If you know anyone who's been falsely DMCA'd by William Lane Craig collaborator John Leonard, otherwise known as drcraigvideos, please contact @thunderf00t.
This is, of course, all ignoring the fact when Veritas defines "nothing" as the absence of all reality, yet he says God created some from nothing, this is essentially saying that God is not part of all reality. Who knew? Veritas was an atheist.
Dude, it's all speculation! Nothing comes from nothing, therefore, the universe didn't come from 'nothing'. No one can know for certain how it all came about because no one was there. Everything follows some natural law of existence, and so the creation of this universe had to do the same. Claiming that some diety created it all is just simple fantacy. It's an antiquated and easy answer for the unanswerable ... a quick solution for those who can't accept the 'not knowing'!
@justanote7 Mostly true. But It is a fact that normal physical laws break down at the quantum level. Making it quite possible that the universe DID come from nothing. By the way, I also think that the God hypothesis has completely failed, in every way.
We can see stars being born and collapsing in on themselves with no intervention from a god, why would anybody assume that the universe has not ALWAYS existed and is constantly evolving?
Oh that's right....because it doesn't serve their purpose of trying to prove their god exists!
@dechha1981 Completely agree. My reasons are that the word creation is meaningless except in the realm of time. Without time creation can't happen, if it did when did it happen? Since to create there needs be a time before the thing you created, a time after the thing being created and at the intersection is the moment of creation.
@piusvapor If true then our "God of the gaps" has been experimentally and observationally verified. Can't say the same thing about you "God of the gaps," can you?
@antybu86 Yea verified using mathematics methods that rely heavily upon such methods as the "UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE ". By the way I said, "for this particular discussion" in which there has been no "experimentally and observational" verification, just mathematics which induces uncertainties to supply a DESIRED result.
i woke up this morning and i saw a car in my driveway... wow! i think it came from nothing... it just suddenly appeared! i mean it wasn't there yesterday... lol
you are right in pointing out their inconsistency and hypocrisy, what the hell is the point in discussing with a person the big bang if he doesn't first accept evolution?
BUT, you are wrong in saying "for the sake of argument, lets say this strawman they made were true, then how can they say big bang, QM, theoretical physics is wrong", well, THEY CAN'T, which is why they built the strawman to say "if it were true, then we can't know anything and all bets are off" (therefore it must be untrue)
The Cosmological Argument is self defeating because they will say their god was always there and came from nothing. The Cosmological Argument is a fancy name for argument from ignorance. We don't know what happened before the Big Bang, forget about it, lets use some pretty scientific words and put God in the equation. It's like rewritting Genesis 1:1 using Quantum Physics.
@HybridD91 : The Cosmological Argument isn't self-contradictory. The Created is time-bound and therefore requires a beginning; the Creator is timeless and therefore requires no beginning. The argument is based on a colossal assumption but it isn't illogical.
Good post. The key point is that the pre-BigBang quantum field was timeless. This puts the scientific explanation is on an equal footing with the God explanation in terms of dealing with the 'cause' issue. The Universe, like God, would not have to be caused. Cause (and effect) would be subsequent to the initiation of the Universe.
I will be the math guy and say that "points and thus euclidean geometry both exist" does not follow. In fact (I'm a mathematician, and not a physicist, so I might be outdated on this point), my understanding is that current knowledge points to the fact that the geometry of our universe is ultimately not euclidean. "points and thus geometry" I would accept. In other words: don't go throwing the word euclidean around carelessly. It has a fairly precise technical meaning...
@uvauva2 Maybe it doesn't follow (though, I'm not too concerned because there are many other reasons why a singularity isn't "nothing"), and you'd probably know.
Although, isn't Euclidean geometry all about points and lines? I could be entirely mistaken here... maybe I should have double-checked my source.
I wasn't saying it changes the argument in the slightest, but that should be no excuse to use terminology imprecisely.
The situation is a bit technical, but roughly speaking anything involving points falls under geometry (there is a very bad math joke about this: "life without geometry is pointless"). Also, plenty of non-euclidean concepts of geometry have concepts of (straight) line. But for it to be euclidean geometry you need to add some conditions: like the parallel axiom (...)
@antybu86 uvauva2 is explaining that just because Euclidean geometry uses points and lines it doesn't mean that it is the only geometry that uses points and lines. Spacetime is non-euclidean and uses four-dimensional geodesics instead of straight lines. However this is a pedantic point that as you say doesn't matter in this context.
You almost had it when you talked about mathematics. Veritas almost had it when he talked about how we visualise concepts like "nothing".
The best we can do to describe a logical universe is to use the language of logic, mathematics. With a set of axioms - basic physical laws, and a boundary condition or inital state - we can then work out how we will experience the world. How we visualise this w/ our brains (evolved to cope with everyday life) makes no difference to the way things really work.
I've been wondering why christians insist the universe had to "come from" anything. The whole God can be uncontingent but reality can't is ridiculous and obviously a case of special pleading.
Veritas just changes the parameters of his suppositional construct every time someone logically illustrates the problems with it. I suspect we could dial back to his first iteration and find it was just as illogical. Supposing that the universe could have been created doesn't demonstrate an actual knowledge or understanding of how it was created.
While I agree with most of your video (especially the final refutation in the last 10 seconds), I disagree that a single point in geometry demonstrates reality.
If we have only one reference point to create COMPLETELY relative concepts (such as space and time) then we have absolutely no way of separating that single point from itself. That single point becomes the whole of reality, but since there is nothing separate from it, it doesn't really exist, because it has no relational value.
This is why it is meaningless to even try and think about absolute nothing and to use it in any meaningful way. To use it in an argument about whether a creator exists or not, is meaningless. It is not a valid argument, just as it is not a valid argument to say that time must have gone backwards before the big bang.
Assuming that there actually was absolute nothingness before the big bang .....
I agree with antybu86 - no one can comprehend absolute nothing because we can only comprehend things through the comprehension of other related things. For example, to comprehend this sentence requires comprehension of a whole bunch of other related things (words, context, etc).
Hmm. "Nothing" is incomprehensible, yes. But one reason is because even nothing is still governed by laws of logic. Otherwise, we would have to say that it is "nothing" and NOT-"nothing" at the same time and in the same sense. In other words, if it is TRULY nothing, then it is still governed by logic, indisputably.
@NomosCharis No, actually, you've missed my point entirely. I'm saying that we can't make any claims about that sort of "absolute nothingness." But, it's irrelevant anyway since there is no evidence that sort of state ever existed.
@NomosCharis I think you've just further shown that "absolute nothingness" is incomprehensible. I mean, if you say, "the laws of logic apply" then it's conceivable that the universe came into being by necessity from these laws (and thus, a creator is not needed).
"I'm saying that we can't make any claims about that sort of "absolute nothingness.""
Then why are you? Or do you deny that you are claiming about "absolute nothingness" that a person cannot make any claims about it? Wish to clarify?
"Nothing" is inconceivable, yes, but my point was that one of the reasons that it is inconceivable is that it must simultaneously be governed by logic and NOT be. If it is not, it is not truly nothing, but if it is, it is also not truly nothing.
That being said, it is NOT conceivable that everything came from nothing, because "nothing" is not conceivable. If you cannot conceive OF nothing (which you have repeatedly admitted) then you cannot conceive of everything coming into existence BY "nothing," so you should stop pretending that you can.
@NomosCharis As I said before, this conversation is a bit pointless as there is no evidence that such a state of 'absolute nothingness' ever existed. But, to get to your point, I never said that I could comprehend "everything" coming from "absolute nothingness." My point was that (if this 'absolute nothingness' existed) we couldn't rule it out as a possibility... in fact, we couldn't rule anything out as a possibility.
"there is no evidence that such a state of 'absolute nothingness' ever existed."
Nor could there be, since such a state certainly never did exist. It's a logical impossibility.
"...if this 'absolute nothingness' existed we couldn't rule it out as a possibility..."
By saying that you claim to somehow be conceiving of such a possibility, which you elsewhere say you cannot do, since nothing is inconceivable. ...hello?
@NomosCharis Now you're just trying to play word games. I'm not "conceiving" anything. Just the opposite, I'm refusing to make any solid claims (because I think none can be made).
"if this 'absolute nothingness' existed... we couldn't rule anything out as a possibility."
Except that this 'absolute nothingness' did NOT exist. Unless you're saying that IF it existed it also DIDN'T exist in the same sense.
