@Godisyourmaster Furthermore, as I point out in my video, a timeless, spaceless thing would be mindless, which better fits a simple natural phenomenon like the quantum vacuum or gravity or even mathematics than an all-powerful being who frets about what people do with their genitals.
A singularity is a location, which is a thing (i.e., a noun). If the best you can do is argue semantics, I can live with that. ;-)
@Godisyourmaster Not ONE thing I've presented is dishonest. I researched and verified each claim.
The evidence we have is that the universe apparently emerged from the quantum vacuum (which is not nothing and could be eternal) without any evident cause. Saying nothing can't create something is an "appeal to intuition" fallacy, and since we cannot observe beyond the limits of our universe, we CANNOT say the universe came from nothing. There is no need to resort to supernatural hypotheses.
Excellent video, but you seem to confuse the multiverse hypothesis with the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, those two are different things.
Hmm, I apologize if I made a mistake...but as I understand it the many worlds hypothesis is a subset of the multiverse hypothesis. They're not entirely synonymous, but did I imply they were? If so, could you point out where?
I used the term "metaverse" in an attempt to avoid confusion, but perhaps I didn't succeed.
@Underlings That's the thing, it's not a subset except in an extremely loose sense where we say "both postulate the existence of many universes". The Many worlds interpretation, has little to do with cosmology or the fundamental constants of physics;; it's postulated in order to remove the randomness and action at a distance of quantum mechanics
@devdissent It could just be a semantics issue. In my research (sources in the crotch bar) I've seen the terms many worlds and multiverse used as one being a subset of the other. But in this video I refer to "parallel universes" and the "totality of existence" grouped together under the term "metaverse," without defining their relationship. The intent isn't to conflate the two, but to create a blanket inclusiveness for what's meant by "the universe" used in the KCA.
"Cosmologists are trained to say there was no time before the Big Bang, when we should say that we don't know whether there was anything - or if there was, what it was."
~Sean Carroll, physicist, CalTech, author From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time
You cannot say that quantum physics shows things happen uncaused. Why? Because it isn't verified, and one can give a mathematical proof either way. You would just be arbitrarily picking the one that shows it is uncaused.
@kfk4life The correct phrase is that QM *may* show evidence that some things may be uncaused. It's inaccurate to say that everything *must* have a cause until someone proves this is the case. As you say, it's not been shown to be true, therefore Kalam cannot make this claim. Faulty premises lead to faulty conclusions.
@kfk4life No, I can't say quantum physics SHOWS uncaused events, only that we have no APPARENT cause of events. To quote the physicist I interviewed, "quantum zero point fluctuations...could be labeled 'uncaused', since the zero point agitation is an inherent aspect of quantum mechanics that cannot be tweaked (by cooling, for example) to eliminate the cause." I do not pretend to understand the math behind it.
@Underlings Nor do I, but I have a book explaining it both ways. Why should one assume that there is no cause when the interpretation saying there is is just as valid?
@kfk4life It's not an assumption, it's that there doesn't appear to be a cause. The assumption would be that there is a cause when none is evident. But my point in the video is that the KCA declares that there IS a cause, which is an assertion, and my point is that there may not be a cause. If the KCA had said, there MAY BE a cause, then it would be accurate.
@Rushlimpballs Well, haven't you been happy or sad about something long after you learned about it? But emotions guide behavior, so why would God have emotions? God needs a guide?
"But emotions guide behavior, so why would God have emotions?" Good point. I'll have to keep that one in my bag or rebuttals. Another question I like to ask is how God knows he knows everything. How could a god be sure he/she is all knowing?
hey underlings, do the research on the virgin shroud of lady guadalupe (virgin mary) from mexico because I have doubts about it. hopefully you can do a video on it.
@specialagentjuan1 Skeptoid (Brian Dunning) did an excellent podcast on Guadalupe. If you don't know him, he does his research extremely well and presents it in a nice, concise form. Net out: there's no evidence at all that anything remarkable happened that day.
@specialagentjuan1 Alas, I don't know anything about the Lady of Guadalupe (even though I lived in Mexico 4 years). It's just not my area of interest, since I go to the ROOT of the problem--God's behavior and belief in God. Call those into question and everything else--including the Lady of Guadalupe--become irrelevant.
I think William Lane Craig's justification for a personal god being the cause is that a purely mechanical cause would have had to have happened already. This argument leads to a few problems though.
I'm also not convinced by your argument for actual infinities. Although I think that an argument can be made: WLC says "There can't be an infinite past regression or we would not have ever gotten to the present moment", but this assumes that there is not an infinite amount of time.
@narco73 But he also argues special pleading for God. If actual infinites aren't allowed, then God can't be infinite either. You can't just define away a problem. If that's allowed, then I'll define the cause of the universe to be a previous universe with different physics that's always existed. Guessing is never the answer. There's no reason why the "metaverse" (as defined here) can't have always existed.
@narco73 He does. But no matter what words are used to hide the special pleading, it's still special pleading. I could just as easily say the universe before ours is timeless. We don't know the physics of previous universes, so anything goes. Or, I could point out that time has been shown to slow down near gravity wells, and the BB singularity with all the energy at a single point, and thus all the gravity of the known universe, would stretch time out to infinity relative to the time we now see.
@narco73 It still comes down to just defining some cause-producer into existence. Defining something that, if it existed, has such-and-such properties does not make that something actually exist. I can define special physics that solves the problem, or they can define gods, or we can define purple pixies with just two properties: timeless and BB-singularity producing. That doesn't give any credence whatsoever for any of those imagined "explanations". It's more reasonable to posit known physics.
@HarshColby I'm not sure that he is just defining something into existence like your purple pixies. What he is doing, or is trying to do, is say what kind of cause it must have been. Since he doesn't believe in actual infinities it has to be timeless, and nothing mechanical is timeless, but if he has an argument for the possibility of timeless consciousness, then a conscious entity becomes a possible candidate.
@narco73 Yeah. I was jumping ahead a bit to where he concludes the cause must be the God of the bible. Using his definitions, the timeless cause could have been anything timeless. But he still hasn't shown the universe cannot be timeless. He hasn't shown that something timeless can have the property of consciousness, or even that something timeless can even exist. He simply asserts those properties. I get your point however.
@HarshColby He actually has justifications for why it is the god of the bible, it's just that they aren't included in the wikipedia summary that most people read. WLC's kalam is a much better thought out argument than most realise.
I think it has major issues though in assuming what the nature of stuff outside our universe is like, whether it's the physics, or god, or causes, or infinities etc..
@narco73 In order to conclude that WLC's arguments are "much better thought out", I'd have to agree that several failed arguments add up to one good argument. I can't agree to that. His arguments are all based on speculative assumptions at the heart of the cosmological, teleological, and objective morality arguments WLC loves so much.
Which of his arguments for the God of the bible do you find the least bit compelling? He claims there's good evidence for biblical accuracy, but fails to show it.
@HarshColby I'm talking specifically about the kalam. From what I have seen (not that much) he has answers for every obvious objection (whether or not you accept them). When people say "but in quantum mechanics molecules spontaneously appear" he has already answered that, when they object "but this still doesn't get to the god of the bible" he has answered that, when they say "mathematicians use infinities all the time" he has answered that, etc. he also has answers to objections to his answers
@narco73 Sure. What good apologist doesn't have an answer for everything? That doesn't mean the answers are even close to right. For his purely philosophical reasoning, it's impossible to prove or disprove his assertions. Where he strays into known science, he has been shown to be wrong
His Kalam argument concludes (based on flawed premises) that a god exists. It doesn't give reasons it must be the God of the bible, does it? To conclude that, he uses his belief that the bible is accurate, afaik.
@HarshColby Yes, you wouldn't be able to prove the god of the bible without using the bible. But he extends the kalam to be about the type of god that he thinks is the god of the bible.
All I am saying is that virtually every argument against the kalam hasn't actually studied it. He has spent 30 (or so) years debating it, he has seen every common objection. People (particularly on youtube) think they can dismiss it after considering it for 5 minutes, but it's not that simple.
@narco73 It is that simple. All it takes is a little physics knowledge and a bit of reading the refutations. There are several knowledgeable refutations to WLC's arguments. WLC doesn't understand physics at all. He just says things and hopes his audience doesn't either. Generally, it's a safe bet for him. This video states many of them, and Underlings adds a couple good ones of his own.
@HarshColby You are illustrating my point. People think it's simple when it's not. It also does not take just "a bit of reading the refutations", because most of the refutations are written by people who don't understand the argument fully.
I think good arguments against the kalam are better than presumptive overly simplistic ones.
@narco73 I meant read the good ones, of course. As it happens, I do know enough physics to know WLC is just making things up. The arguments against Kalam are air tight. Kalam is pure speculation based on a misunderstanding of physics. The premises aren't valid.
@HarshColby I actually think it's less on physics and more on philosophy and mathematics.
The best argument I have found against it so far is on the website "commonsenseatheism", it is called "mapping the kalam". But it is a work in progress, it is far from finished.
@narco73 It's not the philosophy that he gets so wrong. It's the science. Regarding philosophy, his guess is as good as anyone's. The problem is that when it comes to philosophy, no one can determine if the philosophy is right or not. It's not testable.
@HarshColby But physics doesn't comment on things prior to one plank time, so it's not got that much to do with it, other than seeing that there was a start to the known universe.
What you say about philosophy is almost the definition of philosophy (at least how I like to define it), since once something becomes definite it becomes, in most cases, science. So I agree with you there, and this relates to the kalam, as it is not cut and dry.
@narco73 Right. Which is why when Kalam says "The universe has a beginning of its existence", it's not scientifically accurate. Science can't say that, and philosophy can't demonstrate it's true. Likewise with "An actual infinite cannot exist".
@narco73 The data shows this universe started 13.7 billion years ago. That doesn't tell us anything about what may have existed before this universe. It doesn't indicate that a previous universe must be supernatural. It doesn't mean our universe was the first. Anything prior to the BB is unknown.
Claims without evidence, such as the one about actual infinities, can be dismissed without evidence. They can be dismissed very easily unless someone comes up with some evidence to support the claim.
