Consider the first premise “whatever begins to exist has a cause”, for this first premise to be correct everything that begins to exist – including the universe – has a cause.
Taking into consideration the second statement “the universe began to exist”, the conclusion the universe has a cause follows directly.
Therefore, the Kalem Cosmological Argument proves that the universe has a cause by presupposing that the universe has a cause; a logical fallacy.
@exposed2000 John, your critique FAILS hard, I don't think you payed attention AT ALL to what Thunderf00t was saying so let's try to translate that:
TF doesn't believe that the premises of Kalam are necessarily true. His argument is that human intuition is not reliable at the "very small" (quantum) or the "very high" (relativity). I know TF wasn't being very clear, but at least try to address these points rather than silly strawmen.
Ok, then how about this variation of thunderf00t's argument:
P1) Any object that is pushed forward will increase its velocity
P2) X is an object
C) Therefore X will increase its velocity if pushed forward
And now replace "X" with "A can of spam travelling at lightspeed" ;-)
The reason this deductive argument is wrong because P1) is wrong. Before Einstein we didn't know that but even then the argument would have been unsound! And the same goes for WLC's Kalam argument.
a) Oh yes I can do that! There is absolutely nothing wrong or problematic with declaring a "can of spam traveling at v=c" an object. I could even add "..which expires at 1/2015 and has a scratch on the top" and it would still be a valid example for an object with certain properties!
b) Craig isn't wrong BECAUSE TF is wrong. Craig is wrong because his first premise is unproven and therefore potentially false. Which is exatly what TF tried to explain in his video!
1) It is definitely in the argument I made two post ago. If you don't want to address it, fine...
2) Meta physically obvious ... now THAT'S and airtight logical argument. ;)
Sorry, but some of us actually want to see evidence before accepting a premise. If it is so obvious that "everything that begins to exist has a cause" then it should be ease for you to give us some evidence that this statement must be true.
You can't. That's my point! You can't prove it and therefore it can't be part of a sound deductive argument.
And common sense does not only vary from person to person, it also has proven to be utterly unreliable in areas outside of our everyday experience. A good example of this is the Theory of Relativity, or the wave-particle duality of photons, or evolution (to name an example from a different area of science).
yes it can, meta physics is common sense it can be reasoned. The same way you can't prove tha past was created 5 minutes ago with an aparence of age ,the same way you can't tell whether solipsism is true or not. 'examples' its not as if they defy logic they may seem strange but they fit well with in laws of logic
Yes, it can be reasoned. But a deductive argument requires evidence for the truth of its premises in order to be sound. Without evidence the conclusion may or may not be true.
Concerning solipsism and 5-min world: The reason why EVERY sound deductive argument requires the axiom that the universe is not a deception/illusion. Kalam however would require another axiom to be sound: This axiom is identical with its first premise which makes Kalam useless!
If I make a deductive argument and my P1) is "The biggest diamond on Earth weighs 3 lb", it would be impossible to prove with logic the truth of P1! Logic can only proof that the structure of a deductive argument is correct. But it cannot prove a factual statement about the material world. And "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is such a factual statement!
Btw: You ARE the stuff you're made of! And if you think you're more, provide some evidence for it!
"Btw: You ARE the stuff you're made of! And if you think you're more, provide some evidence for it!"
so you're saying i alwats existed even before the universe?
if you want to escape p1 by stateing something can arise without out a cause there needs to be some kind of justification for that. otherwise the argument isn't defeated its just uncertain
I already gave proof of P1, when i talked about quatom vacum models etc. also Con.
No, I don't. I'm saying you are the sum of your parts. Those parts existed in some form before your conception. You didn't start to exist since already existing matter+energy was transformed into you.
>> its just uncertain
Exactly! It may be true or false. It's uncertain and therefore it proofs nothing!
>> proof of P1
Virtual particles don't proof P1. They might even disproof it by popping into existence without a cause!
1) and i already adressed that & said i would still 'begin to exist'.
2) *QUOTE MINE* i already explained why p1 is true
c) i never said that, that interpration is the copenhagen interpration, its 1 of many and even victor stenger said we still would need to be open to the fact in the future they may still have a cause.
1) i already adressed that & said i would still 'begin to exist'.
Yes, you said that. But saying something doesn't make it true.
2) i already explained why p1 is true
No, you just made the claim that it is "metaphysically obvious". And that's no explanation.
3) i never said that
You've said that you gave proof of P1 when you talked about quatum vacuum models. But I've checked the last 30 posts and you've never addressed that topic! So where it this proof of yours?
1) What do you or don't you agree things begin to exist (e.g. me)
2)i said that yes & it is infact look it up its a fundimental part of philosophy & science, but i gave other proofs of it i list them again then.
a)if the universe popped into existance uncaused out of nothing as was theorised in the 80s then universe should have popped into existance in every location (contrary to uncertainty principle) & we should observe and eternal universe since they should collide -
1) If by "things" you mean certain "forms, concentrations and amounts of energy/matter" (like a stone), then yes, such things begin to exist. But if you mean the energy itself then my answer is: I don't know. Maybe it began or maybe it always existed.
2a) There are no locations without a universe! Dimensions (=locations) are properties of a universe, which is why infinitely many universes could exist without collisions: They all could have independent dimensions!
1) The standard big bang model says it did. i think was Einstein who was able to settle that & i know others like stphen hawking have written on this to.
2)a)I was talking on the quantum vacum
2b) why doesn't anything & everything pop into existance
1) There is no scientific consensus yet on how exactly the universe formed. But time itself seems to be a property/dimension of the universe. This means that if the energy of the universe existed at the formation of the universe, then energy would have always existed.
2a) No, you talked about universes and asked why they didn't form at every location, which is a nonsensical question since locations require dimensions which are part of an already existing universe!
1) The Big bang model says energy came into existance ,that is a religiously neutral statement that can be found in any book on astrophysics & cosmology
"This means that if the energy of the universe existed at the formation of the universe, then energy would have always existed."
how?
2a)the quantum vaccum is the only proposed wway in which something can arise from nothing andits just not sound.
My point was if a universe can spontaneously form uncaused out of nothing ,why doesn't every thing do the same what makes nothing so pikey? everything has a cause & by that i mean aristoles definition, Infact the whole filled of cosmology presupposes P1
I don't know. But what I do know is that as long as there is no compelling evidence that the universe (and everything else that exists) necessarily had to have a cause, Kalam can't be convincing, at least not to me.
