I think it'd be nice if you did a response to the dude who made a two parter response claiming he 'destroyed' you. "Timetothinkclearly". I find it utterly insane that people actually try to defend the imagined 'integrity' of WLC.
But... if you're argument is that matter itself never began to exist, then you're attacking the second premise not the first - 'the universe began to exist'. TheoreticalBullshit used the argument to attack the first premise, but that isn't what you're saying.
@iMentieth The big bang is not the creation of the universe, it is the creation of time. Matter and space existed prior to the big bang but time did not. Before the big bang, the universe was a singularity of matter and energy occupying a point in space. When the big bang occurred, space began to expand and matter started to occupy different points in space other than the singularity thus providing a dimension of time.
WLC: "..and I'm just doing whatever I can to counter it"- Such as acting "utterly bewildered" and strawmanning the actual objection? The fact is, this man CANNOT concede premise 1. It destroys the Kalam argument. His pet argument. He's written books on it. He NEEDS to resort to dishonesty. We need a dedicated counter-apologist to put this man in his place already. Matt Dillahunty do you hear me?
My sentiments exactly. You just said it with more class. I would have dumbed it down and then cranked him with a tire iron. Oh, what a wonderful thought.
"... it is not being argued by the detractors of the KCA that novel combinations do not come and go from existence..." "Coming to existence" = "beginning to exist". So the author admits that things do begin to exist. He then tries to say that what is in dispute is where the parts come from. This is wrong. What the KCA depends on is that things come to existence with cause - that is all. The KCA only depends on that things are not uncaused. The necessity of parts is nether assumed nor needed.
Science ultimately tells us only 'how' things go, not 'why' they go. 'Why' questions may be meaningless, but if they are meaningful it seems they call for an answer in terms of intelligence and purpose. Science can't provide that. It just says, "the knee bone's connected to the thigh bone, the thigh bone's connected to the hip bone" etc.
Not...100% correct, but gets the point. "Atoms" do begin to exist, but matter itself is what has began existing when the universe was created, if that did indeed happen. Atoms and matter are not synonymous, although I'm being nit-picky here.
Actually he has all the footing in the world to assert that claim seeing as how everything is the result of something infinitely less. Take Dawkins' well known saying "simple means from simple beginnings". You have no other basis for explaining the furthest reaches of entropy except for the claim which establishes a beginning.
I'm not a philosopher, but I am a scientist. From my perspective, WLC is full of crap because he claims physical properties for things--without discovering those properties through the scientific process. We know from hard experience that attempting to deduce physical phenomena is SEVERELY problematic--well, it just doesn't work.
Meaningful answers to the questions WLC addresses can only be found through scientific investigation--anything less is just masturbation.
@HorridDreams "How the hell can he NOT know these basic ideas?"
he does know. it's just that WLC is so pathologically unprincipled and dishonest that medical science should name this condition after him: the 'Craig syndrome'
First: Craig is an idiot, and thank you for pointing it out.
HOWEVER: If you're granting the argument that the universe BEGAN to exist (as opposed to simply being as a condition of reality) then you leave yourself open to the cosmological argument, which is perhaps the only strong argument for the existence of a god (first cause) of some sort.
@jalehtri i would say that the cosmological argument is the strongest. however, there is one rebuttal i'm fond of. Every cause and effect relationship we can think of happens between two things that exist. the universe coming into existence would be one from immaterial to material- ie a different sort of relationship from the one that we could have ever observed. but, the intellectually honest response is to say we don't know if the universe has a cause or not.
@iBegToDiffer Causality as we understand it is inextricably tied to the flow of time as we understand it. And, our understanding of the beginning of our universe is that time, as we know it, also began there. Since it makes no sense to discuss what came "before" the beginnig of time, the beginning of the universe may, in fact, not have (or need) a cause as we know it. But maybe it does. Either way, we don't know yet the reason why our universe began as it did.
@iBegToDiffer On what grounds can you assert that there is a cause? As James demonstrates, you've never actually witnessed anything beginning to exist, so you have no real reason to think that a cause would be necessary for something to happen. Further dismantling from different angles can be found in my only posted video, and Scott's "I "Kalam" Like I See 'Em..."
DAA, you are proving his point. You are arguing that nothing except the universe begins to exist and he is explaining that is not true. Existence is a function of time coupled with the first law of thermodynamics. Thus I cause, my fingers to type this, chemistry, biology, physics, cause my body to exist in order to type this. One day we may discover the higgs boson that causes matter to have mass. Thus existence is everything as it is, and the cause can be walked back to the big bang.
Wow, bro! Take deep breaths...relax a bit. You know how much damage you do to yourself by living in anger? Cortisol & other CATABOLIC hormones destroy you. Not to mention your cholesterol! Breathe deep. Relax. Understand that it's just the love of your unrighteousness that forces you to react as such: killing yourself.
what I especially like is the flabbergasted tone he takes. He seems utterly frustrated but his arguments are so pathetically weak. He can't step down and admit he's a pseudo intellectual; he has to take the same outraged posture as a true intellectual (hitchens, harris) while saying so much less than they possibly could have.