@HarshColby But that's the whole point of the argument, discussing what such a cause would be like. Just because we don't so far know what it's like, it doesn't mean we can't try to figure it out. And in a sense anything "before" the BB is necessarily supernatural. Also, the kalam doesn't literally talk about before the big bang anyway, many arguments against it miss that too.
You don't need evidence to claim logically impossible things don't exist.
@narco73 Sure, but making up bogus logical arguments based on a flawed understanding (whether on purpose or through ignorance) doesn't get anyone any closer to an answer. When no information is available, why waste time guessing with no hope at all of determining the accuracy of those guesses? Why insist, as WLC does, that his "proof" holds any validity? What's wrong with "I don't know" until data becomes available?
Before the BB is not supernatural. If can easily be exactly the same physics.
@narco73 Kalam doesn't talk about before the BB? Isn't that the entire point of Kalam? What do you mean? What would be the point of talking about the origin of the universe after the BB?
You can show logical impossibilities, and they would hold sway. I agree. But Kalam certainly doesn't show anything is logically impossible. It makes claims based on a misunderstanding of physics. That's all.
@HarshColby WLC's Kalam talks about a simultaneous cause, a cause that happens at the same time as the first point in time of its effect, not a temporally preceding cause. AFAIK.
He does try to show actual infinities are logically impossible. He also tries to show that certain types of causes are logically impossible, like a mechanical cause.
I don't agree with his conclusion, but I do think his reasoning illuminates various issues that have to be considered in any explanation.
@narco73 I've heard that, but there's no evidence that causes can be simultaneous with effects. Such a thing has never been seen and violates QM, so as far as we know it's can't happen. Even if it did, that still doesn't argue that the simultaneous cause must be supernatural.
Yes, tries, but simply asserts that actual infinities are impossible. It would be interesting if he could demonstrate that his assertion is true. He hasn't.
He doesn't raise a single salient point, imo. It's all assertion.
@HarshColby Many people think causes and effects are (can be) simultaneous, from Kant to Buddha.
If cause and effect are not simultaneous, what happens at the temporal mid point between cause and effect when there is no cause and no effect? Do cause and effect both cease to exist for a short period of time?
WLC also has a lot of arguments for the non existence of infinities. Do you believe an actual infinity could exist in our universe?
@narco73 Kant and Buddha haven't done a single experiment to verify that claim. QM prohibits simultaneity. Philosophers can guess, but cannot demonstrate the validity of their claims.
Temporal mid point?
I'm agnostic regarding infinities. There's no way to test the claim. If the universe is infinite in extent, how can we test it? If the universe has always existed, how can we test it? Keep in mind that at the center of black holes time effectively stops relative to our frame of reference.
@HarshColby I just explained Kant's experiment. It's a thought experiment. The argument about the temporal mid point between (a point in time halfway between) the cause and effect seems to me a good argument. The only way I can see around it is simultaneous causes, causes acting at a temporal distance, or quantum units of time.
If the universe including space and time were created at the big bang then it is only finitely big, it is hard to imagine how an infinity could exist in such a universe.
@narco73 can you provide a link to Kant's argument you're referring to? Also to the midpoint argument? Thanks.
The BB created the known universe. Smaller than that is the observable universe that we can see and measure. Outside the known universe, we have no information. There may well be something outside the known universe, and it may have existed prior to the BB. This is why I think Kalam is talking about the origin of everything, not restricted to the universe created by the BB.
@HarshColby Uh oh, more than one post per reply, never good for a youtube discussion ;)
(BTW. In case you are wondering why, I deleted a couple of posts due to an error which I needed to clarify)
For Kant's argument, which is essentially the midpoint argument, google "But at the moment when the effect first arises, it is always simultaneous with the causality of its cause, because, if the cause had but a moment before ceased to be, the effect could not have arisen."
@narco73 The spacetime created in the BB are "our" space and "our" time. No one says the BB created all space and all time. Time and space are relative to the observer. If anyone thought the BB created all space and all time, then no one would be working on string theories or any pre-BB cosmology questions. That concept is only meaningful if something exists pre-BB and the physics is consistent with ours.
Being hard to imagine has never been a good measure of whether things in physics are true.
@HarshColby That's pretty much what I was hoping you'd say. Because if there is an infinite regress outside our universe, then at least the second law of thermodynamics is wrong. To assume that there is some physics that accounts for this is an argument from ignorance. We are left only being able to talk about what types of explanations are more likely, which is what the kalam does.
So you think an infinity could occur in our universe? Again, this would violate all physics.
@narco73 It would be an A from I only if I claim that there is something outside this universe. What I'm claiming, otoh, is that I don't know, but there MIGHT be. It wouldn't violate any physics for there to be more universe outside what we can see. It may be infinite. There's no way to tell.
In "Critique of pure reason", Kant is talking about perception only. Reality many be different, and that's part of his point. He brings up the glass as the simultaneous cause for water to rise above...
@narco73 ...the table surface. That example doesn't show the problem well however. A better one is the sun and earth. This fits Kant's requirement for simultaneous cause and effect. In this case, however, it is known (if not obvious) that since info can't travel faster than light, if the sun were to abruptly disappear, we would not see it for 8 minutes. This shows that something we perceive as simultaneous, actually is not. In the case of the sun it's 8 minutes. For water, it's much much faster.
@HarshColby It's an A from I because you are postulating a certain type of cause for the universe only because you can't think of a better explanation.
I'm not convinced by your argument that actual infinities could exist. You are postulating the existence of something with no evidence, much like someone who postulates god. The very notion of it contradicts the big bang theory.
This conversation is starting to get too complicated to fit into single posts. I may drop out soon. It's been fun.
@narco73 How is "I don't know the cause" an A from I? What cause am I positing? I'm listing a previous universe as a possibility until some physics is found which rules it out. That's not A from I.
Same with an infinite universe. It's a possibility, which I'm not positing as fact.
Positing gods is different in that supernatural acts by gods are refuted by known, testable physics.
@HarshColby A previous universe is not a possibility, unless we are prepared to throw out physics as we know it. You say gods ago against the physics of this universe (I'm not sure what you mean but I'll accept it anyway), but previous universes also go against the physics of this universe too.
Therefore we can only talk about what types of causes/reasons there are. The kalam includes an argument that this cause must be conscious.
@narco73 How do you think physics rule out a previous universe? Why are all the physicists working on pre-BB explanations if it's so obvious that physics rules out such a universe? No. A previous universe is not ruled out in any way by known physics. (Gods "speak" universes into existence, which isn't possible under the known laws of physics.)
There's no evidence of any consciousness without a physical, biological brain. Kalam draws its conclusion from flawed premises.
"Do you believe an actual infinity could exist in our universe? "
Belief is irrelevant. Craig has no basis for his claim that actual infinites can't exist, just as there is no indication that they DO. The fact that actual infinities are non-intuitive is not a good reason to dismiss them outright. We just don't know.
Craig's whole argument is based on intuition, but we know by now that intuition doesn't get us far in understanding the universe.
I'm not sure I understand WLC's justification. The universe DID happen already...and how would God be any different than a mechanical option?
Right. One option: if "time" stretches infinitely into the past and future, we could exist anywhere along that line.
But the fact is we simply don't know, and appealing to a god doesn't solve any problems a naturalistic explanation can't do equally well (or better, accounting for Occam's Razor).
@Underlings I think (but may be wrong) he is saying with a mechanical cause everything would have to happen after a finite amount of time, but given an infinite amount of time all finite amounts would have happened an infinite amount of time ago. A conscious cause could wait infinitely long by choice (if that even makes sense)
But this assumes some sort of time before big bang, the universe has only happened once, natural causes are necessarily mechanical and consciousness is non mechanical.
@narco73 Hmm, but by that logic, then NOTHING could happen in the future. But if a new universe appeared every "year" (which would assume some time passage outside of our universe...which may not make sense), then our universe could be in one of those "years," regardless of how many previous "years" there may be.
And I don't see how a conscious being could wait infinitely long, nor how consciousness is necessarily non-mechanical. There's evidence choice is only an illusion.
@Underlings I think he is right to say that given an infinite amount of time all mechanical possibilities would have happened, but that is not to say they couldn't happen again. If you allow that our universe could have happened an infinite amount of times before then there is no problem. Which is a strange thought I admit.
A and B theories of time are interesting, his problem is only a problem under one, I forget which.
I think he has an argument for non-mech consciousness, I don't know it
@narco73 Although I should add. Allowing the universe to have happened an infinite number of times goes against various laws of thermodynamics. Which is a point in his favor. However we don't know that these apply outside our universe. Are we justified in assuming they don't? It would be an argument from ignorance..
The other possibility is that the cause is not mechanical, but WLC claims a conscious cause is the only example of this. To claim anything else is also an argument from ignorance..
[the only RATIONAL claim is that we DO NOT KNOW if some form of causality exists beyond our universe, and thus CANNOT claim P1 of the KCA is factual.]
The KCA doesn't argue that causality happens outside the universe.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper An erroneous conclusion based on flawed math and a misunderstanding of biology by a guy that says he's not an expert in the field. So what?
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Foremost because he ignores natural selection in his calculations. His explanation of throwing thousands of aces in a row assumes that DNA just magically appeared with 460k base pairs, which was the conclusion he was trying to reach. You can't just assume your conclusion in your premise. In fact, no biologist claims that it was random. The biology claim is that natural selection played a huge role, with a random component making evolution possible.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Sorry. I didn't notice that when I clicked, it started just beyond your time mark and I picked up at the 'life could start with RNA' statements.
Science doesn't claim to know what there was before this universe. There are many hypotheses, but until data is available to support any of them, that's what they'll remain.
@HarshColby True, and you know the reason why scientists don't know what was before the universe? Because physics began at the singularity and scientists can only read what is after the singularity because physics applies there. That's how we know "nothing" existed before the universe.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper You don't know physics began at the singularity. That's one interpretation, but being unknown doesn't really let you claim to know anything about it. You can't claim nothing was there, nor can you claim something was there. All the unknown allows you to claim is we don't yet know. Maybe we'll figure it out someday, or maybe not.
