Quarks are alleged to pop in and out of existance so that might be an exception, though frankly I think our perception on them are incorrect and I think its just jumping in and out of our dimensional plane.
So it seems like we have to acept option #1 and reconize therefore the universe had a origin. How is posible that something that had no oringin (= that is eternal) suddenly began to die?)
The simplest way to deal with Craig's argument -- and one which everyone can seize quickly -- is to understand it's a huge non sequitur. Grant him the validity of his premises for the sake of the argument.
You conclude that the Universe has a cause beyond its space and time. I'd really like to see how Craig take that and transform it into being the exact deity of his theology with all his traits and wishes... or even how he discards the possibly of polytheism.
@KrugmanTheKing I see a little misunderstanding here. As far as I understand the KCA seek to prove the existence of God understanding God as the cause of the universe. The argument does not seek to "describe"the cause,i.e how is God like. I think we call the cause God because is powerfull enough to cause time and space at least(conceding that matter and energy always existed). im not defending Cristianity(continues)
I highly doubt... this criticism applies to every single argument so far advanced. Just think for a second how do you go about proving Christian theology without a verified and sustainable support for a revelation?
Because you are left with a whole series of claims about what God is, what he thinks, what he wants, what he asked and how he reacted... he is a complete character in the Bible. You cannot show me that unless you inquire his interventions.
And, even with such things, you would need quantities of them to extract any sort of sense that would allow for inferences about their cause. What I am saying is if you are rational and your argumentation leads to deism, you do not sustain Christianity because you lack material to do so.
Either he is an hypocrite or else he's convinced the argument is sufficient -- or at least sufficient when coupled with a few other lines.
Even with those extra lines, as I hinted, it falls short of doing that and you can look up: as I listened to him debate with people, he doesn't fill in the gap at any time and this syllogism is the foundation of his position...
You may be right, but as the circumstances tend to show, he's probably guilty of a fallacy of non sequitur here -- but if not directly in the conclusion of his argument, then in the following lines.
@KrugmanTheKing but then we are clear that the KCA fulfill only one of the many requirement to demostrate the God of the bible. If the argumentation given by Craig is enough to desmostrate that is indeed an open debate because im not sure of that as well
@KrugmanTheKing Simply I do not see enough argumentation in this video to disprove the KCA that´s all. I think Craig uses the KCA as an argument in favor of the existence of Cristian God. The argument is a necesary condition but not enough to prove the Cristian God.(i.e fills only one requieremt for the existence of the Cristian God).
Hitchens best resumed this thought in a brilliant response to a christian apologist. He showed that even giving him resurrection, the virgin birth, immaculate conception, turning water in wine and curing the blinds... he'd be ready to grant all of them and at the end of the day, it would still not prove Christianity right.
The same response applies to the KCA here. Follow the premises and if you may get yourself to be a deist, you're still not a theist.
Many arguments religious people use can be applied to every single religion without exception or very few... this one is an example, pascal's wager is an other, any argument by design leads also to the same point. The correct way to say it should be that they conclude to a divine order, which is of course true of many religions.
When we talk about the existence of the universe we have three options:
1)The universe had a origin in order to exist
2)The universe has always existed
3)The universe does not exist at all
To accept the option #3 is acepting that we are only the product of the imagination of some entity out of this universe. So matter is not real at all if that were the case.
option # 2 implies an eternal universe and that is not the case. Entropy states that the universe is dying.
I love the fact that you said it: logic does not guarantee that the conclusion MUST be real even if it follows from premises. I've been arguing through message exchange with theists trying to show them that logical consistency does not demonstrate anything but that the system is sound, that we can't simply bring things into existence from logic. There are numerous partial differential eqs that are logically consistent and describe hypothetical processes, but such processes dont exist in reality.
Modern science HAS proven conclusively that the universe had a beginning, and you have failed to provide evidence for your personal belief that supposedly nothing has ever come into existence.
Your body did not exist 100 years ago, but your body exists today -- you are simply wrong.
When you claim that nothing has begun to exist, you must demonstrate one of the following. Either:
The KCA commits the fallacy of composition. The whole does not equal the sum of the parts. Just because things within the universe need a cause do exist does not mean the universe itself requires one. Its quite possible that the universe did have a cause but to believe it to be god without a single shred of evidence is intellectual treachery in my opinion. The KCA just doesn't live up to the expectations of the honest, rational free thinker. In fact, it's simply a terrible argument. Craig=Fail.
@vbfl920 Yes, I know I'm responding to a year-old comment, and no I didn't read every subsequent comment, but I know of an infinity of actual infinities. Take, for instance, the points along any given diameter of any given proton in your body.
@DuhIdiot1 Just pointing out that - although there are different sizes of "infinity" (a now well established understanding) as is your point - there is actually a finite number of points on any physically represented circle (cf. the Planck length)
What I think is so funny is that Craig and his followers are some of the most arrogant people I've seen argue, and their understanding of their own arguments is laughable. I saw a video of Craig dismissing as ridiculous the objection to Kalam that "nothing begins to exist." The basis of his dismissal is that "So they're saying that I never began to exist, that the earth never began to exist?" It's one thing to be that wrong, and it's another to be that arrogant AND that wrong.
@1GodOnlyOne It's not an exact quote, but it is a paraphrasing that correctly communicates the meaning of what he said, and is therefore not a strawman. I shouldn't have put quotes around it though, my mistake.
Something that began to exist... How about the particle/waves that make up the Casimir effect?
Has anyone brought that up yet?
The quantum vacuum produces short-lived particles and waves uncaused, they come out of the vacuum and disappear back into it and they create a force that produces a measurable effect. It's not a re-arrangement of energy/matter. It's energy/matter from nowhere.
@zarkoff45@zarkoff45 "It's not a re-arrangement of energy/matter. It's energy/matter from nowhere."
This is not really a correct interpretation of vacuum energy. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle allows the production and annihilation of very short-lived virtual particles, which can interact with real particles. The VP's are literally the real, quantized manifestations of fields in space (such as the EM field, which results in the Casimir effect). It appears, superficially, that (cont..)
@zarkoff45 conservation of energy is violated for extremely short time-scales. A bit more depth reveals that it's actually not! :) Incidentally, if these particles are interpreted to pop into existence at random, then they do so causelessly. So even if the KCA proponent appeals to virtual particles, they must still concede that the first premise is baseless, because the one example of something that 'begins to exist' DOESN'T have a cause! In reality, VPs are borrowed energy from quantum fields.
That's what I was trying to get at. If the particles pop into existence causelessly then the first premise is wrong. You really just re-stated that first premise by arguing that nothing had been observed to come into existence.
Why couldn't our universe be one huge vacuum fluctuation with the rules of quantum mechanics being older than the universe?
You think the first premise is naive?! So, I guess according to you then it would make perfect sense that everything that begins to exist has an uncause. Suit yourself.
@rationalresponseguy That's some terrible fallacycake you just baked. False dichotomy + strawman. I never made this argument.
The premise is naive because it presumes that physical things:
A) Can 'begin' to exist.
B) Can never be 'causeless' (note that causality has no strict definition in the KCA.)
Both of these assumptions are BASELESS. This means they aren't based on reliable observations. We have never observed anything which 'begins to exist'. Until we have, we cannot test B.
@AndromedasWake You're own words speak for themselves!!! You said nothing began to exist: watch?v=HJgP5Ky_Lts. If nothing began to exist then that means whatever "begins" to exist has an uncause. Think before talking next time.
@rationalresponseguy That's a quote-mine. I said nothing has ever been shown to be anything other than a re-arrangement of energy/matter. In physics and cosmology, energy has no definite origin and matter is simply a stable organisation of energy. Therefore, the assumption of the KCA is baseless and the entire argument is worthless.
"If nothing began to exist then that means whatever "begins" to exist has an uncause."
I love when YECs try to pull the Kalam argument saying that "the universe had a begining" (which isn't actually true). So they take the part of the Big Bang they think they can reconcile with the book of Genesis and ignore the same physics that say the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Also, WLC says that theism is so logical and philosophical. So why can they only convert children and alcoholics; why no scholars or scientists??
My comment was in direct response to Andromedas claim that "nothing begins to exist."
But perhaps you simply enjoy inserting irrelevant comments in the midst of conversations you haven't read. In which case...happy typing. I hope the click of the keys beneath your fingers gives you much joy.
The very fact that we have the word "Beginning" implies that there is actually a beginning of processes. The distinction is that none is asserting that thing in nature appear or begin to exist but that experience show that there are beginnings to processes and that this processes have a cause. Of course none is talking about a beginning of new matter or anything like that. If there is no beginning of anything in our universe, why do we have a word "beginning". BTW, why you began this channel?
Propositional logic does commit you slightly more than "the tool" you describe in that if, in contingency, you concede premeses are truthful, you must conclude (you said the logic is valid) the conclusion is also true.
"Energy is not eternal, and neither is the universe." The universe, according to Hawking and leading cosmologists came to beign from as close to "ex nihilo" as scientifically possible. All modern physics in it's dismantling of "steady state" theory arrived in agreement on this.
Just more evidence that "evidence" is of no concern to those who are pre-disposed NOT to accept "God" in any form or fashion.
The Kalam Argument is so elementary and obvious that I have to just LOL at the absurd extent to which those who REFUSE to believe (not CANNOT believe) will go to in an effort to justify their UN-belief.
No surprise at all...the Bible makes frequent reference to this crowd. How sad.
Lastly, you've chosen to critique the logical argument by moving your assessment outside the box. However... this does nothing to challenge the argument in question as you're challenge now rests entirely on abstract or hypothetical analysis. Whereas the original argument maintains a direct relationship with tangible observations.
Though it's true that the Kalam argument is far from empirical, it does however remain unscathed by challenges such as these.
@SmalltimR "Whereas the original argument maintains a direct relationship with tangible observations."
Observations of the "origins of existence" of Universes? Observations of the state of the universe prior to the effective domination of GR? These observations haven't yet been made, and they are required to be, and be in line with the assumptions of the KCA before we can take it seriously. The KCA attempts to muscle unsubstantiated metaphysical 'axioms' into physical cosmology.
First of all, it is understood(observation) that the universe most likely began to exist. And so I really don't see where the(so called) challenge comes from(keep it real).
Secondly... the issue of matter and creation is a direct consequence of the previous argument. That is to say that matter most likely always existed and that it is/was the founding blocks of our universe, however in itself would have no impact on the fact that that our realm would have begun to exist either.