William Lane Craig has perfected the art of strawman arguments, that is his O-N-L-Y claim to fame. He is not a great philosopher or intellectual, he just preys on the weak minded.
@tipoomaster Have have a look at Craig liturature, you dont get published in peer reviewed journals ( IE, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Alethia, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, International Philisophical Quarterly, all of which have published Craig) unless other philosphers of repute think your ideas are worth reading. You watch 10 minute video clips from debate on youtube and dont understand the aregument. Give an argument or say nothing
You don't present an argument, just a hopelessly out of date reductionist position and ad hominem attacks on the mental abilities of your opponent laced with a bit of well-poisoning for the viewer.
If the cosmological argument is wrong it can only be falsified on complex mathematical grounds; grounds which, by the nature of mathematics, are simply expression of a certain framework imposed on the analysis of the universe.
Your formless ranting will not suffice in this regard.
@DarkwingScooter Many of us reject the cosmological argument because it's first premise is based on a misunderstanding of the very science it is meant to rely on. Energy is conserved. Without that, law science doesn't work. The very basis of all science is that nothing is ever created or destroyed, merely re-arranged. It is a waste of time to dissect a logical argument, which proceeds from a flawed premise.
@t3tsuyaguy1 Well that is granted, but since observed reality clearly exists science must make provision for that fact, rather than sweep it aside because it doesn't fit with science.
Science must explain the world, the world doesn't have to observe the laws of science as we understand them.
If all that is required to bring the world into existence is the laws of physics you have still not explained the existence of the laws of physics.
@DarkwingScooter That is shifting focus. Explaining the origins of energy itself, whether it be part of the big bang or in some "time" before it, is a different topic altogether.
The Kalam argument is all I'm rejecting here. It does not actually proceed from science of cosmology, it cherry picks and alters it to rationalize a presupposed opinion.
@t3tsuyaguy1 "The Kalam argument is all I'm rejecting here."
I will reserve judgement about this, I don't actually anything whatsoever about it outside of the wikipedia article.
"It does not actually proceed from science of cosmology, it cherry picks and alters it to rationalize a presupposed opinion."
See my other comment. This is what Ayer referred to as imposing a matrix on the world so we can study it. The choice of the matrix is not arbitrary, but neither is it truly a posteriori.
@DarkwingScooter Indeed science IS adjusting theories in response to new evidence. However, when science has no facts to base theories upon, it does not follow that we should start making some up. We don't know what came before the big bang, or what that even means. We lack the physics to even describe the singularity just before the big bang properly. We are driven to accept that all energy/space-time must have been in one place. We don't have a reason to call that 'creation'.
Hypothesis - tentative explanation/assumption for observed phenomena
Fact - observable/reproducible quantum of data regarding observed phenomena
Theory - posited explanation of a large body of facts regarding observed phenomena, makes testable predictions regarding observed phenomena, must be adjusted with introduction of new facts.
Example of fact: objects fall to the earth when not supported by exterior force
@t3tsuyaguy1 The more important point is that if you are not AWARE of the fact that you have unsupported a priori assumptions when doing any kind of a posteriori investigation and, even more crucially, if you are not explicitly aware what they are, you are bound to commit large "rational" errors.
It would be like doing mechanics problems and forgetting that you are ignoring friction.
Recognizing assumptions is the most important part of any scientific endeavor. They cannot be dispensed with.
The Kalam cosmological argument still claims to proceed from mainstream scientific theory, but does not. If presented as a purely philosophical argument proceeding from a recognized a priori belief, I have little problem with it. However, the target of this video is William Lane Craig.
He presents The Kalam as a logical progression from science. That smacks of intellectual dishonesty. He has since engaged in straw-manning. He had ridicule coming.
@t3tsuyaguy1 Sorry, but ever cosmologist of repute disagree with you here. why? Because in 2003 proven by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenken that any universe that is on a state of cosmic expansion must have and absolute beginnig. For more on this I suggest you read Vilenkens book "Many Wolds in One: The Search for Other Universes." And please actually read it dont attack it without reading it first.
@timetothinkclearly This is about universes as constructs not the energy that constitutes them. So far as I'm aware, there is no working theory to explain the origins of energy itself. Even in string theory the energy of universe was some kind of kinetic transfer of pre-existing energy between branes.
More importantly the Kalam argument does not address the work of the those men, but proceeds from misrepresentation of scientific theory.
@t3tsuyaguy1 You are missing the difference between efficient causes and material cuases. Craig deal with your objection in his book, but it is to long to give here.
@t3tsuyaguy1 Aristotle deined four causes, Formal, final, material, and efficeint.
A formal cause is the form of the object.
A material cause is the material in the object.
A final cause is purpose of the object
An efficient cause is the thing that brings the object about.
For a snowball, the snow is the material cause, the roundness is the formal cause, the final cause is the prupose for which I make the snowball and the efficient cause is my hands moving to make the snowball.