@HarshColby The man in the video I just linked you to explained science will never know. That is because science only works within the frame of physics. You still don't get it do you?
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Perhaps he's right. Perhaps not. If some mechanism is discovered which allows us to see past the CMBR, then we may well figure it out. There may be pre-BB imprints on the current universe which leads us to be able to deduce something about it.
Science is the investigation of things which can be observed and tested. It's never been any more than that. Physics is testable, therefore science can draw scientific conclusions based on those tests. What is it I don't get?
@MoonwalkerWorshiper I listened to the section again. He says "...there probably never will be because to prove what happened before the beginning is impossible for science to measure." Notice he says 'probably', leaving open the door to some future discovery. It's currently impossible, hence the present tense word "is" in "is impossible to measure".
As stated, I agree with him on this point, although I wouldn't be so pessimistic about our chances for discovering new techniques.
And you can't that which is not physical, such as what is prior to Big Bang.
[Notice he says 'probably']
Well notice he says it's impossible for science to measure. If you're not pessimistic that's fine for you but you still don't get that your lack of pessisism is due to lack of understanding of the physics concept. It's a pipedream that you got, backed up by nothing but hopeless naivety.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Need I repeat? Being unknown means you can't make any claims about it. You can't claim it's not physical. On what evidence can you make such a claim? Space before the BB may be exactly the same as we see it now. There's nothing in physics preventing that. This doesn't mean it's true but it does mean you can't make claims like 'not physical'.
There's already at least one plausible way in which pre-BB cosmology could be measured: patterns in the CMB. That's why I'm optimistic.
@HarshColby [Need I repeat?] No but there's a distinct need of getting it on your part.
[You can't claim it's not physical.] That's exactly the thing we went over some months ago, and I'm not doing it all over again. If you refuse to see it that's your problem, but for the record; if physics began to exist which science shows it did, then "non-physics" applied before it. Also known as nothing. You sound like a naive ignoramus anyway.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper No need to start insults. I've been civil and I'd expect you should be as well.
If you would like to provide evidence that a pre-BB universe cannot be physical, then feel free to present it. You didn't have any evidence then, and you still don't have any. Point me to a scientific paper which shows you're right, and I'll accept it's a reasonable stance. Until then, you're simply voicing your opinion, not the opinion of scientists.
@HarshColby I still remember you caused me a headache one afternoon for being insanely unreasonable and obtuse. The comments are still there.
[that a pre-BB universe cannot be physical]
I cannot prove attributes to a thing that has not been proven to exist. "Nothing" is not an attribute you can assign to a something. I can't come with a science paper that confirms your confusion about that. It will never happen, just as the man in that video basically says.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper There's a really easy way to convince me. Just stop speculating what you think scientists are saying, and find actual evidence that you're right. That shouldn't be too hard if your are right. It'll be impossible, of course, if you're wrong.
If you can't prove attributes, then you shouldn't be making claims about it. You've asserted time and time again that you have knowledge that nothing existed pre-BB. In all this time, you have yet to show any paper or evidence of it.
@HarshColby [find actual evidence that you're right]
You're paying attentiont to me as much as a fucking dead pile of stinking feces.
[That shouldn't be too hard if your are right.]
So jackass, how am I right? I am right in saying NOTHING EXISTED, because physics BEGAN and did not exist before it's own beginning. How do I PROVE that NOTHING EXISTS? I mean how stupid are you. You've successfully proved yourself obtuse yet again, congrats HarshColby, I'm not continueing.
Got any evidence your claims are true yet? If not, why are you wasting time here?
Don't change your claim. Your claim is that physics did not exists before the BB, not that physics didn't exist before it existed. But provide data showing either is true. Your claims aren't convincing, since you obviously can't produce any evidence you're right.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Your claim wasn't that it hasn't been proven to exist. Your claim is that you have knowledge that it doesn't exist. There's a big difference between these two stances. I'm asking for a paper supporting your position. I've already provided, but will provide again if you wish, evidence to support my claims, which, incidentally, are generally accepted by physicists and cosmologists. Fact is, they're theorizing about pre-BB cosmology because they aren't certain it doesn't exist.
@HarshColby [they're theorizing about pre-BB cosmology because they aren't certain it doesn't exist]
That had me LOL-ing... you don't realize how ignorant you sound, and that's kind of the annoying thing with you. Scientists are never certain about their own guesses. They can only be certain about that which is proven and tested. You can't prove a nothing and you can't test a nothing, but you can SPECULATE around it. Speculation however, is not proof for anything.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper You're the one claiming nothing existed before the BB. Why claim it if you simultaneously admit you can't show your claim is true? As this is the case, you're simply speculating that nothing existed before the BB. Is that right? If not speculation, then show it's true. It's a simple request, so why are you wasting time making baseless assertions? Show your evidence. I'm listening. If you don't have any, then why assert it? You've had ample opportunity to produce evidence.
@HarshColby "Show this, show that" man you're one lazy unintellectual fuck. Why should I prove a property of a thing that there's no proof of (pre-universe) and add a property to that thing which is not a property (nothingness). Not about assertion. You can piss off now I shouldn't have made the mistake in sending you a video where an educated man states the same things I do only in scientific context. It's not like you're learning anything.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper If you're going to claim knowledge you should be required to provide evidence your claim is true. How am I lazy because you make assertions you cannot support? Is it unreasonable to ask you to support your claims? Or are you of the opinion that claims don't need to be supported and we should just take your word for it?
If you can't support your baseless assertion that there was nothing before the BB, then, yes, please run off now. Come back with evidence next time.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Btw, as I already said, I agree with "the educated man" in the video with respect to this question. It's your assertions I don't agree with.
@HarshColby [Why claim it if you simultaneously admit you can't show your claim is true?]
I claim it because it is true, and the reason I can't show it is because you can't show or prove nothingness. As I've said just a few times already. A more relevant question would be; Why continue to claim true things and explain why they're true to an unreasonable obtuse moron who are more senile than an 110-year old and will never get it even if I repeat myself for an eternity.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper [you can't show or prove nothingness] I haven't claimed nothingness. You've claimed it. Why are you so confused? I have never claimed that nothing existed before the BB. You did. I have never claimed something existed before the BB. I need not support claims I did not make.
[I claim it because it is true] Nice assertion. Now show it's true, or admit you're speculating. Or are your claims not to be subjected to scrutiny? We should just believe you because you said so.
@HarshColby [If you're going to claim knowledge you should be required to provide evidence your claim is true.]
If you want to know how the universe began to exist, research cosmology. Also research cosmonogy.
You're lazy because you refuse to think or pay attention, and you think saying "show this, show that" is making you look like a challenge when you only look more obtuse.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper I'm paying attention. You've repeated the same baseless assertion many times. How could I not listen? Now, what I'd really like to hear is your explanation of why you believe that nothing existed before the BB.
Not you, I mean ONE cannot prove nothingness. LOL you insanely stupid troll.
[I'm paying attention]
Hardly so, as you keep writing "show me the evidence" when I already explain why evidence is moot in this topic of nothingness. Stupidity or obtusiveness is not a virtue HarshColby.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper If you can't prove nothing existed before the BB, then stop claiming there was nothing before the BB. You have a huge mental block in your thinking. Remove it. If you can't demonstrate things, then don't claim to know about them.
Perhaps you're confused about the difference between "nothing existed before the BB" and "before the BB was undefined"? Is that what you're so inelegantly trying to talk about? Sort of the "what's north of the north pole" concept?
@MoonwalkerWorshiper [things do not exist before they begin to exist] Agreed, idiot. (See how insults really bring home the point your trying to make?) Did anyone claim that this universe existed before this universe existed? What does that have to do with whether something existed (or not) before this universe existed?
Yes, insults sure make your point, asshole.
[Nothingness is the lack of a something] So you know something did not exist before the BB? How do you come to know this?
@HarshColby Why do you keep reply when you just refuse to understand? You have no point, you have no argument, all you got is the ability to not pay attention and drag things out when they are already explained crystal clear. All you have proved is how obtuse you are HarshColby. And guess what, I'm not interested in getting it proved to me again and again the character and the depth of your mentally inept obtusiveness. I don't want to sit and watch you being stupid anymore.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Answer my question about the difference between "nothing existed before the BB" and "before the BB was undefined". Is this what you're attempting to talk about?
You can't support your assertion by anything more than "I'm not asserting". Name calling doesn't change your assertion into a fact. When you spout nonsense, then can't support it with facts, what's to understand? I understand you're making a claim you cannot support, so you resort to calling me names.
@HarshColby Calling my explanation an assertion doesn't debunk it, so you can piss off already. Your labels and your obsessivess of words is not gonna fucking help you.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Then leave without supporting your claim. It's okay with me, given that you've failed to support your claim when you should have been able to do so in the first few posts. When you gather evidence, feel free to present it. No more baseless claims though. They're boring.
@HarshColby [Then leave without supporting your claim.]
I'm leaving having my claim supported again, and again, and again, and again, and I leave with declaring you utterly fucking obtuse for making me repeat the explanation again, and again, and again, and again. The label "assertion" is not an argument, nor is "baseless". If you fail to understand logic, you fail to understand.
@HarshColby [I understand you're making a claim you cannot support]
Then you haven't understood shit, because you still refuse to understand the logical principle that things do not exist before they begin to exist. Your speculation about other universes is mental masturbation and again, it's not more thought provoking than me calling you stupid which you indeed are.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper [things do not exist before they begin to exist] Of course I do. The problem is that no one is claiming that this universe existed before this universe existed. So why are you bringing up this non sequitur? I agree this universe didn't exist before this universe. What does that have to do with something else possibly existing before this universe?
@HarshColby [The problem is that no one is claiming that this universe existed before this universe existed.]
Physics, idiot. Physics. The atoms, matter and energy, darkmatter whatever however you want to define it. Physics comes with the universe. If you're gonna talk of "other universes" you need to pull out a new system of physics from your ass spontanously to justify your speculation of "other universes" existing under other laws than "our" physics.
[Is it unreasonable to ask you to support your claims?]
No but it is freaking unreasonable to not paying attention and then claim you have.
[show it's true, or admit you're speculating.]