Like it or not, there are at least SOME things we would have to logically rule out if such a state ever existed. One of those things is the idea that ANYTHING would exist right now. That which doesn't exist cannot act. That which is-not, is no cause.
@NomosCharis You write, "That which doesn't exist cannot act." Certainly this applies to our current reality, but I'm we're not talking about our current reality. So this is a claim you cannot make.
The fact that you're trying to use logic to talk about a reality without logic seems to be confusing you. So, let me rephrase for you one more time (because I'm getting tired): It literally doesn't make sense, so stop trying to make sense out of it.
@NomosCharis Hah, no problem. I just think applying logic to the inherently illogical is futile. Might as well hit yourself in the head with a hammer.
" Certainly this applies to our current reality, but I'm we're not talking about our current reality. So this is a claim you cannot make."
Yes I can, because we are not discussing our CURRENT reality v.s. some PREVIOUS or OTHER reality. We are talking about SOME reality v.s. NO reality.
If you admit that "nothing" is inconceivable, then you MUST admit that "nothing" being the cause of anything cannot be conceived by you. Otherwise, you are contradicting yourself.
Im sorry but this video is smoke and mirrors i mean the first premise is that everything that begins to exist has a cause not something cant come from nothing no we cant comprenhend it but that means we shouldnt allow it to be possible?
@DeJay14 I was simply rephrasing the argument. I wasn't restating it *exactly* as Craig presents it, but I believe I kept true to the of the argument. The whole "something cannot come from nothing" is the (only) argument Craig uses to buttress his claim that "everything that begins to exist has a cause."
Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd restate your question because it's difficult to understand what you're asking, especially with the lack of punctuation.
I'm pretty sure our universe is the result of some bigger process. Only a tiny part of the whole.
But I think a lot of things might ultimately be beyond our perception. (Although I envision these things to be completely natural. Not goofy bearded gods who are jealous and vengeful and have other emotional insecurity and rage issues.)
Still what's it matter? Fundies don't need to argue for *A* god, they need to prove THEIR god exists. And they can't, so they fail.
I would be happy to accept that the universe started 14 billion years ago. Let's suppose it did. What happened before that? Nothing. And by that, I mean there was no "before". It's like asking, "what happened sqrt(-1) seconds ago?" Imaginary time does not, to our knowledge, exist - so it's a meaningless question. Causality means that an event is caused by one at a previous time - so if there is no previous time, there is no causality, and the universe didn't "come" from anywhere. It just IS.
Interestingly enough my friend turned atheist at the age of, I believe it was, 10 or so because he couldn't wrap his head around where God came from even though his christian friends and family would swear up and down to him that God had no beginnings and always was.
if you take this stance, that the Universe just "pops" into existence from "nothing", then you Atheists should start calling yourself Deists. there MUST be intent for the Universe to "pop".
@CapnnOrdinary Do you take the stance that a vengeful, narcissistic, misogynist, racist, male chauvinist, infanticidal, God just appeared from nothing? Where did he come from? how does something come from nothing? especially a god who likes the smell of charred animal sacrifices so much that he created a lake of fire to burn humans in.
look up the definition of God you ad hom spewing savage. if God is "God", than He is infinite. did it ever occur to you that maybe nothing occurs to God? think outside your box.
@CapnnOrdinary If God is omnibenevolent, then he does not want evil to exist. If God is omniscient, then he must know about all evil in the world. If God is omnipotent, then he must be capable of doing something about it. Therefore, evil should not exist.
thinking outside the box is a catchy phrase. the bible thinks outside the box of reality many times. You probably believe that a man can live in the belly of a fish for 3 days as well? definitely outside the box... moron
1. God doesn't want evil to exist, but He gives -you- free will to do so. because He allows you to reject Him, doesn't mean that He's not omnibenevolent.
2. God does know about all of our sins. we agree on that :^)
3. God is capable of squashing evil, and He will when Christ returns.
4. and i do believe a man can live in the belly of a fish if God wants him to.
5. don't call yourself a "moron", you're just misguided.
@CapnMoron God doesnt want evil to exist? Didnt he create it?
"And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him." (I Samuel 16:23) King James Bible
Here we go around in circles again, you claim to have some evidence and you dont. please present any evidence of a man living in a fish for 3 days or a talking snake. Seriously... what have you got? lol
1. no, He doesn't. Saul's free will to choose other "gods" was the invitation for evil to come into his life. if God creates love out of free will, the opposite automatically is presented by default, which i choosing to reject(evil) God.
2. there is evidence.. it has been explained to you a thousand times only to be flippantly dismissed by you every time. what -you- want is "proof", not "evidence".
@CapnnOrdinary Dude... read the damn bible! It says what it says! funny how you morons all have a different meaning for scriptures. Everyone of you christtards have a different meaning. The the brightest scholars of the time had the lengthy task of interpreting the bible so I would think it should stand on its own. It says the EVIL spirit of the lord.
As far as evidence call it what you want, proof, evidence, I dont care... Lets hear about it. Please describe the fish also.
do you really think that the Bible means that god is "evil" from that verse while the rest of the Bible says He is all good? you suffer from semantics...but whatever.
i know you don't care... that's why i'm not excited in casting pearls to you because you will just flippantly dismiss them. but, i will..... the greatest evidence for God's existence is His Holy Spirit.
@CapnDumbass. Where did I say that god was evil? (Even though I think he is) "The rest of the bible says he is all good"? again the bible admits to god being a jealous & furious god. Casting pearls my ass... you evidently haven't even read the bible. "The greatest evidence for god's existence is the holy spirit"? Excuse me... where is the evidence of this "Holy Spirit"? You are posting bullshit and nothing else... Nada...Zilch... Zero. Every post you make is more pathetic than the last.
God will let evil take people who invite it, that was the point.
and yes, the Holy Spirit... the evidence was for -me-, not you... if you want to experience the Holy Spirit, then stop trying to ridicule people that are trying to help you, and ask God to reveal Himself to you the same way He has for -me-.
@CapnnOrdinary "stop trying to ridicule people who are trying to help you" LOL! You would consider it helping people when they were burnt at the stake as well wouldn't you, lol.
Going back to the scripture 1 Samuel 16:23, dont try to twist your way out of this. It says What IT says, not what YOU say. If it says go to the end of the block and turn right, that's damn well what it means.
Seriously, what have you got left? beaten by your own book? thats gotta suck man
There's many things I can say about this video, but I'll simply focus one point that really stuck out at me. You said for the sake of argument, let's suppose that the universe did arise out of absolute nothingness. That means that if there's no reality, there's no laws, which means no logic either, and if such cannot be comprehended, then who's to say that couldn't come it?
If you're consistent, you should also have no problem with the idea of a higher being that may exist that's incomprehensible, in which case, who's to say that something couldn't occur, such as performing miracles, raising a man from the dead, or even existing eternally outside of time and creating the universe from absolute nothingness as well? We cannot comprehend any of those things, so who's to say they couldn't happen if such a being exists? Just something I think you should think about.
@Tonloc1986 Sure, there could be a god-like being that is just incomprehensible. Though, (just like the concept of 'absolute nothing') it's not really worth considering for more than 30 seconds.
That would make sense if God were just as absolutely nothing as absolute nothingness is, but if such a being exists, then such a being wouldn't be absolute nothingness by its very nature. It would be something, an existent being. So I wouldn't put both of those in the same category of non-consideration. But I do applaud your consistency on this point. ;-)
I could list an infinite number of beings, agents, causes, concepts, etc. that *might* exist but are beyond our understanding. Because of this, none are any better than any other (in terms of explanatory power). Why should I believe an incomprehensible Yaweh over and incomprehensible Zeus?
A couple of things. This claim is nothing new, and has been answered many times. First, it's quite impossible for you to conclude that there are no agents, concepts, beings, etc. that have better explanatory power than the other, as that would require you to have examined the level of explanatory power for each one, an infinite number, which is impossible.
Second, just because there are an infinite number of possibilites doesn't necessitate that there isn't at least one that has better explanatory power than the other. It's still possible at least one has better explanatory power than the others, even if the possibilities are infinite. Also, you don't have to accept Jesus over the others. I'm simply telling you what I believe.
@Tonloc1986 If all we can say about something is, "humans cannot comprehend it" then none of them have ANY explanatory power (to us). Making any claim about such an incomprehensible thing would be a flat-out lie (because there is no way you could possibly know anything about it).