I still don't see a basis for making the assumptions the Kalam does about the universe and causation. Not from cosmological evidence or physics. I'm pretty comfortable with the argument as a philosophical one. But, WLC goes around saying that science proves God and uses the Kalam as his centerpiece.
I've seen the Kalam presented before without the "scientists must accept god" spin he puts on it. It's perfect logic. WLC is dishonest though IMO.
@t3tsuyaguy1 I dont think he says that. He gave a lecture where a scientist said the same thing to him that oyu just said and Craig responded by claim that this is a metaphysical argument, but it has scientific support for premise two. So I dont think that he is saying science proves God, he is only saying that there is some scientific support for a metaphysical argument for Gods existence.
@timetothinkclearly I would have to find the lecture I watched. He began with, "Today I'll be explaining to you how science has actually proven God, and why any serious scientist accepts the existence of a creator." It was the first time I encountered WLC and is the source of my derision for him. He may have said something different elsewhere. You may be intellectually honest. I really don't think he is.
At any rate he was clearly straw-manning in the video DAA attacked.
@t3tsuyaguy1 He does not say that, he might have been saying that any serious science accepts that the universe had a beginnig, (no one accepts steady state models, and oscilating a cyclical ekpyrotic models have beginnigs for the universe). Also Carig IS intellectually honest, shrtening objections for youtube videos because youtubers wont watch him take two hours to defend his ides in not dishonest. Also, please note that DAA's objection in all its forms depends on a faulty theory of language.
@DarkwingScooter This is false. I took the exact sentence that DasAmerican Atheist (DAA) said, I then showded, using William Lane Cragis (WLC) book, that what DAA accused WLC of was false. Second i would like to see you falsify the Kalam on mathematical grounds. Craig goes into an extremely detailed defense of his math in his book, unless you provide such a proof calling my video formless ranting does you nothing.
My reaction to WLC – I've seen this clip several times and it has yet to change – is not laughter. I cringe, like someone is poking me in the brain with a stick. The feeling is of affront and annoyance. Frustration.
@timetothinkclearly I watched Part 1. Before I continue, can you confirm that beginning, as you use it, always refers to a rearrangement of existing matter, that it never invokes anything new. i.e.- that there is no creation of matter from nothing.
@Blackmark52 I deal with that in my video called sinking sysiphus. Something can begin to exist in 2 ways. 1. Beginning to exist by rearranging existing matter such that you get new properties.2. beginning to exist where both the object and the mateiral is fresh on the scene (WLC calls this creation)
@timetothinkclearly #2 is why WLC fails. He can't supply empirical evidence for his key premise. The cumulative understanding of science is that such creation is impossible. It doesn't matter how detailed the argument, or how many truths infused into it: you can't talk something into existence.
WLC's argument fails even as rhetoric. He is talking about creation and pretends to reference cause and effect. But "nothing" cannot be effected, "nothing" can have no cause or effect.
@Blackmark52 Heis not arguing that "nothing is causing or effecting. He is arguing that the universe, and all it's constituant parts, had an absolute beginning and for that there is good evidence. He need ot present amaterial cause for he is arguing for an efficient cause.
@timetothinkclearly A premise must be true. Citing "good" evidence is insufficient, at best, it is subjective opinion. A magical concept such as creation requires empirical proof.
WLC fails on a rhetorical level as well. A creator negates the idea of absolute beginning. If a creator pre-existed, on what grounds can it be assumed that matter didn't? Further, a creator must be more complex than what it creates. How is postulating a greater complexity efficient cause?
@Blackmark52 without creation or something to provide an efficient cause your finished. I may have magic, but at least I have a magician.Sans that you idea of an eternally existing material falls into the problem of actually infinite sets. See Craigs book for the full argument here. It is to long for comments.
@timetothinkclearly I have no need for creation because I am not the one trying to prove a creator. Matter doesn't need a creation because it can be shown to exist. A creator of all matter, on the other hand, would have to be accounted for and "efficient cause" is not an efficient explanation. If anything were to exist eternally, the simplest, most efficient answer would be matter and energy.
Your problem of infinite sets is a made up problem. You could file god there though.
@Blackmark52 The ontology of existing infinite sets is a huge problem in math. If you think this is made up you either dont get math meta-theory or have confused a theoretical actual infinite with a physically existing actual infinite.
Second, according to the standard Big Bang model, yes, you do have to account for creation becausewe have good reason to believe that causally prior to the big bang there was no material to be the material cause.
@timetothinkclearly I am not impressed with your attempt to flummox. I would rather you try to deal with the major structural errors and blatant double standards inherent in your argument. If the eternal existence of matter is such a problem, how do you account for it not being a problem for your creator?
Again with the good reason to believe. You seem to forget that you claim to be able to prove your beliefs. Just where do you get your pre big bang evidence from?
@Blackmark52 You have misstated the problem. The problem is the question of how an eternal cause can give rise to a non-eternal effect If it is an eternal mechanical caause you have a problembecasue that means both an infnite regress of causes (which is impossible) and the problem of how an eternal cause can arbitrarily create a non-eternal effect. Only a free agent can decide what he causes and when to cause some even, or to withhold from causeing. Please do not misstate the argument.