I'm not speculating, the scientists are. They do that because it's their job to investigate all data. I follow principles of logic and I respect the proved science we have so far. We're not gonna prove other universes because people like you like to speculate and mirror that on the people who don't.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Well, of course, if you simply keep repeating the exact same baseless assertion over and over, you'll not get anywhere. Isn't that obvious? Perhaps you should try adding some facts to your assertion. Upon what evidence do you base your belief that nothing existed before the BB? It's certainly not a scientific belief, since scientists don't generally agree with you (including the educated man in the video).
@HarshColby [as I already said, I agree with "the educated man" in the video with respect to this question]
Then you agree that it's impossible to prove anything prior to the beginning of the universe. Such as nothingness, which is impossible to prove anyway.
[Now show it's true]
I did so here earlier by using deductive logic, look it up, as I'm not argueing anymore with you. You won't understand deductive logic anyway. You won't understand that nothingness is not a property.
[Upon what evidence do you base your belief that nothing existed before the BB?]
The fact that things do not exist before they begin to exist. If physics began to exist in BB, then there was a distinct lack of physics prior to the BB. Also known as nothing, which scientists cannot measure to take samples of, therefore it's not a scientific claim to say there was nothing. You won't accept this because you have a pile of crap in your head instead of a brain.
@HarshColby I might aswell answer the last horseshit.
[if you simply keep repeating the exact same baseless assertion over and over]
I haven't, I've been EXPLAINING the same thing over and over. Who the fuck is talking about baseless assertions? You don't know what you're accusing me of because you are a FUCKING RETARD. We don't take a sample of nothingness and put it in a lab for tests you IDIOT. Your question. will. remain. absurd.
[we should say that we don't know whether there was anything]
I'll check those sources, but scientists do know that spacetime begin to exist.
[Your assertions are not explanations.]
I don't make assertions.
[You can't explain something by simply asserting that it's true.]
I don't, I explain it to you by deductive logic. If you refuse to understand, it makes you annoyingly obtuse and a waste of my time. Now piss off, would you please, and don't ask me to "prove nothing" again.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper [scientists do know that spacetime begin to exist.] The spacetime we can see began. certainly: 13.7 billion years ago. Your claim refers to before that, however.
[I don't make assertions.] You assert that nothing existed before the BB. This is not established fact.
[deductive logic] Saying "nothing existed before the BB" is not deductive logic. It's an assertion. If you're right, would "there's nothing on the far side of the pluto" be deductive logic also?
@MoonwalkerWorshiper "The KCA doesn't argue that causality happens outside the universe."
Yes it DOES, at least for OUR universe. That's the WHOLE POINT of the KCA, summed up in C4:
KCA C4: "If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God." God-cause, universe=effect.
You've said before you thought the KCA has only 3 points. It doesn't. It has AT LEAST 4. Of ALL the definitions you've failed to look up, this one has to be the worst...after all, you're DEFENDING the KCA!
It's very simple, I'm not argueing anymore with you two. I have others things to do with my life and you're not getting anywhere because you're both mentally retarded. And Underlings no verified fact magically becomes conditional because you can speculate. I don't believe in magic.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Yes, you're right, WE'RE the ones who are mentally retarded, even though we have been able to show how your defense of the KCA fails on various grounds, and we've provided you with the evidence you demand even though you then ignore it, and you don't even understand how any evidence that makes a premise dubious also makes the conclusion dubious. No, it makes MUCH more sense to violate Occam's Razor and conclude "God" rather than the more logical "unknown." You're a hero! ;-)
WLC admits the entire premise is ultimately FOUNDED on intuition. It doesn't matter if SOME of the P1 of the KCA is founded on truth.
Example: "All fish live underwater and all mackerel are fish, therefore all mackerel live underwater" is FALSE because some fish actually do NOT live underwater. It doesn't matter that MOST fish DO live underwater. The KCA is just such an argument, based on an equally false premise.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper What's wrong is you are trying to argue against the case made by this video...when you haven't watched the whole video. And you demand evidence to support my claims...when you refuse to look up the evidence I've provided, both in the crotch bar and through google keywords. You argue like a child.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper MANY times I've caught you making false claims, and your latest PM is the THIRD TIME ALONE you've accused me of ad hominems, even though I corrected you each time before. LOOK UP THE DEFINITIONS before you use vocabulary you clearly do not understand. An ad hominem is the rejection of a claim by using an irrelevant insult as evidence. Name even ONE instance where I used insults in place of evidence.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper 1. Time and again you've shown an inability to understand one basic argument that invalidates the KCA, but ONE MORE TIME I will summarize it for you:
1. P1 of the KCA is ultimately based on an appeal to intuition (as WLC himself fully admits).
2. Intuition is not an indicator of truth and is often wrong, ESPECIALLY in regards to quantum mechanics and General Relativity, which are often counter-intuitive. That is why an appeal to intuition is a FALLACY.
3. Therefore, P1 of the KCA CANNOT be made as a statement of fact.
4. Without P1, the KCA is rendered INVALID.
Unless you can find any fault in this argument, you MUST concede that the KCA is logically FALSE. Even if you can't bring yourself to admit you're wrong, you should at least be able to admit that it is perfectly rational for someone to conclude that the KCA is invalid based on this argument.
@Underlings Those were cute comments, but if you have any spine you get back to the PM I sent you and address what it says there. Instead of going back to square one here, pretending what I said never happened. When you focus in on calling me a fundie who rejects science that contradicts my faith, that is ad hominem, seeing as saying this like that only works as distraction from the real subject, and you give yourself an excuse from answering what I said.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper 1. The PM went nowhere, since you are unable or unwilling to understand the basics of science, logic or even the definitions of the terms you use. What point is there in referring you to the same uncaused universe link for the tenth time when you refuse to acknowledge it even exists? It's your consistent willingness to ignore evidence you don't like that makes you no different from a fundie.
And YET AGAIN you use ad hominem as if it just means insult...which it doesn't.
@Underlings [The PM went nowhere, since you are unable or unwilling to understand the basics of science]
Again with the ad hominem. They don't take YOU anywhere, and if you have any spine you get back to PM and address what I said there instead of jumping to this comment area and try to lie to yourself about things. Why is it so difficult for you and HarshColby to be honest, and make honest argumentations? You've done a good job proving atheists retarded.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper I have to ask...are you learning disabled? Or do you have some sort of phobia against looking up the terms you use? What is stopping you from looking up the definition of ad hominem? Using the term properly would make you appear less foolish, you know.
But thanks for making it clear that you have no response to the debunking of the KCA by the fact that its P1 is based on a fallacy. You could have admitted that LONG ago and saved us all a lot of time.
@Godisyourmaster There, now you can't complain that I haven't responded to your posts. ;-)
Underlings 2 weeks ago
@Godisyourmaster Furthermore, as I point out in my video, a timeless, spaceless thing would be mindless, which better fits a simple natural phenomenon like the quantum vacuum or gravity or even mathematics than an all-powerful being who frets about what people do with their genitals.
A singularity is a location, which is a thing (i.e., a noun). If the best you can do is argue semantics, I can live with that. ;-)
Underlings 2 weeks ago
@Godisyourmaster Not ONE thing I've presented is dishonest. I researched and verified each claim.
The evidence we have is that the universe apparently emerged from the quantum vacuum (which is not nothing and could be eternal) without any evident cause. Saying nothing can't create something is an "appeal to intuition" fallacy, and since we cannot observe beyond the limits of our universe, we CANNOT say the universe came from nothing. There is no need to resort to supernatural hypotheses.
Underlings 2 weeks ago
Excellent video, but you seem to confuse the multiverse hypothesis with the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, those two are different things.
devdissent 3 weeks ago
@devdissent Thank you.
Hmm, I apologize if I made a mistake...but as I understand it the many worlds hypothesis is a subset of the multiverse hypothesis. They're not entirely synonymous, but did I imply they were? If so, could you point out where?
I used the term "metaverse" in an attempt to avoid confusion, but perhaps I didn't succeed.
Underlings 2 weeks ago
@Underlings That's the thing, it's not a subset except in an extremely loose sense where we say "both postulate the existence of many universes". The Many worlds interpretation, has little to do with cosmology or the fundamental constants of physics;; it's postulated in order to remove the randomness and action at a distance of quantum mechanics
devdissent 2 weeks ago
@devdissent It could just be a semantics issue. In my research (sources in the crotch bar) I've seen the terms many worlds and multiverse used as one being a subset of the other. But in this video I refer to "parallel universes" and the "totality of existence" grouped together under the term "metaverse," without defining their relationship. The intent isn't to conflate the two, but to create a blanket inclusiveness for what's meant by "the universe" used in the KCA.
Underlings 2 weeks ago
"Cosmologists are trained to say there was no time before the Big Bang, when we should say that we don't know whether there was anything - or if there was, what it was."
~Sean Carroll, physicist, CalTech, author From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time
Wiki: "Cyclic model"
physorg DOT com/news/2010-11-scientists-glimpse-universe-big.html
Just three examples.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby True. "We don't know" is the only truthful answer we can give. Anything else is just conjecture.
Underlings 1 month ago
You cannot say that quantum physics shows things happen uncaused. Why? Because it isn't verified, and one can give a mathematical proof either way. You would just be arbitrarily picking the one that shows it is uncaused.
kfk4life 2 months ago
@kfk4life The correct phrase is that QM *may* show evidence that some things may be uncaused. It's inaccurate to say that everything *must* have a cause until someone proves this is the case. As you say, it's not been shown to be true, therefore Kalam cannot make this claim. Faulty premises lead to faulty conclusions.
HarshColby 2 months ago
@kfk4life No, I can't say quantum physics SHOWS uncaused events, only that we have no APPARENT cause of events. To quote the physicist I interviewed, "quantum zero point fluctuations...could be labeled 'uncaused', since the zero point agitation is an inherent aspect of quantum mechanics that cannot be tweaked (by cooling, for example) to eliminate the cause." I do not pretend to understand the math behind it.