@SmalltimR Regardless of who 'understands' this, something closer to a fact is required. All Craig presents are opinions of cosmologists, and stand-out papers (such as Borde-Guth-Vilenken) which are either speculate on possible quantum effects during the Planck epoch, or ignore them for non-quantum spacetimes. No amount of speculation *increases* the statistical probability of something being a fact. :S
@SmalltimR With regard to your second point, if you concede that matter/energy 'always existed', I direct you to Occam's razor. In an eternal energy model, I can limit my assumptions to two: Energy exists, natural laws prevail. In this case, there are natural explanations for a Universe. Eternal energy is exactly what Craig et al. would like to avoid. Furthermore, we can only speculate on what greater realms may exist 'beyond' or 'outside' our Universe, again more uncertainty...
@SmalltimR This comment makes no sense or argument. If you're going to concede, at least do it with some dignity. I suppose it would be foolish of me to assume that someone who entered these comments with such arrogance could leave in humility once shown to be incorrect. You are in every respect a typical William Lane Craig drone.
3:10ff "It's naive to think that these properties must apply to our universe because they apply in our universe."
So is it less naive to assume they don't? You're just raising a possible loophole; you certainly aren't doing anything to suggest the loophole is more reasonable than the argument itself.
I assert that it is far more reasonable to assume premise 1 is true than it is to assume there is an exception with regard to the existence of the universe itself.
2:13ff "Give me an example of something that has begun to exist."
Here's one: You.
You have not always existed. The matter that constitutes "you" may or may not have always existed. But "you" certainly have not always existed. (or do "you" not exist?)
Here's another one: This Video.
I'm quite confident that prior to the day you filmed this video, it did not exist. But given the fact that I am viewing it now, I am quite certain it does.
Where? Give me the time code. I've watched it twice and can assure you he does not. The Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy are a far cry from the assertion "nothing begins to exist."
**Also the big bang was the begining of time, so the universe was still there from the start.**
Not sure what you mean. But if you mean that the universe existed before time; you would have to give me a good reason to think so.
@MissingChurchill Craig has already made this crummy defence, the subject of my next video. This video, you and me, are all composed of antecedent entities. They are just labels for particular arrangements of matter, all conforming to natural processes. The way we differentiate them is purely conceptual. Concepts do not have physical fundamental or emergent properties, and the Universe does. Therefore, proof of the existence of new concepts cannot be extended to the Universe.
By your reasoning, either "you" don't really exist, or "you" have always existed. Both of which are so patently absurd that to accept your argument is to willfully deny the obvious. That "you" and the molecules that compose "you" are not identical is easily demonstrated (if needed).
The laws of conservation of energy and mass are a far cry from "nothing begins to exist."
The "arrangements" of matter (not a term I would choose, but I can work with it) of which you spoke in your above post did not exist at one point, then those "arrangements," at different times, came into existence.
The answer to your challenge is that the arrangements of matter that you admit do indeed exist, did not exist before, meaning that they did indeed come into existence, so you lose. BTW, I would cal those arrangements of matter "objects."
@1GodOnlyOne But arrangements don't "come into existence" in the same sense that Craig is claiming the universe came into existence. Craig is claiming that the matter and energy in the universe did not exist, and then it did, and that change must be caused by something. However the change of states from matter not existing to matter existing has never been observed. Change of arrangements have been observed, and must be caused, but the beginning of the universe is not a change of arrangement.
@1GodOnlyOne Hi. Thanks for the comment. You must see from your own case that if you consider these arrangements to be objects, you have just redefined 'object' in a way which makes it arguably less useful in the context of existence/origins. The best you can now say is that at the big bang, the Universe is a brand new arrangement of some prior stuff. I wouldn't disagree with you here, because you've made a counter-argument to the statement that Matter/Energy sprang into existence in the past.
I have to disagree on one part of this video when you use the term "good apologist". In my personal opinion, all apologists fall short of presenting a solid argument and those who come close need to make vast leaps to have their arguments apply to their own religious belief system. Apologetics only serves to confuse the masses and through ad nauseum debate.
Very interesting critique, with some novel arguments.
I think the problem with a scientist, and philosopher debating the KCom argument is that the former are mostly physicists whilst the latter are metaphysicians, and rarely the twain shall meet.
If a theist tries to throw the Kalam at you, don't worry about engaging in an hour long rigorous dialectical discourse, simply use the structure of the Kalam against him/her as a counter syllogism like this:
(1) Whatever is sentient must have a cause
(2) The Christian God would be sentient
(3) Therefore the Christian God would have a cause
Until you come across people like me who, while I believe in god of some kind, don't subscribe to a religious dogma that require qualities such as omnipotence, omniscience, etc
The Kalām argument is not so much naive, but moot. If our universe were a simulation running in a machine in some other universe's laboratory - then such concepts are relative and completely unproductive/inarguable - because if we can't see beyond our universe, how can we say anything about what's beyond the next
@AndromedasWake "(1) Whatever exists does so in space and time (note, this is arrived at a posteriori, like the KCA's first cause. It is just as un/reliable.)
(2) God does not exist in space and time.
(3) Therefore God does not exist."
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle prohibits you from making a posteriori claims about the whole universe.
Hawkins once said that to ask what was there before the Big Bang is like to ask what is south of the south pole... as I read this, I understand that there was no before, even if there may be a distinction between "no before" and "it's beginning." If you could elaborate on that, it would be nice.
I find it interesting that the Kalam is used by William Lame Craig and other Christian apologists when it was originally proposed as the reason why Allah is real and Islam is true.
One wonders why they don't convert to Islam if they use one of its fundamental arguments.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
so you would like someone to give an example of something that began to exist?
OK, how about this comment.
The keyboard I'm typing on also began to exist when it was created.
YOU began to exist.
To say that nothing began to exist because the matter or energy which constitute any "thing" always existed is simply nonsense.
Even if you allow such, you still cannot escape the fact that all matter and energy began to exist at the singularity- which is another well established fact that you deny
That comment is full of fails. Do you actually know what a singularity is or why GR predicts it as a "point of creation"?
The creation of matter and energy "at the singularity" is by no means an established fact. It is simply a layman's interpretation theoretical cosmology. You are making up facts where there are none and using them justify your own beliefs. Think about it.
OK, I suppose that because a "fact" strictly speaking is something that is proven, and because "proofs" only exist in mathematics, you can say that the belief that the universe came into being during what is called the "big-bang" is not a "fact"
But it is something for which we have a lot of supporting evidence and never have we discovered anything which would falsify it.
So if everything in natural science points to such a conclusion, why do you reject it...For the philosophical implications?
OK, but in the Kalam only those things that have a beginning need a cause. It has been the theist position from antiquity that God does not have a beginning. But I fail to understand, even if a grant you that God's actions do need a cause, how does this refute the Kalam? What was the cause that made God decide to create? Let's say (for the sake of the argument) that it was his decire to create humans that would enjoy him. How does this effect the Kalam?
I don't see how your reaponse affects the argument. God can will to create from eternity just like a man sitting down for eternity can will to stand up. What caused the decision for the man to stand up? Who cares? What does that have to do with anything? Similarly what does the question: What cause was there for the decision for God to create the universe, have to do with anything? Please explain how this effects the cosmological argument.
Youre right. Saying "everything in the universe has a cause, therefore, the universe itself needs a cause", makes about as much sense as saying "everything in the box was placed in the box, therefore the box was placed in the box."
There is a loophole to what i just said though. My statement supposses that the universe itself is a thing. If the universe is actually just the summation of all things within it, then the kalam might actually hold some weight.
True, but the Kalam Cosmological argument does not claim that "everything" in the universe has a cause rather that everything that has a "beginning" has a cause. You are attacking a strawman.
People like to say strawman argument alot. Insert where i would say " everything in the universe has a cause" with " everything in the universe that has a beginning has a cause." The key idea is "in the universe." Its the applying whats true to the parts to whats true to the whole problem. The same problem still arises with the if condition "that has a beginning"
The claim everything can't come from nothing is retarded statements first you must have a thing called NOTHING because as far as we know it is just a concept.
2.) Nothing is something it is some form of existence.
Who's they? One does not prove a theory or prove anything with a theory. Do you understand relativity? Believe it or not, of all the things in all the world, relativity is something I understand quite well, and it does not predict the beginning of any existence.
Do you believe in entropy? Do you believe that our universe tends to disorder? If yes how can you say that this process is going on eternally without having yet reached the end (total disorder)?
You say at 1:48 that it is not shown that time had an beginning - that suggests that our past were eternal. But if the past were eternal, the present would never be reached. That is as to see an apple on the ground and stating that its fall was eternal!
Without getting into the argument of what it means to "exist," I would simply ask the gentleman who recorded this video to provide an example of something that is eternal.
Also, provide an example of a thing whose existence is not dependent on another thing.
Finally I would ask how evolution is possible if there isn't new information created within a species. For that matter, where did the DNA information for a man exist before there were men?
1. I'm not aware of any actual infinite, but a god doesn't solve the "problem" without special pleading, and the idea of actual infinity remains conceptually useful regardless.
2. Existence.
tinyurl com/m2q7aq
3a. Information can be added, deleted or substituted through mutation.
LIberty, the creator of this video dismisses the Kalam argument but violate the same fallacies he claims Craig does.
If infinite regress isn't possible based on what we know, then the Kalam argument holds if we define God as the only existance that is necessary and upon which all other existence is dependent. Or, in other words, the uncaused cause of all things.
"define God as the only existence that is necessary and upon which all other existence is dependent"
If you use that definition, then why would you even need an argument for God's existence? This kind of definition begs the question so it's useless.
Also, the impossibility of infinite regress does not imply creation ex-nihilo. What it implies is the existence of a first state, but you cannot infer anything about the nature of that first state.
gigi, defining God like this no more begs the question than postulating the existence of a "first state" existing as the uncaused cause of the universe. "First State" and god are interchangeable from a logical point of view.
I can infer from a "First State" that if it exists outside of space, time and matter then it is by definition, very literally, supernatural in that it exists beyond what we have observed in nature.
If it is matter, then we still have infinite regress.
The problem with the first two is that they involve creation out of nothing. One could argue that (4) is more preferable than (3), because it is simpler. Also, don't forget that I assumed presentism to be true. If the B-theory of time is correct, the Kalam fails right off the bat. Also, I used "God" as the supernatural cause, but that is uncertain. I mean, how would you infer that it MUST be a mind? Maybe it is some kind of supernatural "force" or something like that.
"If it is matter, then we still have infinite regress"
No, because the argument says "whatever BEGINS to exist" - the entities in the first state, material or not, don't begin to exist, because there is no prior state of affairs, there is no previous moment at which they don't exist.
The only way that you can argue naturalism is if you consider other universes and dimensions. Even then, I think you run into the same problems. There always has to be an un-caused cause.
And, matter has to begin to exist because all matter contains information. To argue a continuous universe one would also have to explain where all of this information came from. How does a tree know to be a tree and so forth. Either there have always been trees, or new information was added - ex nihlo
The trees don't come out of nothing, they have a material cause (previously existing organical matter from the seed, minerals from the ground, water from the rain, energy from the sun, etc) + an efficient cause (the natural laws). The trees don't "know" how to be trees, they are just a part of the natural world and the natural world could very well be eternal.