Cosmologists: They are trying to find out how the universe came to exist. That does neither preclude nor necessitate the existence of a cause. They're not looking for the cause, but whether or not there was a cause.
Science generally investigates "causes" in the sense of "interactions of already existing things" which "causes" those existing things to change properties. And I don't object to that.
> You're not objecting to god
Yes, because we're not talking about gods.
> Cosmology is the study of the cause of ...
Incorrect. Cosmology is the study of the origin, evolution, and structure of the universe. It does not necessitate a cause!
I don't object to the POSSIBILITY that the universe could have a cause! I only object to the notion of certainty that it definitely MUST have a cause, which is a requirement for Kalam's first premise. And the reason for my objection is the lack of evidence to support this notion of certainty. So my position in no way goes against the scientific method, quite to the contrary!
You're position does go against the scientific method , thats baswed on finding the cause of certain phenomena,
the taxi cab fallacy is a recognised fallacy , the only page you locked up is probably wiki which doesn't include all fallacies, you can find the taxi cab fallacies in text books.
Oh really? Then please enlighten me about this new big bang theory that makes predictions about the time before the singularity existed. Can't wait to read all about it! :)
> what reason do we have to deny 'nothing
> begins to exist with out a cause'
I don't deny that it could be true, I deny that it must be true. And the reason for that is simple: We don't know whether or not this claim is true!
1) Love to :) in his book a breif history of time Hawking makes the joke he got famous for proving & then disproving the singularity, "i konw of no cosmologist who still believes in the singularity" -Victor stenger
its kinda funny because its always the theists who are attack for still believing in the singularity .
"We don't know whether or not this claim is true"
I think the reasons ive givin make it more probable than not which is all thats needed for an argument.
Big Bang & singularity: I've checked the source and it seems I was wrong insofar as Hawking & others came up with a new theory for the formation of the universe that doesn't require a singularity, and right insofar as Hawkings new theory doesn't really include a big bang (in his model the total energy of the universe is 0!). So it's not a big bang theory.
Btw:
Do you realize that Hawkings model proposes a universe without a beginning and therefore without a cause?
Hawing does believe in the big bang his model has envolves a reigne in sapce rather than a singularity , but its very honest of you to admit that thanks.
Hawking has defended more than 1 model, and he does believe the universe came into existance.
> he does believe the universe came into existance.
Hawking said that if the model in "Brief history of time" (the source you cited) is correct then there is no begining and no end of the universe (check the end of chapter 8).
> taxi cab fallacy is a type of speacial pleading.
No it's not. I've read the definition and it is simply the attempt to limit the skeptics arguments.
The taxi cab fallacy is flawed. It's no logical fallacy but an invention by apologists with the goal of preventing critiques from applying scientific standards to the Bible.
But this doesn't matter because even if I would accept this "fallacy", it still wouldn't apply here since I'm not changing my system of thought. But you are talking about two things: 1.Things that begin to exist out of nothing and 2.Things that already exist being transformed into something new.
The taxi cab fallacy is a fallacy, 7 it has nothing to do with the bible.
it would apply here , you're stating for no reason that the universe has no cause <taxi cab fallacy. 1. is confirmed by the big bang 2. i said nothing about.
Again, saying something doesn't make it true. But tell me one thing: If it truely was a logical fallacy, then why isn't it mentioned in any prominent webpage about fallacies?
Btw: I've never said it had no cause, I've said that we can't be sure that it had one.
@ 1. Incorrect. Big Bang starts with an already existing singularity!
@ 2. You've talked about cause & effect in science and science investigates what I've said there!
“the taxicab fallacy.” For as the nineteenth century atheist philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer quipped, premise 1 can’t be dismissed like a hack once you’ve arrived at your desired destination!
You didn't answer my question: If the taxi cab fallacy really is a true, logical fallacy then why isn't it mentioned in any prominent webpage about fallacies?
> no scientist ever said the singularity was eternal
I never said that it was eternal. And quite frankly I'm getting tired of you putting up straw man after straw man.
> premise 1 is more plausibly true than false
And how did you determine the likelyhood of everything that begins to exist having a cause?
My mistake. I somehow read past that part of your post. However you are wrong about my source. It's not just wikipedia but: nizkor . o r g, theskepticsguide . o r g, logicalfallacies . i n f o, onegoodmove . o r g, a list from csun . e d u and many more.
Whether it is found in text books I don't know. But the absence of it on all these websites and the presence in some (counter-)apologist websites (streetapologetics, ironchariots) is telling ...
>> everything that begins to exist having a cause."
>
> i have to go over this again? really?
I don't recall that you went over this before. If I'm mistaken, please just cite your earlier post in which you demonstrate how to measure, calculate or estimate its likelyhood of being true.
2b) Who said that it does? Just because our universe exists doesn't proof that it was the only thing (nor the most likely thing) that could have popped into existence. But more important: What does your question have to do with Kalam's P1)? I don't see the connection.
3) I think there was a missunderstanding: I WAS talking about quantum vacuum theory because I thought that you wanted to argue that it somehow proof Kalam's P1) (which it doesn't).
This new axiom is needed because Kalams first premise can't be proven. I would even go so far as to say that it defies "common sense" because we do not witness "things beginning to exist". All we witness on a regular basis is "something that already exists being transformed into something new".
As for my examples: My point was that common sense is utterly unreliable in areas outside of our everyday experience. And my examples provide evidence for this.
Craig is wrong on this one. The earth is just a few thousand years old. Don't follow people like Craig. You won't reach your full spiritual potential. Follow and believe the Church Fathers.
the bit about predicting dates in the bible is the time abraham, noah, people like them were alive, not concordant with the greeks, chinese civilisations being pretty old.
craig venter made life from amino acids' etc, amino acids etc were created from electricity and elements in the 1980's, we found the world scaled flood could not have happened (since 1800s) more obviouse evidence since then,
previously the god explination was for little things like how a tree comes from a seed or wind
the second law of thermodynamics only works in a closed enviroment it isnt aplicable to the earth as the earth radiates heat, i wouldnt recomend saying it, especially not knowing the other ones, makes creationists seem quite ignorant and its enfuriating to see them use somthing wrong to say somthings right
the idea of causation tbh i cant see relating to creation of the universe, causation becomes less aparant in quantum computing such as the creation of somthing through a pattern of anotherthing, this theoretically is the creation of somthing from almost nothing.