Not necessarily true. Just because something isn't comprehensible, doesn't necessitate that such doesn't have explanatory power. For example, we cannot comprehend any possibility on matter being created or destroyed, but that doesn't mean matter doesn't have explanatory power, or that we cannot know anything about it. Incomprehensibility does NOT necessarily equate to impossibility. ;-)
@Tonloc1986 Let me try to lay it out for you a bit more because you seem to be twisting my meaning a bit (e.g. never equated incomprehensibility to impossibility).
If you say "we cannot comprehend X" then that is pretty much the only thing you can say about it. For example, saying, "we cannot comprehend X, but X loves you" is inconsistent.
On the other hand, saying "we cannot comprehend X, so X *might* love you" is consistent (but, let's be honest, theists don't speak this way).
I'm not twisting anything. You flat out said that if we cannot comprehend something, we cannot say anything about, and that simply isn't necessarily true at all.
As Antybu said. If you can but it wouldn't be consistent with it being, by definition, incomprehensible. If it's truly incomprehensible you can only speculate on it.
Not all things that are "incomprehensible" are lacking of explanatory power. That's my point, and I stand by it. For example, there are many things in science that we cannot comprehend, such as knowing exactly to a "T" how light "travels" so quickly, but it doesn't mean that light doesn't have explanatory power, or that it doesn't travel fast. Even love isn't always comprehensible to us, yet we don't see it as something that lacks explanatory power.
If we pushed everything to the side that was incomprehensible to us, we'd never get anywhere. I believe that there are certain things about God that we cannot comprehend, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't have explanatory power. We cannot even comprehend everything about our own existence, but do we put existence to the side because of it? Of course not.
I think it all comes down to imply the idea that we must understand EVERYTHING about God for him to have explanatory power, and I simply don't buy that at all because we don't even do that with our own existence. The fact of the matter is that we don't comprehend everything about our own existence, but we don't put our own existence to the side because of it. It's my view that there are things about God that aren't comprehensible, but that doesn't make God as a whole incomprehensible.
God is a concept that is made by man. Obviously people must be able to comprehend a concept invented by people.
At the same time, we could concieve a God that was, by definition, incomprehesable.
In either situation, this is raw speculation and has no scientific value. for example, just because my personal God mythology can explain any event, that does not make the explanation true.
@Tonloc1986 I think it comes down to whether or not you know what incomprehensible means as there are many things we can say with a scientific certainty about who we are even though there are many things we still don't know. However, with the concept of Yahweh or other gods, there is no way to study that or even be sure there's something to study. (cont).
This causes philosophical meandering and speculation on how to define such a thing or things, and this leads to thousands of different interpretations of how such a deity works that ultimately contradict one another. By comparison, where our life isn't fully understood, it's still not incomprehensible as a whole. The supernatural on the other hand is.
Just you because you cannot comprehend on something is or works doesn't mean it doesn't have explanatory power. Your point would be just like saying that we cannot comprehend how matter can be created or destroyed as it's very nature, but matter cannot be created or destroyed is inconsistent. That doesn't make sense. Your point isn't sound at all in this way.
@Tonloc1986 I think you should move to a better example because I don't think the creation of matter and energy is incomprehensible. I just think that it is currently not well understood. There is a pretty big difference.
I think its very good example because this principle has been around for a very long time, yet I haven't even heard even the most intelligent of scientists be able to explain why such is the case that matter cannot be created or destroyed, but if you must have another example, I'll give you one:
Person A murders person B's most cherished loved ones in his life. Person B is severly wounded by this. Person B gets off the hook somehow in court, and person A is outraged. Years later, person A sees person B struggling to swim, and is drowning, but person A decides to save person B despite the pain he suffered from his loved ones deaths.
Person A has forgiven person B, and even says he loves person B. Person B cannot comprehend why feels this way, but he still feel forgiven and loved after struggling through years of guilt for what he did, especially knowing that Person A could simply have walked away and let him drown. They even go on to become great friends.
Love is an example of something that can be incomprehensible at times for we can't always understand why love overcomes so many things, including hatred, but doesn't mean it's lacking of explanatory power. If that doesn't help, then probably nothing will, and we're simply at an impass.
@Tonloc1986 violates Occam's Razor for one, i know antybu86 said know laws or logic, but in terms of figuring things out something that violates occam's razor is unlikely to be true.
Kant explicated these issues of ideal infinities in The Critique of Pure Reason: Study his Antinomies (eminently accessible). These impasses that reason runs into are Transcendental illusions that are not simply banished by our enlightened understanding of the legerdemain of human reason.
I'm surprised you didn't say that Kalam works both ways and that god similarly had to have had someway of coming into existence. And I'm not sure how sound the last part was, but oh well, maybe you'll make an atheist out of me XD.
I usually take absolutely no interest in all these cosmological arguments about whether there is or is not a god. But I'm glad I stuck through this one, the final sentence is a show stopper. I'm still chuckling over its simplicity!
"I really wish both Veritas and Craig would give up already on Kalam."
How many times can someone recycle the same argument before he completely loses credibility? Veritas has no credibility with me, and his refusal to reject poor arguments such as this one is a major reason why I pay virtually no attention to him.
I've come to the conclusion that the Kalam argument isn't about what following logic to a conclusion, it's about Veritas and Craig arriving at the conclusion that THEY WANT.
NOTE: POINTS EXIST IN NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY, and Einstein himself stated that both special and general relativity indicated that the universe functions on non-euclidean geometry. It's not relevant to this argument, but it's an important distinction.
Historically the Roman Catholic Church used the Roman mathematical system I/v/x and so on, and banned upon pain of death the use of mathematical systems using zero, as according to the Catholic Church the concept of nothing was blasphemous, ie God is present everywhere and in all things, it seems rather ironic that a Christian would use The concept of nothing in an attempt to prove the existence of there God
"something cannot come from nothing"... says who? If the universe originated at a singularity (let's say it did) why the fuck can't that singularity create the universe? Kalam is so fucking annoying
Doesn't "nothing" in physics simply mean that the sum of the energy in the system is zero? And since gravity can have a negative energy, zero just happens to be the total energy of the universe that we live now?
Veritas spends so much time trying to show that when considering the existence of god you should start with assuming there is a god and work backwards. He has made what... 4 or 5 videos like this. Then he makes an argument that people shouldn't be to skeptical toward religion since you might miss out on a true belief. Is it just me or does this look like he is subconsciously conceding the weakness of his position?
I know I can rely on you to address such a slippery argument as the Kalam argument head on, with strong logic, with sound arguments from famous phisicists.
And I find a lot of sense in the comments to this video.
Incidentally, I love how when documentaries and such have to depict the Big Bang, they not only film it from a distance, but they also add sound - which we seem to be able to hear from a distance.
I guess it's no wonder we often get creationists questioning the Big Bang.
same goes for you mag... unbelief is the same as believing that God doesn't exist. you guys make positive claims in your heart, you just don't realize it.
no prob.... yeah, so the next time you tell your girlfriend that your love for her reaches all the way from the bottom of your heart, you can show her by literally reaching inside your chest cavity.... oh, unless you would be speaking figuratively of course.
InternetDisciple made a video about this and endured a long comment filled debate back and forth with people who disagreed with him. He kept claiming, matter has to have a creator, something can not come from nothing, unless a creator made it so. Of course the matter creator does not need a creator but the matter does.
These are the people doing the false DMCAs against christians on Youtube. They are called the Trolls of Terror TOT. Their leader is this scumbag: youtube username jjosh1973 And allianceofdemons is a member of them. allianceofdemons is an enemy
The thing I hate about Kalam is that it is a completely empty conclusion. It basically goes like this:
blah blah blah, therefore, God exists.
Great. Now what? Where is this God? What is he like? Let's meet him. I want to talk to him. Can I shake his hand? Does he like seafood?
No?
Then your conclusion is meaningless. Conclusions are only as valid as their intrinsic power to demonstrate something. If your conclusion demonstrates nothing, then it is moot. QED.
I may sound naive putting forward this view, but if you believe something can not come nothing where does god come from? And if he/she was always there, that is yet another incomprehensible concept. On top of that the idea that after a certain period of eternity a god would decide that he needs to create a sentient being to suffer and be judged is more incomprehensible. Do you go for the idea that will hopefully be explainable over time or do you go with the idea that can never be proved at all?
@Unlocktube , excellent post! "Go for the idea that can never be proved at all" is a popular answer as silly as it seems.
There is also the question of heaven. Heaven, being a perfectly wonderful place, does not contain evil. Does this mean that inhabitants of heaven no longer retain their free will? Or does their will suddenly become perfectly good?