@timetothinkclearly Why are you unable to answer questions in a straightforward manner? Eternal cause is gibberish. Infinite regress only applies to the claim that there must be a creation event that requires a creator. If that premise is accepted, then equally true is that the creator requires a creation event or creator. etc. etc. Since you can't show a need for the creation of matter, your argument doesn't prove anything but that it doesn't work.
@Blackmark52 No, an eternal cause is not Gibberish. No matter what you do, you need to have something that is eternal. If you do not have an eternally existing thing then you have causes goin back infinitly. if nothing is eternal then you have a universe that just popped into being uncaused. And if you think that, I am oging to ask why do only universes pop into being?
@timetothinkclearly A cause by definition is an event, so eternal cause is meaningless, hence gibberish. I have been clear and consistent regarding matter. Matter (slash energy) cannot be created or destroyed. Matter is eternal. Speculation of "before" the big bang is largely meaningless, since our notion of time does not extend into that realm; however, there are much more plausible explanations than the complexity of an intelligent creator.
@timetothinkclearly You are not using the word in a scientific sense. I don't want to risk getting into determinism, but you are not the cause of anything. You are yourself a series of cause and effect with each singular event advancing time. A cause does not exist in perpetuity. Only the effect, or more precisely the repercussions of that effect through more cause and effect, continues to exist.
Defining cause as the act of an intelligent agency circumvents your proof.
@timetothinkclearly The difference you speak of is between "the cause of" and "cause." In an interaction between two particles, the particles themselves are not cause and effect. Cause and effect relates to that event in time, with the arrow of time for cause coming from the past (or going backward), and for effect going forward (or coming from the future). Cause is not an entity.
@Blackmark52 Take an event with two billiard balls A and B. Say A hits B knocking B into a pocket.The Efficient Cause of B moving into the pocket is the energy that was trasnfered from A. It is not the event of transfer of energy that is the cause of A knocking B into a pocket, the energy could be transfered but if it were latent (and thus not kinetic) nothing would happen. Thus it is the energy itself that is the cause of B moving. Energy is a thing not an event. Case closed..
@timetothinkclearly The following extract highlights at least one reason your argument falls short. "An efficient cause of x can be present even if x is never actually produced." The very concept is assumed without evidence.
Case closed? Hardly: Even though cause relies on energy, energy relies on matter. You haven't begun to show how energy can exist in perpetuity without matter, much less how energy alone could manifest intelligence, much less how intelligence alone could create matter.
@Blackmark52 I wasnt trying to prove any of the things in your second paragraph. All I was dpoing is showing that an an Event is not synonymous with its cause, nor are efficient causes totally exhausted by the caegory of event. Causes can be things, entites, objects, substances etc. I agree that the cause of X can subsist (or exist) without causeing X, but that does not show that the Cause of X is the event of X occuring.
@timetothinkclearly I see you still insist on using cause to mean the agent of cause. There is no reason for me to adopt that restriction. "Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect) ..." (Wiki)
The goal of the WLC/Kalam is to prove the existence of god. It is not merely to allow the definition of cause to include a god if one existed. The points in my second paragraph are all reasonable prerequisites to that proof or its particular premises.
@Blackmark52 No one is claim that God is made form energy or anyhting else. All that is occuring is an attempt to explain the efficient cause of the universe in terms of agent causation. No one is claiming to give a full robust and exhaustive explanation of what an agent is.
Second Don't try to Wiki me. I already showed how Kinetic energy (A thing) is the cause of the ball moving. Once I have that I get that efficient causes could be things.
@timetothinkclearly Claiming that god isn't energy only protects it from critique by making it more imaginary. By not giving an explanation of what god could be or how it could exist, it is unclear what you think you are proving.
You haven't shown anything. Your last posts have only run in circles insisting on substituting cause for efficient cause. But the concept of e.c. isn't relevant to causation, if it's valid at all.
@Blackmark52 I take a ball, I life it in my hand and hold it. I let it go and it falls. Gravity is what makes the ball fall. If not for gravit letting go of the ball would do nothing and the ball would float. Gravity is a thing (or a force if you like), it is also a cause. Gravity is not an event
Second, I need not give an exhaustive list of all of God's attributes for him to be an explanation. I can't give an exhaustive list of all the properties of quantum foam but it is still an explanation.
@timetothinkclearly What nonsense you spout. Gravity is not an event, neither is it cause. But so what? Your insistence on using cause in the colloquial sense of something or someone is becoming tiresome. Quantum foam isn't an explanation, it's a description and a figurative one at that. And what exhaustive explanation? You have described god as nothing.
You can't prove god with belief that it must be so. Belief has to be extracted from the argument.
@timetothinkclearly There are two fairly major differences between creator gods and "quantum foam" though. First, the former is more complex than the phenomenon to be explained, the latter is not. Second, Gods are unobserved(even indirectly), quantum effects are not.
The first of these issues causes infinite regress. Your need for an explanation in the first place can not be satisfied that way except by special pleading, which can be done at any point, even before introducing the god.