First: Craig believes in a personal creator, so he IS a creationist.
Furthermore, it's flippant how theists twist Thunderfoot's words. He simply points out that the first two premises of the KCA are merely rooted in intuition, and thus can't be shown to be valid. Intuition is a very bad way to get to grips with how the universe works, which has become especially prevalent when scientists started to research the quantum world.
And yes, Craig's arguments for his god are completely WTF-worthy.
Who says there was ever nothing? Another intuitive guess?
Thunderf00t's point is that the first two premises aren't valid. And validity isn't arrived at simply based on intuition.
Craig too doesn't know if the universe is something that can be caused to begin to exist. He simply conjures up an argument saying it does based on his intuition.
Neither the 2nd law of thermodynamics nor BGV theory show that the universe had a caused beginning.
this moron accuses TF of not understanding craigs grade school logic, yet he himself cant even understand basic sarcasm(when colbert completely annihilates Behe.)
Since Dr. Craig believes in demon-pigs (miracle of Jesus Matt 8-32) and walking corpses, he's scarcely distinguishable from venomfangx or nephlimfree by my likes. The Bible comes with a lot more baggage than the book of Genesis. The new testament still has demons, witches, exorcisms etc.
Maybe Craig should just go deist. Then he would sound more "reasonable."
I apologize for the terrible writing everyone. As I said earlier, he's just making a huge presumption about the potentiality of "things" "existing" and "causing" OUTSIDE of everything that we know that exists, which is IN the universe. In short, Mr. Craig requires some"thing" to "happen" which "causes" the big bang... when in actuality, the big bang is most fundamental precondition for everything that he requires in order to explain his supposed "cause" for the big bang!
That's our whole experience. The totality of existence are happenings WITHIN the universe. A less obvious point is that causes are "happenings" and that some"thing" is the cause. Well, for some"thing" to happen, that it requires existence which requires a universe to even "happen"(which also needs existence which requires a universe. He's making a huge leap of faith (meaning, no evidence required) and suggesting that "causes" and "happenings" and "things" exist outside of outside the universe.
It doesn't make sense to think the universe needs a "cause" to explain the "effect" that ultimately resulted in what we have in the present. Causes and effects are happenings WITHIN the universe. The universe needs to exist BEFORE causes and effects become relevant. To say the universe was caused, we are suggesting that causes can exist OUTSIDE the universe. There's nothing we have so far to suggest this, starting with the obvious point that we only know of what is means to exist WITHIN it
Old earth Creationists, are still Creationists, therefore Thunderf00t was not incorrect in calling William Lane Craig a creationist.
"Is ThunderF00t stupid enough to think that something can come from nothing?" Is that not what creationists are saying God came from. Nothing? How is it advantageous to say that God is uncaused and he created the Universe than it is to simply say that the Universe is uncaused. At the very least we know the universe exists, the same cannot be said for God.
"Universe than it is to simply say that the Universe is uncaused"
It would be impossible to say that because the universe is not eternal.Saying something is uncaused when scientific proved to be caused doesn't make sense.So,there has to be something that is uncaused to make cause.Come from the fact that nothing can't create something.Or we would have things just popping into being without causes which would be crazy as nothing would make sense.Just my thoughts.
Who is to say that the Universe isn't eternal? There are several hypotheses that suggest precisely this, depending on the universal constant/ the curvature of the universe this is entirely possible. Furthermore it is also possible for the universe to be uncaused without being eternal. Causality does not apply on a quantum level. Quantum foam is composed of billions of particles that pop in and out of existence on a planck scale of time. This has been observed...
I understand perfectly fine, well enough that I do not need a video to express my knowledge on the subject. If anything you are forced to recognize that belief in an uncaused universe isn't a matter of stupidity, as you so hastily asserted, but quite to the contrary. Your stance amounts to replacing one unsubstantiated unknown with another calling it "God" and declaring the mystery solved, this will never result in a greater insight into universal origins.
What I'm saying is that we are getting close to the answer.It could go either way and my point that God being the possible answer and not the ultimate answer.If the multiverse fails then there aren't many other ideas to what it could be unless we just throw are hands in the air.Multiverse is the only other possible cause but even then we may learn that it's not eternal.But if it fails then we can't even go that far.
@ninetailschris That's actually not what you were saying ay all. Your first sentence was "It would be impossible..." now you have completely changed your tune.
It is also stange to contemplate a timeless creator of the universe because it would imply that that creator didn't exist for any time before time began. The creator was 0 when the big bang happened, it was effectivly created at the same time. What is the difference between a mind that can't make decisions and a "mechanical, mindless force"?
Besides, the god of the bible is not unchanging. He alledgedly sent Jesus for the explicit purpose of changing his own laws.
Just out of curiosity, what laws did Jesus change? As far as I know Jesus was the fulfillment of the law, which was forecasted by God through prophecy.
@SmalltimR you need to read the bible more man, he healed on the sabath, you can work on the sabath man and he said you pretty much only need to love your nabour as your self and love god.
The Sabbath was intended to be a day of rest and rejoicing for all. By Jesus’ day it became a maze of oppressive man-made rules. Having said that, Jesus was not doing secular work on the sabbath, The work of healing and preaching was an assignment from his Father just as the Jewish priests performed temple service on the sabbath, without breaking it. As for laws, Jesus introduced the Christian law which replaced the old covenant which included more than just loving neighbor.
@SmalltimR so you know he changed the rules? i only used the quote of what jesus told a guy about what he needed to do to get into heaven in the bible, and previously ezekiel 35 it says you should be put to death for work on the saboth, this rule was broken and jesus said he changed it, he said it was working healing, at times he said he aimed to come to change and break rules as an objective.
Actually Jesus fulfilled the mosaic law(I as mentioned earlier). Which was prophesied by God and so in that sense Jesus didn't change anything. However... this would not take place until after his death which is why we find Jesus upholding the old law while he was on earth. Having said that Jesus never said he changed anything with regards to the law, but instead... exposed the Jewish leaders for corrupting it. - ie. healing and saving people was not work.
As for braking or changing the law, I have yet to see any evidence of this from the bible. Though I'd be interested in looking over any specific references that you might have on the topic.
@SmalltimR double U double U double U dot libchrist dot commercial/bible/sermonmount.html this is all, im probably not as high in general bible knowledge as you but im sure this is right
@SmalltimR I didn't say anything about Jesus so I assume this reply was meant for someone else. However I know that there is a section in the New Testament where a prophet is specifically requested, by God, to eat pork. God specifically tells him its OK now. I wish I could remember the passage but I do not. However there is also the business of not to make animal (or human) sacrifices anymore.
