Can we say we do not know what caused the Big Bang to occur?

[shananagans5]

Hmm, Historically religion begins where science ends. We had a sun god until science explained the sun, moon god until the moon was explained etc. Funny how after all these things were studied & figured out they turn out to NOT be magic or god. Why should we think suddenly the next level of understanding will be god? If you want to base rational thinking on past experience the logical conclusion would be to know there is a natural explanation. God hasn't been responsible for anything so far.

[xnobody777x]

Do people really think that "science" is trying to disprove god? I think (I'm not sure) that scientist's job is to observe and study things inside the physical universe and to come with physical explanations rather than just "God did it."

[JustDoIt1017]

lmao

[drfoxcourt]

I find Craig's claim that God is a best explanation to be unfounded in the extreme. Here we must say "we don't know", as we should for anything outside materialist fields of study.

If we assume (not a safe assumption) that there is a creator, all Craig can establish is that (the deist positon. He cannot claim to know anything about such a creator (the theist position). It is shameful the way Craig undermines philosophy in the name of his faith.

[sammy2trees]

The "Rocky" theme.....really?? lol

Yes, Craig is absolutely correct, the universe most definitely had a beginning.

But just because it clearly had a beginning does not mean we should automatically ascribe its creation to the Christian deity. I'm afraid the phrase "We just don't know" still VERY much applies. I think it's a little premature for playing the "Rocky" theme lol

Craig still needs to est a connection between this creation source and Christianity. He's noooooo where near doing that

[Requiemxtoxinnocence]

This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist.

[Requiemxtoxinnocence]

Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God?

[Requiemxtoxinnocence]

obviously we can say we don't know because its a gap of knowledge. Using an assertion doesn't help knowledge it detracts from it. I'd also like to note the theorem he's trying to use as proof is actually false...here's a quote from vilenkin.

[Mathenaut]

What WLC is quoting doesn't state what he says it states. His interpretation of it is skewed.

It's valid to say that we don't know, because we don't know. Even still, it doesn't establish what he is claiming to. It doesn't address the question of what we do not know, which is what happened or what existed prior to the expansion of this universe.

Pretty much another WLC copout.

[kujal4]

Getting an atheist to prove how the universe all started is as hard as a Christian proving how God himself was created. Science is always a theory wanting, and welcoming, to be proven otherwise. Christianity is a religion stating unsubstantiated fact with no ear for proven science. This argument will not be settled with the level of human capacity at this time, so lets just say "The Gods" created it for now and in time we'll prove otherwise - or not.

[MaestroAlvis]

I have never met anyone who can say the universe has been here forever, so ya I agree with you, the universe had to have a finite beginning. But hold on, where does God fit into all of this?

[mehico33]

Misleading title, for "we dont know what happened before the big bang" to be refuted one would have to... know what happened before the big bang!

"Goddidit/Poof! Magic" will always look like the best explanation when you ignore the task of explaining how god/magic works, in reality it is no explanation/tells us nothing.

[ivolol]

The universe had a beginning, therefore god created it.

That statement is not logical; it has not given any reasoning for A) why god created it, B) how god created it, C) why something other than god did not cause it, D) why it needs a creator in the first place, E) why it couldn't cause itself. All these questions must given definite answers before the above statement holds any water whatsoever. At the present, it is simply a non-sequitur.

[07Aristotle]

@ivolol ''The universe had a beginning, therefore god created it.''

Wow, your missing a major premise. That is not how the argument structure goes. Your questions would be just red herrings and would not be in line with the subject at hand. Why would any of your questions be relevant to the cosmological argument being truthful or not?

[ivolol]

@07Aristotle They are the follow-on to the cosmological argument in order to get a theistic god into the picture. If you want to get God out of the cosmological argument, you need to answer these; otherwise it's just a cute way of saying you think that the universe needs a cause, and nothing else. Nowhere does the cosmological argument say that GOD was the cause; that is the theist's own leap of logic. As soon as you try to connect a cosmological cause with the god of the bible, you fail.

[07Aristotle]

@ivolol Well, you said in your previous post that in order for the cosmological argument to be accepted, you said, first, these questions must be answered. So, how can they be follow-up questions if you want your questions to be answered first before the cosmological argument can be accepted. That is really a non sequitur. And really your questions have no relevance to the truthfulness to the cosmological argument. Even though you think it is ''cute way'' to think that the universe has a cause.

