Answering Irrational Youtube Users on The Cosmological Argument

[gabinja]

In the few first minutes I realized that all these profound reasonings about "come to existence" and beginning and so on was built upon semantics! For example Craig asserts: "or does the author of this video seriously think that I existed prior to the union of my parent's sperm and egg?" Yes!, precisely in your parents' sperm and egg. If you were a sperm cell or egg, now an human being or tomorrow dust depends on heuristic definitions. Nothing comes ex-materia, or does it?

[DarkwingScooter]

I count myself and agnostic but I have to give it to WLC for making the atheists appear so stupid with so little apparent effort.

The more they argue the more it becomes clear that they really do not understand the subtleties of the subject matter. As a group they resemble an encyclopedia: they may well know a lot, but they don't know much about anything. Good philosopher's should understand a lot about anything, even if they know they know nothing.

This distinction is probably lost on them.

[DarkwingScooter]

@DarkwingScooter Having said that, I fail to be convinced by the conclusion drawn from this line of reasoning.

The problem comes in with the postulating of god himself and of the personal nature of this god. Just because there is a first cause does not imply that that cause must be "god" in any sense that we would normally understand.

The argument breaks a apart at 9:30 where a timeless god BECOMES. "Becoming" entails change, and a changeless being cannot change, even if it becomes changeable.

[matrixlone]

@DarkwingScooter the personal nature of god as far as evidence of communication can be found in personal testimonies like the ones i have in my playlist the ones were christ is visiting his followers through dreams and visions i also recommend reading the book of daniel in the bibile among many to understand what i am saying and god hasnt changed he still speaks to his prophets the same way he always as i mean as far as this unless you meant somethin else

[gabinja]

@DarkwingScooter The thing is not to become very impressed by such arguments with cool names and a lot of wiki-info. If you think about what you are hearing you will find some reasonable objections. When I hear: "if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality" I know automatically that there is some kind of trick. Maybe I cannot answer immediately, but give me some time... at least the half of the time that Craig spent looking for his suitable arguments.

[DarkwingScooter]

@gabinja We only know what exists in reality through our minds. Every philosophical argument is based on semantics or formalities, or a blend of the two.

The only difference between the atheists and christians in this respect is that most christian thinkers recognize this fact, while atheists seem to think they have hit on some special "truth", which is semantic gibberish.

As an agnostic I reject the notion of such special "truths", aside from semantic and formal ones.

[gabinja]

@DarkwingScooter Yes, basically I agree with you. The counterarguments to Kalam, ontological, cosmological, anthropical, etc. arguments doesn't prove the opposite of what Craig tries to assert, but invalidate them as a proof of anything. I am an agnostic "living as an atheist". I think it is a reaction that comes from the process that led me here. I was educated in a roman catholic environment and now I "woke up" with a sensation of lucidity and well-being in a "godless existence".

[DarkwingScooter]

@gabinja My experience was the opposite. I was raised in a very Calvinist church and realized I was agnostic long before I was ten (though I didn't know the name at the time).

There is much good thinking in christian though, and much bad thought too. The same is certainly true of aetheists.

So I choose to construct my cosmology with a god in it for aesthetic reasons, but I evaluate arguments assuming that that decision has no role.

[gabinja]

@DarkwingScooter So, according to your agnosticism, you are aware of the indemonstrability of a god, but in a practical way you relate yourself with existence as there was a god there. Is that right? In my case I started to determine where did my belief come from and I found no reasons further than educational and indoctrinational from me to believe. I tried to do an honest effort to find any clue of "god experience" in my life not contaminated with suggestion and ignorance. I found nothing!!

[DarkwingScooter]

@gabinja I am aware of the indemonstrability of god and the irefutability of a belief in him/her/it.

I don't do or believe anything different because I choose to believe in god, it is like either believing Schroedinger's cat is alive or dead, even if it is both it doesn't affect the outcome when you open the box. So I prefer to believe the cat is alive, given that I can't open the box anyhow, and nothing else changes. Except you don't have to be in a room with a decomposing feline all the time.

[gabinja]

@DarkwingScooter I find interesting this words interchange. Thanx for a polite conversation. So you prefer to believe there's a god just in case? I mean, once you adopt an agnostic point of view it is interesting to determine, beside logical arguments, what leads you to asume a belief object when in ideal initial conditions there isn't such an object. If my parents wouldn't made any reference to god and I'd grew in isolated conditions, would I developed an intuition of such a being like god?

[DarkwingScooter]

@gabinja No, I don't believe anything particular about god or the afterlife. It has nothing to do with morals or bribing the universe to secure a happy afterlife.

It is just simply a case of the universe being more aesthetically pleasing ("prettier") to me with a god in it. It would still be even if I had no prior concept of "god".

My god is more like Plato's ideal than an old guy sitting on a chair. I tend to think that that idealistic concept is a fundamental one in human thought.

[gabinja]

@DarkwingScooter I find original the assumption of a god for aesthetical reasons. I respect that. I'mwondering how to answer to the question: "is a god essential or necessary in the universe?". It is of course an entelechy and I think that in any case it's a matter of choice. But in the end this is the question, isn't it? When I think in the possibility of a god, I can‘t avoid to think about it as non-interventional: maybe the creator, but in any case not busy taking care about our human issues.

[DarkwingScooter]

@gabinja The one thing we know for certain is that our physics and cosmology as it is currently formulated is not and cannot by definition ever be complete. Given that, it is pretty irrelevant if god intervenes or not, there is literally no way that we could tell the difference from inside the system.