@autaturk that was saint peter, in Acts 10:13. It wasn't just pork, however, it was a whole giant bedsheet filled with animals considered 'unclean' by the Jewish dietary laws.
At 3:30, even if we accept the first 5 of Craigs premesies he has not proven the 6th. He offers the two alternatives of a "Mind" or an "abstract concept" and rejects the latter because it is not "causal". First of all a "mind" is not immaterial, show me a mind that exists without a brain. Second a mind is not "unchanging", in what sense is an unchangeing mind making decisions? Everything he says from 3:50 to 4:30 is pablum. What basis of comparison could he possibly have to form this conclusion?
Just to be clear, evidence gathered here and now does not really apply very well to the very small and very dense. The rules of motion and the laws of thermodynamics go right out the window. To be honest, we have no idea what the singularity that spawned the Universe was like. Trying to apply deductive reasoning to a system with entirely unknown characteristics is fallacious. There are many theories as to the "cause", m-theory being one. They are sound theories but entirely unproveable.
I appreciate the information, but dude, you have got to tone down the insults. Remember that whole bit about truth in love? If you are being a prick about it, it doesn't matter how right you are. It doesn't matter how right you are, you are giving us a bad name.
@Hayesmarkham I think it was entirely appropriate where important ideas are being discussed in a public forum and someone like TF doesn't do his homework and throws out assertions. Regarding the part about his attitude not being loving, JP Holding has a good article on this titled "Are insults and satire 'un-Christian'?"
@rm2kmidi I agree that there is a time for sarcasm to prove a point, but not at the expense of dimeaning those you are trying to win over. thats cool that Holding has views on it, but the Bible is very clear about "being wise as serpents, but as gentle as doves." I am not saying I know where the boundary lies, but I will just say the poster seems like a dick, although I agree with everything he is saying. I know the potential hypocrisy in me saying it this way.
thunderf00t is such a clown, but I love the excerpt of the Craig/Aitkens debate @12:00 where Craig gives Aitken a thorough dressing down and the moderator cannot help himself and says "now stick that in your pipe and smoke it" ...................priceless.
Consider the first premise “whatever begins to exist has a cause”, for this first premise to be correct everything that begins to exist – including the universe – has a cause.
Taking into consideration the second statement “the universe began to exist”, the conclusion the universe has a cause follows directly.
Therefore, the Kalem Cosmological Argument proves that the universe has a cause by presupposing that the universe has a cause; a logical fallacy.
xxxxlogicxxxx 3 weeks ago
@exposed2000 John, your critique FAILS hard, I don't think you payed attention AT ALL to what Thunderf00t was saying so let's try to translate that:
TF doesn't believe that the premises of Kalam are necessarily true. His argument is that human intuition is not reliable at the "very small" (quantum) or the "very high" (relativity). I know TF wasn't being very clear, but at least try to address these points rather than silly strawmen.
DogmasDemise 1 month ago
Religious people are pathetic people.......
SIC66SIC66 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@lxAgnosticxl thats not his argument, he explains y that argument is flawed when each premise is probed, much like the KCA
lordrazr 1 month ago
thunderf00t's argument
P1)Objects pushed forward move faster
P2)A can of spam is an Object
C)A can of spam traveling at light speed pushed forward will move faster than light speed
needless to say dr craig would jump back a mile if he herd this argument the C) should be
C) a can of span pushed forward will mve faster
lxAgnosticxl 2 months ago
@lxAgnosticxl
Ok, then how about this variation of thunderf00t's argument:
P1) Any object that is pushed forward will increase its velocity
P2) X is an object
C) Therefore X will increase its velocity if pushed forward
And now replace "X" with "A can of spam travelling at lightspeed" ;-)
The reason this deductive argument is wrong because P1) is wrong. Before Einstein we didn't know that but even then the argument would have been unsound! And the same goes for WLC's Kalam argument.
Rawlsrocks 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@Rawlsrocks
"And now replace "X" with "A can of spam travelling at lightspeed"
no you can't do that, the problem is with light & something matching its speed, thats no where in the argument its logically invalid.
and here you go into another fallacy, because TF is wrong therefore Craig is wrong
in other words a is false a doesn't imply b therefore b is false.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl
a) Oh yes I can do that! There is absolutely nothing wrong or problematic with declaring a "can of spam traveling at v=c" an object. I could even add "..which expires at 1/2015 and has a scratch on the top" and it would still be a valid example for an object with certain properties!
b) Craig isn't wrong BECAUSE TF is wrong. Craig is wrong because his first premise is unproven and therefore potentially false. Which is exatly what TF tried to explain in his video!
Rawlsrocks 1 month ago
@Rawlsrocks
1)thats not in the argument
2) Craigs premise is meta physically obvious , it ground as part of the basics of meta physics.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl
1) It is definitely in the argument I made two post ago. If you don't want to address it, fine...
2) Meta physically obvious ... now THAT'S and airtight logical argument. ;)
Sorry, but some of us actually want to see evidence before accepting a premise. If it is so obvious that "everything that begins to exist has a cause" then it should be ease for you to give us some evidence that this statement must be true.
Rawlsrocks 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rawlsrocks
I don't know if you acctualy understand deductive arguments , the C has to follow from the premise.
e.g. i can't just make an argument like the following:
P1) theists believe in god
P2) st. augustine is a theist
c) therefore st augustine is a hindu
"evidence that this statement must be true."
do you understand meta physics?
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@Rawlsrocks
how would you go about proving meta physics the hole point is its commmon sense, the only reason people doubt it is to save atheism.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl
>> how would you go about proving meta physics
You can't. That's my point! You can't prove it and therefore it can't be part of a sound deductive argument.
And common sense does not only vary from person to person, it also has proven to be utterly unreliable in areas outside of our everyday experience. A good example of this is the Theory of Relativity, or the wave-particle duality of photons, or evolution (to name an example from a different area of science).
Rawlsrocks 1 month ago
@Rawlsrocks
yes it can, meta physics is common sense it can be reasoned. The same way you can't prove tha past was created 5 minutes ago with an aparence of age ,the same way you can't tell whether solipsism is true or not. 'examples' its not as if they defy logic they may seem strange but they fit well with in laws of logic
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl
Yes, it can be reasoned. But a deductive argument requires evidence for the truth of its premises in order to be sound. Without evidence the conclusion may or may not be true.