How does a river know how to be a river: it obeys the natural laws. Same with the trees.
(1) doesn't fail unless you rule out the supernatural, yet ruling that out rules out all four. (3) fails regardless, because one must exist outside of the other unless they are interdependent landing us right back to our infinite regress problem. (4) again is only possible if we acknowledge the supernatural in its strictest definition in that everything would then be eternal.
(2) is the only possibility that is both logically a physically possible.
(1) does not involve the supernatural. But how is it a logical impossibility? There are other criteria by which you can dismiss this case, but it's not logically inconsistent.
You could use Occam's razor against (3), but, if you assume dualism it starts to make sense:
- God is the perfect spiritual entity
- a singularity (for example) is the perfect material entity
God is the "efficient cause"; the singularity could be the "material cause". I think (3) this makes more sense than (2).
Much like (1), (4) doesn't involve the supernatural. In this case, the universe, in some form, existed in the first state of affairs. So the natural world, as a whole, is eternal. The big flaw of the Kalam is that it assumes the natural world is not eternal, which is special pleading for theism. The usual ways to support the second premise show just that we need a finite number of changes in the past, but that doesn't mean the universe (as a whole) could not exist in all of them.
if you know any realy amount on m-theory you should mack a vid on that or string theory only reason i ask is i only know what they are and you have more people who lisen
No, I haven't wandered into the supernatural. The origin of the Universe is a complete unknown. In physics, causality is about succession in time, and if I bin and time and start dealing with abstract concepts, *THEN* I have wandered into the supernatural. But I don't do that, because I'm a physicist.
I have not suggested that the Universe always existed in a dense state, merely that it did before it expanded to its current state.
You're talking about the universe having a beginning and time (spacetime) having a starting point. That point is the Big Bang. Your argument is that for time to begin, something must have caused that to happen, and therefore god did it. This video says that mathematically it's possible for the Big Bang to occur through entirely natural causes. The composition of whatever's outside the universe is irrelevant: time and space as we recognize them wouldn't exist.
Whatever's beyond the universe could have existed for infinity, in both "space" and "time" (whatever that means outside our universe). It's always existed, and there's no need for a creator.
Yes, however you would need to explain why mechanism that was ethernally present was held back from performing its action up untill some moment in this meta-time.
If indeed it was nonpersonal then the effect would also have existed ethernally.
Then there is a problem found in mathematical induction:
you still need the first step in order to have an infinite chain of events.
Then there is a problem of infinity not being a number. It's like saying you have divided your car by 0.
You obviously know nothing about quantum mechanics. Fields are in a constant state of flux; they randomly jump from one value to another, for no reason, with no input from anything else. The stuff outside the universe wasn't just sitting there, static, until for some reason a fluctuation caused the creation of the universe. It was jumping from one value to another until it reached one that had the ability to produce the energy required to form our universe.
Saying that you can't have a specific moment in time if there's no starting point is completely illogical. What you're saying is basically that without a starting point there can be no progression of events - time is stopped and always will be. You can't define specific points because there's nothing against which to judge them, so you can't give time a value, but that's not to say that events don't progress. Within our universe everything is relative to spacetime, but it need not be so.
I can conceive of world without fields in flkuctuations, hence question still remains: why are they there and why the fluctuations have just enougth range to create a universe.
Anyway, if fields were there and they were in fluctuation then:
You could measure distances before universe began
You could measure time before universe began.
One more thing I do not understand:
if you say you have +10C and -10C of charge it indeed means you have no charge, but the potential needs explenation.
I can conceive of a world where you don't exist; that's entirely irrelevant. A basic feature of fields is that they fluctuate. There's no reason for it; that's why it's random. You're assuming that humans are an inevitability, but the fluctuations didn't have "just enough range to create the universe" so they made one perfectly inhabitable to us. The range of fluctutatios is huge, and some at the higher end produce universes. The largest spikes creates ones with more energy than ours.
They can also create ones with less energy. Both of these would have different features from our universe. Some might be inhabitable, some might not, and we just happen to live in this one. Fluctuations don't occur at regular intervals, nor do they leave any record of their being there. Besides that, you obviously don't understand infinity: you can keep going back in time forever. Just because you can't visualize it doesn't make it wrong. I said nothing about charge, so clearly you're an idiot.
I'm frustrated by your constant moving of the goal posts, as well as your lack of knowledge regarding quantum mechanics and your insistence on making arguments based on that ignorance. You're also basing all of your arguments on the premise that the inevitable outcome was our universe with our Earth with us on it. We can speculate on what's beyond the universe, what it's composed of, and how long it's existed, but we can never really know.
That's not really important, though, as the position against which this video argues, as well as your own, is that the universe had to have a supernatural creator. That's the only possibility. But there are natural explanations. The one in the video I linked to isn't necessarily correct, but it doesn't matter. There are possible alternatives to the supernatural. It's possible that the fluctuations are occuring within our universe, creating small offshoot universes from our own out of nothing.
Big Bangs would occur in an infinite cycle, each universe producing new offspring. Therefore, there is no vague concept of what's beyond the universe or where it came from: each is the product of another, going back in an infinite regression. The fact that you can't conceive of how this process began without a creator, or even that this process required a beginning, is your own issue. I'm not arguing for this position, I'm arguing against yours, because it's untenable.
You were aiming at showing the very possibility, no matter how speculative, that there is a natural process behind it.
You didn't say it clearly but now it is apparent that there should be a preexisting energy in the field, since uncertanity principle does not allow for violation of conservation of energy principle.
I agree that if there is a preexisting field of energy then universe can be created out of it. Was this what you tried to argue all the time?
That's too specific (and I'm not going to be caught by "well then where did that preexisting field of energy come from?"). This is just one possibility; I don't about the exact mechanism, nor do I think we can know for sure. All that matters is that the argument that the only way the universe could have been created was by god simply fails. There are other possibilities, which are more plausible. Why couldn't the energy have existed for eternity? There's nothing to say it couldn't.
That should read "I don't care about the exact mechanism". And if our universe could be created by purely natural causes, why couldn't the space, or whatever you'd like to call it, also have a natural origin? Or what if before the universe there was simply nothing - not a vacuum, an entire lack of spacetime or anything resembling it. The universe literally popped into existence out of nothing.
I'm not saying it's right, it's just an idea, and finding a philosophical flaw with it doesn't necessarily discount it. Philosophy is not the realm of science. More importantly, though, the entire premise of the argument is that everything that begins to exist has a cause. The problem with this is that the only thing that has ever begun to exist is the universe; everything else is just changing states of matter and energy. How can we know whether the universe had a cause?
You're trying to make deductions about the universe based on the characteristics of certain events, of which only the Big Bang has been "witnessed". You can't say that the universe coming into existence must have had a cause because everything that's come into existence has a cause when that's all that's come into existence. Proponents of the KCA ask for something that's come into existence without a cause, but first they need to provide something that's come into existence.
At best, this argument could lead you to deism, in that it implies that something supernatural exists outside our universe. It's a huge leap from that to Christianity. How do you go from "something powerful made the universe" to "an all-powerful, benevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent god who interferes in human affairs sent a version of himself to suffer and die, and if I accept that he died for me, then my sins will be forgiven and I'll go to paradise"? Christianity requires its own arguments.
Actually, no. The argument leads to ecknowledging existence of first cause.
Yes, it is not an argument for judeo-christian god and it needs additional arguments to arrive to that. However starting from general first cause is a good starting point.
Define "first cause". If "first cause" is something natural, then your argument collapses. If it's supernatural, then it doesn't necessarily fit your understanding of god. It could be a human-like god, as in the Roman gods, which wasn't all-powerful, omnipotent or omnipresent. It still doesn't lead to a specific faith.
In other words it is a beggining of chain of (all) causes and effects.
I also argue it cannot be natural. In the sense of processes that have outcome guided by laws. Existence of laws themselves would require explenation. And if they were not there then their origin will.
Existence of mathematics and logic I take to be self-evident, btw. It would be foolish to deny logic with use of logic. ;)
You've completely missed the point, and I'm tired of repeating myself: THE ACTUAL MECHANISM IS UNKNOWN AND IRRELEVANT. I postulated a possibility that doesn't require the use of infinites, and there are others. Again, I'm not making an argument for a specific position, I'm making one against yours. Yours is untenable, and you can't defend it, so you're attacking very specific points that I'm making. SHOW ME ONE THING THAT HAS COME INTO EXISTENCE BESIDES THE UNIVERSE.
I'll call one particular person observer. This is the person that is any actual "me" as opposed to other people who could be just drones for all you know.
The observer clearly comes into existence and since he was not here for past generations he is not necessery for universe.
Does that not bother you that you even exist, rather than don't? You haven't been around before, why would you appear?
What the hell are you talking about? This whole post is gibberish. "Not necessery for universe"? What does that have to do with anything? Why would I appear? I didn't appear. I was born. I am a reorganization of atoms that already existed. Every person who is "created", every storm that forms, every star that ignites is formed of atoms which have been in the universe since the Big Bang. They're reorganized, but nothing new has "come into existence" since then.
He hasn't presupposed materialism, you are presupposing non-materialism because you saying that there are things out there that began to exist besides the universe itself but you haven't demonstrated any. The fact is the assumption that everything that began to exist has a cause is completely unsupported, and it doesn't take any assuming of materialism or naturalism to say that it is unsupported.
This has been a long conservation with many issues. I thought you were claiming an assumption of materialism invalidates anyones ability to say that the assumption that everything that begins to exists has a cause is unsupported. I'm glad your not say that, because it is unsupported. You have yet to point to something that has come into existence.
All I presupposed was the law of conservation of mass. I NEVER said it was impossible for there to be a supernatural element, nor did I say that I was ONLY atoms. Demonstrate to me something that isn't made of atoms. Demonstrate to me something made of normal matter that came into existence. I'm rather sick of you putting words in my mouth and avoiding the issue altogether. You're a typical theist who can't defend his own position and has to attack mine. WHAT HAS COME INTO EXISTENCE?
Diagor, scientists don't even espouse the big bang anymore. Is that really the point you want to argue from. If so, you would have to be a proponent of the supernatural in the strictest sense of the word... care to know why?
First, that's simply wrong. No astronomer or cosmologist rejects the Big Bang because the evidence of an expanding universe with a single origin of spacetime is overwhelming. Second, you're as much of an idiot as Marcin: I'M NOT MAKING A POSITIVE ARGUMENT. I don't know how many times I have to reiterate this. I'm demonstrating that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is wrong, not that any particular theory is right. If you can't understand that then stop bothering me.