Underlings 2 months ago
@Underlings Nor do I, but I have a book explaining it both ways. Why should one assume that there is no cause when the interpretation saying there is is just as valid?
kfk4life 2 months ago
@kfk4life It's not an assumption, it's that there doesn't appear to be a cause. The assumption would be that there is a cause when none is evident. But my point in the video is that the KCA declares that there IS a cause, which is an assertion, and my point is that there may not be a cause. If the KCA had said, there MAY BE a cause, then it would be accurate.
Underlings 2 months ago
You can't be all knowing an have emotions. Emotions, like anger, let's say, only come about upon discovering new information.
Rushlimpballs 2 months ago
@Rushlimpballs Well, haven't you been happy or sad about something long after you learned about it? But emotions guide behavior, so why would God have emotions? God needs a guide?
Underlings 2 months ago
@Underlings
"But emotions guide behavior, so why would God have emotions?" Good point. I'll have to keep that one in my bag or rebuttals. Another question I like to ask is how God knows he knows everything. How could a god be sure he/she is all knowing?
Rushlimpballs 2 months ago
@Rushlimpballs "how God knows he knows everything"
Very interesting thought! The answer is, of course, "only to the best of his knowledge." Which means he could be created and not be aware of it.
Ah, theism, such a mess thou art!
Underlings 2 months ago
well researched, cited and presented video !
sub'd ! looking forward to more from you
test123ok 2 months ago
@test123ok Thanks! I hope you enjoy my other vids.
Underlings 2 months ago
God is a sky-man. Nothing more needs be said. Duh.
nearenough3 2 months ago
Cmon Mathias, what gives. Now you have that horrible new channel design too.
HonestTechnoAtheist 2 months ago
O yeah great video. More knowledge thanks :)
specialagentjuan1 2 months ago in playlist Knowledge
@specialagentjuan1 You're most welcome. :-)
Underlings 2 months ago
hey underlings, do the research on the virgin shroud of lady guadalupe (virgin mary) from mexico because I have doubts about it. hopefully you can do a video on it.
specialagentjuan1 2 months ago in playlist Knowledge
@specialagentjuan1 Skeptoid (Brian Dunning) did an excellent podcast on Guadalupe. If you don't know him, he does his research extremely well and presents it in a nice, concise form. Net out: there's no evidence at all that anything remarkable happened that day.
HarshColby 2 months ago
@specialagentjuan1 Alas, I don't know anything about the Lady of Guadalupe (even though I lived in Mexico 4 years). It's just not my area of interest, since I go to the ROOT of the problem--God's behavior and belief in God. Call those into question and everything else--including the Lady of Guadalupe--become irrelevant.
Underlings 2 months ago
Related video about why arguments based on intuition (like Kalam) aren't valid:
watch?v=fUYjnL2PqUg
HarshColby 3 months ago
@HarshColby Indeed, it's a great video. I already have it on my list of best vids.
Underlings 3 months ago
Welcome back - Great Vid
Artifactorfiction 3 months ago
@Artifactorfiction Glad you enjoyed it. :)
Underlings 3 months ago
@theGroveMan Damn, that's high praise. Thanks!
Underlings 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Underlings "Damn, that's high praise." And completely unearned.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
Nice vid
I think William Lane Craig's justification for a personal god being the cause is that a purely mechanical cause would have had to have happened already. This argument leads to a few problems though.
I'm also not convinced by your argument for actual infinities. Although I think that an argument can be made: WLC says "There can't be an infinite past regression or we would not have ever gotten to the present moment", but this assumes that there is not an infinite amount of time.
narco73 4 months ago
@narco73 But he also argues special pleading for God. If actual infinites aren't allowed, then God can't be infinite either. You can't just define away a problem. If that's allowed, then I'll define the cause of the universe to be a previous universe with different physics that's always existed. Guessing is never the answer. There's no reason why the "metaverse" (as defined here) can't have always existed.
HarshColby 4 months ago
@HarshColby Does he say that god is infinite? I don't know. I think he tries to get around this by saying god is timeless.
narco73 4 months ago
@narco73 He does. But no matter what words are used to hide the special pleading, it's still special pleading. I could just as easily say the universe before ours is timeless. We don't know the physics of previous universes, so anything goes. Or, I could point out that time has been shown to slow down near gravity wells, and the BB singularity with all the energy at a single point, and thus all the gravity of the known universe, would stretch time out to infinity relative to the time we now see.
HarshColby 4 months ago
@narco73 It still comes down to just defining some cause-producer into existence. Defining something that, if it existed, has such-and-such properties does not make that something actually exist. I can define special physics that solves the problem, or they can define gods, or we can define purple pixies with just two properties: timeless and BB-singularity producing. That doesn't give any credence whatsoever for any of those imagined "explanations". It's more reasonable to posit known physics.
HarshColby 4 months ago
@HarshColby I'm not sure that he is just defining something into existence like your purple pixies. What he is doing, or is trying to do, is say what kind of cause it must have been. Since he doesn't believe in actual infinities it has to be timeless, and nothing mechanical is timeless, but if he has an argument for the possibility of timeless consciousness, then a conscious entity becomes a possible candidate.
narco73 4 months ago
@narco73 Yeah. I was jumping ahead a bit to where he concludes the cause must be the God of the bible. Using his definitions, the timeless cause could have been anything timeless. But he still hasn't shown the universe cannot be timeless. He hasn't shown that something timeless can have the property of consciousness, or even that something timeless can even exist. He simply asserts those properties. I get your point however.
HarshColby 4 months ago
@HarshColby He actually has justifications for why it is the god of the bible, it's just that they aren't included in the wikipedia summary that most people read. WLC's kalam is a much better thought out argument than most realise.
I think it has major issues though in assuming what the nature of stuff outside our universe is like, whether it's the physics, or god, or causes, or infinities etc..
narco73 4 months ago
@narco73 In order to conclude that WLC's arguments are "much better thought out", I'd have to agree that several failed arguments add up to one good argument. I can't agree to that. His arguments are all based on speculative assumptions at the heart of the cosmological, teleological, and objective morality arguments WLC loves so much.
Which of his arguments for the God of the bible do you find the least bit compelling? He claims there's good evidence for biblical accuracy, but fails to show it.
HarshColby 4 months ago
@HarshColby I'm talking specifically about the kalam. From what I have seen (not that much) he has answers for every obvious objection (whether or not you accept them). When people say "but in quantum mechanics molecules spontaneously appear" he has already answered that, when they object "but this still doesn't get to the god of the bible" he has answered that, when they say "mathematicians use infinities all the time" he has answered that, etc. he also has answers to objections to his answers
narco73 4 months ago
@narco73 Sure. What good apologist doesn't have an answer for everything? That doesn't mean the answers are even close to right. For his purely philosophical reasoning, it's impossible to prove or disprove his assertions. Where he strays into known science, he has been shown to be wrong
His Kalam argument concludes (based on flawed premises) that a god exists. It doesn't give reasons it must be the God of the bible, does it? To conclude that, he uses his belief that the bible is accurate, afaik.
HarshColby 4 months ago
@HarshColby Yes, you wouldn't be able to prove the god of the bible without using the bible. But he extends the kalam to be about the type of god that he thinks is the god of the bible.
All I am saying is that virtually every argument against the kalam hasn't actually studied it. He has spent 30 (or so) years debating it, he has seen every common objection. People (particularly on youtube) think they can dismiss it after considering it for 5 minutes, but it's not that simple.
narco73 3 months ago
@narco73 It is that simple. All it takes is a little physics knowledge and a bit of reading the refutations. There are several knowledgeable refutations to WLC's arguments. WLC doesn't understand physics at all. He just says things and hopes his audience doesn't either. Generally, it's a safe bet for him. This video states many of them, and Underlings adds a couple good ones of his own.
HarshColby 3 months ago
@HarshColby You are illustrating my point. People think it's simple when it's not. It also does not take just "a bit of reading the refutations", because most of the refutations are written by people who don't understand the argument fully.
I think good arguments against the kalam are better than presumptive overly simplistic ones.
narco73 3 months ago
@narco73 I meant read the good ones, of course. As it happens, I do know enough physics to know WLC is just making things up. The arguments against Kalam are air tight. Kalam is pure speculation based on a misunderstanding of physics. The premises aren't valid.
HarshColby 3 months ago
@HarshColby I actually think it's less on physics and more on philosophy and mathematics.
The best argument I have found against it so far is on the website "commonsenseatheism", it is called "mapping the kalam". But it is a work in progress, it is far from finished.
narco73 3 months ago
@narco73 I should have said "evaluation of the kalam" not "argument against", since it is evaluating both directions..
narco73 3 months ago
@narco73 It's not the philosophy that he gets so wrong. It's the science. Regarding philosophy, his guess is as good as anyone's. The problem is that when it comes to philosophy, no one can determine if the philosophy is right or not. It's not testable.
HarshColby 3 months ago
@HarshColby But physics doesn't comment on things prior to one plank time, so it's not got that much to do with it, other than seeing that there was a start to the known universe.
What you say about philosophy is almost the definition of philosophy (at least how I like to define it), since once something becomes definite it becomes, in most cases, science. So I agree with you there, and this relates to the kalam, as it is not cut and dry.
narco73 3 months ago
@narco73 Right. Which is why when Kalam says "The universe has a beginning of its existence", it's not scientifically accurate. Science can't say that, and philosophy can't demonstrate it's true. Likewise with "An actual infinite cannot exist".
HarshColby 3 months ago
@HarshColby Well the universe as we know it certainly started to exist at some point.
I don't agree with his argument that actual infinities can't exist. But it is not dismissed as easy as this video (for instance) makes out.
narco73 3 months ago
@narco73 The data shows this universe started 13.7 billion years ago. That doesn't tell us anything about what may have existed before this universe. It doesn't indicate that a previous universe must be supernatural. It doesn't mean our universe was the first. Anything prior to the BB is unknown.
Claims without evidence, such as the one about actual infinities, can be dismissed without evidence. They can be dismissed very easily unless someone comes up with some evidence to support the claim.
HarshColby 3 months ago
@HarshColby But that's the whole point of the argument, discussing what such a cause would be like. Just because we don't so far know what it's like, it doesn't mean we can't try to figure it out. And in a sense anything "before" the BB is necessarily supernatural. Also, the kalam doesn't literally talk about before the big bang anyway, many arguments against it miss that too.