Concerning solipsism and 5-min world: The reason why EVERY sound deductive argument requires the axiom that the universe is not a deception/illusion. Kalam however would require another axiom to be sound: This axiom is identical with its first premise which makes Kalam useless!
continued...
Rawlsrocks 1 month ago
@Rawlsrocks
"But a deductive argument requires evidence for the."
it uses logic to prove the first premise , trying to imply we need emipircal evidence to prove p1 is just an atheists trick.
When youy say nothing begins to exist ,you're simply mistaken i began to exist even if the stuff i mad up of pre existed i still began to exist.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl
If I make a deductive argument and my P1) is "The biggest diamond on Earth weighs 3 lb", it would be impossible to prove with logic the truth of P1! Logic can only proof that the structure of a deductive argument is correct. But it cannot prove a factual statement about the material world. And "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is such a factual statement!
Btw: You ARE the stuff you're made of! And if you think you're more, provide some evidence for it!
Rawlsrocks 1 month ago
@Rawlsrocks
"Btw: You ARE the stuff you're made of! And if you think you're more, provide some evidence for it!"
so you're saying i alwats existed even before the universe?
if you want to escape p1 by stateing something can arise without out a cause there needs to be some kind of justification for that. otherwise the argument isn't defeated its just uncertain
I already gave proof of P1, when i talked about quatom vacum models etc. also Con.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl
>> so you're saying i alwats existed ...
No, I don't. I'm saying you are the sum of your parts. Those parts existed in some form before your conception. You didn't start to exist since already existing matter+energy was transformed into you.
>> its just uncertain
Exactly! It may be true or false. It's uncertain and therefore it proofs nothing!
>> proof of P1
Virtual particles don't proof P1. They might even disproof it by popping into existence without a cause!
Rawlsrocks 1 month ago
@Rawlsrocks
1) and i already adressed that & said i would still 'begin to exist'.
2) *QUOTE MINE* i already explained why p1 is true
c) i never said that, that interpration is the copenhagen interpration, its 1 of many and even victor stenger said we still would need to be open to the fact in the future they may still have a cause.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl
1) i already adressed that & said i would still 'begin to exist'.
Yes, you said that. But saying something doesn't make it true.
2) i already explained why p1 is true
No, you just made the claim that it is "metaphysically obvious". And that's no explanation.
3) i never said that
You've said that you gave proof of P1 when you talked about quatum vacuum models. But I've checked the last 30 posts and you've never addressed that topic! So where it this proof of yours?
Rawlsrocks 1 month ago
@Rawlsrocks
1) What do you or don't you agree things begin to exist (e.g. me)
2)i said that yes & it is infact look it up its a fundimental part of philosophy & science, but i gave other proofs of it i list them again then.
a)if the universe popped into existance uncaused out of nothing as was theorised in the 80s then universe should have popped into existance in every location (contrary to uncertainty principle) & we should observe and eternal universe since they should collide -
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl
1) If by "things" you mean certain "forms, concentrations and amounts of energy/matter" (like a stone), then yes, such things begin to exist. But if you mean the energy itself then my answer is: I don't know. Maybe it began or maybe it always existed.
2a) There are no locations without a universe! Dimensions (=locations) are properties of a universe, which is why infinitely many universes could exist without collisions: They all could have independent dimensions!
Rawlsrocks 1 month ago
@Rawlsrocks
1) The standard big bang model says it did. i think was Einstein who was able to settle that & i know others like stphen hawking have written on this to.
2)a)I was talking on the quantum vacum
2b) why doesn't anything & everything pop into existance
3)ok.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl
1) There is no scientific consensus yet on how exactly the universe formed. But time itself seems to be a property/dimension of the universe. This means that if the energy of the universe existed at the formation of the universe, then energy would have always existed.
2a) No, you talked about universes and asked why they didn't form at every location, which is a nonsensical question since locations require dimensions which are part of an already existing universe!
Rawlsrocks 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rawlsrocks
1) The Big bang model says energy came into existance ,that is a religiously neutral statement that can be found in any book on astrophysics & cosmology
"This means that if the energy of the universe existed at the formation of the universe, then energy would have always existed."
how?
2a)the quantum vaccum is the only proposed wway in which something can arise from nothing andits just not sound.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl
2b) I don't know but I still don't see what your question has to do with Kalam's P1). Please elaborate.
Rawlsrocks 1 month ago
@Rawlsrocks
P1) whatever begins to exist has a cause
My point was if a universe can spontaneously form uncaused out of nothing ,why doesn't every thing do the same what makes nothing so pikey? everything has a cause & by that i mean aristoles definition, Infact the whole filled of cosmology presupposes P1
There looking for the cause.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl
i ment picky not pikey
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl
i ment picky not pikey
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl
i ment picky not pikey
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl
i ment picky not pikey
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lxAgnosticxl
i ment picky not pikey
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lxAgnosticxl
i ment picky not pikey
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl
>> why doesn't every thing do the same
I don't know. But what I do know is that as long as there is no compelling evidence that the universe (and everything else that exists) necessarily had to have a cause, Kalam can't be convincing, at least not to me.
Cosmologists: They are trying to find out how the universe came to exist. That does neither preclude nor necessitate the existence of a cause. They're not looking for the cause, but whether or not there was a cause.
Rawlsrocks 1 month ago
@Rawlsrocks
I've given you reason, look the whole concept of science is to look for cause so when you say things like
"there is no compelling evidence that the universe (and everything else that exists) necessarily had to have a cause."
You're not objecting to god , you're objecting to science.
Cosmology is the study of the cause of the origin of the universe.
physics only works when you have cause & effect, with out it its simply just a bad joke.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl
Science generally investigates "causes" in the sense of "interactions of already existing things" which "causes" those existing things to change properties. And I don't object to that.
> You're not objecting to god
Yes, because we're not talking about gods.
> Cosmology is the study of the cause of ...
Incorrect. Cosmology is the study of the origin, evolution, and structure of the universe. It does not necessitate a cause!
Rawlsrocks 1 month ago
@Rawlsrocks
You were objecting to the universe having a cause (which goes against science)
to say causation doesn't apply to the universe is the taxicab fallacy.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl
I don't object to the POSSIBILITY that the universe could have a cause! I only object to the notion of certainty that it definitely MUST have a cause, which is a requirement for Kalam's first premise. And the reason for my objection is the lack of evidence to support this notion of certainty. So my position in no way goes against the scientific method, quite to the contrary!
