to time (based on flimsy logic in the first place.) If your definition of God is that broad then you have a SERIOUSLY fucked up vocabulary.

[drcraigvideos]

@Sacklome This is why we know the cause is God, genius: watch?v=1SZWInkDIVI. Please have self-control when commenting here.

[Sacklome]

@drcraigvideos Okay. To refute that:

Outside of time doesn't mean changless. That's just an assumption with no basis. We have no idea what the properties or something outside of time would be.

Immaterial, again, just an assumption. We again, have no idea what properties something outside of space would have.

Powerful, applying the same logic of the other points to this one ends in contradiction. If it is outside of space then it has no energy and is therefore powerless?

[drcraigvideos]

@Sacklome Something outside of time can be chanegless, genius. The laws of logic don't depend on time and they are not changing at all. They're invarian and universal and absolute. They're also immaterial. And power and energy aren't the same thing, especially if you're talking about physics. If you think nothing created the universe, then suit yourself. If you don't know what caused the universe, then don't deny "God" as a reasonable answer.

[Sacklome]

@drcraigvideos Yes it CAN be changless. But there's n o reason to think it is. And why do you think the laws of logic are outside of time? You've only seen them applied WITHIN time, on material.

Okay I see your point on powerful. But referring to the video, just because it created all matter does not mean that it is powerful.

[drcraigvideos]

@Sacklome LOL! The laws of logic are changeless. How can't they? Sorry, but the law of identity is necessary and unchanging. If a bomb blew up the whole world, the laws of logic would still exist and be unchanging.

[Sacklome]

@drcraigvideos And your reason for this is?

If a bomb blew up the world, the universe would still remain. All laws would remain. What reason do you have to think logic transcends all other laws of the universe?

And why do you assume everything that begins has a cause in the first place? Everything you've SEEN begin has had a cause. BIG difference.

[drcraigvideos]

@Sacklome The reason is because it's necessary. The universe as we know it will NOT last forever, genius. Ever hear of heat death? If you think that something can come into existence uncaused then have it your way.

[Sacklome]

@drcraigvideos Okay cut the 'genius' crap you smarmy prick. It's necessary? Because you can't comprehend a universe without it? I'm sorry but reality is not based on what YOU can understand. We're not really talking about 'something' coming into existence uncaused, it's highly condensed energy and matter. VERY highly condensed. Under those conditions things don't operate under the same physics as we normally see. Sub atomic particles are known to just 'appear' without cause.

[drcraigvideos]

@Sacklome *sigh* The laws of logic are necessary. Look up what philosophers mean by something being necessary.

[Sacklome]

@drcraigvideos Okay if I give you that point, you still have to back up your claim that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. We're not talking about your average every day action, remember, we're talking about a SUPER condensed, SUPER hot particle. Quantum mechanics don't operate under the same rules as your average, basic physics.

[drcraigvideos]

@Sacklome LOL! Quantum physics doesn't say that nothing can do something. Drop the pop science, please.

[Sacklome]

@drcraigvideos What you're doing is taking basic premises that ARE true in our daily lives, but trying to apply them to extreme conditions where things would operate VERY differently. It just doesn't work.

[rainbowofhazes]

@drcraigvideos I'm not a physicist but in quantum physics the term "nothing" becomes pointless, for instance the mass of an atom, majority is in the nucleus, protons and neutrons, which consist of quarks in turn. However the actual mass is mostly in the 'empty' space between the quarks. Same is true at a cosmic scale, as most of the mass of the observable universe is in regions which appear to be completely empty, explained via dark matter.

[wais910]

Brother drcraigvideos, has Dr Craig responded to the argument that you can't use intuition to support premise 1?

Do you have any videos on that, which you can show me?

Thanks!

[OxbowisaMstie]

“Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond doubt that they are right.” — Laurens Van der Post

[girtkaz]

@OxbowisaMstie at 3:10 Dr.Craig answers you:-)

[Falcondick69]

isn't this the basis of the "theoreticalbullshit" guys "argument" agains the kalam?

[AgApE010]

One objection I've heard is that causality requires time and that therefore time having a cause is impossible. Has Dr Craig addressed this one?

[vision4DaY]

Part 5

In order for the first premise to be consistent with the rest of the argument it would need to be:

whatever begin to exist out of non matter has a cause

he would then be able to claim:

the universe began to exist out of non matter

The universe has a cause.