You misunderstand probability theory. The argument from fine tuning is a misuse of conditional probabilities. The probability of a given universe having laws beneficial to life says nothing about the conditional probability of those laws given that the universe exists. There is no way of using the latter conditional probability to estimate the former marginal probability.
It appears to me you think you can perform science in vacum, without fundaments and without thinking about whether or not the method works.
Yes, I agree you can "do science" and "get results" while being ignorant of background preassumptions, but you are not ommiting philosophy of science, you are just letting others take care of it.
It's kinda like a car driver who says "who needs thermodynamics? I just push the gas pedal".
Philosophy is a thought process. It can't be tested. There's nothing that says that one view on a particular issue is right while another is wrong. The fact that it's a purely human endeavour indicates that it is subject to the same problems as other human issues. Philosophers are blinded by their own preconceptions (as Craig with his belief in god leading to the formulation of any possible argument that could substantiate his faith) and the failings of their own minds.
Demonstrate to me that Plato's belief in our world being a projection of a higher dimension is wrong. If Descartes went into an oven and remained entirely isolated from the outside world, would he be able to discover everything there is to know through philosophy alone? Science can be tested, and false hypothoses eliminated; philosophy is unfalsifiable. Logic alone is insufficient to make an argument. You need positive proof to make a case, especially for the existence of something.
Without first knowing what you accept as evidence and how much you require how can you speak of proof?
The idea of falsification is an effect of philosophy, it cannot prove itself and is known solely by reflection, not trough rational process.
Of course you can falsify things in philosphy. Philospohical positions have been falsified by showing internal inconsistencies or comaprision of their effects to sel-evident beliefs.
The only thing a test can tell you about a thing is whether or not it passes the test.
Without justification of the method scientific inquiry is no better than playing tennis to determine who's correct. Both are actions with no value over one another.
There is a teapot in orbit around the sun. You can't prove or disprove that this teapot exists. There's nothing to say the teapot doesn't exist, so it must. Does that make sense? How can you determine the existence of something without any evidence in its favour simply by using logic? Just because you can logically deduce something doesn't make it an actual reality. Ptolemy logically deduced that the Earth was the centre of the universe. You need to test the hypothesis to see if it's right.
I did not see you testing the hypothesis presented in movie you've linked.
I do not claim it is possible but...
If the distribution of fluctuations is known then you can calculate the expected initial size of universe if it originated from the field as described.
If in result you will prove that such origin would most likely produce universe at 10x the assumed initial size then the hypothesis is unlikely to be true.
One more thing: should not the CURRENTLY more likely hypothesis win?
Incidentally, saying that the Universe was a dense state "forever" and then "exploded" (which is incorrect by the way) is no worse than what a theist might say. God just existed forever, then one day decided to create the Universe.
Processes cannot do that, yet free agent can choose to wait or act.
Process cannot be in place without it's effect.
However, this still is speaking of meta-time. unless you want to suggest time was there before BB.
To think time and space are independent of mater is a bit of a Neutonian model.
Most cosmologists will tell you time and space themselves came into existance finite time ago. Perhabs because they view these as mere abstractions from matter and energy.
Believe me when I say I know what most cosmologists will tell me, because I work with cosmologists every day. You have yet to demonstrate that causality can be applied *to* the Universe as it is *in* the Universe and so you have yet to actually substantiate that Craig's first premise is rational. You have to think of time as a non-Euclidian dimension. Strangely you allude to this, but fail to see that if Time appears at the birth of the Universe, then there is no time to give birth to it.
Because I don't, I'm a relativist. So I don't know why you're brining it up. It doesn't change the fact that causality cannot be extrapolated beyond our Universe (which may be all there is) in any rational way, particularly then used to postulate a causeless, timeless, spaceless being, which is an utterly meaningless definition. One is simply assuming knowledge that one does not have. It's only OK if you can verify these assumptions by experiment.
You propose a free agent as the first cause. Can you imagine a world in which God chooses not to create the universe? If the answer is yes, my question is: is that god the same with the god that created our universe, or is he slightly different?
This has been flagged as spam show
1. A cause is a rearrangement of pre-existing matter that precedes its effect in time
2. Time and matter didn't exist until after The Big Bang
3. A rearrangement of pre-existing matter that precedes its effect in time is impossible before matter and time existed
4. The Big Bang had no cause
theBartone9119 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 3 weeks ago
Hey, how about this?
1) Everything that begins to exist does have a cause
2) God doesn't have a cause
3) Therefore God did not begin to exist
4) Therefore God does not exist
FreakmundZoid 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndromedasWake
1. Everything that exists, has a beginning
2. God has no beginning
3. God does not exist
I can do it too!
theBartone9119 4 weeks ago
1. Every cause has a preceding cause
2. Infinity should be avoided
3. If you trace all causes back in time they have to stop at the beginning of the universe
4. The Universe is uncaused
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Quarks are alleged to pop in and out of existance so that might be an exception, though frankly I think our perception on them are incorrect and I think its just jumping in and out of our dimensional plane.
OsyenVyeter 1 month ago
So it seems like we have to acept option #1 and reconize therefore the universe had a origin. How is posible that something that had no oringin (= that is eternal) suddenly began to die?)
That why the argument of this video fails.
SASSJMSCBC 4 months ago
@SASSJMSCBC
The simplest way to deal with Craig's argument -- and one which everyone can seize quickly -- is to understand it's a huge non sequitur. Grant him the validity of his premises for the sake of the argument.
You conclude that the Universe has a cause beyond its space and time. I'd really like to see how Craig take that and transform it into being the exact deity of his theology with all his traits and wishes... or even how he discards the possibly of polytheism.
KrugmanTheKing 4 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@KrugmanTheKing I see a little misunderstanding here. As far as I understand the KCA seek to prove the existence of God understanding God as the cause of the universe. The argument does not seek to "describe"the cause,i.e how is God like. I think we call the cause God because is powerfull enough to cause time and space at least(conceding that matter and energy always existed). im not defending Cristianity(continues)
SASSJMSCBC 3 weeks ago
@SASSJMSCBC
I highly doubt... this criticism applies to every single argument so far advanced. Just think for a second how do you go about proving Christian theology without a verified and sustainable support for a revelation?
Because you are left with a whole series of claims about what God is, what he thinks, what he wants, what he asked and how he reacted... he is a complete character in the Bible. You cannot show me that unless you inquire his interventions.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@SASSJMSCBC
And, even with such things, you would need quantities of them to extract any sort of sense that would allow for inferences about their cause. What I am saying is if you are rational and your argumentation leads to deism, you do not sustain Christianity because you lack material to do so.
Either he is an hypocrite or else he's convinced the argument is sufficient -- or at least sufficient when coupled with a few other lines.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@SASSJMSCBC
Even with those extra lines, as I hinted, it falls short of doing that and you can look up: as I listened to him debate with people, he doesn't fill in the gap at any time and this syllogism is the foundation of his position...
You may be right, but as the circumstances tend to show, he's probably guilty of a fallacy of non sequitur here -- but if not directly in the conclusion of his argument, then in the following lines.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing but then we are clear that the KCA fulfill only one of the many requirement to demostrate the God of the bible. If the argumentation given by Craig is enough to desmostrate that is indeed an open debate because im not sure of that as well
SASSJMSCBC 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing Simply I do not see enough argumentation in this video to disprove the KCA that´s all. I think Craig uses the KCA as an argument in favor of the existence of Cristian God. The argument is a necesary condition but not enough to prove the Cristian God.(i.e fills only one requieremt for the existence of the Cristian God).
SASSJMSCBC 3 weeks ago
@SASSJMSCBC
Hitchens best resumed this thought in a brilliant response to a christian apologist. He showed that even giving him resurrection, the virgin birth, immaculate conception, turning water in wine and curing the blinds... he'd be ready to grant all of them and at the end of the day, it would still not prove Christianity right.
The same response applies to the KCA here. Follow the premises and if you may get yourself to be a deist, you're still not a theist.
KrugmanTheKing 4 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@SASSJMSCBC
Many arguments religious people use can be applied to every single religion without exception or very few... this one is an example, pascal's wager is an other, any argument by design leads also to the same point. The correct way to say it should be that they conclude to a divine order, which is of course true of many religions.
KrugmanTheKing 4 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
When we talk about the existence of the universe we have three options:
1)The universe had a origin in order to exist
2)The universe has always existed
3)The universe does not exist at all
To accept the option #3 is acepting that we are only the product of the imagination of some entity out of this universe. So matter is not real at all if that were the case.
option # 2 implies an eternal universe and that is not the case. Entropy states that the universe is dying.
(continues)
SASSJMSCBC 4 months ago
I love the fact that you said it: logic does not guarantee that the conclusion MUST be real even if it follows from premises. I've been arguing through message exchange with theists trying to show them that logical consistency does not demonstrate anything but that the system is sound, that we can't simply bring things into existence from logic. There are numerous partial differential eqs that are logically consistent and describe hypothetical processes, but such processes dont exist in reality.
sirdelrio 6 months ago
Modern science HAS proven conclusively that the universe had a beginning, and you have failed to provide evidence for your personal belief that supposedly nothing has ever come into existence.
Your body did not exist 100 years ago, but your body exists today -- you are simply wrong.
When you claim that nothing has begun to exist, you must demonstrate one of the following. Either:
a) nothing exists at all, or;
b) everything that exists now has always existed,
but you have failed to do so.
1GodOnlyOne 11 months ago
We CAN explain the origin of things within the universe, and we CAN explain the origin of the universe as a whole.
The person who posted this video has failed to present evidence otherwise, sadly.
1GodOnlyOne 11 months ago
The KCA commits the fallacy of composition. The whole does not equal the sum of the parts. Just because things within the universe need a cause do exist does not mean the universe itself requires one. Its quite possible that the universe did have a cause but to believe it to be god without a single shred of evidence is intellectual treachery in my opinion. The KCA just doesn't live up to the expectations of the honest, rational free thinker. In fact, it's simply a terrible argument. Craig=Fail.
ThePresident001 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
medlibrary (dot) org/medwiki/Osiris
Jesus was conceived in a magical way, died and rose again on the 3rd day, went to Hades, was considered part of a trinity
Osiris died and rose again on the 3rd day, went to the underworld, his spirit was worshipped as a separate entity,
Horus the son was conceived in a magical way after his father was resurrected and was considered to be his father in resurrected form.
Horus, Osiris, and Ra were considered to be essentially one god
Xtianity=egyptian cult
MrTruthAddict 1 year ago
@vbfl920 Yes, I know I'm responding to a year-old comment, and no I didn't read every subsequent comment, but I know of an infinity of actual infinities. Take, for instance, the points along any given diameter of any given proton in your body.