Rawlsrocks 1 month ago
@Rawlsrocks
You're position does go against the scientific method , thats baswed on finding the cause of certain phenomena,
the taxi cab fallacy is a recognised fallacy , the only page you locked up is probably wiki which doesn't include all fallacies, you can find the taxi cab fallacies in text books.
@1. Rejected in the 70s
@2.science investigates causes of natural phenomena,
what reason do we have to deny 'nothing begins to exist with out a cause'.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl
> 1. Rejected in the 70s
Oh really? Then please enlighten me about this new big bang theory that makes predictions about the time before the singularity existed. Can't wait to read all about it! :)
> what reason do we have to deny 'nothing
> begins to exist with out a cause'
I don't deny that it could be true, I deny that it must be true. And the reason for that is simple: We don't know whether or not this claim is true!
Rawlsrocks 1 month ago
@Rawlsrocks
1) Love to :) in his book a breif history of time Hawking makes the joke he got famous for proving & then disproving the singularity, "i konw of no cosmologist who still believes in the singularity" -Victor stenger
its kinda funny because its always the theists who are attack for still believing in the singularity .
"We don't know whether or not this claim is true"
I think the reasons ive givin make it more probable than not which is all thats needed for an argument.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl
Big Bang & singularity: I've checked the source and it seems I was wrong insofar as Hawking & others came up with a new theory for the formation of the universe that doesn't require a singularity, and right insofar as Hawkings new theory doesn't really include a big bang (in his model the total energy of the universe is 0!). So it's not a big bang theory.
Btw:
Do you realize that Hawkings model proposes a universe without a beginning and therefore without a cause?
Rawlsrocks 1 month ago
@Rawlsrocks
Hawing does believe in the big bang his model has envolves a reigne in sapce rather than a singularity , but its very honest of you to admit that thanks.
Hawking has defended more than 1 model, and he does believe the universe came into existance.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lxAgnosticxl
> Hawking has defended more than 1 model, and
> he does believe the universe came into existance.
Hawking said that if the model in "Brief history of time" (the source you cited) is correct then there is no begining and no end of the universe (check the end of chapter 8).
> taxi cab fallacy is a type of speacial pleading.
No it's not. I've read the definition and it is simply the attempt to limit the skeptics arguments.
Btw: I've never made a special pleading.
Rawlsrocks 1 month ago
@Rawlsrocks
Everything that exists has cause & effect and to apply this only to things in the universe & not of the universe is the 'taxi cab fallacy,'
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl
The taxi cab fallacy is flawed. It's no logical fallacy but an invention by apologists with the goal of preventing critiques from applying scientific standards to the Bible.
But this doesn't matter because even if I would accept this "fallacy", it still wouldn't apply here since I'm not changing my system of thought. But you are talking about two things: 1.Things that begin to exist out of nothing and 2.Things that already exist being transformed into something new.
Rawlsrocks 1 month ago
@Rawlsrocks
The taxi cab fallacy is a fallacy, 7 it has nothing to do with the bible.
it would apply here , you're stating for no reason that the universe has no cause <taxi cab fallacy. 1. is confirmed by the big bang 2. i said nothing about.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl
> The taxi cab fallacy is a fallacy
Again, saying something doesn't make it true. But tell me one thing: If it truely was a logical fallacy, then why isn't it mentioned in any prominent webpage about fallacies?
Btw: I've never said it had no cause, I've said that we can't be sure that it had one.
@ 1. Incorrect. Big Bang starts with an already existing singularity!
@ 2. You've talked about cause & effect in science and science investigates what I've said there!
Rawlsrocks 1 month ago
@Rawlsrocks
“the taxicab fallacy.” For as the nineteenth century atheist philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer quipped, premise 1 can’t be dismissed like a hack once you’ve arrived at your desired destination!
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl
You didn't answer my question: If the taxi cab fallacy really is a true, logical fallacy then why isn't it mentioned in any prominent webpage about fallacies?
> no scientist ever said the singularity was eternal
I never said that it was eternal. And quite frankly I'm getting tired of you putting up straw man after straw man.
> premise 1 is more plausibly true than false
And how did you determine the likelyhood of everything that begins to exist having a cause?
Rawlsrocks 1 month ago
@Rawlsrocks
"why isn't it mentioned in any prominent webpage about fallacies."
i did answer that & yes it is, its also found in text books.
"I never said that it was eternal"
so what was the point? my point was it only pushes it back 1 step
"And how did you determine the likelyhood of everything that begins to exist having a cause."
i have to go over this again? really?
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl
> i did answer that
My mistake. I somehow read past that part of your post. However you are wrong about my source. It's not just wikipedia but: nizkor . o r g, theskepticsguide . o r g, logicalfallacies . i n f o, onegoodmove . o r g, a list from csun . e d u and many more.
Whether it is found in text books I don't know. But the absence of it on all these websites and the presence in some (counter-)apologist websites (streetapologetics, ironchariots) is telling ...
Rawlsrocks 1 month ago
@Rawlsrocks
The taxi cab fallacy is a type of speacial pleading.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lxAgnosticxl
>> "And how did you determine the likelyhood of
>> everything that begins to exist having a cause."
>
> i have to go over this again? really?
I don't recall that you went over this before. If I'm mistaken, please just cite your earlier post in which you demonstrate how to measure, calculate or estimate its likelyhood of being true.
Rawlsrocks 1 month ago
@Rawlsrocks
also no scientist ever said the singularity was eternal it still needs an explanation.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@Rawlsrocks
So it seems to me that premise 1 is more plausibly true than false, which is all we need for a good argument.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@Rawlsrocks
2)b) why does nothing only favor universes why doesn't anything & every thing pop into being uncaused out of nothing?
Think about it there can be no physics of nothing.
Some theists like Craig give more proof , but i think thats sufficient.
3)you said "They might even disproof it by popping into existence without a cause!"
if you weren't taking about the quantom vacum what were you talking about?
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl
2b) Who said that it does? Just because our universe exists doesn't proof that it was the only thing (nor the most likely thing) that could have popped into existence. But more important: What does your question have to do with Kalam's P1)? I don't see the connection.
3) I think there was a missunderstanding: I WAS talking about quantum vacuum theory because I thought that you wanted to argue that it somehow proof Kalam's P1) (which it doesn't).