[ivolol]

@07Aristotle And I'm even talking in reference to the assumption that the cosmological argument holds (giving it the benefit of the doubt); there are many atheist videos all over youtube showing that it buckles all over the place. It's not a good argument from any direction.

[07Aristotle]

@ivolol If you are going to ask questions you do not know the answer to, hence the reason why you ask questions in first place is because you do not have the answer to them, then why should they be valid or called criticisms. The cosmological argument only vouches for an intelligent creator of the universe that is outside space and time. It is necessarily to posit an intelligent source, ie god, because it has to thereby be able to 'function and control' itself outside of space and time.

[07Aristotle]

@ivolol Therefore, before anything, there must be a cause that is self-governing and anything explaining otherwise would be hitherto obsolete and incoherent to the context that the first cause causing.

[07Aristotle]

@ivolol First cause requires there to be a source that is outside of space and time, but if you submit a random event you could enter into an infinite regress. This would be problematic.

[DandAinTac]

Craig's argument is totally invalid. First of all, we don't know for sure that there truly was NOTHING before the Big Bang--suffice to say, that the universe that we know and observe now did not exist. Second, we do not know for sure that everything has to have a cause. Quantum Mechanics seems to indicate that matter and energy can indeed pop in and out of existence. Third, even if you grant that there must have been a cause, we are far from know just what that cause was.

[mehico33]

The atheist attempts to salvage an eternal argument? A Lie and a Generalisation.

The statement that "We dont know" stands, WLC has said nothing to adress this, he has supposed a possible "transcendant, personal" cause... great, that adds nothing. Besides the fact he has in no way given grounds for this to be true, he also has only identified a possible cause "must" be so, no information on said cause. And hasnt demonstrated that he "knows".

On its own, a hollow argument

[HarrynJessie]

This is tripe. Nowhere does he give any evidence about what happened before the big bang. He doesn't even show that the universe must, necessarily have begun at the big bang. It's classic Craig appealing to authority. Perhaps he can show that the vertical multiverse theory is absolutely false, or that the theory of universes being "born" out of black holes is absolutely false. This video fails on so many levels.

[skydivephil]

You might want to google Eternal inflation and Its Implications, talk given by Alan guth. On page 16 he says a way round the GBV theorem may have been found by Aguirre and Gratton. You can see a video I have made about this by clicking on my name. Cheers Phil

[ialvarez357]

Why is it that we cannot say "we don't know?"

[Roper122]

*groan So science is absolute and cannot change or advance, IF it fits in with Craig's arguments.

Of course he will agree with physicists like Hawking when it suits him, and disagree when it doesn't.

( Does he mention that Villenkin doesn't agree with him at all? )

And although I find it offensive that you should use Rocky music.. it is very appropriate...

Craig is " Trying Hard Now "

[s3tione]

I don't think there is anything wrong with being intellectually honest regarding the cause of the universe. This is not an escape route. Just because the evidence points to an absolute beginning of our universe, that says nothing about system(s) which caused our universe. Our understanding of such systems is in the hypothetical stage, and we have no solid evidence on which to base any of our 'origins' theories. Thus we can say 'we do not know' with certainty.

[Howie47]

@s3tione If they applied such intellectual (honestly?) to Origin of the Species hypothesis. They would come up with the same type of answer, instead of the empty. Natural selection + mutations +time DID IT. Which explains nothing. They at least would be honest with. "we do not know"!

[GDATERRY]

@Howie47 It explains nothing? Haha wow.

[Howie47]

@GDATERRY I'm a master of the creation/evolution debate. I would well come another buffoon to embarrass and publicly demolish. Check any of my vids, and take a shot.

[GDATERRY]

@Howie47 I'd rather not. I have better things to do, and all I see is you publicly embarrassing yourself anyway.

[s3tione]

@Howie47 The theory of evolution and the hypothetical ideas surrounding the origins of our universe are not the same creature. With evolution, we can test the theory directly via observation. The forces which led to cosmological birth cannot be observed in the same manner, yet. Thus we are left with numerous hypothesis, such as WLC's Kalam argument. But these are just mathematical and philosophical proofs. Until those hypothesis are tested, we still 'just don't know.'