Did you know the Mayans used the barb from a sting ray to puncture their penis in a ritual to converse with dead ancestors?
Thats real commitment right there, pretty sure pain like that would make you insane temporarily and you might just think you were talking to the dead. But on your point about heaven, if all those things are true of it, I really don't want to end up there. An eternity of that would be really boring.
What puzzles me most is that people like veritas48 always somehow think they could just take some part of some scientific data and then draw some totally simpleton conclusions like "and since something can´t come from nothing, blabla"
and then look around for approval like a hen that just laid an egg.
Just as if those brilliant, brilliant people who gathered the data in the first place had somehow overlooked this conclusion.
1st point - "no reality" - well, if one were to presume "god = real" then that would obviously also preclude the existence of god, because the only realm outside of the "real" is the realm of "not real" just as the only realm outside of "existent" is in the realm of "non-existent."
2nd point - we exist. Therefore, however far back you go in time, toward a singularity or whatever, you can never reach a point that lacks, at a minimum, the "potential" for yielding existence, since we're here.
Veritas has truly become a gas bag. I mean hour-long videos in which he just rambles on? Goodness man, figure out what you want to say and get on with it.
i like how they think that the universe could not come from nothing without some kind of intervention, i mean the universe is far more complex than we can presently wrap our minds around, just wait until we start exploring the universe first hand and guys like that are still around i would love to see how they wrap their minds around strange accurences in space that physics states should not happen lol. im sure that kind of stuff is out there we just havnt seen it yet.
What I really like about this agument . In a very short time we have come from being burnt at the stake for our nonbelief ,to forcing the religious too retreat to quantum singularity to attempt some kind of proof of god.
"Something cannot come from nothing..." .... except in our universe where if there is 'nothing' then the Uncertainty Principle will cause there to be 'something' hastily. Nothing is an awfully precise measurement.
Shockofgod is making the very same claim. The only difference between him and veritas is that Shockofgod is willing to reverse the school systems as in teaching them that atheism equals the claim that veritas is making, and that atheism is madness (as in a mental illness).
Are you considering making a video about shock's fallacies too?
@allianceofdemons , I would like to see that video as well!, Doesn't he own or participate in the "allianceofchrist1" that youtube xians can call on to help? When someone showed me that I just about fell out of my chair!
@allianceofdemons , I was commenting on your question concerning the shockofgod fallacies...I would like to see that video as well. I know he is associated with the allianceofchrist1
He's not just associated with the channel allianceofchrist1. He created that account. View my most watched video to find out. Or search on youtube "alliance of christ exposed". There are more than 3 parts to watch.
Little quibble: 'everything before [the big bang] we can work out only through mathematics'
Actually the point is that we CANNOT work out anything before a short time after the big bang with mathematics. We know nothing about before the event, even through physical theory and mathematics.
Evolutionists like me only claim to know that at the Big Bang, the laws did not apply and all matter and energy came into being. Fun, huh? Creationists believe there was a god that did it. My argument is always what created that god? So, if the god who created the universe didn't have a creator, we still have the same problem. Might as well skip out the middle man, atheists call this process Occam's Razor. Either the universe came from nothing or this god came from nothing.
This has been flagged as spam show
If you know anyone who's been falsely DMCA'd by William Lane Craig collaborator John Leonard, otherwise known as drcraigvideos, please contact @thunderf00t.
YOURINQUIRER 3 weeks ago in playlist William Lane Craig
This is, of course, all ignoring the fact when Veritas defines "nothing" as the absence of all reality, yet he says God created some from nothing, this is essentially saying that God is not part of all reality. Who knew? Veritas was an atheist.
ThatGuyWithHippyHair 1 month ago
Veritas is one of the most FUCKING UNLETTERED MORONS I have ever had the misfortune of encountering.
Ekenedil 5 months ago
Dude, it's all speculation! Nothing comes from nothing, therefore, the universe didn't come from 'nothing'. No one can know for certain how it all came about because no one was there. Everything follows some natural law of existence, and so the creation of this universe had to do the same. Claiming that some diety created it all is just simple fantacy. It's an antiquated and easy answer for the unanswerable ... a quick solution for those who can't accept the 'not knowing'!
justanote7 8 months ago
@justanote7 Mostly true. But It is a fact that normal physical laws break down at the quantum level. Making it quite possible that the universe DID come from nothing. By the way, I also think that the God hypothesis has completely failed, in every way.
alianchild 6 months ago
@alianchild Gotcha .. good point. Thax ;)
justanote7 6 months ago
@justanote7 Hey, no problem. Good point on the antiquated answer.
alianchild 6 months ago
Lol the book you showed assigned a probability amplitude for the universe to come from nothing. I love this stuff.
arsenelupin123 8 months ago
Veritas is an unlettered imbecile.
Ekenedil 8 months ago
We can see stars being born and collapsing in on themselves with no intervention from a god, why would anybody assume that the universe has not ALWAYS existed and is constantly evolving?
Oh that's right....because it doesn't serve their purpose of trying to prove their god exists!
drukenhard 8 months ago
I know I've mentioned this before but Craig's version of the First Cause arguement actually convinced me that there never was nothing.
dechha1981 1 year ago
@dechha1981 Completely agree. My reasons are that the word creation is meaningless except in the realm of time. Without time creation can't happen, if it did when did it happen? Since to create there needs be a time before the thing you created, a time after the thing being created and at the intersection is the moment of creation.
nospacesallowed 8 months ago
"Quantum" for this particular discussion is the atheist's God of the gaps.
piusvapor 1 year ago
@piusvapor If true then our "God of the gaps" has been experimentally and observationally verified. Can't say the same thing about you "God of the gaps," can you?
antybu86 1 year ago 19
@antybu86 Yea verified using mathematics methods that rely heavily upon such methods as the "UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE ". By the way I said, "for this particular discussion" in which there has been no "experimentally and observational" verification, just mathematics which induces uncertainties to supply a DESIRED result.
piusvapor 1 year ago
fail
Scorner99 1 year ago
i woke up this morning and i saw a car in my driveway... wow! i think it came from nothing... it just suddenly appeared! i mean it wasn't there yesterday... lol
gerinja 1 year ago
Creationists sure love their 'Something from Nothing' argument.
"Since creation ex nihilo is impossible, therfore god created all."
It's a complete non-sequiter, based on a false premise, and hypocritical/ironic to boot.
-A creator is not the default position.
-No scientific Theories state that 'Something came from nothing'.
-Creation(A Miracle) IS 'Something from nothing'.
Are they trying to suggest that science is just as illogical as creation is I wonder?
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
I really enjoyed this video.
warriorscholar 1 year ago
Who says,"everything was created from nothing"? The Creationists.
spartacandream 1 year ago
Why did there ever have to be nothing? Must there be some understandable, and findable beginning? There is no knowing.
Cayvmann 1 year ago
If only Lewis Caroll hadn't died.... We would have our answers for sure. xD
Chellliee 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Chellliee : "If only Lewis Caroll hadn't died.... We would have our answers for sure."
The Walrus and the Carpenter would have had no trouble with this one.
Caroll was one of the all-time universal geniuses, eh what?
DrDeist 1 year ago
you are right in pointing out their inconsistency and hypocrisy, what the hell is the point in discussing with a person the big bang if he doesn't first accept evolution?
BUT, you are wrong in saying "for the sake of argument, lets say this strawman they made were true, then how can they say big bang, QM, theoretical physics is wrong", well, THEY CAN'T, which is why they built the strawman to say "if it were true, then we can't know anything and all bets are off" (therefore it must be untrue)
funwjoshnjenn 1 year ago
"Always two, there are. No more, no less. A master, and an apprentice." Yoda
laserbuddha 1 year ago
The Cosmological Argument is self defeating because they will say their god was always there and came from nothing. The Cosmological Argument is a fancy name for argument from ignorance. We don't know what happened before the Big Bang, forget about it, lets use some pretty scientific words and put God in the equation. It's like rewritting Genesis 1:1 using Quantum Physics.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 : The Cosmological Argument isn't self-contradictory. The Created is time-bound and therefore requires a beginning; the Creator is timeless and therefore requires no beginning. The argument is based on a colossal assumption but it isn't illogical.