You don't need evidence to claim logically impossible things don't exist.
narco73 3 months ago
@narco73 Sure, but making up bogus logical arguments based on a flawed understanding (whether on purpose or through ignorance) doesn't get anyone any closer to an answer. When no information is available, why waste time guessing with no hope at all of determining the accuracy of those guesses? Why insist, as WLC does, that his "proof" holds any validity? What's wrong with "I don't know" until data becomes available?
Before the BB is not supernatural. If can easily be exactly the same physics.
HarshColby 3 months ago
@narco73 Kalam doesn't talk about before the BB? Isn't that the entire point of Kalam? What do you mean? What would be the point of talking about the origin of the universe after the BB?
You can show logical impossibilities, and they would hold sway. I agree. But Kalam certainly doesn't show anything is logically impossible. It makes claims based on a misunderstanding of physics. That's all.
HarshColby 3 months ago
@HarshColby WLC's Kalam talks about a simultaneous cause, a cause that happens at the same time as the first point in time of its effect, not a temporally preceding cause. AFAIK.
He does try to show actual infinities are logically impossible. He also tries to show that certain types of causes are logically impossible, like a mechanical cause.
I don't agree with his conclusion, but I do think his reasoning illuminates various issues that have to be considered in any explanation.
narco73 3 months ago
@narco73 I've heard that, but there's no evidence that causes can be simultaneous with effects. Such a thing has never been seen and violates QM, so as far as we know it's can't happen. Even if it did, that still doesn't argue that the simultaneous cause must be supernatural.
Yes, tries, but simply asserts that actual infinities are impossible. It would be interesting if he could demonstrate that his assertion is true. He hasn't.
He doesn't raise a single salient point, imo. It's all assertion.
HarshColby 3 months ago
@HarshColby Many people think causes and effects are (can be) simultaneous, from Kant to Buddha.
If cause and effect are not simultaneous, what happens at the temporal mid point between cause and effect when there is no cause and no effect? Do cause and effect both cease to exist for a short period of time?
WLC also has a lot of arguments for the non existence of infinities. Do you believe an actual infinity could exist in our universe?
narco73 3 months ago
@narco73 Kant and Buddha haven't done a single experiment to verify that claim. QM prohibits simultaneity. Philosophers can guess, but cannot demonstrate the validity of their claims.
Temporal mid point?
I'm agnostic regarding infinities. There's no way to test the claim. If the universe is infinite in extent, how can we test it? If the universe has always existed, how can we test it? Keep in mind that at the center of black holes time effectively stops relative to our frame of reference.
HarshColby 3 months ago
@HarshColby I just explained Kant's experiment. It's a thought experiment. The argument about the temporal mid point between (a point in time halfway between) the cause and effect seems to me a good argument. The only way I can see around it is simultaneous causes, causes acting at a temporal distance, or quantum units of time.
If the universe including space and time were created at the big bang then it is only finitely big, it is hard to imagine how an infinity could exist in such a universe.
narco73 3 months ago
@narco73 can you provide a link to Kant's argument you're referring to? Also to the midpoint argument? Thanks.
The BB created the known universe. Smaller than that is the observable universe that we can see and measure. Outside the known universe, we have no information. There may well be something outside the known universe, and it may have existed prior to the BB. This is why I think Kalam is talking about the origin of everything, not restricted to the universe created by the BB.
HarshColby 3 months ago
@HarshColby Uh oh, more than one post per reply, never good for a youtube discussion ;)
(BTW. In case you are wondering why, I deleted a couple of posts due to an error which I needed to clarify)
For Kant's argument, which is essentially the midpoint argument, google "But at the moment when the effect first arises, it is always simultaneous with the causality of its cause, because, if the cause had but a moment before ceased to be, the effect could not have arisen."
narco73 3 months ago
@narco73 The spacetime created in the BB are "our" space and "our" time. No one says the BB created all space and all time. Time and space are relative to the observer. If anyone thought the BB created all space and all time, then no one would be working on string theories or any pre-BB cosmology questions. That concept is only meaningful if something exists pre-BB and the physics is consistent with ours.
Being hard to imagine has never been a good measure of whether things in physics are true.
HarshColby 3 months ago
Comment removed
narco73 3 months ago
Comment removed
narco73 3 months ago
@HarshColby That's pretty much what I was hoping you'd say. Because if there is an infinite regress outside our universe, then at least the second law of thermodynamics is wrong. To assume that there is some physics that accounts for this is an argument from ignorance. We are left only being able to talk about what types of explanations are more likely, which is what the kalam does.
So you think an infinity could occur in our universe? Again, this would violate all physics.
narco73 3 months ago
@narco73
"We are left only being able to talk about what types of explanations are more likely, which is what the kalam does."
Actually, the Kalam argument does not lead to ANY explanations, likely or not.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@narco73 It would be an A from I only if I claim that there is something outside this universe. What I'm claiming, otoh, is that I don't know, but there MIGHT be. It wouldn't violate any physics for there to be more universe outside what we can see. It may be infinite. There's no way to tell.
In "Critique of pure reason", Kant is talking about perception only. Reality many be different, and that's part of his point. He brings up the glass as the simultaneous cause for water to rise above...
HarshColby 3 months ago
@narco73 ...the table surface. That example doesn't show the problem well however. A better one is the sun and earth. This fits Kant's requirement for simultaneous cause and effect. In this case, however, it is known (if not obvious) that since info can't travel faster than light, if the sun were to abruptly disappear, we would not see it for 8 minutes. This shows that something we perceive as simultaneous, actually is not. In the case of the sun it's 8 minutes. For water, it's much much faster.
HarshColby 3 months ago
@HarshColby It's an A from I because you are postulating a certain type of cause for the universe only because you can't think of a better explanation.
I'm not convinced by your argument that actual infinities could exist. You are postulating the existence of something with no evidence, much like someone who postulates god. The very notion of it contradicts the big bang theory.
This conversation is starting to get too complicated to fit into single posts. I may drop out soon. It's been fun.
narco73 3 months ago
@narco73 How is "I don't know the cause" an A from I? What cause am I positing? I'm listing a previous universe as a possibility until some physics is found which rules it out. That's not A from I.
Same with an infinite universe. It's a possibility, which I'm not positing as fact.
Positing gods is different in that supernatural acts by gods are refuted by known, testable physics.
HarshColby 3 months ago
@HarshColby A previous universe is not a possibility, unless we are prepared to throw out physics as we know it. You say gods ago against the physics of this universe (I'm not sure what you mean but I'll accept it anyway), but previous universes also go against the physics of this universe too.
Therefore we can only talk about what types of causes/reasons there are. The kalam includes an argument that this cause must be conscious.
narco73 3 months ago
@narco73
"A previous universe is not a possibility"
Based on what. Your intuition?
"previous universes also go against the physics of this universe too."
Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't matter in either case.
"The kalam includes an argument that this cause must be conscious."
A totally unconvincing argument, since it boils down to nothing but wishful thinking.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@narco73 How do you think physics rule out a previous universe? Why are all the physicists working on pre-BB explanations if it's so obvious that physics rules out such a universe? No. A previous universe is not ruled out in any way by known physics. (Gods "speak" universes into existence, which isn't possible under the known laws of physics.)
There's no evidence of any consciousness without a physical, biological brain. Kalam draws its conclusion from flawed premises.
HarshColby 3 months ago
@narco73
"Do you believe an actual infinity could exist in our universe? "
Belief is irrelevant. Craig has no basis for his claim that actual infinites can't exist, just as there is no indication that they DO. The fact that actual infinities are non-intuitive is not a good reason to dismiss them outright. We just don't know.
Craig's whole argument is based on intuition, but we know by now that intuition doesn't get us far in understanding the universe.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@narco73 Thanks.
I'm not sure I understand WLC's justification. The universe DID happen already...and how would God be any different than a mechanical option?
Right. One option: if "time" stretches infinitely into the past and future, we could exist anywhere along that line.
But the fact is we simply don't know, and appealing to a god doesn't solve any problems a naturalistic explanation can't do equally well (or better, accounting for Occam's Razor).
Underlings 4 months ago
@Underlings I think (but may be wrong) he is saying with a mechanical cause everything would have to happen after a finite amount of time, but given an infinite amount of time all finite amounts would have happened an infinite amount of time ago. A conscious cause could wait infinitely long by choice (if that even makes sense)
But this assumes some sort of time before big bang, the universe has only happened once, natural causes are necessarily mechanical and consciousness is non mechanical.
narco73 4 months ago
@narco73 Hmm, but by that logic, then NOTHING could happen in the future. But if a new universe appeared every "year" (which would assume some time passage outside of our universe...which may not make sense), then our universe could be in one of those "years," regardless of how many previous "years" there may be.
And I don't see how a conscious being could wait infinitely long, nor how consciousness is necessarily non-mechanical. There's evidence choice is only an illusion.
Underlings 4 months ago
@Underlings I think he is right to say that given an infinite amount of time all mechanical possibilities would have happened, but that is not to say they couldn't happen again. If you allow that our universe could have happened an infinite amount of times before then there is no problem. Which is a strange thought I admit.
A and B theories of time are interesting, his problem is only a problem under one, I forget which.
I think he has an argument for non-mech consciousness, I don't know it
narco73 4 months ago
@narco73 Although I should add. Allowing the universe to have happened an infinite number of times goes against various laws of thermodynamics. Which is a point in his favor. However we don't know that these apply outside our universe. Are we justified in assuming they don't? It would be an argument from ignorance..
The other possibility is that the cause is not mechanical, but WLC claims a conscious cause is the only example of this. To claim anything else is also an argument from ignorance..
narco73 4 months ago
@narco73 "but that is not to say they couldn't happen again"
That's a good point. Sure, they could happen again...an infinite number of times, perhaps.
Underlings 4 months ago
@Underlings Yeah, and that is one of the places his argument against actually infinities comes in.
narco73 4 months ago
Subbed. Don't know how I missed this channel up until now.
Roper122 4 months ago
@Roper122 People miss channels like this because they suck and use fallacious arguments.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MoonwalkerWorshiper " People miss channels like this because they suck and use fallacious arguments. "
- Fallacious arguments like .. " The KCA doesn't argue that causality happens outside the universe " ??