Rawlsrocks 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl
continued...
This new axiom is needed because Kalams first premise can't be proven. I would even go so far as to say that it defies "common sense" because we do not witness "things beginning to exist". All we witness on a regular basis is "something that already exists being transformed into something new".
As for my examples: My point was that common sense is utterly unreliable in areas outside of our everyday experience. And my examples provide evidence for this.
Rawlsrocks 1 month ago
Nice video.
lxAgnosticxl 2 months ago
The only good atheists in youtube are QualiaSoup so far i know. Most of em have a fundamentalist virus rubbed from a fundamentalists
INYO121277 2 months ago
Craig is wrong on this one. The earth is just a few thousand years old. Don't follow people like Craig. You won't reach your full spiritual potential. Follow and believe the Church Fathers.
Pilgrim1411 2 months ago
the bit about predicting dates in the bible is the time abraham, noah, people like them were alive, not concordant with the greeks, chinese civilisations being pretty old.
craig venter made life from amino acids' etc, amino acids etc were created from electricity and elements in the 1980's, we found the world scaled flood could not have happened (since 1800s) more obviouse evidence since then,
previously the god explination was for little things like how a tree comes from a seed or wind
riskingeuphoria 2 months ago
the second law of thermodynamics only works in a closed enviroment it isnt aplicable to the earth as the earth radiates heat, i wouldnt recomend saying it, especially not knowing the other ones, makes creationists seem quite ignorant and its enfuriating to see them use somthing wrong to say somthings right
riskingeuphoria 2 months ago
the idea of causation tbh i cant see relating to creation of the universe, causation becomes less aparant in quantum computing such as the creation of somthing through a pattern of anotherthing, this theoretically is the creation of somthing from almost nothing.
riskingeuphoria 2 months ago
First: Craig believes in a personal creator, so he IS a creationist.
Furthermore, it's flippant how theists twist Thunderfoot's words. He simply points out that the first two premises of the KCA are merely rooted in intuition, and thus can't be shown to be valid. Intuition is a very bad way to get to grips with how the universe works, which has become especially prevalent when scientists started to research the quantum world.
And yes, Craig's arguments for his god are completely WTF-worthy.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 months ago
Who says there was ever nothing? Another intuitive guess?
Thunderf00t's point is that the first two premises aren't valid. And validity isn't arrived at simply based on intuition.
Craig too doesn't know if the universe is something that can be caused to begin to exist. He simply conjures up an argument saying it does based on his intuition.
Neither the 2nd law of thermodynamics nor BGV theory show that the universe had a caused beginning.
loungeok 2 months ago
The assumption that the universe has a cause in the way Craig uses the idea is what was arrived at by intuition and that is what is being questioned.
loungeok 2 months ago
Do we know of timeless minds?
loungeok 2 months ago
There are Old Earth creationists and Young Earth creationists
loungeok 2 months ago
this moron accuses TF of not understanding craigs grade school logic, yet he himself cant even understand basic sarcasm(when colbert completely annihilates Behe.)
cbilljones 2 months ago
Since Dr. Craig believes in demon-pigs (miracle of Jesus Matt 8-32) and walking corpses, he's scarcely distinguishable from venomfangx or nephlimfree by my likes. The Bible comes with a lot more baggage than the book of Genesis. The new testament still has demons, witches, exorcisms etc.
Maybe Craig should just go deist. Then he would sound more "reasonable."
HellRehab 2 months ago
"This is how we know the first cause of the Universe is God, stupid..." - "Properties of the Cause of the Universe"
So by assuming what properties should the cause of the Universe have, you know that it was God that did it, sure why not, pretty self-evident. o_O
4:56 so you want a cause for non-causality, good luck with this one, chump. xDD Btw, have you heard about virtual particles?
Vejita12 2 months ago
@Vejita12
You do realize virtual particles exist in time and space?
ninetailschris 2 months ago
I apologize for the terrible writing everyone. As I said earlier, he's just making a huge presumption about the potentiality of "things" "existing" and "causing" OUTSIDE of everything that we know that exists, which is IN the universe. In short, Mr. Craig requires some"thing" to "happen" which "causes" the big bang... when in actuality, the big bang is most fundamental precondition for everything that he requires in order to explain his supposed "cause" for the big bang!
danthegeoman 2 months ago
That's our whole experience. The totality of existence are happenings WITHIN the universe. A less obvious point is that causes are "happenings" and that some"thing" is the cause. Well, for some"thing" to happen, that it requires existence which requires a universe to even "happen"(which also needs existence which requires a universe. He's making a huge leap of faith (meaning, no evidence required) and suggesting that "causes" and "happenings" and "things" exist outside of outside the universe.
danthegeoman 2 months ago
It doesn't make sense to think the universe needs a "cause" to explain the "effect" that ultimately resulted in what we have in the present. Causes and effects are happenings WITHIN the universe. The universe needs to exist BEFORE causes and effects become relevant. To say the universe was caused, we are suggesting that causes can exist OUTSIDE the universe. There's nothing we have so far to suggest this, starting with the obvious point that we only know of what is means to exist WITHIN it
danthegeoman 2 months ago
Old earth Creationists, are still Creationists, therefore Thunderf00t was not incorrect in calling William Lane Craig a creationist.
"Is ThunderF00t stupid enough to think that something can come from nothing?" Is that not what creationists are saying God came from. Nothing? How is it advantageous to say that God is uncaused and he created the Universe than it is to simply say that the Universe is uncaused. At the very least we know the universe exists, the same cannot be said for God.
JWonn 2 months ago 6
@JWonn
"Universe than it is to simply say that the Universe is uncaused"
It would be impossible to say that because the universe is not eternal.Saying something is uncaused when scientific proved to be caused doesn't make sense.So,there has to be something that is uncaused to make cause.Come from the fact that nothing can't create something.Or we would have things just popping into being without causes which would be crazy as nothing would make sense.Just my thoughts.
ninetailschris 2 months ago
@ninetailschris
Who is to say that the Universe isn't eternal? There are several hypotheses that suggest precisely this, depending on the universal constant/ the curvature of the universe this is entirely possible. Furthermore it is also possible for the universe to be uncaused without being eternal. Causality does not apply on a quantum level. Quantum foam is composed of billions of particles that pop in and out of existence on a planck scale of time. This has been observed...