@Gnomefro God is not made of parts, and therefore cannot be described in terms of the same type of complexity that we describe the world. Second, without God you get and infinite regress of mechanical causes. Read Dr. Craigs book
@timetothinkclearly What a hypocrite! You deny that you should be expected to be able describe the nature of the god, yet are quick to supply an explanation to counter any description inferred from your arguments.
Just what does physicality have to do with complexity? The very reason theists claim there must be a god is based their perceived complexity of the human mind! Something which theists also claim is independent of the physical brain. More hypocrisy.
@Blackmark52 No hypocrisy, if anything I am being inconsistent (which I deny) hypocrisy would entail that I am lying to you or trying to decive you, which I am not. Second to describe a the nature of a thing is not the same as describing the things ontological expression. or to say it another way, there is a difference between a things nature and what the thing is made of. Second, only physical things are made of parts and complexity is a function of part whole relations.
@timetothinkclearly The second issue means you don't have a good reason to introduce your unobserved being. We simply don't know if it needs to exist, because there is not a trace of any phenomena that we can be sure requires it. That's basically Occam's razor. Such unnecessarily multiplied entities can not be part of a rational explanation. If they could, "Fairies did it!" could be a universal answer to any question of causality or origins.
@Gnomefro You make a false deduction. It is the argument against infinites that forces us to posit a cause of the universe. We then try to abstract what attributes the cause of the universe must have. It turns out that the only way we get out of an eternal universe (which we know we dont have) without getting an infinite regress is to posit that the entity which caused the universe has free will.
@timetothinkclearly Why are you trying this nonsense again? You argue that infinites are impossible, so therefore an infinite god is necessary. That is obviously a dumb deduction. Repeating it just makes it dumber.
@Blackmark52 You need to read my responses carefully or you will make mistakes. The argument is (as stated 11 responses ago) against the existence of an actually existing infnite set. God is not a set. When we say God is omnipotent that means Gods ability unlimited, it is not an infinite set. Be careful Blackmark, or you will miss small but important detail like this one.
@Blackmark52 No, I am arguing that there is ot actally existing infinit SET. not infinite SETS. that does not apply to God because God is not a SET. note how I have capitalized the word SET. God is not a collection of anything, when we say he is infinite we are meaning that he is not limited except by hs own nature. We do not argue that God is an infinite and completed SET
@timetothinkclearly I’m not sure why you’re posting another response. When you start making things up, I stop taking you seriously. Much like WLC, clearly you will say anything to support your beliefs. That’s fine with me, but you shouldn’t call such drivel proof. It’s simply not convincing to anyone but a WLC devotee.
@Blackmark52 I am not making up anything. I have not made up a single thing. Go back and read my responses: I was very clear in saying right from the outset that I deny the existence of any completed infnite sets. You are the one who thinks that God is a set ( which makes no sense, God is a set of what "god particles?" "Atoms") and you are the one who keeps changing to point (continued)
@timetothinkclearly You tried to say that Causes are events ( what about gravity) You claimed the Kalam is structurally flawed, I showed it in symbolic form and you never showed where in its structure it is flawed. You asked why the argument against infinities doesnt work against God and I said because I only argued against infinite sets and God is not a set . You claimed Gravity is not an event or a cause. give arguments, stop making assertions with no arguments.
I've read your responses and found them less than convincing. You are making up the parameters from which you formulate your premises: Creation from nothing. Set theory as a limiter of physical matter and energy. And since when did I say god is a set? You made that up. God isn’t a set, god isn’t anything until you can give some evidence for its existence. And again, by definition gravity is not a cause! But what’s the point of my responding when you don’t read what I type?
@Blackmark52 I never said set theory was a limiter of anything. I said actually existing infinite sets cannot exist as physical things (Ie an actually existing infinite set of apples). You said that was a problem because God is infinite and I pointed out that God is not a set. Second, Gravity is obviously a cause. If you think not, then tell me if this sentence makes sense :what is the effect of gravity? if that question has an answer gravity is a cause becasue only causes can have effects.
@timetothinkclearly You say energy/matter cannot be eternal because of set theory. Finite is a limit. Get it? But, e/m is not Things, like apples. Your next two points are still stupid no matter how often you repeat them.
Your argument relies upon your definitions. But those definitions have a colloquial bent inappropriate to the topic and are chosen specifically to support the conclusion to come. Beginning cannot mean creation until C. is shown possible. Cause does not mean agent of cause.
@Blackmark52 What is an apple made of? Second, I talked about an infinite series of events. Third, matter is made up of things Quarks, atoms Etc. The fact is, once you get an atom, you cannot have an infinite set of atoms. However, and infinite amount of e/m (your term ill use it) implies the possibility of an infinite set of atoms, but this is impossible for the reasons I gave. Read the book before you respond.
@timetothinkclearly Apples are objects in the macro world. They are finite individually and as a collective entity. But those characteristics do not influence the stuff they are made of. Sub atomic particles are not things in the same sense of the word. All electrons are exactly the same. There is no infinite set of particles because they are interchangeable with energy which is not discrete units. Nowhere did I say infinite AMOUNT of e/m.