Didn't see that in the video... but someone actually tried it in the comments section.
The sign of a good video is when people have to resort to nonsense to try and refute it.
Roper122 4 months ago
@Roper122 It's because we've been hiding this channel from you up until now. ;-)
Enjoy the vids! And feel free to pass them on to others if you think they'd enjoy them or could benefit from them. Cheers.
Underlings 4 months ago
[the only RATIONAL claim is that we DO NOT KNOW if some form of causality exists beyond our universe, and thus CANNOT claim P1 of the KCA is factual.]
The KCA doesn't argue that causality happens outside the universe.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 4 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Weren't you leaving?
HarshColby 4 months ago
@HarshColby I'm bored sometimes. Too much for my own good.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 4 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper If you're bored, you could always research real science.
HarshColby 4 months ago
@HarshColby watch?v=Htfl2rXFezo&feature=channel_video_title 1:13:58
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper An erroneous conclusion based on flawed math and a misunderstanding of biology by a guy that says he's not an expert in the field. So what?
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby How is it an erroneous conclusion? Where is the "flawed math"? What is the misunderstanding?
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Foremost because he ignores natural selection in his calculations. His explanation of throwing thousands of aces in a row assumes that DNA just magically appeared with 460k base pairs, which was the conclusion he was trying to reach. You can't just assume your conclusion in your premise. In fact, no biologist claims that it was random. The biology claim is that natural selection played a huge role, with a random component making evolution possible.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby I don't see your point. And what I directed you to where the when this guy said scientists can't prove what was before the universe.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Sorry. I didn't notice that when I clicked, it started just beyond your time mark and I picked up at the 'life could start with RNA' statements.
Science doesn't claim to know what there was before this universe. There are many hypotheses, but until data is available to support any of them, that's what they'll remain.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby True, and you know the reason why scientists don't know what was before the universe? Because physics began at the singularity and scientists can only read what is after the singularity because physics applies there. That's how we know "nothing" existed before the universe.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper You don't know physics began at the singularity. That's one interpretation, but being unknown doesn't really let you claim to know anything about it. You can't claim nothing was there, nor can you claim something was there. All the unknown allows you to claim is we don't yet know. Maybe we'll figure it out someday, or maybe not.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby The man in the video I just linked you to explained science will never know. That is because science only works within the frame of physics. You still don't get it do you?
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Perhaps he's right. Perhaps not. If some mechanism is discovered which allows us to see past the CMBR, then we may well figure it out. There may be pre-BB imprints on the current universe which leads us to be able to deduce something about it.
Science is the investigation of things which can be observed and tested. It's never been any more than that. Physics is testable, therefore science can draw scientific conclusions based on those tests. What is it I don't get?
HarshColby 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper I listened to the section again. He says "...there probably never will be because to prove what happened before the beginning is impossible for science to measure." Notice he says 'probably', leaving open the door to some future discovery. It's currently impossible, hence the present tense word "is" in "is impossible to measure".
As stated, I agree with him on this point, although I wouldn't be so pessimistic about our chances for discovering new techniques.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby [Physics is testable]
And you can't that which is not physical, such as what is prior to Big Bang.
[Notice he says 'probably']
Well notice he says it's impossible for science to measure. If you're not pessimistic that's fine for you but you still don't get that your lack of pessisism is due to lack of understanding of the physics concept. It's a pipedream that you got, backed up by nothing but hopeless naivety.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper *you can't test that which is not physical*
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Need I repeat? Being unknown means you can't make any claims about it. You can't claim it's not physical. On what evidence can you make such a claim? Space before the BB may be exactly the same as we see it now. There's nothing in physics preventing that. This doesn't mean it's true but it does mean you can't make claims like 'not physical'.
There's already at least one plausible way in which pre-BB cosmology could be measured: patterns in the CMB. That's why I'm optimistic.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby [Need I repeat?] No but there's a distinct need of getting it on your part.
[You can't claim it's not physical.] That's exactly the thing we went over some months ago, and I'm not doing it all over again. If you refuse to see it that's your problem, but for the record; if physics began to exist which science shows it did, then "non-physics" applied before it. Also known as nothing. You sound like a naive ignoramus anyway.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper No need to start insults. I've been civil and I'd expect you should be as well.
If you would like to provide evidence that a pre-BB universe cannot be physical, then feel free to present it. You didn't have any evidence then, and you still don't have any. Point me to a scientific paper which shows you're right, and I'll accept it's a reasonable stance. Until then, you're simply voicing your opinion, not the opinion of scientists.
Unknown=unknown. Do you get that part?
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby I still remember you caused me a headache one afternoon for being insanely unreasonable and obtuse. The comments are still there.
[that a pre-BB universe cannot be physical]
I cannot prove attributes to a thing that has not been proven to exist. "Nothing" is not an attribute you can assign to a something. I can't come with a science paper that confirms your confusion about that. It will never happen, just as the man in that video basically says.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper There's a really easy way to convince me. Just stop speculating what you think scientists are saying, and find actual evidence that you're right. That shouldn't be too hard if your are right. It'll be impossible, of course, if you're wrong.
If you can't prove attributes, then you shouldn't be making claims about it. You've asserted time and time again that you have knowledge that nothing existed pre-BB. In all this time, you have yet to show any paper or evidence of it.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby [find actual evidence that you're right]
You're paying attentiont to me as much as a fucking dead pile of stinking feces.
[That shouldn't be too hard if your are right.]
So jackass, how am I right? I am right in saying NOTHING EXISTED, because physics BEGAN and did not exist before it's own beginning. How do I PROVE that NOTHING EXISTS? I mean how stupid are you. You've successfully proved yourself obtuse yet again, congrats HarshColby, I'm not continueing.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Your best argument is to insult. Very educated of you.
Got any evidence your claims are true yet? If not, why are you wasting time here?
Don't change your claim. Your claim is that physics did not exists before the BB, not that physics didn't exist before it existed. But provide data showing either is true. Your claims aren't convincing, since you obviously can't produce any evidence you're right.
Show physics began at the BB
Show nothing existed, and stop just asserting it.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Your claim wasn't that it hasn't been proven to exist. Your claim is that you have knowledge that it doesn't exist. There's a big difference between these two stances. I'm asking for a paper supporting your position. I've already provided, but will provide again if you wish, evidence to support my claims, which, incidentally, are generally accepted by physicists and cosmologists. Fact is, they're theorizing about pre-BB cosmology because they aren't certain it doesn't exist.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby [they're theorizing about pre-BB cosmology because they aren't certain it doesn't exist]
That had me LOL-ing... you don't realize how ignorant you sound, and that's kind of the annoying thing with you. Scientists are never certain about their own guesses. They can only be certain about that which is proven and tested. You can't prove a nothing and you can't test a nothing, but you can SPECULATE around it. Speculation however, is not proof for anything.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper You're the one claiming nothing existed before the BB. Why claim it if you simultaneously admit you can't show your claim is true? As this is the case, you're simply speculating that nothing existed before the BB. Is that right? If not speculation, then show it's true. It's a simple request, so why are you wasting time making baseless assertions? Show your evidence. I'm listening. If you don't have any, then why assert it? You've had ample opportunity to produce evidence.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby "Show this, show that" man you're one lazy unintellectual fuck. Why should I prove a property of a thing that there's no proof of (pre-universe) and add a property to that thing which is not a property (nothingness). Not about assertion. You can piss off now I shouldn't have made the mistake in sending you a video where an educated man states the same things I do only in scientific context. It's not like you're learning anything.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper If you're going to claim knowledge you should be required to provide evidence your claim is true. How am I lazy because you make assertions you cannot support? Is it unreasonable to ask you to support your claims? Or are you of the opinion that claims don't need to be supported and we should just take your word for it?
If you can't support your baseless assertion that there was nothing before the BB, then, yes, please run off now. Come back with evidence next time.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Btw, as I already said, I agree with "the educated man" in the video with respect to this question. It's your assertions I don't agree with.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby [Why claim it if you simultaneously admit you can't show your claim is true?]
I claim it because it is true, and the reason I can't show it is because you can't show or prove nothingness. As I've said just a few times already. A more relevant question would be; Why continue to claim true things and explain why they're true to an unreasonable obtuse moron who are more senile than an 110-year old and will never get it even if I repeat myself for an eternity.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper [you can't show or prove nothingness] I haven't claimed nothingness. You've claimed it. Why are you so confused? I have never claimed that nothing existed before the BB. You did. I have never claimed something existed before the BB. I need not support claims I did not make.
[I claim it because it is true] Nice assertion. Now show it's true, or admit you're speculating. Or are your claims not to be subjected to scrutiny? We should just believe you because you said so.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby [If you're going to claim knowledge you should be required to provide evidence your claim is true.]
If you want to know how the universe began to exist, research cosmology. Also research cosmonogy.
You're lazy because you refuse to think or pay attention, and you think saying "show this, show that" is making you look like a challenge when you only look more obtuse.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper I'm paying attention. You've repeated the same baseless assertion many times. How could I not listen? Now, what I'd really like to hear is your explanation of why you believe that nothing existed before the BB.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby [I haven't claimed nothingness.]
Not you, I mean ONE cannot prove nothingness. LOL you insanely stupid troll.
[I'm paying attention]
Hardly so, as you keep writing "show me the evidence" when I already explain why evidence is moot in this topic of nothingness. Stupidity or obtusiveness is not a virtue HarshColby.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper If you can't prove nothing existed before the BB, then stop claiming there was nothing before the BB. You have a huge mental block in your thinking. Remove it. If you can't demonstrate things, then don't claim to know about them.
Perhaps you're confused about the difference between "nothing existed before the BB" and "before the BB was undefined"? Is that what you're so inelegantly trying to talk about? Sort of the "what's north of the north pole" concept?
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby [If you can't prove nothing existed before the BB, then stop claiming there was nothing before the BB]
No idiot I won't, because things do not exist before they begin to exist. This is a classical principle in physics that you just refuse to understand.
[You have a huge mental block in your thinking.]