DuhIdiot1 1 year ago
@DuhIdiot1 Just pointing out that - although there are different sizes of "infinity" (a now well established understanding) as is your point - there is actually a finite number of points on any physically represented circle (cf. the Planck length)
un2mensch 1 year ago
Time has a beginning
TheMuninn 1 year ago
What I think is so funny is that Craig and his followers are some of the most arrogant people I've seen argue, and their understanding of their own arguments is laughable. I saw a video of Craig dismissing as ridiculous the objection to Kalam that "nothing begins to exist." The basis of his dismissal is that "So they're saying that I never began to exist, that the earth never began to exist?" It's one thing to be that wrong, and it's another to be that arrogant AND that wrong.
LanceDirk 1 year ago
@LanceDirk That's a misquote of Dr. Craig, so your whole post is nothing but a straw-man logical fallacy, sadly.
1GodOnlyOne 11 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne It's not an exact quote, but it is a paraphrasing that correctly communicates the meaning of what he said, and is therefore not a strawman. I shouldn't have put quotes around it though, my mistake.
LanceDirk 11 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Here's the video, and if you watch it, you'll see it's almost an exact quote.
LanceDirk 11 months ago
Something that began to exist... How about the particle/waves that make up the Casimir effect?
Has anyone brought that up yet?
The quantum vacuum produces short-lived particles and waves uncaused, they come out of the vacuum and disappear back into it and they create a force that produces a measurable effect. It's not a re-arrangement of energy/matter. It's energy/matter from nowhere.
zarkoff45 1 year ago
@zarkoff45 @zarkoff45 "It's not a re-arrangement of energy/matter. It's energy/matter from nowhere."
This is not really a correct interpretation of vacuum energy. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle allows the production and annihilation of very short-lived virtual particles, which can interact with real particles. The VP's are literally the real, quantized manifestations of fields in space (such as the EM field, which results in the Casimir effect). It appears, superficially, that (cont..)
AndromedasWake 1 year ago
@zarkoff45 conservation of energy is violated for extremely short time-scales. A bit more depth reveals that it's actually not! :) Incidentally, if these particles are interpreted to pop into existence at random, then they do so causelessly. So even if the KCA proponent appeals to virtual particles, they must still concede that the first premise is baseless, because the one example of something that 'begins to exist' DOESN'T have a cause! In reality, VPs are borrowed energy from quantum fields.
AndromedasWake 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndromedasWake
That's what I was trying to get at. If the particles pop into existence causelessly then the first premise is wrong. You really just re-stated that first premise by arguing that nothing had been observed to come into existence.
Why couldn't our universe be one huge vacuum fluctuation with the rules of quantum mechanics being older than the universe?
zarkoff45 1 year ago
You think the first premise is naive?! So, I guess according to you then it would make perfect sense that everything that begins to exist has an uncause. Suit yourself.
rationalresponseguy 1 year ago
@rationalresponseguy That's some terrible fallacycake you just baked. False dichotomy + strawman. I never made this argument.
The premise is naive because it presumes that physical things:
A) Can 'begin' to exist.
B) Can never be 'causeless' (note that causality has no strict definition in the KCA.)
Both of these assumptions are BASELESS. This means they aren't based on reliable observations. We have never observed anything which 'begins to exist'. Until we have, we cannot test B.
AndromedasWake 1 year ago
@AndromedasWake You're own words speak for themselves!!! You said nothing began to exist: watch?v=HJgP5Ky_Lts. If nothing began to exist then that means whatever "begins" to exist has an uncause. Think before talking next time.
rationalresponseguy 1 year ago
@rationalresponseguy That's a quote-mine. I said nothing has ever been shown to be anything other than a re-arrangement of energy/matter. In physics and cosmology, energy has no definite origin and matter is simply a stable organisation of energy. Therefore, the assumption of the KCA is baseless and the entire argument is worthless.
"If nothing began to exist then that means whatever "begins" to exist has an uncause."
Semantic crap. Uncause is not a word.
AndromedasWake 1 year ago
I love when YECs try to pull the Kalam argument saying that "the universe had a begining" (which isn't actually true). So they take the part of the Big Bang they think they can reconcile with the book of Genesis and ignore the same physics that say the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Also, WLC says that theism is so logical and philosophical. So why can they only convert children and alcoholics; why no scholars or scientists??
jimbrown257 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
My comment was in direct response to Andromedas claim that "nothing begins to exist."
But perhaps you simply enjoy inserting irrelevant comments in the midst of conversations you haven't read. In which case...happy typing. I hope the click of the keys beneath your fingers gives you much joy.
MissingChurchill 1 year ago
How about you (as he points out in the video). You began to exist (and not just materially)......You failed to address that. Back to you.
hdregmore 1 year ago
The very fact that we have the word "Beginning" implies that there is actually a beginning of processes. The distinction is that none is asserting that thing in nature appear or begin to exist but that experience show that there are beginnings to processes and that this processes have a cause. Of course none is talking about a beginning of new matter or anything like that. If there is no beginning of anything in our universe, why do we have a word "beginning". BTW, why you began this channel?
AndreMijail 1 year ago
Propositional logic does commit you slightly more than "the tool" you describe in that if, in contingency, you concede premeses are truthful, you must conclude (you said the logic is valid) the conclusion is also true.
"Energy is not eternal, and neither is the universe." The universe, according to Hawking and leading cosmologists came to beign from as close to "ex nihilo" as scientifically possible. All modern physics in it's dismantling of "steady state" theory arrived in agreement on this.
rozzerallen 1 year ago
The argument fails because the premises are unsupported assertions.
They are claims only.
Also, the logic is questionable as well. Users of the argument equivocate on the meaning of "begin to exist".
They will often use it to mean an object which came in to existence by the assembly of pre-existing material within this universe.
It is also used to mean the creation of the stuff of the universe [space/time/energy/matter]. These are separate concepts.
Kalam fails on its face.
kshackleton 1 year ago
Just more evidence that "evidence" is of no concern to those who are pre-disposed NOT to accept "God" in any form or fashion.
The Kalam Argument is so elementary and obvious that I have to just LOL at the absurd extent to which those who REFUSE to believe (not CANNOT believe) will go to in an effort to justify their UN-belief.
No surprise at all...the Bible makes frequent reference to this crowd. How sad.
tigerlilly66 1 year ago
@tigerlilly66 Nice vacuous comment there!
AndromedasWake 1 year ago
@AndromedasWake =
vacuous, as in the contents of your skull? You are living proof of the validity of my statement. You don't believe because you WON'T believe.
tigerlilly66 1 year ago
Lastly, you've chosen to critique the logical argument by moving your assessment outside the box. However... this does nothing to challenge the argument in question as you're challenge now rests entirely on abstract or hypothetical analysis. Whereas the original argument maintains a direct relationship with tangible observations.
Though it's true that the Kalam argument is far from empirical, it does however remain unscathed by challenges such as these.
SmalltimR 1 year ago
@SmalltimR "Whereas the original argument maintains a direct relationship with tangible observations."
Observations of the "origins of existence" of Universes? Observations of the state of the universe prior to the effective domination of GR? These observations haven't yet been made, and they are required to be, and be in line with the assumptions of the KCA before we can take it seriously. The KCA attempts to muscle unsubstantiated metaphysical 'axioms' into physical cosmology.
AndromedasWake 1 year ago
First of all, it is understood(observation) that the universe most likely began to exist. And so I really don't see where the(so called) challenge comes from(keep it real).
Secondly... the issue of matter and creation is a direct consequence of the previous argument. That is to say that matter most likely always existed and that it is/was the founding blocks of our universe, however in itself would have no impact on the fact that that our realm would have begun to exist either.
SmalltimR 1 year ago
@SmalltimR Regardless of who 'understands' this, something closer to a fact is required. All Craig presents are opinions of cosmologists, and stand-out papers (such as Borde-Guth-Vilenken) which are either speculate on possible quantum effects during the Planck epoch, or ignore them for non-quantum spacetimes. No amount of speculation *increases* the statistical probability of something being a fact. :S
AndromedasWake 1 year ago
@SmalltimR With regard to your second point, if you concede that matter/energy 'always existed', I direct you to Occam's razor. In an eternal energy model, I can limit my assumptions to two: Energy exists, natural laws prevail. In this case, there are natural explanations for a Universe. Eternal energy is exactly what Craig et al. would like to avoid. Furthermore, we can only speculate on what greater realms may exist 'beyond' or 'outside' our Universe, again more uncertainty...
AndromedasWake 1 year ago
There is nothing more entertaining than listeining to young minds struggling with the concepts of big people material. \:)
Unfortunately YT is overflowing with them.
SmalltimR 1 year ago
@SmalltimR There is nothing more disconcerting than reading comments by self-obsessed oldies attempting to patronise young minds.
Unfortunately, this comment is one of them.
AndromedasWake 1 year ago
@AndromedasWake
lol
You get a D for form... though it is unfortunate you weren't able to come-up with this under your own steam.
Keep working at it :p
SmalltimR 1 year ago
@SmalltimR This comment makes no sense or argument. If you're going to concede, at least do it with some dignity. I suppose it would be foolish of me to assume that someone who entered these comments with such arrogance could leave in humility once shown to be incorrect. You are in every respect a typical William Lane Craig drone.
AndromedasWake 1 year ago 2
@You are in every respect a typical William Lane Craig drone...
Well thank you(haha)!
And congratulations on the recovery( it was hardly noticeable) :p
SmalltimR 1 year ago
@SmalltimR The hypocrisy and arrogance of this comment should be grounds for you to be banned from posting on Youtube.
LanceDirk 1 year ago
3:10ff "It's naive to think that these properties must apply to our universe because they apply in our universe."
So is it less naive to assume they don't? You're just raising a possible loophole; you certainly aren't doing anything to suggest the loophole is more reasonable than the argument itself.
I assert that it is far more reasonable to assume premise 1 is true than it is to assume there is an exception with regard to the existence of the universe itself.
MissingChurchill 1 year ago
2:13ff "Give me an example of something that has begun to exist."
Here's one: You.
You have not always existed. The matter that constitutes "you" may or may not have always existed. But "you" certainly have not always existed. (or do "you" not exist?)
Here's another one: This Video.
I'm quite confident that prior to the day you filmed this video, it did not exist. But given the fact that I am viewing it now, I am quite certain it does.
MissingChurchill 1 year ago
He explained this in the video.
Also the big bang was the begining of time, so the universe was still there from the start.
SuperMerlin100 1 year ago
**He explained this in the video.**
Where? Give me the time code. I've watched it twice and can assure you he does not. The Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy are a far cry from the assertion "nothing begins to exist."
**Also the big bang was the begining of time, so the universe was still there from the start.**
Not sure what you mean. But if you mean that the universe existed before time; you would have to give me a good reason to think so.