[Howie47]

@s3tione Baloney! They are similar because the both have to explain the origin of order out of disorder. ALL the test of evolution have FAILED to produce a single new class of life. With a novel morphological system. Tested for thousands of years by breeders & horticulturist , tested on billions of generations of quick breeding unicelled life, in the lab.

[s3tione]

@Howie47 I can see you totally missed my point. I only used evolution as an example of a hypothesis which can be tested (and in this case proved correct) while hypothesis regarding the origins of our universe are at this time, untestable. Thus, despite what WLC says in this video, we can say "we do not know."

[Birdieupon]

@s3tione

"Just because the evidence points to an absolute beginning of our universe, that says nothing about system(s) which caused our universe."

The universe is all space, time, matter and energy. When you speak of "systems" what do you have left to work with?

[s3tione]

@Birdieupon Yes, the universe is all of our space, time and matter and energy etc. What do we have outside of that? I don't know, *and* neither does WLC, although he seems to think his Kalam hypothesis is somehow above all others. That is my point. We don't know. However, i do agree with WLC's first two premises of his Kalam argument, what I disagree with is that the first cause has to be a god.

[Birdieupon]

@s3tione

" Yes, the universe is all of our space, time and matter and energy etc. What do we have outside of that? I don't know"

You do realize this is all of naturalism, right? The natural world is this very realm. When you say you "do not know" what lies beyond it, the supernatural is all that's left!

"I disagree with is that the first cause has to be a god."

A personal, powerful agent is all you have left. Watch the same debate to see Wolpert goof this, calling the cause a "computer".

[s3tione]

@Birdieupon When you say all that lies outside of this universe is the "supernatural", you are making an assumption. You have no way of verifying that claim at all. When WLC tries to reason out what forces outside the universe could have caused it, he takes an educated guess and calls it god. The natural sciences also have their own educated guess too. Neither the sciences or WLC have any solid evidence to say what happened before the big bang.

[lfzadra]

@Birdieupon "A personal, powerful agent is all you have left" Nope. Even if a mind is the only option (it isn´t), a mind with the intelligence of a mosquito can ignit a Universe like ours from eternity. All it needs to do is to pop random Universes indefinitely by it´s very nature. One of them will be like ours given infinite tries. A mosquito level mind will not take you to heaven, will not listen your prayers, and is not something that we will be inclined to call "God".

[GoogleVideoMan]

God did it! lol These god of the gaps people are hilarious.

[Jugglable]

What about the thought that the universe was caused by a quantum event? Isn't that possible? Please help me to understand.

[MrZazomy]

@Jugglable

Nope, scientist tried this decades ago, but since then it has been abandoned.

Watch this video watch?v=Clr8uL3M7Ow for much more information.

[lfzadra]

@MrZazomy "but since then it has been abandoned." Wrong, this is the lie Craig tell to you in order to keep with his "god is the best explanation". Quantum vacuum models are pretty much alive today in maistream physics. God is not, and never will be "the best explanation", at least until Craig can explain how a mind can work outside matter and time. Until there, Craig hyphotesis is pure voodoo for brainless christians. This guy is a joke with a PhD.

[RichieJohnSauls]

@Jugglable Regardless of how the universe came into existence, it could not have been via Yahweh, a warrior god, who didn't even know (amongst other things we have discovered) that the earth is spherical and continuously in motion.

[Jugglable]

@RichieJohnSauls "could not have been via Yahweh, a warrior god, who didn't even know (amongst other things we have discovered) that the earth is spherical and continuously in motion"

You're saying the religious scriptures are scientifically inaccurate. But that's like saying poetry is scientifically inaccurate. You're making a category error. The Bible is a theological book, not scientific. I can't urge you strongly enough to go to channel wordonfirevideo and watch recent Genesis video.

[RichieJohnSauls]

@Jugglable Why would God, if it did or could exist, communicate to mankind through an ancient, anonymous text that requires YouTube channel apologetics in order to be understood? The very proposal is absurd.

[raoskaos]

My friend, this is called lying and misleading. Any cosmologist, and every scientist, will tell you that he doesn't know.

[MrZazomy]

Tell me where the lie is, and what did I say that was misleading?

[xnobody777x]

@MrZazomy what cause God?