This is one of the many reasons why Dawkins does not debate WLC! LOL
I also love (aka hate) the way WLC puts on the whiney, shaking of head, question-asking mantra... as if he is trying to deal with other peoples stupidity! Oh the irony!
WLC is to real philosophy (or any intellectual endeavor for that matter) as Kent Hovind is to Richard Dawkins on Biology. If a theist mentions WLC as a source for anything I know instantly that they have not done a moments thinkng on the issues for themselves.
Thanks for a great video and I really wish more people would point out the asinine nature of WLC bullshit arguments.
@timetothinkclearly@timetothinkclearly The argument is circular because the all in your first premise (For all x) is a set which contains only matter and energy in the materialist sense of the phase. Hence the argument amounts to "There exist C such that Cu". Your first premise is identical to your conclusion because the set of x contains only u. Premise 2 is also an assertion that remains to be demonstrated. In short unless you equivocate on 'cause' if Materialism is true Kalam is false.
@nanoduckling You have the predicate and variable backwards. There cannot exist a C such that Cu, because the C is the predicate and the "u" is the universe What you have is a u such that Cu. Second, if you knew predicate logic you would know that the fact that first premiseof Kalam is quantified universally nullifies your objection.
@timetothinkclearly You are right, it has been a while since I did predicate logic and I messed up, your argument actually just collapses to Cu. Being universally quantified loses all of it's persuasive power if the set from which the 'for all x' is drawn contains only one element. If the only thing which begins to exist is matter and energy P1 can be restated as Bx->Cx where x is matter and energy, or just Bu->Cu, P1 is your conclusion. Now do you see why the argument is circular?
@nanoduckling "For all X" is not drawn from any set at all, it is Univesal (Vx) not existential (Ex) quantification and Universally quantified premises do not imply that any x or how many x exist. Second, x in P1 is a free variable bound under Vx. To say x = Matter and energy (m&e) is to change P1 From Vx (Bx ->Cx) into (Bm&e -> Cm&e). Fourth, Bu->Cu comes from universal instantiation and instantiated statments cannot be universally quantified, as such P1 is logically distinct from Bu->Cu.
@timetothinkclearly D = 'is my friend Doug', T = 'Exactly as tall as my friend Doug'.
Vx(Dx->Tx)
The only thing x can be which allows me to use this statement to make a deduction is Doug. x can be anything but I cant use this statement to deduce anything about x unless x is Doug. Your first premise is supposed to be an inference about all things but the only thing x can be which will allow you to make a deduction is 'the universe' because nothing else begins to exist.
@timetothinkclearly Put another way, your first premise is supposed to be an inference drawn from a large set of things begining to exist then having a cause, but unless you equivocate on 'begins to exist' the only thing one could base ones inference is your conclusion. Hence your conclusion is used to infer your first premise which is used to deduce your conclusion, and so on.
If Kalam is being used as an attempt to demonstrate the existence of a god, I say it doesn't even matter one bit whether it's correct or not. Even if the universe needed a cause to begin to exist, you'd still have to then make a faith leap to claim the cause was supernatural (god) as opposed to any other possible cause, known or unknown.
In your best back road Billy-Bob-Joe-Jack-Redneck accent, say "Ya cain't git thar frum he-ur!"
@stimpson65 Actually if you had read Craig's book the Kalam Cosmological argument you would know how you can say (in your best stimpson65 redneck accent) "I cain git thar frum he-ur." But you dont know that cause you haven't read the liturature. See my upcoming video where I knock DAA out on this.
You know, I could probably learn a lot more about subjects such as homeopathy by reading all the literature produced by the manufacturers of homeopathic products but no matter how much I read, homeopathy would still be a load of crap... just like the KCA.
@stimpson65 You may not have noticed, but in this video DAA claims that Craig "Is trying to argue that the universe began to exist by saying that everything that begins to exist has a cause." Although, if you had stopped beign sarcastic long enough to read the work, you would realize that nowehere in the liturature does Craig argue this.
@stimpson65 Nowhere in the video that DAA attacks does WLC say The universe began to exist because everything that begins to exist has a cause. WLC never says that anywhere, not in the video, not in the literature, not anywhere. I was being charitable and assuming that DAA was talking about WLC's liturature becuase the claim: the universe began to exist because everything that begins to exist has a "cause" IS NOT IN THE VIDEO DAA IS ATTACKING!!!!!
@timetothinkclearly Wow...the video that DAA attacks is about the Kalam cosmological argument. The opening premise of that argument is "Everything that exists has a beginning/cause. The counter-argument in question is that all the energy in the universe is conserved and has never been observed being created. WLC was engaging is a rambling, poorly conceived, straw-man attack on this counter-argument. Something disgustingly below a man who claims the level of philosophical acumen he does.
@vbfl920 Wouldn't the supposed cause of the universe itself require a cause? The only way to break that cycle is to use special pleading to make an "uncaused cause" - and by the principle of parsimony that would be the universe itself.