DrDeist 1 year ago
Good post. The key point is that the pre-BigBang quantum field was timeless. This puts the scientific explanation is on an equal footing with the God explanation in terms of dealing with the 'cause' issue. The Universe, like God, would not have to be caused. Cause (and effect) would be subsequent to the initiation of the Universe.
bleed4freedom 1 year ago
Not even Thomas Aquinas regarded the Kalam as a good argument. He had instead other good ones in his pocket
TheEcumenator 1 year ago
I will be the math guy and say that "points and thus euclidean geometry both exist" does not follow. In fact (I'm a mathematician, and not a physicist, so I might be outdated on this point), my understanding is that current knowledge points to the fact that the geometry of our universe is ultimately not euclidean. "points and thus geometry" I would accept. In other words: don't go throwing the word euclidean around carelessly. It has a fairly precise technical meaning...
uvauva2 1 year ago
@uvauva2 Maybe it doesn't follow (though, I'm not too concerned because there are many other reasons why a singularity isn't "nothing"), and you'd probably know.
Although, isn't Euclidean geometry all about points and lines? I could be entirely mistaken here... maybe I should have double-checked my source.
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86
I wasn't saying it changes the argument in the slightest, but that should be no excuse to use terminology imprecisely.
The situation is a bit technical, but roughly speaking anything involving points falls under geometry (there is a very bad math joke about this: "life without geometry is pointless"). Also, plenty of non-euclidean concepts of geometry have concepts of (straight) line. But for it to be euclidean geometry you need to add some conditions: like the parallel axiom (...)
uvauva2 1 year ago
(ctd)
in the planar case.
uvauva2 1 year ago
@antybu86 uvauva2 is explaining that just because Euclidean geometry uses points and lines it doesn't mean that it is the only geometry that uses points and lines. Spacetime is non-euclidean and uses four-dimensional geodesics instead of straight lines. However this is a pedantic point that as you say doesn't matter in this context.
herbiepop 1 year ago
So god created the universe? Is that the story in the bible that preceeds the story of Noah's Ark?
holio84 1 year ago
GodLowDown made a fail response to your Quantum Mechanics video.
TheAnonymouz 1 year ago
I believe that the Square-Circle God created the universe and no amount of logic will convince me otherwise!
Violent2aShadow 1 year ago
They want me to believe god came out of nothing so I have to believe the same thing i'm supposed to have a problem with science for saying.
Justwosweet 1 year ago
You almost had it when you talked about mathematics. Veritas almost had it when he talked about how we visualise concepts like "nothing".
The best we can do to describe a logical universe is to use the language of logic, mathematics. With a set of axioms - basic physical laws, and a boundary condition or inital state - we can then work out how we will experience the world. How we visualise this w/ our brains (evolved to cope with everyday life) makes no difference to the way things really work.
lIThorIl 1 year ago
Freakin Masterpiece.
I've been wondering why christians insist the universe had to "come from" anything. The whole God can be uncontingent but reality can't is ridiculous and obviously a case of special pleading.
GallusSapien 1 year ago
Veritas just changes the parameters of his suppositional construct every time someone logically illustrates the problems with it. I suspect we could dial back to his first iteration and find it was just as illogical. Supposing that the universe could have been created doesn't demonstrate an actual knowledge or understanding of how it was created.
dmwalker24 1 year ago
Well said!
friendofthefunk 1 year ago
While I agree with most of your video (especially the final refutation in the last 10 seconds), I disagree that a single point in geometry demonstrates reality.
If we have only one reference point to create COMPLETELY relative concepts (such as space and time) then we have absolutely no way of separating that single point from itself. That single point becomes the whole of reality, but since there is nothing separate from it, it doesn't really exist, because it has no relational value.
insidetrip101 1 year ago
This is why it is meaningless to even try and think about absolute nothing and to use it in any meaningful way. To use it in an argument about whether a creator exists or not, is meaningless. It is not a valid argument, just as it is not a valid argument to say that time must have gone backwards before the big bang.
muzvh1 1 year ago
Assuming that there actually was absolute nothingness before the big bang .....
I agree with antybu86 - no one can comprehend absolute nothing because we can only comprehend things through the comprehension of other related things. For example, to comprehend this sentence requires comprehension of a whole bunch of other related things (words, context, etc).
(cont)
muzvh1 1 year ago
Hmm. "Nothing" is incomprehensible, yes. But one reason is because even nothing is still governed by laws of logic. Otherwise, we would have to say that it is "nothing" and NOT-"nothing" at the same time and in the same sense. In other words, if it is TRULY nothing, then it is still governed by logic, indisputably.
[continued...]
NomosCharis 1 year ago
You say that if "nothing-once-existed" (so to speak), that perhaps everything could have come into existence "out-of" it, correct?
If so, you must logically affirm one of the following statements to be true about our universe:
a) Nothing brought it into existence.
b) It brought itself into existence.
c) It was not really brought into existence (it's still nothing).
Now, "a" is logically equivalent to "c," and "b" is an internal contradiction, so which do you affirm?
NomosCharis 1 year ago
@NomosCharis No, actually, you've missed my point entirely. I'm saying that we can't make any claims about that sort of "absolute nothingness." But, it's irrelevant anyway since there is no evidence that sort of state ever existed.
antybu86 1 year ago
@NomosCharis I think you've just further shown that "absolute nothingness" is incomprehensible. I mean, if you say, "the laws of logic apply" then it's conceivable that the universe came into being by necessity from these laws (and thus, a creator is not needed).
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86,
"I'm saying that we can't make any claims about that sort of "absolute nothingness.""
Then why are you? Or do you deny that you are claiming about "absolute nothingness" that a person cannot make any claims about it? Wish to clarify?
"Nothing" is inconceivable, yes, but my point was that one of the reasons that it is inconceivable is that it must simultaneously be governed by logic and NOT be. If it is not, it is not truly nothing, but if it is, it is also not truly nothing.
NomosCharis 1 year ago
@antybu86,
[cont.]
That being said, it is NOT conceivable that everything came from nothing, because "nothing" is not conceivable. If you cannot conceive OF nothing (which you have repeatedly admitted) then you cannot conceive of everything coming into existence BY "nothing," so you should stop pretending that you can.
NomosCharis 1 year ago
@NomosCharis As I said before, this conversation is a bit pointless as there is no evidence that such a state of 'absolute nothingness' ever existed. But, to get to your point, I never said that I could comprehend "everything" coming from "absolute nothingness." My point was that (if this 'absolute nothingness' existed) we couldn't rule it out as a possibility... in fact, we couldn't rule anything out as a possibility.
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86
"this conversation is a bit pointless"
So you say. Convenient.
"there is no evidence that such a state of 'absolute nothingness' ever existed."
Nor could there be, since such a state certainly never did exist. It's a logical impossibility.
"...if this 'absolute nothingness' existed we couldn't rule it out as a possibility..."
By saying that you claim to somehow be conceiving of such a possibility, which you elsewhere say you cannot do, since nothing is inconceivable. ...hello?
NomosCharis 1 year ago
@NomosCharis Now you're just trying to play word games. I'm not "conceiving" anything. Just the opposite, I'm refusing to make any solid claims (because I think none can be made).
antybu86 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@antybu86
"I'm refusing to make any solid claims"
You've made at least 2:
1) That nothing can be claimed about "absolute-nothingness" (a self-defeating claim), and...
2) That IF such a state existed, nothing can be claimed about what was impossible in that state.
Am I missing something here? Why is it that when people try to be logical it's always called "word-games" by illogical people?
NomosCharis 1 year ago
@antybu86
"if this 'absolute nothingness' existed... we couldn't rule anything out as a possibility."
Except that this 'absolute nothingness' did NOT exist. Unless you're saying that IF it existed it also DIDN'T exist in the same sense.
Like it or not, there are at least SOME things we would have to logically rule out if such a state ever existed. One of those things is the idea that ANYTHING would exist right now. That which doesn't exist cannot act. That which is-not, is no cause.
NomosCharis 1 year ago
@NomosCharis You write, "That which doesn't exist cannot act." Certainly this applies to our current reality, but I'm we're not talking about our current reality. So this is a claim you cannot make.
The fact that you're trying to use logic to talk about a reality without logic seems to be confusing you. So, let me rephrase for you one more time (because I'm getting tired): It literally doesn't make sense, so stop trying to make sense out of it.
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86
"The fact that you're trying to use logic to talk about a reality without logic seems to be confusing you."
Thank you for admitting that I am trying to use logic and you're not. I am complimented. :)
NomosCharis 1 year ago
@NomosCharis Hah, no problem. I just think applying logic to the inherently illogical is futile. Might as well hit yourself in the head with a hammer.
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86
You can't know what is inherently illogical until you apply logic to it. If that practice is futile to you, so is knowledge.