MissingChurchill 1 year ago
@MissingChurchill Craig has already made this crummy defence, the subject of my next video. This video, you and me, are all composed of antecedent entities. They are just labels for particular arrangements of matter, all conforming to natural processes. The way we differentiate them is purely conceptual. Concepts do not have physical fundamental or emergent properties, and the Universe does. Therefore, proof of the existence of new concepts cannot be extended to the Universe.
AndromedasWake 1 year ago 7
@AndromedasWake
Crummy Defense?
By your reasoning, either "you" don't really exist, or "you" have always existed. Both of which are so patently absurd that to accept your argument is to willfully deny the obvious. That "you" and the molecules that compose "you" are not identical is easily demonstrated (if needed).
The laws of conservation of energy and mass are a far cry from "nothing begins to exist."
MissingChurchill 1 year ago
The "arrangements" of matter (not a term I would choose, but I can work with it) of which you spoke in your above post did not exist at one point, then those "arrangements," at different times, came into existence.
The answer to your challenge is that the arrangements of matter that you admit do indeed exist, did not exist before, meaning that they did indeed come into existence, so you lose. BTW, I would cal those arrangements of matter "objects."
1GodOnlyOne 11 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne But arrangements don't "come into existence" in the same sense that Craig is claiming the universe came into existence. Craig is claiming that the matter and energy in the universe did not exist, and then it did, and that change must be caused by something. However the change of states from matter not existing to matter existing has never been observed. Change of arrangements have been observed, and must be caused, but the beginning of the universe is not a change of arrangement.
LanceDirk 11 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Hi. Thanks for the comment. You must see from your own case that if you consider these arrangements to be objects, you have just redefined 'object' in a way which makes it arguably less useful in the context of existence/origins. The best you can now say is that at the big bang, the Universe is a brand new arrangement of some prior stuff. I wouldn't disagree with you here, because you've made a counter-argument to the statement that Matter/Energy sprang into existence in the past.
AndromedasWake 6 months ago
I have to disagree on one part of this video when you use the term "good apologist". In my personal opinion, all apologists fall short of presenting a solid argument and those who come close need to make vast leaps to have their arguments apply to their own religious belief system. Apologetics only serves to confuse the masses and through ad nauseum debate.
JustBusiness17 2 years ago
Very interesting critique, with some novel arguments.
I think the problem with a scientist, and philosopher debating the KCom argument is that the former are mostly physicists whilst the latter are metaphysicians, and rarely the twain shall meet.
Origen305 2 years ago
If a theist tries to throw the Kalam at you, don't worry about engaging in an hour long rigorous dialectical discourse, simply use the structure of the Kalam against him/her as a counter syllogism like this:
(1) Whatever is sentient must have a cause
(2) The Christian God would be sentient
(3) Therefore the Christian God would have a cause
That shuts them right up usually.
ScientificMethodist 2 years ago 7
The Kalam is also circular, since if God is the only thing that does not begin to exist, then there is literally no difference between saying:
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
and
(1) Everything except God is caused
Overall the Kalam is just an ad-hoc tinkering of the original cosmological argument to try and exclude God from the causal chain.
ScientificMethodist 2 years ago 2
Until you come across people like me who, while I believe in god of some kind, don't subscribe to a religious dogma that require qualities such as omnipotence, omniscience, etc
The Kalām argument is not so much naive, but moot. If our universe were a simulation running in a machine in some other universe's laboratory - then such concepts are relative and completely unproductive/inarguable - because if we can't see beyond our universe, how can we say anything about what's beyond the next
Sinuev1 2 years ago
As is any argument that invokes causality, if one invokes Hume! :-)
Origen305 2 years ago
@ScientificMethodist I can also commit logical fallacies at will :)
(1) Whatever exists does so in space and time (note, this is arrived at a posteriori, like the KCA's first cause. It is just as un/reliable.)
(2) God does not exist in space and time.
(3) Therefore God does not exist.
AndromedasWake 1 year ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndromedasWake "(1) Whatever exists does so in space and time (note, this is arrived at a posteriori, like the KCA's first cause. It is just as un/reliable.)
(2) God does not exist in space and time.
(3) Therefore God does not exist."
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle prohibits you from making a posteriori claims about the whole universe.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@AndromedasWake
Hawkins once said that to ask what was there before the Big Bang is like to ask what is south of the south pole... as I read this, I understand that there was no before, even if there may be a distinction between "no before" and "it's beginning." If you could elaborate on that, it would be nice.
KrugmanTheKing 4 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Comment removed
theBartone9119 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
bbnt752 2 years ago
I find it interesting that the Kalam is used by William Lame Craig and other Christian apologists when it was originally proposed as the reason why Allah is real and Islam is true.
One wonders why they don't convert to Islam if they use one of its fundamental arguments.
middlekk 2 years ago 7
Not a bad video, but I think TAA did a much better job refuting this bogus argument: /watch?v=WHtxnIkzros
vickmackey24 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
so you would like someone to give an example of something that began to exist?
OK, how about this comment.
The keyboard I'm typing on also began to exist when it was created.
YOU began to exist.
To say that nothing began to exist because the matter or energy which constitute any "thing" always existed is simply nonsense.
Even if you allow such, you still cannot escape the fact that all matter and energy began to exist at the singularity- which is another well established fact that you deny
diamy00 2 years ago
That comment is full of fails. Do you actually know what a singularity is or why GR predicts it as a "point of creation"?
The creation of matter and energy "at the singularity" is by no means an established fact. It is simply a layman's interpretation theoretical cosmology. You are making up facts where there are none and using them justify your own beliefs. Think about it.
AndromedasWake 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hehe, "full of fails"
lol
diamy00 2 years ago
OK, I suppose that because a "fact" strictly speaking is something that is proven, and because "proofs" only exist in mathematics, you can say that the belief that the universe came into being during what is called the "big-bang" is not a "fact"
But it is something for which we have a lot of supporting evidence and never have we discovered anything which would falsify it.
So if everything in natural science points to such a conclusion, why do you reject it...For the philosophical implications?
diamy00 2 years ago
OK, but in the Kalam only those things that have a beginning need a cause. It has been the theist position from antiquity that God does not have a beginning. But I fail to understand, even if a grant you that God's actions do need a cause, how does this refute the Kalam? What was the cause that made God decide to create? Let's say (for the sake of the argument) that it was his decire to create humans that would enjoy him. How does this effect the Kalam?
99percentatheist 2 years ago
Saying that god does not have a beginning or rather doesn't need one is nothing but plain old cheating and special pleading.
Energy doesn't need a beginning it cannot be created or destroyed and energy has same building blocks as matter and you can convert them.
Time was also present before big bang it was not in a form that we know today but it was and many people put it out because it was irrelevant for us.
Saying that god does not need a beginning is like saying universe does not need it.
PhreakStep 2 years ago 2
I don't see how your reaponse affects the argument. God can will to create from eternity just like a man sitting down for eternity can will to stand up. What caused the decision for the man to stand up? Who cares? What does that have to do with anything? Similarly what does the question: What cause was there for the decision for God to create the universe, have to do with anything? Please explain how this effects the cosmological argument.
99percentatheist 2 years ago
Youre right. Saying "everything in the universe has a cause, therefore, the universe itself needs a cause", makes about as much sense as saying "everything in the box was placed in the box, therefore the box was placed in the box."
There is a loophole to what i just said though. My statement supposses that the universe itself is a thing. If the universe is actually just the summation of all things within it, then the kalam might actually hold some weight.
GusPinyerd 2 years ago
True, but the Kalam Cosmological argument does not claim that "everything" in the universe has a cause rather that everything that has a "beginning" has a cause. You are attacking a strawman.
99percentatheist 2 years ago
People like to say strawman argument alot. Insert where i would say " everything in the universe has a cause" with " everything in the universe that has a beginning has a cause." The key idea is "in the universe." Its the applying whats true to the parts to whats true to the whole problem. The same problem still arises with the if condition "that has a beginning"
GusPinyerd 2 years ago
The claim everything can't come from nothing is retarded statements first you must have a thing called NOTHING because as far as we know it is just a concept.
2.) Nothing is something it is some form of existence.
PhreakStep 2 years ago
Your arguments are sound..
I agree. :)
Kefko 2 years ago 3
ok yea next time you post a vid do your research they used einstiens thorey of relativity to PROVE the universe had a begining
cruff1987 2 years ago
Who's they? One does not prove a theory or prove anything with a theory. Do you understand relativity? Believe it or not, of all the things in all the world, relativity is something I understand quite well, and it does not predict the beginning of any existence.
AndromedasWake 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
obvious that everything has a cause,
Causa est prior suo effectu, and today we only observe the effects!
The universe could not be there always, because we have entropy, which increasis, and the universe still exists.
VyckRo 2 years ago
This refutes it ... it takes faith to believe its your god and not in the other dude who thinks its his.
My friend thinks the why are we here argument supports his god. I think he just believes out of precedence. Its just faith they all have it wake up.
Theronguardaaah 2 years ago
Do you believe in entropy? Do you believe that our universe tends to disorder? If yes how can you say that this process is going on eternally without having yet reached the end (total disorder)?
You say at 1:48 that it is not shown that time had an beginning - that suggests that our past were eternal. But if the past were eternal, the present would never be reached. That is as to see an apple on the ground and stating that its fall was eternal!
chrislasscom 2 years ago
Without getting into the argument of what it means to "exist," I would simply ask the gentleman who recorded this video to provide an example of something that is eternal.
Also, provide an example of a thing whose existence is not dependent on another thing.
Finally I would ask how evolution is possible if there isn't new information created within a species. For that matter, where did the DNA information for a man exist before there were men?
Please feel free to respond... anyone.
raygarrettjr 2 years ago
@ raygarrettjr
1. I'm not aware of any actual infinite, but a god doesn't solve the "problem" without special pleading, and the idea of actual infinity remains conceptually useful regardless.
2. Existence.
tinyurl com/m2q7aq
3a. Information can be added, deleted or substituted through mutation.
3b. Ditto.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
LIberty, the creator of this video dismisses the Kalam argument but violate the same fallacies he claims Craig does.
If infinite regress isn't possible based on what we know, then the Kalam argument holds if we define God as the only existance that is necessary and upon which all other existence is dependent. Or, in other words, the uncaused cause of all things.
raygarrettjr 2 years ago
Raygarretjr, I responded to your questions. I am not the video creator, nor was I addressing this video per se.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
"define God as the only existence that is necessary and upon which all other existence is dependent"
If you use that definition, then why would you even need an argument for God's existence? This kind of definition begs the question so it's useless.