The only problem with this is that we don't know if the first premise is true.

really enjoy the vids,

if i'm missing something let me know. If this is on the worst objections, can't wait for the best objection series.

[1GodOnlyOne]

@vision4DaY I know that the first premise is true.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? If so, please present it.

Until and unless you do, the first premise remains true.

=)

[vision4DaY]

part 4

Were we can say that the former we know it needs a cause, we can't make this claim about latter since we don't know. He might want to equate things that begin to exist out of matter with things that begin to exist out of non matter to make the claim that "everything that begins to exist needs a cause" so he can later claim the universe needs a cause, but as I explain previously we are talking about two different began to exist.

[vision4DaY]

part 3

His amendment doesn't work. Because even if he says that what he means with "began to exist" is that there is a point in time were it did not exit, we are still talking about two different types of began to exist. One is began to exit out of matter were there is a point in time were this object did not exist and the other one is begin to exist out of non matter were there is a point in time were it did not exist.

[vision4DaY]

part2

We don't know if things that were formed from non matter need a cause. And that is why there is a problem with him using it along with the first premise, WHATEVER begins to exist has a cause. Because this is a claim we don't know to be true. Where we know that WHATEVER begins to exist out of matter has a cause, we don't know if ANYTHING that begins to exist out of non matter has a cause.

[Equestions]

@vision4DaY Wow. First off. Give me one example of something that came into existence from non matter. Secondly, you'd have to deny every single piece of scientific data we've ever observed in order to think that anything at all can come into existence from non matter. So is that what you're going to do? Do you deny science and everything we've ever observed up to this point? Amazing how high school kids actually think they can refute this stuff!

[vision4DaY]

@Equestions

The Universe.

Isn't that why the cause would have to be non material?

[Equestions]

@vision4DaY (1) Therin lies the problem. Simply claiming 'the universe came into existence out of non matter' as you were claiming means you are starting with a false premise. This of course will lead you to a false conclusion. WLC just covered the 'universe coming into existence out of nothing' in a previous vid in this series. You would have to show evidence that anything can come into existence from non matter because modern science has never shown that to be possible. WLC's first premise

[Equestions]

@vision (2) isn't just his opinion and he's asking you to accept it as true. His first premise is backed up by what the scientific world has shown to be true. Your argument, however, is asking us to believe something for which there is no evidence. So we're left just having to accept your statement of 'matter from non matter' as true without any way to confirm that matter can actually come from non matter. Krauss has recently done a book on the whole 'something from nothing' and, without

[Equestions]

@vision (3) having read it yet I am pretty much convinced that the motive for the book came from his interaction with Craig and their debate. Krauss and the thought that the universe came into being from non being was brought front and center to the public's eye after this debate so I think Krauss felt like he needed to write on the subject. Krauss and the rest of the scientific community aren't stupid. They do realize that they're in the same boat you are asking us to enter. According to the

[Equestions]

@vision (4) big bang theory the universe had to have come from nothing. They realize this. They also realize that there is no science to prove that something can actually come from nothing and to say it did is to deny everything they as scientists know about the world around them. He, of course, in an attempt to avoid God has come up with a completely crazy concoction using quantum mechanics but he still hasn't shown that matter can come from non matter. So that brings us back to your comments.

[Equestions]

@vision By saying that WLC needs to show that 'matter from non matter needs a cause' is setting up a false first premise because there is zero evidence to show that matter can actually come from non matter in the first place. Now if you could show all of us that this can actually happen with scientific papers and such then the first premise may then need to be changed. Your idea was certainly interesting though.

[vision4DaY]

@Equestions

I thought that is the reason why he said the cause needed to be non material. I guess then the cause could be material and could also not be god.

By the way craig is claiming us to accept something that is outside of time, out side of space, and non material. when has science shown that?

He is also claiming us to accept a disembodied mind, when has science show that?

I find this to be a good discussion. Might clear up some misconception I might have. thanks

[Equestions]

@vision4DaY Have you by chance seen the other vids in this series? Just asking.

[vision4DaY]

@Equestions

no I haven't, I will do so.

[Equestions]

@vision4DaY Ahhh....ok. I think you'll find a lot of the answers you have been asking me are answered in the earlier videos in this series. Watch them and I think a lot of this this will make more sense.