NomosCharis 1 year ago
@antybu86,
" Certainly this applies to our current reality, but I'm we're not talking about our current reality. So this is a claim you cannot make."
Yes I can, because we are not discussing our CURRENT reality v.s. some PREVIOUS or OTHER reality. We are talking about SOME reality v.s. NO reality.
If you admit that "nothing" is inconceivable, then you MUST admit that "nothing" being the cause of anything cannot be conceived by you. Otherwise, you are contradicting yourself.
NomosCharis 1 year ago
Im sorry but this video is smoke and mirrors i mean the first premise is that everything that begins to exist has a cause not something cant come from nothing no we cant comprenhend it but that means we shouldnt allow it to be possible?
DeJay14 1 year ago
@DeJay14 I was simply rephrasing the argument. I wasn't restating it *exactly* as Craig presents it, but I believe I kept true to the of the argument. The whole "something cannot come from nothing" is the (only) argument Craig uses to buttress his claim that "everything that begins to exist has a cause."
Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd restate your question because it's difficult to understand what you're asking, especially with the lack of punctuation.
antybu86 1 year ago
I'm pretty sure our universe is the result of some bigger process. Only a tiny part of the whole.
But I think a lot of things might ultimately be beyond our perception. (Although I envision these things to be completely natural. Not goofy bearded gods who are jealous and vengeful and have other emotional insecurity and rage issues.)
Still what's it matter? Fundies don't need to argue for *A* god, they need to prove THEIR god exists. And they can't, so they fail.
Shavarnarak 1 year ago 7
@Shavarnarak That was spoken with true intellect.
TheMassdistortion 1 year ago
I would be happy to accept that the universe started 14 billion years ago. Let's suppose it did. What happened before that? Nothing. And by that, I mean there was no "before". It's like asking, "what happened sqrt(-1) seconds ago?" Imaginary time does not, to our knowledge, exist - so it's a meaningless question. Causality means that an event is caused by one at a previous time - so if there is no previous time, there is no causality, and the universe didn't "come" from anywhere. It just IS.
lIThorIl 1 year ago
Interestingly enough my friend turned atheist at the age of, I believe it was, 10 or so because he couldn't wrap his head around where God came from even though his christian friends and family would swear up and down to him that God had no beginnings and always was.
Sloth7d 1 year ago
"something cannot come from nothing" = false
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
if you take this stance, that the Universe just "pops" into existence from "nothing", then you Atheists should start calling yourself Deists. there MUST be intent for the Universe to "pop".
CapnnOrdinary 1 year ago
@CapnnOrdinary Do you take the stance that a vengeful, narcissistic, misogynist, racist, male chauvinist, infanticidal, God just appeared from nothing? Where did he come from? how does something come from nothing? especially a god who likes the smell of charred animal sacrifices so much that he created a lake of fire to burn humans in.
TheMassdistortion 1 year ago
@TheMassdistortion
look up the definition of God you ad hom spewing savage. if God is "God", than He is infinite. did it ever occur to you that maybe nothing occurs to God? think outside your box.
CapnnOrdinary 1 year ago
@CapnnOrdinary If God is omnibenevolent, then he does not want evil to exist. If God is omniscient, then he must know about all evil in the world. If God is omnipotent, then he must be capable of doing something about it. Therefore, evil should not exist.
thinking outside the box is a catchy phrase. the bible thinks outside the box of reality many times. You probably believe that a man can live in the belly of a fish for 3 days as well? definitely outside the box... moron
TheMassdistortion 1 year ago
@TheMassdistortion
1. God doesn't want evil to exist, but He gives -you- free will to do so. because He allows you to reject Him, doesn't mean that He's not omnibenevolent.
2. God does know about all of our sins. we agree on that :^)
3. God is capable of squashing evil, and He will when Christ returns.
4. and i do believe a man can live in the belly of a fish if God wants him to.
5. don't call yourself a "moron", you're just misguided.
CapnnOrdinary 1 year ago
@CapnMoron God doesnt want evil to exist? Didnt he create it?
"And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him." (I Samuel 16:23) King James Bible
Here we go around in circles again, you claim to have some evidence and you dont. please present any evidence of a man living in a fish for 3 days or a talking snake. Seriously... what have you got? lol
TheMassdistortion 1 year ago
@TheMassdistortion
1. no, He doesn't. Saul's free will to choose other "gods" was the invitation for evil to come into his life. if God creates love out of free will, the opposite automatically is presented by default, which i choosing to reject(evil) God.
2. there is evidence.. it has been explained to you a thousand times only to be flippantly dismissed by you every time. what -you- want is "proof", not "evidence".
hope the best
CapnnOrdinary 1 year ago
@CapnnOrdinary Dude... read the damn bible! It says what it says! funny how you morons all have a different meaning for scriptures. Everyone of you christtards have a different meaning. The the brightest scholars of the time had the lengthy task of interpreting the bible so I would think it should stand on its own. It says the EVIL spirit of the lord.
As far as evidence call it what you want, proof, evidence, I dont care... Lets hear about it. Please describe the fish also.
TheMassdistortion 1 year ago
@TheMassdistortion
do you really think that the Bible means that god is "evil" from that verse while the rest of the Bible says He is all good? you suffer from semantics...but whatever.
i know you don't care... that's why i'm not excited in casting pearls to you because you will just flippantly dismiss them. but, i will..... the greatest evidence for God's existence is His Holy Spirit.
CapnnOrdinary 1 year ago
@CapnDumbass. Where did I say that god was evil? (Even though I think he is) "The rest of the bible says he is all good"? again the bible admits to god being a jealous & furious god. Casting pearls my ass... you evidently haven't even read the bible. "The greatest evidence for god's existence is the holy spirit"? Excuse me... where is the evidence of this "Holy Spirit"? You are posting bullshit and nothing else... Nada...Zilch... Zero. Every post you make is more pathetic than the last.
TheMassdistortion 1 year ago
@TheMassdistortion
God will let evil take people who invite it, that was the point.
and yes, the Holy Spirit... the evidence was for -me-, not you... if you want to experience the Holy Spirit, then stop trying to ridicule people that are trying to help you, and ask God to reveal Himself to you the same way He has for -me-.
peace out.
CapnnOrdinary 1 year ago
@CapnnOrdinary "stop trying to ridicule people who are trying to help you" LOL! You would consider it helping people when they were burnt at the stake as well wouldn't you, lol.
Going back to the scripture 1 Samuel 16:23, dont try to twist your way out of this. It says What IT says, not what YOU say. If it says go to the end of the block and turn right, that's damn well what it means.
Seriously, what have you got left? beaten by your own book? thats gotta suck man
TheMassdistortion 1 year ago
There's many things I can say about this video, but I'll simply focus one point that really stuck out at me. You said for the sake of argument, let's suppose that the universe did arise out of absolute nothingness. That means that if there's no reality, there's no laws, which means no logic either, and if such cannot be comprehended, then who's to say that couldn't come it?
Continued...
Tonloc1986 1 year ago
If you're consistent, you should also have no problem with the idea of a higher being that may exist that's incomprehensible, in which case, who's to say that something couldn't occur, such as performing miracles, raising a man from the dead, or even existing eternally outside of time and creating the universe from absolute nothingness as well? We cannot comprehend any of those things, so who's to say they couldn't happen if such a being exists? Just something I think you should think about.
Tonloc1986 1 year ago
@Tonloc1986 Sure, there could be a god-like being that is just incomprehensible. Though, (just like the concept of 'absolute nothing') it's not really worth considering for more than 30 seconds.
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86
That would make sense if God were just as absolutely nothing as absolute nothingness is, but if such a being exists, then such a being wouldn't be absolute nothingness by its very nature. It would be something, an existent being. So I wouldn't put both of those in the same category of non-consideration. But I do applaud your consistency on this point. ;-)
Tonloc1986 1 year ago
@Tonloc1986 You're missing the problem.
I could list an infinite number of beings, agents, causes, concepts, etc. that *might* exist but are beyond our understanding. Because of this, none are any better than any other (in terms of explanatory power). Why should I believe an incomprehensible Yaweh over and incomprehensible Zeus?
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86
@antybu86
A couple of things. This claim is nothing new, and has been answered many times. First, it's quite impossible for you to conclude that there are no agents, concepts, beings, etc. that have better explanatory power than the other, as that would require you to have examined the level of explanatory power for each one, an infinite number, which is impossible.
Continued...