I am a panentheist, I believe that god literally IS the laws of physics and the universe, plus whatever is required to "complete" the system.

I certainly don't think god can be bribed.

[DarkwingScooter]

@gabinja What I find interesting is that if you look at the history of Christian thought, that my concept of god is far more pervasive and influential than you may think.

I personally believe that there is little or nothing resembling "Christianity" in the vast majority of modern churches, most Christians wouldn't recognize Christianity if they had to pick it out of a line-up.

But that is a different issue...

[gabinja]

@DarkwingScooter 100% agree

[okuma0kuma]

time doesn't exist but motion does ,time is nothing more than ruler that measure duration of motion between earth and sun

time did not exist until invention of the clock(sun dial)...

time existed before god because how else did the world know of ra's existence in the fifth dynasty ...

[gabinja]

@okuma0kuma There are some top-trend physicists that assert there is neither time nor motion. Look it up! there's a very interesting subject there.

[okuma0kuma]

@gabinja thanks will do ,im not sceptical on finite scale of motion existing as we are communicating which would be testament of proof that motion in are galaxy is a relative constant between us

but beyond galaxy .. even universe radiation im semi sceptical that motion exists externally between mass's either

[gabinja]

@okuma0kuma I'm pointing out that according to some scientific and philosophical ideas there is no motion at all. Some of these ideas come to this conclusion after reasoning there's no such a thing like time. I was charmed by the ideas of an amateur called Robert L. Vaessen about time and motion but there are some ancient precedents: Antiphon, Parmenides (who also denied motion), Zeno and more recently J. M. E. McTaggart and Julian Barbour (similar to Vaessen). Look it up: Does motion exist?

[okuma0kuma]

@gabinja Yes.

long simple answer

every individual atom is identified by formation of nucleons at specific wavelengths  ,each element cluster together some particles disappear and reappear in existence yet neither in sync to make the masses of the universe ,linear motion may not be infinite but it does exist ,which is why the human brain stores memory as with out motion before and after would have no division and no sense

through the odds of chaos im the universe and so are you

[gabinja]

@okuma0kuma nevertheless an physicist like Julian Barbour would have objections to your statement, that is at least at the same theoretical level as Barbour's ideas.

[okuma0kuma]

@gabinja i wasnt being theoretical i was being factual , the atom is officially observable which is why the world spent about £2.6 billion on a lunar hydrogen collider project along the border of switzerland ..... which will unlock and answer new questions about the existence of mass of the universe

[gabinja]

@okuma0kuma ok, but I'm not questioning the nature of mass according to our perceptions and measures, but saying that it interesting to know in wich way you could question what is motion itself. I'm reading The end of Time by Barbour and he has very interesting objections to what is motion actually. I think they would interest you as well.

[okuma0kuma]

@gabinja no problem ,i will certainly look into his material to try understand his philosophical concept thanks for for referral ^

[nanoduckling]

The justification that is given for premise one is almost always empirical (that is the basis for the universally quantified statement is that it is an experimental inference). But I am not the same class of object as matter (in the materialist sense). Nor in fact is 'the universe'. All efficient causes are just deficient abstractions of material causes meaning that one must be careful to check that when we reduce efficient causes to material causes our argument still holds. This one doesn't.

[Christianjr4]

Hawking should definitely get this voice. His current voice over is way to robotic and monotone sounding. Great video!!

[drcraigvideos]

@Christianjr4 Hawking once joked that some people couldn't tell whether he was British or not due to his robotic voice box. I would say that Hawking is a Brit with an American voice!

[bassmmbn3]

@bassmmbn3 I made a typo, I reposted my comment.

[bassmmbn3]

By saying that nothing ever began to exist via the law of conservation of matter and energy, and then claiming that the universe began to exist because of the Big Bang theory, then wouldn't the argument be fallacious since it violates the law of null contradiction?

[athlete117]

Pure annihilation.

[bravesirrobin8]

Question for Dr. Craig... If you believe that the god of the bible always existed (assuming), that means he never could have created the universe. Eternity has no limit backwards or forward, so you go backwards in time infinitely before the "creation". It says that there was a "beginning", but you can't have a "beginning" with an eternal being. There would also never have been a first day. There would always be nothingness because there would be infinite time before the "creation".

[drcraigvideos]

@bravesirrobin8 There's no contradiction for an eternal being making a temporal effect: watch?v=NMgX4a4r8gY. The cause of the universe must transcend time: watch?v=vD6Ci0KK9DQ. BTW I'm not Dr. Craig.

[phenom65]

@bravesirrobin8 I think that what WLC would say is that the universe as we experience it was created for us, and during that creation: time, space etc. was also created. He also says that an for a finite universe to exist there had to be an infinite entity (unaffected by our physics) which exists outside the confines/physics of the created universe. Alot of the time he isn't actually arguing for the God of the Holy Bible, alot of the time he simply argues for a creator in general.

[gabinja]

@phenom65 I'm with Carl Sagan when he says that it is not necessary to introduce in the problem an eternal being if we cannot give account of his eternity. Why not to keep the elements we know and confer the property of eternity to the Universe itself?

[Chaowdur]

is that stephen hawking talking

[drcraigvideos]

@Chaowdur Actually, Hawking's voice is more robotic than the one you hear here. 

[TheVodkaHaze]

Haha, Craig totally pwned that video! Shame that it has been taken down.

[drcraigvideos]

@TheVodkaHaze yeah, I wish the video was up too. It made the same darn arguments you hear from the gullible about the conservation of energy, that matter and energy never had a beginnig, etc. I guess the videographer learned his lesson, eh?