JWonn 2 months ago
@JWonn
watch?v=41OctGhh3yQ&feature=channel_video_title
Will give you a understanding.
ninetailschris 2 months ago
@ninetailschris
I understand perfectly fine, well enough that I do not need a video to express my knowledge on the subject. If anything you are forced to recognize that belief in an uncaused universe isn't a matter of stupidity, as you so hastily asserted, but quite to the contrary. Your stance amounts to replacing one unsubstantiated unknown with another calling it "God" and declaring the mystery solved, this will never result in a greater insight into universal origins.
JWonn 2 months ago
@JWonn
What I'm saying is that we are getting close to the answer.It could go either way and my point that God being the possible answer and not the ultimate answer.If the multiverse fails then there aren't many other ideas to what it could be unless we just throw are hands in the air.Multiverse is the only other possible cause but even then we may learn that it's not eternal.But if it fails then we can't even go that far.
ninetailschris 2 months ago
@ninetailschris That's actually not what you were saying ay all. Your first sentence was "It would be impossible..." now you have completely changed your tune.
JWonn 2 months ago
Great video, you would think it would be obvious to the the majority of TF's supposed intelligent subscribers...
pappafrito 2 months ago
It is also stange to contemplate a timeless creator of the universe because it would imply that that creator didn't exist for any time before time began. The creator was 0 when the big bang happened, it was effectivly created at the same time. What is the difference between a mind that can't make decisions and a "mechanical, mindless force"?
Besides, the god of the bible is not unchanging. He alledgedly sent Jesus for the explicit purpose of changing his own laws.
autaturk 2 months ago
@autaturk
Just out of curiosity, what laws did Jesus change? As far as I know Jesus was the fulfillment of the law, which was forecasted by God through prophecy.
SmalltimR 2 months ago
@SmalltimR you need to read the bible more man, he healed on the sabath, you can work on the sabath man and he said you pretty much only need to love your nabour as your self and love god.
riskingeuphoria 2 months ago
The Sabbath was intended to be a day of rest and rejoicing for all. By Jesus’ day it became a maze of oppressive man-made rules. Having said that, Jesus was not doing secular work on the sabbath, The work of healing and preaching was an assignment from his Father just as the Jewish priests performed temple service on the sabbath, without breaking it. As for laws, Jesus introduced the Christian law which replaced the old covenant which included more than just loving neighbor.
SmalltimR 2 months ago
@SmalltimR so you know he changed the rules? i only used the quote of what jesus told a guy about what he needed to do to get into heaven in the bible, and previously ezekiel 35 it says you should be put to death for work on the saboth, this rule was broken and jesus said he changed it, he said it was working healing, at times he said he aimed to come to change and break rules as an objective.
riskingeuphoria 2 months ago
@riskingeuphoria
Actually Jesus fulfilled the mosaic law(I as mentioned earlier). Which was prophesied by God and so in that sense Jesus didn't change anything. However... this would not take place until after his death which is why we find Jesus upholding the old law while he was on earth. Having said that Jesus never said he changed anything with regards to the law, but instead... exposed the Jewish leaders for corrupting it. - ie. healing and saving people was not work.
SmalltimR 2 months ago
@riskingeuphoria
As for braking or changing the law, I have yet to see any evidence of this from the bible. Though I'd be interested in looking over any specific references that you might have on the topic.
SmalltimR 2 months ago
@SmalltimR double U double U double U dot libchrist dot commercial/bible/sermonmount.html this is all, im probably not as high in general bible knowledge as you but im sure this is right
riskingeuphoria 2 months ago
@SmalltimR I didn't say anything about Jesus so I assume this reply was meant for someone else. However I know that there is a section in the New Testament where a prophet is specifically requested, by God, to eat pork. God specifically tells him its OK now. I wish I could remember the passage but I do not. However there is also the business of not to make animal (or human) sacrifices anymore.
autaturk 2 months ago
@autaturk that was saint peter, in Acts 10:13. It wasn't just pork, however, it was a whole giant bedsheet filled with animals considered 'unclean' by the Jewish dietary laws.
TheOfficialPro 1 month ago
At 3:30, even if we accept the first 5 of Craigs premesies he has not proven the 6th. He offers the two alternatives of a "Mind" or an "abstract concept" and rejects the latter because it is not "causal". First of all a "mind" is not immaterial, show me a mind that exists without a brain. Second a mind is not "unchanging", in what sense is an unchangeing mind making decisions? Everything he says from 3:50 to 4:30 is pablum. What basis of comparison could he possibly have to form this conclusion?
autaturk 2 months ago
Just to be clear, evidence gathered here and now does not really apply very well to the very small and very dense. The rules of motion and the laws of thermodynamics go right out the window. To be honest, we have no idea what the singularity that spawned the Universe was like. Trying to apply deductive reasoning to a system with entirely unknown characteristics is fallacious. There are many theories as to the "cause", m-theory being one. They are sound theories but entirely unproveable.
TehShopko 2 months ago
I appreciate the information, but dude, you have got to tone down the insults. Remember that whole bit about truth in love? If you are being a prick about it, it doesn't matter how right you are. It doesn't matter how right you are, you are giving us a bad name.
Hayesmarkham 2 months ago
@Hayesmarkham I think it was entirely appropriate where important ideas are being discussed in a public forum and someone like TF doesn't do his homework and throws out assertions. Regarding the part about his attitude not being loving, JP Holding has a good article on this titled "Are insults and satire 'un-Christian'?"
rm2kmidi 2 months ago
@rm2kmidi I agree that there is a time for sarcasm to prove a point, but not at the expense of dimeaning those you are trying to win over. thats cool that Holding has views on it, but the Bible is very clear about "being wise as serpents, but as gentle as doves." I am not saying I know where the boundary lies, but I will just say the poster seems like a dick, although I agree with everything he is saying. I know the potential hypocrisy in me saying it this way.
Hayesmarkham 2 months ago
@Hayesmarkham I see your point, but I think sometimes we don't react strongly enough. I guess its a sort of balancing act.
rm2kmidi 2 months ago
Perhaps dodging was how thunderf00t got his moniker.
Dante666 2 months ago
09:46 your*
BrownNoseGnome 2 months ago
thunderf00t is such a clown, but I love the excerpt of the Craig/Aitkens debate @12:00 where Craig gives Aitken a thorough dressing down and the moderator cannot help himself and says "now stick that in your pipe and smoke it" ...................priceless.
ozredneck22 2 months ago