Tonloc1986 1 year ago
@antybu86
Second, just because there are an infinite number of possibilites doesn't necessitate that there isn't at least one that has better explanatory power than the other. It's still possible at least one has better explanatory power than the others, even if the possibilities are infinite. Also, you don't have to accept Jesus over the others. I'm simply telling you what I believe.
Tonloc1986 1 year ago
@Tonloc1986 If all we can say about something is, "humans cannot comprehend it" then none of them have ANY explanatory power (to us). Making any claim about such an incomprehensible thing would be a flat-out lie (because there is no way you could possibly know anything about it).
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86
Not necessarily true. Just because something isn't comprehensible, doesn't necessitate that such doesn't have explanatory power. For example, we cannot comprehend any possibility on matter being created or destroyed, but that doesn't mean matter doesn't have explanatory power, or that we cannot know anything about it. Incomprehensibility does NOT necessarily equate to impossibility. ;-)
Tonloc1986 1 year ago
@Tonloc1986 Let me try to lay it out for you a bit more because you seem to be twisting my meaning a bit (e.g. never equated incomprehensibility to impossibility).
If you say "we cannot comprehend X" then that is pretty much the only thing you can say about it. For example, saying, "we cannot comprehend X, but X loves you" is inconsistent.
On the other hand, saying "we cannot comprehend X, so X *might* love you" is consistent (but, let's be honest, theists don't speak this way).
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86
I'm not twisting anything. You flat out said that if we cannot comprehend something, we cannot say anything about, and that simply isn't necessarily true at all.
Continued...
Tonloc1986 1 year ago
As Antybu said. If you can but it wouldn't be consistent with it being, by definition, incomprehensible. If it's truly incomprehensible you can only speculate on it.
Sloth7d 1 year ago
@Sloth7d
Not all things that are "incomprehensible" are lacking of explanatory power. That's my point, and I stand by it. For example, there are many things in science that we cannot comprehend, such as knowing exactly to a "T" how light "travels" so quickly, but it doesn't mean that light doesn't have explanatory power, or that it doesn't travel fast. Even love isn't always comprehensible to us, yet we don't see it as something that lacks explanatory power.
Continued...
Tonloc1986 1 year ago
@Sloth7d
If we pushed everything to the side that was incomprehensible to us, we'd never get anywhere. I believe that there are certain things about God that we cannot comprehend, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't have explanatory power. We cannot even comprehend everything about our own existence, but do we put existence to the side because of it? Of course not.
Continued...
Tonloc1986 1 year ago
@Sloth7d
I think it all comes down to imply the idea that we must understand EVERYTHING about God for him to have explanatory power, and I simply don't buy that at all because we don't even do that with our own existence. The fact of the matter is that we don't comprehend everything about our own existence, but we don't put our own existence to the side because of it. It's my view that there are things about God that aren't comprehensible, but that doesn't make God as a whole incomprehensible.
Tonloc1986 1 year ago
God is a concept that is made by man. Obviously people must be able to comprehend a concept invented by people.
At the same time, we could concieve a God that was, by definition, incomprehesable.
In either situation, this is raw speculation and has no scientific value. for example, just because my personal God mythology can explain any event, that does not make the explanation true.
83zeus 1 year ago
Comment removed
83zeus 1 year ago
@Tonloc1986 I think it comes down to whether or not you know what incomprehensible means as there are many things we can say with a scientific certainty about who we are even though there are many things we still don't know. However, with the concept of Yahweh or other gods, there is no way to study that or even be sure there's something to study. (cont).
Sloth7d 1 year ago
This causes philosophical meandering and speculation on how to define such a thing or things, and this leads to thousands of different interpretations of how such a deity works that ultimately contradict one another. By comparison, where our life isn't fully understood, it's still not incomprehensible as a whole. The supernatural on the other hand is.
Sloth7d 1 year ago
@antybu86
Just you because you cannot comprehend on something is or works doesn't mean it doesn't have explanatory power. Your point would be just like saying that we cannot comprehend how matter can be created or destroyed as it's very nature, but matter cannot be created or destroyed is inconsistent. That doesn't make sense. Your point isn't sound at all in this way.
Tonloc1986 1 year ago
"...we cannot comprehend how matter can be created or destroyed as it's very nature..."
I meant "we cannot comprehend how matter CANNOT be created or destroyed as it's very nature..."
Tonloc1986 1 year ago
@Tonloc1986 I think you should move to a better example because I don't think the creation of matter and energy is incomprehensible. I just think that it is currently not well understood. There is a pretty big difference.
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86
I think its very good example because this principle has been around for a very long time, yet I haven't even heard even the most intelligent of scientists be able to explain why such is the case that matter cannot be created or destroyed, but if you must have another example, I'll give you one:
Continued...
Tonloc1986 1 year ago
@antybu86
Person A murders person B's most cherished loved ones in his life. Person B is severly wounded by this. Person B gets off the hook somehow in court, and person A is outraged. Years later, person A sees person B struggling to swim, and is drowning, but person A decides to save person B despite the pain he suffered from his loved ones deaths.
Continued...
Tonloc1986 1 year ago
@antybu86
Person A has forgiven person B, and even says he loves person B. Person B cannot comprehend why feels this way, but he still feel forgiven and loved after struggling through years of guilt for what he did, especially knowing that Person A could simply have walked away and let him drown. They even go on to become great friends.
Continued...
Tonloc1986 1 year ago
@antybu86
Love is an example of something that can be incomprehensible at times for we can't always understand why love overcomes so many things, including hatred, but doesn't mean it's lacking of explanatory power. If that doesn't help, then probably nothing will, and we're simply at an impass.
Tonloc1986 1 year ago
@Tonloc1986 Yeah, I'm talking about things that are, in principle, incomprehensible. I wouldn't venture to say that "love" fits that description.
antybu86 1 year ago
Comment removed
Tonloc1986 1 year ago
@Tonloc1986 violates Occam's Razor for one, i know antybu86 said know laws or logic, but in terms of figuring things out something that violates occam's razor is unlikely to be true.
ScubaSctimpy 1 year ago
@ScubaSctimpy
How does it violate O's Razor?
Tonloc1986 1 year ago
Take the red pill
TheSafecracker777 1 year ago
Kant explicated these issues of ideal infinities in The Critique of Pure Reason: Study his Antinomies (eminently accessible). These impasses that reason runs into are Transcendental illusions that are not simply banished by our enlightened understanding of the legerdemain of human reason.
notonewhit 1 year ago
Can someone make a 90 second pwnage video of Veritas 1 hour video pls.
CognosSquare 1 year ago
I'm surprised you didn't say that Kalam works both ways and that god similarly had to have had someway of coming into existence. And I'm not sure how sound the last part was, but oh well, maybe you'll make an atheist out of me XD.
Shadowdyce11 1 year ago
I usually take absolutely no interest in all these cosmological arguments about whether there is or is not a god. But I'm glad I stuck through this one, the final sentence is a show stopper. I'm still chuckling over its simplicity!
NonStampCollector 1 year ago
@NonStampCollector , My brother!
TheMassdistortion 1 year ago
To be fair, the kalam argument was famous long before william lane craig and that other idiot.
lazyconquistador 1 year ago
You win the game Antybu. The game of awesome.
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
Presents must have a present giver....
...
...
Therefore Santa
IMelkor42 1 year ago
epic logic fail = Kalam
taliesinknol 1 year ago
Veritas is a pretty clever guy, but he's simply not equipped to argue with someone who actually knows what he's talking about.
tommylehman 1 year ago
"I really wish both Veritas and Craig would give up already on Kalam."
How many times can someone recycle the same argument before he completely loses credibility? Veritas has no credibility with me, and his refusal to reject poor arguments such as this one is a major reason why I pay virtually no attention to him.
I've come to the conclusion that the Kalam argument isn't about what following logic to a conclusion, it's about Veritas and Craig arriving at the conclusion that THEY WANT.