FYI your view of the "singularity" seems outdated and wrong. Might want to bone up on the more recent formulations. (Hint: it wasn't an "explosion")
And for a laugh, check out video 7ImvlS8PLIo (You can skip to 32m20s if you're impatient but I'd watch it all...)
@vbfl920 It's special pleading because your proposed cause is somehow cause-less and non-contingent. You are defining it in such a way as to be exempt from your own requirements.
My question to you is: What makes it impossible for matter and energy to be non-contingent?
It's not special pleading homie. Special pleading would be like me saying "Everything in existence does X, except for Y. Y is the only thing that doesn't do X,"
Nobody is saying that EVERYTHING is caused, except for God.
All we are saying is that whatever begins to exist is caused.
@vbfl920 So you're saying that the universe began to exist, therefore had a cause, but whatever caused the universe never began to exist, therefore did not have a cause?
So how is it that the thing that caused the universe never began to exist? (Yet it somehow existed anyway in order to cause the universe?)
That's still not special pleading because nobody is saying that *everything* must have a cause, only things which begin to exist. If God never began to exist then of course God wouldn't need a cause. But that's neither nor there. Dasamericanatheist wasn't talking about that issue. He was talking about premise 1 in the Kalam, "everything which begins to exist has a cause". That's what I'm talking about as well.
Only things which begin to exist must have a cause.
That is all anyone is saying...
If God has always existed, then he doesn't need a cause. No special pleading at all. Nobody is changing the rules for God. That's what special pleading IS.
I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm just saying that I do not believe matter and energy are necessary. I can easily imagine a possible world where this universe did not exist.
The burden is on you to demonstrate that it is impossible for matter and energy to begin existing, or for them to be created.
@vbfl920 No, the burden is not on me because I'm not making a specific claim... It's not up to me to prove you're wrong - it's up to you to prove you're right.
It has been (indirectly) observed that matter spontaneously pops into existence and vanished spontaneously. Watch the video I mentioned for some details on that.
But it doesn't pop into existence from literally nothing...it does have a material cause.
As far as burdens go, you do have one to bear if you make the claim that matter was never caused, especially when it comes to me, because I am not convinced of this.
And I'll rephrase...the singularity occupied no space, because at one time, there was no space at all, literally nothing.
this is so awesome
jbarbatano 1 month ago
I consider myself a straight male but I would fuck you.
dalhar20 1 month ago
ur cute and smart im so alone:(
TheNicksSkitsShow 1 month ago
sorry i couldnt laugh
that clip was just sad
but i guess i fail your reaction-test bro :(
uknowwhatitis12 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think it'd be nice if you did a response to the dude who made a two parter response claiming he 'destroyed' you. "Timetothinkclearly". I find it utterly insane that people actually try to defend the imagined 'integrity' of WLC.
BigLundi 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Nice vid Atheist. Love your work.
There is no God. Take responsibilty. It's down to you my friends.
Peace.
Geekman333 4 months ago
william lane craig is a fucktard.
MoralRapist 5 months ago
But... if you're argument is that matter itself never began to exist, then you're attacking the second premise not the first - 'the universe began to exist'. TheoreticalBullshit used the argument to attack the first premise, but that isn't what you're saying.
iMentieth 5 months ago
@iMentieth The big bang is not the creation of the universe, it is the creation of time. Matter and space existed prior to the big bang but time did not. Before the big bang, the universe was a singularity of matter and energy occupying a point in space. When the big bang occurred, space began to expand and matter started to occupy different points in space other than the singularity thus providing a dimension of time.
3002321542 1 week ago
WLC: "..and I'm just doing whatever I can to counter it"- Such as acting "utterly bewildered" and strawmanning the actual objection? The fact is, this man CANNOT concede premise 1. It destroys the Kalam argument. His pet argument. He's written books on it. He NEEDS to resort to dishonesty. We need a dedicated counter-apologist to put this man in his place already. Matt Dillahunty do you hear me?
msuders 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Happy straw man lol
XlXKrampusXlX 7 months ago
My sentiments exactly. You just said it with more class. I would have dumbed it down and then cranked him with a tire iron. Oh, what a wonderful thought.
alianchild 7 months ago
"... it is not being argued by the detractors of the KCA that novel combinations do not come and go from existence..." "Coming to existence" = "beginning to exist". So the author admits that things do begin to exist. He then tries to say that what is in dispute is where the parts come from. This is wrong. What the KCA depends on is that things come to existence with cause - that is all. The KCA only depends on that things are not uncaused. The necessity of parts is nether assumed nor needed.
spamanon 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spamanon You seriously didn't understand the argument whatsoever. Look up Mereology and educate thineself.
BigLundi 2 months ago
My reaction was a silent sigh and closing my eyes in disapointment
Manyhigh 7 months ago
In fact, my initial reaction was not laughter. It was my typical reaction when I see William Lane Craig: vaguely fed-up disinterest.
ProfessorJoke 8 months ago
Please does anyone know the song at the begining of this mates videos? BTW He IS EPIC!!)