And that really comes from the right asshole.
Nothingness doesn't = unknown. Nothingness is the lack of a something. Read, listen, remember.... or at least TRY for fuck sake
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper [things do not exist before they begin to exist] Agreed, idiot. (See how insults really bring home the point your trying to make?) Did anyone claim that this universe existed before this universe existed? What does that have to do with whether something existed (or not) before this universe existed?
Yes, insults sure make your point, asshole.
[Nothingness is the lack of a something] So you know something did not exist before the BB? How do you come to know this?
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby Why do you keep reply when you just refuse to understand? You have no point, you have no argument, all you got is the ability to not pay attention and drag things out when they are already explained crystal clear. All you have proved is how obtuse you are HarshColby. And guess what, I'm not interested in getting it proved to me again and again the character and the depth of your mentally inept obtusiveness. I don't want to sit and watch you being stupid anymore.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Answer my question about the difference between "nothing existed before the BB" and "before the BB was undefined". Is this what you're attempting to talk about?
You can't support your assertion by anything more than "I'm not asserting". Name calling doesn't change your assertion into a fact. When you spout nonsense, then can't support it with facts, what's to understand? I understand you're making a claim you cannot support, so you resort to calling me names.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby Calling my explanation an assertion doesn't debunk it, so you can piss off already. Your labels and your obsessivess of words is not gonna fucking help you.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Then leave without supporting your claim. It's okay with me, given that you've failed to support your claim when you should have been able to do so in the first few posts. When you gather evidence, feel free to present it. No more baseless claims though. They're boring.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby [Then leave without supporting your claim.]
I'm leaving having my claim supported again, and again, and again, and again, and I leave with declaring you utterly fucking obtuse for making me repeat the explanation again, and again, and again, and again. The label "assertion" is not an argument, nor is "baseless". If you fail to understand logic, you fail to understand.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper "Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists. Nothing exists." is not an argument.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby [I understand you're making a claim you cannot support]
Then you haven't understood shit, because you still refuse to understand the logical principle that things do not exist before they begin to exist. Your speculation about other universes is mental masturbation and again, it's not more thought provoking than me calling you stupid which you indeed are.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper [things do not exist before they begin to exist] Of course I do. The problem is that no one is claiming that this universe existed before this universe existed. So why are you bringing up this non sequitur? I agree this universe didn't exist before this universe. What does that have to do with something else possibly existing before this universe?
HarshColby 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HarshColby [The problem is that no one is claiming that this universe existed before this universe existed.]
Physics, idiot. Physics. The atoms, matter and energy, darkmatter whatever however you want to define it. Physics comes with the universe. If you're gonna talk of "other universes" you need to pull out a new system of physics from your ass spontanously to justify your speculation of "other universes" existing under other laws than "our" physics.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
[Is it unreasonable to ask you to support your claims?]
No but it is freaking unreasonable to not paying attention and then claim you have.
[show it's true, or admit you're speculating.]
I'm not speculating, the scientists are. They do that because it's their job to investigate all data. I follow principles of logic and I respect the proved science we have so far. We're not gonna prove other universes because people like you like to speculate and mirror that on the people who don't.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Well, of course, if you simply keep repeating the exact same baseless assertion over and over, you'll not get anywhere. Isn't that obvious? Perhaps you should try adding some facts to your assertion. Upon what evidence do you base your belief that nothing existed before the BB? It's certainly not a scientific belief, since scientists don't generally agree with you (including the educated man in the video).
HarshColby 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HarshColby [as I already said, I agree with "the educated man" in the video with respect to this question]
Then you agree that it's impossible to prove anything prior to the beginning of the universe. Such as nothingness, which is impossible to prove anyway.
[Now show it's true]
I did so here earlier by using deductive logic, look it up, as I'm not argueing anymore with you. You won't understand deductive logic anyway. You won't understand that nothingness is not a property.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HarshColby Lastly.
[Upon what evidence do you base your belief that nothing existed before the BB?]
The fact that things do not exist before they begin to exist. If physics began to exist in BB, then there was a distinct lack of physics prior to the BB. Also known as nothing, which scientists cannot measure to take samples of, therefore it's not a scientific claim to say there was nothing. You won't accept this because you have a pile of crap in your head instead of a brain.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
@HarshColby I might aswell answer the last horseshit.
[if you simply keep repeating the exact same baseless assertion over and over]
I haven't, I've been EXPLAINING the same thing over and over. Who the fuck is talking about baseless assertions? You don't know what you're accusing me of because you are a FUCKING RETARD. We don't take a sample of nothingness and put it in a lab for tests you IDIOT. Your question. will. remain. absurd.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Your assertions are not explanations. You can't explain something by simply asserting that it's true.
HarshColby 1 month ago
[we should say that we don't know whether there was anything]
I'll check those sources, but scientists do know that spacetime begin to exist.
[Your assertions are not explanations.]
I don't make assertions.
[You can't explain something by simply asserting that it's true.]
I don't, I explain it to you by deductive logic. If you refuse to understand, it makes you annoyingly obtuse and a waste of my time. Now piss off, would you please, and don't ask me to "prove nothing" again.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MoonwalkerWorshiper [scientists do know that spacetime begin to exist.] The spacetime we can see began. certainly: 13.7 billion years ago. Your claim refers to before that, however.
[I don't make assertions.] You assert that nothing existed before the BB. This is not established fact.
[deductive logic] Saying "nothing existed before the BB" is not deductive logic. It's an assertion. If you're right, would "there's nothing on the far side of the pluto" be deductive logic also?
HarshColby 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper "The KCA doesn't argue that causality happens outside the universe."
Yes it DOES, at least for OUR universe. That's the WHOLE POINT of the KCA, summed up in C4:
KCA C4: "If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God." God-cause, universe=effect.
You've said before you thought the KCA has only 3 points. It doesn't. It has AT LEAST 4. Of ALL the definitions you've failed to look up, this one has to be the worst...after all, you're DEFENDING the KCA!
Underlings 4 months ago
It's very simple, I'm not argueing anymore with you two. I have others things to do with my life and you're not getting anywhere because you're both mentally retarded. And Underlings no verified fact magically becomes conditional because you can speculate. I don't believe in magic.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 4 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Yes, you're right, WE'RE the ones who are mentally retarded, even though we have been able to show how your defense of the KCA fails on various grounds, and we've provided you with the evidence you demand even though you then ignore it, and you don't even understand how any evidence that makes a premise dubious also makes the conclusion dubious. No, it makes MUCH more sense to violate Occam's Razor and conclude "God" rather than the more logical "unknown." You're a hero! ;-)
Underlings 4 months ago
@Underlings I have the perfect title for it too. "The Evidence that Underlings is Evil"!
HonestTechnoAtheist 4 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper As I said in PM:
WLC admits the entire premise is ultimately FOUNDED on intuition. It doesn't matter if SOME of the P1 of the KCA is founded on truth.
Example: "All fish live underwater and all mackerel are fish, therefore all mackerel live underwater" is FALSE because some fish actually do NOT live underwater. It doesn't matter that MOST fish DO live underwater. The KCA is just such an argument, based on an equally false premise.
Underlings 4 months ago
Fatta då din tröja jävla träskalle vad är det med dig
MoonwalkerWorshiper 4 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper What's wrong is you are trying to argue against the case made by this video...when you haven't watched the whole video. And you demand evidence to support my claims...when you refuse to look up the evidence I've provided, both in the crotch bar and through google keywords. You argue like a child.
Underlings 4 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper MANY times I've caught you making false claims, and your latest PM is the THIRD TIME ALONE you've accused me of ad hominems, even though I corrected you each time before. LOOK UP THE DEFINITIONS before you use vocabulary you clearly do not understand. An ad hominem is the rejection of a claim by using an irrelevant insult as evidence. Name even ONE instance where I used insults in place of evidence.
Underlings 4 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper 1. Time and again you've shown an inability to understand one basic argument that invalidates the KCA, but ONE MORE TIME I will summarize it for you:
1. P1 of the KCA is ultimately based on an appeal to intuition (as WLC himself fully admits).
2. Intuition is not an indicator of truth and is often wrong, ESPECIALLY in regards to quantum mechanics and General Relativity, which are often counter-intuitive. That is why an appeal to intuition is a FALLACY.
(cont.)
Underlings 4 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper
3. Therefore, P1 of the KCA CANNOT be made as a statement of fact.
4. Without P1, the KCA is rendered INVALID.
Unless you can find any fault in this argument, you MUST concede that the KCA is logically FALSE. Even if you can't bring yourself to admit you're wrong, you should at least be able to admit that it is perfectly rational for someone to conclude that the KCA is invalid based on this argument.
Underlings 4 months ago
@Underlings Those were cute comments, but if you have any spine you get back to the PM I sent you and address what it says there. Instead of going back to square one here, pretending what I said never happened. When you focus in on calling me a fundie who rejects science that contradicts my faith, that is ad hominem, seeing as saying this like that only works as distraction from the real subject, and you give yourself an excuse from answering what I said.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 4 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper 1. The PM went nowhere, since you are unable or unwilling to understand the basics of science, logic or even the definitions of the terms you use. What point is there in referring you to the same uncaused universe link for the tenth time when you refuse to acknowledge it even exists? It's your consistent willingness to ignore evidence you don't like that makes you no different from a fundie.
And YET AGAIN you use ad hominem as if it just means insult...which it doesn't.
Underlings 4 months ago
@Underlings [The PM went nowhere, since you are unable or unwilling to understand the basics of science]
Again with the ad hominem. They don't take YOU anywhere, and if you have any spine you get back to PM and address what I said there instead of jumping to this comment area and try to lie to yourself about things. Why is it so difficult for you and HarshColby to be honest, and make honest argumentations? You've done a good job proving atheists retarded.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 4 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper I have to ask...are you learning disabled? Or do you have some sort of phobia against looking up the terms you use? What is stopping you from looking up the definition of ad hominem? Using the term properly would make you appear less foolish, you know.
But thanks for making it clear that you have no response to the debunking of the KCA by the fact that its P1 is based on a fallacy. You could have admitted that LONG ago and saved us all a lot of time.
Underlings 4 months ago