Neilsama 1 year ago
NOTE: POINTS EXIST IN NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY, and Einstein himself stated that both special and general relativity indicated that the universe functions on non-euclidean geometry. It's not relevant to this argument, but it's an important distinction.
generaleskimo 1 year ago
Historically the Roman Catholic Church used the Roman mathematical system I/v/x and so on, and banned upon pain of death the use of mathematical systems using zero, as according to the Catholic Church the concept of nothing was blasphemous, ie God is present everywhere and in all things, it seems rather ironic that a Christian would use The concept of nothing in an attempt to prove the existence of there God
RevDevilin 1 year ago
"something cannot come from nothing"... says who? If the universe originated at a singularity (let's say it did) why the fuck can't that singularity create the universe? Kalam is so fucking annoying
Craigipedia 1 year ago
Doesn't "nothing" in physics simply mean that the sum of the energy in the system is zero? And since gravity can have a negative energy, zero just happens to be the total energy of the universe that we live now?
kidigus 1 year ago
Veritas spends so much time trying to show that when considering the existence of god you should start with assuming there is a god and work backwards. He has made what... 4 or 5 videos like this. Then he makes an argument that people shouldn't be to skeptical toward religion since you might miss out on a true belief. Is it just me or does this look like he is subconsciously conceding the weakness of his position?
goddom 1 year ago 4
If a point were 'nothing', also a line would have been 'nothing', because it's a series of points.
mirandansa 1 year ago
I just love your conclusion at the very end!
WardancerHB 1 year ago
Fav'ed
I know I can rely on you to address such a slippery argument as the Kalam argument head on, with strong logic, with sound arguments from famous phisicists.
And I find a lot of sense in the comments to this video.
dewinthemorning 1 year ago 2
Awesome rebuttal!!!
mytv80 1 year ago
Great vid.
Incidentally, I love how when documentaries and such have to depict the Big Bang, they not only film it from a distance, but they also add sound - which we seem to be able to hear from a distance.
I guess it's no wonder we often get creationists questioning the Big Bang.
Gnug215 1 year ago 3
Essentialyl, they're speaking in certitude about uncertainties. Aka, more theistic hubris.
magx01 1 year ago 5
@magx01
same goes for you mag... unbelief is the same as believing that God doesn't exist. you guys make positive claims in your heart, you just don't realize it.
CapnnOrdinary 1 year ago
@CapnnOrdinary
Thanks for telling me things regarding myself I was unaware of.
Btw, the heart is an organ that is responsible for pumping blood, not containging claims. That's the domain of the brain.
magx01 1 year ago
@magx01
no prob.... yeah, so the next time you tell your girlfriend that your love for her reaches all the way from the bottom of your heart, you can show her by literally reaching inside your chest cavity.... oh, unless you would be speaking figuratively of course.
CapnnOrdinary 1 year ago
I still dont think a lack of reality can actually be...real. Something didnt come from nothing because there never was a nothing in the first ploce.
GallusSapien 1 year ago 2
InternetDisciple made a video about this and endured a long comment filled debate back and forth with people who disagreed with him. He kept claiming, matter has to have a creator, something can not come from nothing, unless a creator made it so. Of course the matter creator does not need a creator but the matter does.
lucidatheist 1 year ago
These are the people doing the false DMCAs against christians on Youtube. They are called the Trolls of Terror TOT. Their leader is this scumbag: youtube username jjosh1973 And allianceofdemons is a member of them. allianceofdemons is an enemy
demongov 1 year ago
The thing I hate about Kalam is that it is a completely empty conclusion. It basically goes like this:
blah blah blah, therefore, God exists.
Great. Now what? Where is this God? What is he like? Let's meet him. I want to talk to him. Can I shake his hand? Does he like seafood?
No?
Then your conclusion is meaningless. Conclusions are only as valid as their intrinsic power to demonstrate something. If your conclusion demonstrates nothing, then it is moot. QED.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago 2
I may sound naive putting forward this view, but if you believe something can not come nothing where does god come from? And if he/she was always there, that is yet another incomprehensible concept. On top of that the idea that after a certain period of eternity a god would decide that he needs to create a sentient being to suffer and be judged is more incomprehensible. Do you go for the idea that will hopefully be explainable over time or do you go with the idea that can never be proved at all?
Unlocktube 1 year ago 3
@Unlocktube , excellent post! "Go for the idea that can never be proved at all" is a popular answer as silly as it seems.
There is also the question of heaven. Heaven, being a perfectly wonderful place, does not contain evil. Does this mean that inhabitants of heaven no longer retain their free will? Or does their will suddenly become perfectly good?
Did you know the Mayans used the barb from a sting ray to puncture their penis in a ritual to converse with dead ancestors?
TheMassdistortion 1 year ago
@TheMassdistortion
Thats real commitment right there, pretty sure pain like that would make you insane temporarily and you might just think you were talking to the dead. But on your point about heaven, if all those things are true of it, I really don't want to end up there. An eternity of that would be really boring.
Unlocktube 1 year ago
What puzzles me most is that people like veritas48 always somehow think they could just take some part of some scientific data and then draw some totally simpleton conclusions like "and since something can´t come from nothing, blabla"
and then look around for approval like a hen that just laid an egg.
Just as if those brilliant, brilliant people who gathered the data in the first place had somehow overlooked this conclusion.
Instead of thinking "Oh, i didn´t understand it"
martialme84 1 year ago 2
1st point - "no reality" - well, if one were to presume "god = real" then that would obviously also preclude the existence of god, because the only realm outside of the "real" is the realm of "not real" just as the only realm outside of "existent" is in the realm of "non-existent."
2nd point - we exist. Therefore, however far back you go in time, toward a singularity or whatever, you can never reach a point that lacks, at a minimum, the "potential" for yielding existence, since we're here.
prodprod 1 year ago
good vid
and it's "spiel"
RobnJake 1 year ago
Veritas has truly become a gas bag. I mean hour-long videos in which he just rambles on? Goodness man, figure out what you want to say and get on with it.
ozmoroid 1 year ago 7
i like how they think that the universe could not come from nothing without some kind of intervention, i mean the universe is far more complex than we can presently wrap our minds around, just wait until we start exploring the universe first hand and guys like that are still around i would love to see how they wrap their minds around strange accurences in space that physics states should not happen lol. im sure that kind of stuff is out there we just havnt seen it yet.
wakcedout 1 year ago
nice video :)
MauricXe 1 year ago
A religious apologist is being dishonest? Holy fuck, stop the presses! We've not seen this a billion times before!
Tyrtamus 1 year ago
What I really like about this agument . In a very short time we have come from being burnt at the stake for our nonbelief ,to forcing the religious too retreat to quantum singularity to attempt some kind of proof of god.
Its a good time to be an atheist.
pamor25 1 year ago 2
"Something cannot come from nothing..." .... except in our universe where if there is 'nothing' then the Uncertainty Principle will cause there to be 'something' hastily. Nothing is an awfully precise measurement.
Bozeman42 1 year ago
Shockofgod is making the very same claim. The only difference between him and veritas is that Shockofgod is willing to reverse the school systems as in teaching them that atheism equals the claim that veritas is making, and that atheism is madness (as in a mental illness).
Are you considering making a video about shock's fallacies too?
allianceofdemons 1 year ago
@allianceofdemons Veritas is also not nearly as insane or ignorant as Shockofgod lol.
Lazyintellectual4 1 year ago
@allianceofdemons , I would like to see that video as well!, Doesn't he own or participate in the "allianceofchrist1" that youtube xians can call on to help? When someone showed me that I just about fell out of my chair!
TheMassdistortion 1 year ago
@TheMassdistortion
Veritas48 probably never got involved in the Alliance of Christ drama scene. If he would, then he's a loser.
allianceofdemons 1 year ago
@allianceofdemons , I was commenting on your question concerning the shockofgod fallacies...I would like to see that video as well. I know he is associated with the allianceofchrist1
TheMassdistortion 1 year ago
@TheMassdistortion
He's not just associated with the channel allianceofchrist1. He created that account. View my most watched video to find out. Or search on youtube "alliance of christ exposed". There are more than 3 parts to watch.
allianceofdemons 1 year ago
Craig, and other creationists that quote mine and argue with intellectual dishonesty. Who would've thought?
Bear5177 1 year ago 4
Little quibble: 'everything before [the big bang] we can work out only through mathematics'
Actually the point is that we CANNOT work out anything before a short time after the big bang with mathematics. We know nothing about before the event, even through physical theory and mathematics.
Bozeman42 1 year ago
Great evidenced run through.
I can see Veritas and Craig coming in for some severe attack in the educational round of coughlans pwnage olympics.
noelplum99 1 year ago
Excellent as usually. I especially like the last 30 seconds. That's a point I hadn't considered before.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
Evolutionists like me only claim to know that at the Big Bang, the laws did not apply and all matter and energy came into being. Fun, huh? Creationists believe there was a god that did it. My argument is always what created that god? So, if the god who created the universe didn't have a creator, we still have the same problem. Might as well skip out the middle man, atheists call this process Occam's Razor. Either the universe came from nothing or this god came from nothing.
mparker18311 1 year ago
If you