Also, the impossibility of infinite regress does not imply creation ex-nihilo. What it implies is the existence of a first state, but you cannot infer anything about the nature of that first state.
gigi4123 2 years ago
gigi, defining God like this no more begs the question than postulating the existence of a "first state" existing as the uncaused cause of the universe. "First State" and god are interchangeable from a logical point of view.
I can infer from a "First State" that if it exists outside of space, time and matter then it is by definition, very literally, supernatural in that it exists beyond what we have observed in nature.
If it is matter, then we still have infinite regress.
raygarrettjr 2 years ago
If we assume presentism and finite regress, there are 4 possibilities for the first and second states:
1) {} -> {universe}
- something out of nothing
2) {God} -> {God, universe}
- God creates out of nothing (theism)
3) {God, universe} -> {God, universe}
- the unmoved mover, God the scientist
4) {universe} -> {universe}
- naturalism
gigi4123 2 years ago
The problem with the first two is that they involve creation out of nothing. One could argue that (4) is more preferable than (3), because it is simpler. Also, don't forget that I assumed presentism to be true. If the B-theory of time is correct, the Kalam fails right off the bat. Also, I used "God" as the supernatural cause, but that is uncertain. I mean, how would you infer that it MUST be a mind? Maybe it is some kind of supernatural "force" or something like that.
gigi4123 2 years ago
"If it is matter, then we still have infinite regress"
No, because the argument says "whatever BEGINS to exist" - the entities in the first state, material or not, don't begin to exist, because there is no prior state of affairs, there is no previous moment at which they don't exist.
gigi4123 2 years ago
Gigi,
The only way that you can argue naturalism is if you consider other universes and dimensions. Even then, I think you run into the same problems. There always has to be an un-caused cause.
And, matter has to begin to exist because all matter contains information. To argue a continuous universe one would also have to explain where all of this information came from. How does a tree know to be a tree and so forth. Either there have always been trees, or new information was added - ex nihlo
raygarrettjr 2 years ago
The trees don't come out of nothing, they have a material cause (previously existing organical matter from the seed, minerals from the ground, water from the rain, energy from the sun, etc) + an efficient cause (the natural laws). The trees don't "know" how to be trees, they are just a part of the natural world and the natural world could very well be eternal.
How does a river know how to be a river: it obeys the natural laws. Same with the trees.
gigi4123 2 years ago
Gigi,
(1) doesn't fail unless you rule out the supernatural, yet ruling that out rules out all four. (3) fails regardless, because one must exist outside of the other unless they are interdependent landing us right back to our infinite regress problem. (4) again is only possible if we acknowledge the supernatural in its strictest definition in that everything would then be eternal.
(2) is the only possibility that is both logically a physically possible.
raygarrettjr 2 years ago
(1) does not involve the supernatural. But how is it a logical impossibility? There are other criteria by which you can dismiss this case, but it's not logically inconsistent.
You could use Occam's razor against (3), but, if you assume dualism it starts to make sense:
- God is the perfect spiritual entity
- a singularity (for example) is the perfect material entity
God is the "efficient cause"; the singularity could be the "material cause". I think (3) this makes more sense than (2).
gigi4123 2 years ago
Much like (1), (4) doesn't involve the supernatural. In this case, the universe, in some form, existed in the first state of affairs. So the natural world, as a whole, is eternal. The big flaw of the Kalam is that it assumes the natural world is not eternal, which is special pleading for theism. The usual ways to support the second premise show just that we need a finite number of changes in the past, but that doesn't mean the universe (as a whole) could not exist in all of them.
gigi4123 2 years ago
By "them" I mean states, not the changes between the consecutive states.
gigi4123 2 years ago
if you know any realy amount on m-theory you should mack a vid on that or string theory only reason i ask is i only know what they are and you have more people who lisen
kokofan50 2 years ago
I think you did not understand the premisses.
Causality does not fail when there is no time and space. Causality is about deduction, not succesion in time.
Causality works just fine on abstract objects.
Your evasion of beggining of universe is nonsense.
You have just suggested universe has allways existed in its dense state, and then exploded in Big Bang. How does that work? Do you propose meta-time?
You have wandered into supernatural.
And the origin of universe in dense state?
MarcinP2 2 years ago
No, I haven't wandered into the supernatural. The origin of the Universe is a complete unknown. In physics, causality is about succession in time, and if I bin and time and start dealing with abstract concepts, *THEN* I have wandered into the supernatural. But I don't do that, because I'm a physicist.
I have not suggested that the Universe always existed in a dense state, merely that it did before it expanded to its current state.
AndromedasWake 2 years ago
So, how is that different from universe beggining to exist with time slightly greater than zero?
I have to ask you if time progressed before BB. And if it didn't then BB could not happen in changeless universe.
Physics is something that happens once material univese is there. Before that equations are rubbish.
Order of events and their coincidence are dependant upon observer.
That's just a side remark thou, but I'd say in physics cause and effect are allways simultaneous for observer.
MarcinP2 2 years ago
This explains quite well how the universe could be created out of nothing: /watch?v=3Gy1e2olvMw
diagoras54 2 years ago
The explenation starts with "Let's assert that..."
Well... We can assert anything.
On a sidenote thou: in the video you've linked this is not creation out of nothing.
The existence of fluctuations and whatever else you propose as cause of universe still demands an explanation no less than the universe.
The chain of events that led to big bang still breaks at the end.
MarcinP2 2 years ago
You're talking about the universe having a beginning and time (spacetime) having a starting point. That point is the Big Bang. Your argument is that for time to begin, something must have caused that to happen, and therefore god did it. This video says that mathematically it's possible for the Big Bang to occur through entirely natural causes. The composition of whatever's outside the universe is irrelevant: time and space as we recognize them wouldn't exist.
diagoras54 2 years ago
Whatever's beyond the universe could have existed for infinity, in both "space" and "time" (whatever that means outside our universe). It's always existed, and there's no need for a creator.
diagoras54 2 years ago
Yes, however you would need to explain why mechanism that was ethernally present was held back from performing its action up untill some moment in this meta-time.
If indeed it was nonpersonal then the effect would also have existed ethernally.
Then there is a problem found in mathematical induction:
you still need the first step in order to have an infinite chain of events.
Then there is a problem of infinity not being a number. It's like saying you have divided your car by 0.
MarcinP2 2 years ago
You obviously know nothing about quantum mechanics. Fields are in a constant state of flux; they randomly jump from one value to another, for no reason, with no input from anything else. The stuff outside the universe wasn't just sitting there, static, until for some reason a fluctuation caused the creation of the universe. It was jumping from one value to another until it reached one that had the ability to produce the energy required to form our universe.
diagoras54 2 years ago
Saying that you can't have a specific moment in time if there's no starting point is completely illogical. What you're saying is basically that without a starting point there can be no progression of events - time is stopped and always will be. You can't define specific points because there's nothing against which to judge them, so you can't give time a value, but that's not to say that events don't progress. Within our universe everything is relative to spacetime, but it need not be so.
diagoras54 2 years ago
I can conceive of world without fields in flkuctuations, hence question still remains: why are they there and why the fluctuations have just enougth range to create a universe.
Anyway, if fields were there and they were in fluctuation then:
You could measure distances before universe began
You could measure time before universe began.
One more thing I do not understand:
if you say you have +10C and -10C of charge it indeed means you have no charge, but the potential needs explenation.
MarcinP2 2 years ago
I can conceive of a world where you don't exist; that's entirely irrelevant. A basic feature of fields is that they fluctuate. There's no reason for it; that's why it's random. You're assuming that humans are an inevitability, but the fluctuations didn't have "just enough range to create the universe" so they made one perfectly inhabitable to us. The range of fluctutatios is huge, and some at the higher end produce universes. The largest spikes creates ones with more energy than ours.
diagoras54 2 years ago
They can also create ones with less energy. Both of these would have different features from our universe. Some might be inhabitable, some might not, and we just happen to live in this one. Fluctuations don't occur at regular intervals, nor do they leave any record of their being there. Besides that, you obviously don't understand infinity: you can keep going back in time forever. Just because you can't visualize it doesn't make it wrong. I said nothing about charge, so clearly you're an idiot.
diagoras54 2 years ago
You seem to be in assault only mode.
Of course I was reffering to 2:50 of your video:
/watch?v=3Gy1e2olvMw
It uses word "energy". I used an example of field to explain the idea.
I belive the analogy is valid: positive and negative energy cancelling out still leaves the problem of potential.
The video obviously uses size and time scales aswell.
What stopps you from using Planck length and speed of light to measure time? Unless these values could be different, if you want to go there.
MarcinP2 2 years ago
I'm frustrated by your constant moving of the goal posts, as well as your lack of knowledge regarding quantum mechanics and your insistence on making arguments based on that ignorance. You're also basing all of your arguments on the premise that the inevitable outcome was our universe with our Earth with us on it. We can speculate on what's beyond the universe, what it's composed of, and how long it's existed, but we can never really know.
diagoras54 2 years ago
That's not really important, though, as the position against which this video argues, as well as your own, is that the universe had to have a supernatural creator. That's the only possibility. But there are natural explanations. The one in the video I linked to isn't necessarily correct, but it doesn't matter. There are possible alternatives to the supernatural. It's possible that the fluctuations are occuring within our universe, creating small offshoot universes from our own out of nothing.
diagoras54 2 years ago
Big Bangs would occur in an infinite cycle, each universe producing new offspring. Therefore, there is no vague concept of what's beyond the universe or where it came from: each is the product of another, going back in an infinite regression. The fact that you can't conceive of how this process began without a creator, or even that this process required a beginning, is your own issue. I'm not arguing for this position, I'm arguing against yours, because it's untenable.
diagoras54 2 years ago
Ok, I see your point now.
You were aiming at showing the very possibility, no matter how speculative, that there is a natural process behind it.
You didn't say it clearly but now it is apparent that there should be a preexisting energy in the field, since uncertanity principle does not allow for violation of conservation of energy principle.
I agree that if there is a preexisting field of energy then universe can be created out of it. Was this what you tried to argue all the time?