[vision4DaY]

@Equestions

so what you are saying is that matter was not created at the big bang? what about time and space? just want clear up what you are saying.

[Equestions]

@vision4DaY What I'm saying is that it's the contention of most modern scientists that the universe came into existence from nothing. As in being from non being or as you put it matter from non matter. Watch the previous vids in this series starting with Objection #1 and I think a lot more will be cleared up for you.

[gregkahuna1]

@Equestions

The contention of scientists is not that existence came from "nothing". According to string theory, the particles of matter are just vibrations of the same string and came into existence from this string's membrane.

[1GodOnlyOne]

@vision4DaY Because there was no time prior to the BB that any matter existed, the cause of the existence of matter could not possibly be material -- it must therefore be something other than matter.

[1GodOnlyOne]

@vision4DaY Dr. Craig uses the term "outside of," but I think that a more accurate way to put it is that the cause of the universe "transcends" time, mater, and space. Logic is a branch of science, and logic demonstrates quite clearly and irrefutably that the cause of the universe must necessarily transcend time, matter, and space.

I don't think that Dr. Craig actually mentioned any "disembodied mind." At what time did he supposedly use that strange phrase? He didn't, did he?

[1GodOnlyOne]

@vision4DaY Your personal ignorance of the clearly irrefutable truth of the first premise is not an argument, and it is not evidence that the first premise could somehow not be true.

The first premise IS true, and you have failed to present evidence to the contrary.

[vision4DaY]

This is actually not a bad objection. The reason it is used is because when he says began to exist, both sides need to accept the premise. It is obvious that things "begin to exist" by being formed from pre existing material; matter.

And we also know for a fact that when something is formed from matter or "begins to exist" from matter, it needs a cause.

But the universe was not form from matter. The problem is that we don't know anything about things that are formed from non-matter.

[1GodOnlyOne]

@vision4DaY I know a lot about things formed from non-matter. Your personal ignorance is not an argument or a valid objection or evidence to any end, sadly.

[Minttzz]

How does replacing one phrase"begins to exist" with another phrase "comes into being" refute the objection when the phrase is still being used to refer to two differeny kinds of transition from non-existence to existence?

I.e. in premise 1 "comes into being" still refers to a transition from a prior material state; but in premise 2 "comes into being" still refers to a transition from a non-material state.

[starshkr46]

@Minttzz That's because the previous state doesn't matter. It came into being and that's it.

[Minttzz]

@starshkr46 - Of course it matters! They're two entirely different things. We see stuff "coming into being" from prior material all the time. Matter is transformed and we give it a new label. Bread becomes toast, wood becomes a table and sperm and egg together become a baby. These are all causal as per per premise 1. But no-one ever anywhere has ever seen stuff "coming into being" without pre-existing materal - as per premise two - so no-one cann say if this is causal or not.

[lxAgnosticxl]

Damn Craig is one smart cookie.

[LastCrusad3r]

So why cant we propose the same for the universe as god, that it existed prior to time?

Nothing in cosmological science dictates that its impossible.

[SavedFollower15]

At least this person is attacking the second premise, it shocks me when they attack the first.

[CrashTestAuto]

@SavedFollower15 This isn't an objection to the second premise, I'm not sure why WLC says it is. It is an objection of equivocation regarding the whole argument.

[drcraigvideos]

@CrashTestAuto You're mistaking two different objections. The objection against the WHOLE of the argument is here: watch?v=EoO2WJdk1x0. In the video above, Dr. Craig deals with the premise.

[MrDjmeves]

Seven videos of strong refutation, but I still can't look away from WLC's tie...

[Randomicity912]

Man, you should see the imbeciles commenting over on one of my videos. I keep getting the 10 worst objections posted over and over again. It would be funny if it were not so sad.

[hellavadeal]

@Randomicity912 I had one tell me philosophy was crap. And that we do not need it. When i explained that there is no science without it, they responded with vile condescending language and attempted to discredit me. Proving my point.

I bet you get lots of that too.

[LiberalsUtopian]

Why is Rich Dawk so afraid to debate him?

[metaljacket1983123]

Kinda lost me when he went into the variables, but I understood the point well enough without it.

[drcraigvideos]

@metaljacket1983123 Well, I'm glad you got that much at least. Youtube atheists wouldn't get a darn thing!

[LiberalsUtopian]

@drcraigvideos They can't see past their hatred of God's morality.