David Hilbert and the Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Logosapologetica]

Greetings from Brazil, my dearest friends. Dr. Craig will be here very soon. God be with him and you.

[m1chae15]

As long as it is an honest mistake. At least Mr. Shallit, according to this, admitted as such. If we're gonna give someone crap, it seems only right to give credit. I wish Dawkins would do even half as much. Has he? Bad news doesn't get better with time alone.

[MereChristianLogic]

Infinity, what an amazing ideal. Does infiniti apply to transcendence? Do we describe God as infinite because we don't know what it is to be timeless? Can we conceive of absolute nothing? Or can we conceive of existing necessarily? What is man? God is great.

[BreakoutKings]

The KCA is based solely on fallacy any way you use it

You ignore the conservation of energy to assert causality, this is a fallacy known as confirmation bias.

You try to assert that the conservation of energy doesn't apply, this would mean physics has failed, including causality. This is the taxicab fallacy.

[tynytian]

@BreakoutKings The conservation of energy is a physical law, not a metaphysical one. It only applies once energy and matter are already created, and the system is closed within the universe. Many atheists will assert this thermodynamic law in an attempt to avoid the beginning of the universe, but it fails to do that. What's more, the second law actually proves that the universe must have begun; if the universe never began, then its inexplicable why we aren't in a state of cosmic heat-death now.

[BreakoutKings]

@tynytian When dealing with anything even potentially based on evidence or reason, the metaphysical cannot be included as it is by definition unobservable and completely unavailable for any kind of scrutiny whatsoever.

Once you invoke 'metaphysical' you've left the realm of trying to rationally argue for your position and basically recognize that you can only invoke what amounts to magic to ad hoc your stance.

[tynytian]

@BreakoutKings I wasn't using metaphysics as some magical answer to a question, I was merely explaining that a law of physics cannot apply to the beginning of the universe as it represents the coming into being of physical space, including the laws governing it. There's nothing ad hoc about it. Also, I'd like to point out that things like quantum loop gravity and multiverse theories are no less metaphysical than the God hypothesis until we find evidence of such things.

[BreakoutKings]

@tynytian Also, there is no evidence of an actual ex nihilo event.

[DigitalDecadence]

@BreakoutKings Metaphysics is a respected branch of philosophy and is one of the many tools which we use to understand our reality. Ruling it out and claiming it's mere magic, is intellectually bankrupt.

[BreakoutKings]

@tynytian We're not in a state of heat death because of quantum loop gravity, the second law of thermodynamics applies to the energy in an isolated system, not the system itself. The only upward size limit on black holes is time, they can also merge and as they gravitate more mass/other black holes they become stronger, being able to attract more mass etc.

The other side is an indefinite expansion, which means infinite dark energy per unit volume of the universe.

[tynytian]

@BreakoutKings QLG has yet to be empirically proven through experiment and evidence. Like most quantum gravity theories today, it suffers from major internal problems that have yet to be resolved, and it fails even to make accurate predictions which agree with the standard model. You should really form your arguments on proven science instead of unverified theories.

[BreakoutKings]

@tynytian My argument was based on the only two possibilities for the resolution to our current configuration of the universe, indefinite expansion which means there necessarily must be an infinite amount of dark energy, or contraction which means even if there is a finite quantity of energy it will be recompressed in a big crunch.

[98nafets]

@Buruc I often state that science is based on math and that you can't scientifically prove 2 + 2 = 4. But to them, science only consists of things that are physically observable. An atheist will often argue that I cannot trust my own logic. Which I find stupid because then there is no point of even discussing this stuff since we can't even agree to the fundamental laws of logic.

[FriendsWithKids]

@98nafets 'you can't scientifically prove 2 + 2 = 4'

You should read up on Peano's postulates, he definitively proved that 1 + 1 = 2 and so on.

[1GodOnlyOne]

Please excuse my language, but the atheist in this video is an ignorant asshole.

[98nafets]

It's frustrating when atheists on YouTube argue that an actual infinite can exist. When I say it can't, they reply prove it. And when I make the logical argument, they demand that I scientifically prove it. Or they claim that infinities do exist in physics when in reality they're just limits or potential infinities. Atheists love to shift the burden and proof and they always demand evidence beyond what any normal scientific/logical proof would demand.

[drcraigvideos]

@98nafets Bear in mind that Dr. Craig is NOT saying an actual infinite cannot exist. He's saying an actual infinite number of THINGS cannot exist. Thus he brings up Hilbert's Hotel example.

[98nafets]

@drcraigvideos That's what I meant.

[drcraigvideos]

@98nafets Oh, I see. Yeah, many youtube atheists just don't get Craig and his use of infinites, but then again, they're youtube atheists, so that says a lot about them anyway.

[FriendsWithKids]

@98nafets Infinite simply means to extend or exist indefinitely, the only logical ramification of all known empirical laws of physics regarding the existence of energy is that it will exist indefinitely.

[drcraigvideos]

I felt like I had to make this video: (1) Because Jeff Shallit (who is known for stereotyping Christians - you can tell from the video above how incredibly arrogant he is) deserves to be set straight, and (2) the constant misunderstandings of David Hilbert.