MarcinP2 2 years ago
That's too specific (and I'm not going to be caught by "well then where did that preexisting field of energy come from?"). This is just one possibility; I don't about the exact mechanism, nor do I think we can know for sure. All that matters is that the argument that the only way the universe could have been created was by god simply fails. There are other possibilities, which are more plausible. Why couldn't the energy have existed for eternity? There's nothing to say it couldn't.
diagoras54 2 years ago
That should read "I don't care about the exact mechanism". And if our universe could be created by purely natural causes, why couldn't the space, or whatever you'd like to call it, also have a natural origin? Or what if before the universe there was simply nothing - not a vacuum, an entire lack of spacetime or anything resembling it. The universe literally popped into existence out of nothing.
diagoras54 2 years ago
I'm not saying it's right, it's just an idea, and finding a philosophical flaw with it doesn't necessarily discount it. Philosophy is not the realm of science. More importantly, though, the entire premise of the argument is that everything that begins to exist has a cause. The problem with this is that the only thing that has ever begun to exist is the universe; everything else is just changing states of matter and energy. How can we know whether the universe had a cause?
diagoras54 2 years ago
You're trying to make deductions about the universe based on the characteristics of certain events, of which only the Big Bang has been "witnessed". You can't say that the universe coming into existence must have had a cause because everything that's come into existence has a cause when that's all that's come into existence. Proponents of the KCA ask for something that's come into existence without a cause, but first they need to provide something that's come into existence.
diagoras54 2 years ago
At best, this argument could lead you to deism, in that it implies that something supernatural exists outside our universe. It's a huge leap from that to Christianity. How do you go from "something powerful made the universe" to "an all-powerful, benevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent god who interferes in human affairs sent a version of himself to suffer and die, and if I accept that he died for me, then my sins will be forgiven and I'll go to paradise"? Christianity requires its own arguments.
diagoras54 2 years ago
Actually, no. The argument leads to ecknowledging existence of first cause.
Yes, it is not an argument for judeo-christian god and it needs additional arguments to arrive to that. However starting from general first cause is a good starting point.
MarcinP2 2 years ago
Define "first cause". If "first cause" is something natural, then your argument collapses. If it's supernatural, then it doesn't necessarily fit your understanding of god. It could be a human-like god, as in the Roman gods, which wasn't all-powerful, omnipotent or omnipresent. It still doesn't lead to a specific faith.
diagoras54 2 years ago
First cause is an entity that
1) can cause something else
2) was not caused by anything else
In other words it is a beggining of chain of (all) causes and effects.
I also argue it cannot be natural. In the sense of processes that have outcome guided by laws. Existence of laws themselves would require explenation. And if they were not there then their origin will.
Existence of mathematics and logic I take to be self-evident, btw. It would be foolish to deny logic with use of logic. ;)
MarcinP2 2 years ago
I think what i am arguing with you is the existence of actual infinities, in any time and space.
I argue on base of mathematics.
If we consider a random event (of any propability) in infinite time and space then:
- if we take the entire space into consideration at a given moment the event is occuring infinite number of times.
- if we consider each of infinite points of space and calculate probability we discover it cannot ever happen in any of them.
Unless you propose quantrum states.
MarcinP2 2 years ago
You've completely missed the point, and I'm tired of repeating myself: THE ACTUAL MECHANISM IS UNKNOWN AND IRRELEVANT. I postulated a possibility that doesn't require the use of infinites, and there are others. Again, I'm not making an argument for a specific position, I'm making one against yours. Yours is untenable, and you can't defend it, so you're attacking very specific points that I'm making. SHOW ME ONE THING THAT HAS COME INTO EXISTENCE BESIDES THE UNIVERSE.
diagoras54 2 years ago
If you mean one thing then ok...
I'll call one particular person observer. This is the person that is any actual "me" as opposed to other people who could be just drones for all you know.
The observer clearly comes into existence and since he was not here for past generations he is not necessery for universe.
Does that not bother you that you even exist, rather than don't? You haven't been around before, why would you appear?
MarcinP2 2 years ago
What the hell are you talking about? This whole post is gibberish. "Not necessery for universe"? What does that have to do with anything? Why would I appear? I didn't appear. I was born. I am a reorganization of atoms that already existed. Every person who is "created", every storm that forms, every star that ignites is formed of atoms which have been in the universe since the Big Bang. They're reorganized, but nothing new has "come into existence" since then.
diagoras54 2 years ago
You have just pressuposed MATERIALISM.
And it is a philosophical position not warranted by science, not even assumed in order to do science.
Which is even more narrow position than naturalism.
MarcinP2 2 years ago
He hasn't presupposed materialism, you are presupposing non-materialism because you saying that there are things out there that began to exist besides the universe itself but you haven't demonstrated any. The fact is the assumption that everything that began to exist has a cause is completely unsupported, and it doesn't take any assuming of materialism or naturalism to say that it is unsupported.
coolman9999uk 2 years ago
coolman... No.
I do not assert nonmaterialism. I merely lack the belief in methaphysical materialism.
He just said that his counciousness can be entirely explained by means of materialistic worldview. This is a hudge leap of faith.
The conclusion that there is no supernatural element in human counciousness follows from his materialistic worldview.
If he intends to pressupose materialism in order to discuss existence of methaphisical it is circular reasoning.
MarcinP2 2 years ago
This has been a long conservation with many issues. I thought you were claiming an assumption of materialism invalidates anyones ability to say that the assumption that everything that begins to exists has a cause is unsupported. I'm glad your not say that, because it is unsupported. You have yet to point to something that has come into existence.
coolman9999uk 2 years ago
All I presupposed was the law of conservation of mass. I NEVER said it was impossible for there to be a supernatural element, nor did I say that I was ONLY atoms. Demonstrate to me something that isn't made of atoms. Demonstrate to me something made of normal matter that came into existence. I'm rather sick of you putting words in my mouth and avoiding the issue altogether. You're a typical theist who can't defend his own position and has to attack mine. WHAT HAS COME INTO EXISTENCE?
diagoras54 2 years ago
Diagor, scientists don't even espouse the big bang anymore. Is that really the point you want to argue from. If so, you would have to be a proponent of the supernatural in the strictest sense of the word... care to know why?
raygarrettjr 2 years ago
First, that's simply wrong. No astronomer or cosmologist rejects the Big Bang because the evidence of an expanding universe with a single origin of spacetime is overwhelming. Second, you're as much of an idiot as Marcin: I'M NOT MAKING A POSITIVE ARGUMENT. I don't know how many times I have to reiterate this. I'm demonstrating that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is wrong, not that any particular theory is right. If you can't understand that then stop bothering me.
diagoras54 2 years ago 2
You misunderstand probability theory. The argument from fine tuning is a misuse of conditional probabilities. The probability of a given universe having laws beneficial to life says nothing about the conditional probability of those laws given that the universe exists. There is no way of using the latter conditional probability to estimate the former marginal probability.
coolman9999uk 2 years ago
I have to comment on your remark on philosophy.
It appears to me you think you can perform science in vacum, without fundaments and without thinking about whether or not the method works.
Yes, I agree you can "do science" and "get results" while being ignorant of background preassumptions, but you are not ommiting philosophy of science, you are just letting others take care of it.
It's kinda like a car driver who says "who needs thermodynamics? I just push the gas pedal".
MarcinP2 2 years ago
Philosophy is a thought process. It can't be tested. There's nothing that says that one view on a particular issue is right while another is wrong. The fact that it's a purely human endeavour indicates that it is subject to the same problems as other human issues. Philosophers are blinded by their own preconceptions (as Craig with his belief in god leading to the formulation of any possible argument that could substantiate his faith) and the failings of their own minds.
diagoras54 2 years ago
Demonstrate to me that Plato's belief in our world being a projection of a higher dimension is wrong. If Descartes went into an oven and remained entirely isolated from the outside world, would he be able to discover everything there is to know through philosophy alone? Science can be tested, and false hypothoses eliminated; philosophy is unfalsifiable. Logic alone is insufficient to make an argument. You need positive proof to make a case, especially for the existence of something.
diagoras54 2 years ago
Without first knowing what you accept as evidence and how much you require how can you speak of proof?
The idea of falsification is an effect of philosophy, it cannot prove itself and is known solely by reflection, not trough rational process.
Of course you can falsify things in philosphy. Philospohical positions have been falsified by showing internal inconsistencies or comaprision of their effects to sel-evident beliefs.
For example a view that nothing exists.
Or skepticism.
MarcinP2 2 years ago
Yet you are a philosopher yourself...
You are speaking nonsense.
The only thing a test can tell you about a thing is whether or not it passes the test.
Without justification of the method scientific inquiry is no better than playing tennis to determine who's correct. Both are actions with no value over one another.
MarcinP2 2 years ago
There is a teapot in orbit around the sun. You can't prove or disprove that this teapot exists. There's nothing to say the teapot doesn't exist, so it must. Does that make sense? How can you determine the existence of something without any evidence in its favour simply by using logic? Just because you can logically deduce something doesn't make it an actual reality. Ptolemy logically deduced that the Earth was the centre of the universe. You need to test the hypothesis to see if it's right.
diagoras54 2 years ago
You still have yet to make a positive argument in favour of your position. Stop arguing semantics and get to the point.
diagoras54 2 years ago
The argument works be disproving the opposite possibility...
That is, by method of ellimination.
MarcinP2 2 years ago
I did not see you testing the hypothesis presented in movie you've linked.
I do not claim it is possible but...
If the distribution of fluctuations is known then you can calculate the expected initial size of universe if it originated from the field as described.
If in result you will prove that such origin would most likely produce universe at 10x the assumed initial size then the hypothesis is unlikely to be true.
One more thing: should not the CURRENTLY more likely hypothesis win?
MarcinP2 2 years ago
I need to clearify that by time=0 I mean extrapolation of time untill the hypothetical instant when universe was a point.
Hypothetical, since it could have began to exist with certain size and state.
MarcinP2 2 years ago
Incidentally, saying that the Universe was a dense state "forever" and then "exploded" (which is incorrect by the way) is no worse than what a theist might say. God just existed forever, then one day decided to create the Universe.
AndromedasWake 2 years ago
Processes cannot do that, yet free agent can choose to wait or act.
Process cannot be in place without it's effect.
However, this still is speaking of meta-time. unless you want to suggest time was there before BB.
To think time and space are independent of mater is a bit of a Neutonian model.
Most cosmologists will tell you time and space themselves came into existance finite time ago. Perhabs because they view these as mere abstractions from matter and energy.
MarcinP2 2 years ago
Believe me when I say I know what most cosmologists will tell me, because I work with cosmologists every day. You have yet to demonstrate that causality can be applied *to* the Universe as it is *in* the Universe and so you have yet to actually substantiate that Craig's first premise is rational. You have to think of time as a non-Euclidian dimension. Strangely you allude to this, but fail to see that if Time appears at the birth of the Universe, then there is no time to give birth to it.
AndromedasWake 2 years ago
Who thinks time and space are independent? You?
Because I don't, I'm a relativist. So I don't know why you're brining it up. It doesn't change the fact that causality cannot be extrapolated beyond our Universe (which may be all there is) in any rational way, particularly then used to postulate a causeless, timeless, spaceless being, which is an utterly meaningless definition. One is simply assuming knowledge that one does not have. It's only OK if you can verify these assumptions by experiment.
AndromedasWake 2 years ago
@ MarcinP2
You propose a free agent as the first cause. Can you imagine a world in which God chooses not to create the universe? If the answer is yes, my question is: is that god the same with the god that created our universe, or is he slightly different?
gigi4123 2 years ago