SamuelRust 8 months ago
this guy's just a douche bag
M3PanoS 8 months ago
@M3PanoS
He also happens to be right.
Amsah 6 months ago
@Amsah Which guy is right? I assume you aren't talking about WL Craig.
BrooklynRagtag 6 months ago
@BrooklynRagtag
WLC has shown over and over again that he's *never* right about anything.
Amsah 6 months ago 2
@Amsah lol good one
M3PanoS 6 months ago
"the chassis of a shit-flinging pseudo-philosopher."
Brilliant.
TheCelticChimp 8 months ago
Billy Craig is a douche and a fraud.
iaov 10 months ago
Science ultimately tells us only 'how' things go, not 'why' they go. 'Why' questions may be meaningless, but if they are meaningful it seems they call for an answer in terms of intelligence and purpose. Science can't provide that. It just says, "the knee bone's connected to the thigh bone, the thigh bone's connected to the hip bone" etc.
dcspaced 10 months ago
ur not annoyed ur just a douche bag
Naelzek 10 months ago
Not...100% correct, but gets the point. "Atoms" do begin to exist, but matter itself is what has began existing when the universe was created, if that did indeed happen. Atoms and matter are not synonymous, although I'm being nit-picky here.
Yiroep4 10 months ago
This video is just fantastic. I wish I could see you get as angry as this in your newer stuff xP It's super-entertaining and enlightening.
Gothguy47 11 months ago
typical anger..........typical somantics...........typical atheist
by the way, nice read!
helpmetony 1 year ago
@helpmetony semantics?
andymcgaha 11 months ago
@andymcgaha ......whoops! yes. thanks.
helpmetony 11 months ago
@helpmetony Wasn't sure if you were talking about gestures or wordplay. :P Typos usually aren't that interesting!
andymcgaha 11 months ago
Actually he has all the footing in the world to assert that claim seeing as how everything is the result of something infinitely less. Take Dawkins' well known saying "simple means from simple beginnings". You have no other basis for explaining the furthest reaches of entropy except for the claim which establishes a beginning.
ors712 1 year ago
This guy sounds like a teenage girl. So BILLY
Fuck off faggot
cellohero314 1 year ago
"Shit-slinging pseudo-philosopher," --Awesome.
TheHeretic28 1 year ago
I'm not a philosopher, but I am a scientist. From my perspective, WLC is full of crap because he claims physical properties for things--without discovering those properties through the scientific process. We know from hard experience that attempting to deduce physical phenomena is SEVERELY problematic--well, it just doesn't work.
Meaningful answers to the questions WLC addresses can only be found through scientific investigation--anything less is just masturbation.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
Lane is mentally deranged
includao 1 year ago
"Did I exist before my mother's egg and my father's sperm came into union?"
No, but unfortunately you exist now. Kill yourself.
borstalboy1981 1 year ago 2
This made me angry! He is an EDUCATED philosopher!!! How the hell can he NOT know these basic ideas? Most people can grasp this!
HorridDreams 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HorridDreams "How the hell can he NOT know these basic ideas?"
he does know. it's just that WLC is so pathologically unprincipled and dishonest that medical science should name this condition after him: the 'Craig syndrome'
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
First: Craig is an idiot, and thank you for pointing it out.
HOWEVER: If you're granting the argument that the universe BEGAN to exist (as opposed to simply being as a condition of reality) then you leave yourself open to the cosmological argument, which is perhaps the only strong argument for the existence of a god (first cause) of some sort.
jalehtri 1 year ago
@jalehtri i would say that the cosmological argument is the strongest. however, there is one rebuttal i'm fond of. Every cause and effect relationship we can think of happens between two things that exist. the universe coming into existence would be one from immaterial to material- ie a different sort of relationship from the one that we could have ever observed. but, the intellectually honest response is to say we don't know if the universe has a cause or not.
creepyoldman2 1 year ago
Yup... pretty much... nail... on the head...
Roper122 1 year ago
okay DasAmericanAtheist-
the universe, by your admission, BEGAN to exist. we agree -_-
... what was the cause? existence occurred out of the state of non-existence, and was spurred by.... ?
what?
iBegToDiffer 1 year ago
@iBegToDiffer Causality as we understand it is inextricably tied to the flow of time as we understand it. And, our understanding of the beginning of our universe is that time, as we know it, also began there. Since it makes no sense to discuss what came "before" the beginnig of time, the beginning of the universe may, in fact, not have (or need) a cause as we know it. But maybe it does. Either way, we don't know yet the reason why our universe began as it did.
Arkalius80 1 year ago
@iBegToDiffer On what grounds can you assert that there is a cause? As James demonstrates, you've never actually witnessed anything beginning to exist, so you have no real reason to think that a cause would be necessary for something to happen. Further dismantling from different angles can be found in my only posted video, and Scott's "I "Kalam" Like I See 'Em..."
MagorianAx 1 year ago
I'm sorry 4:20 and 5:07 sounded a lot like playground taunts and ruined the whole video for me.
If you want to be taken seriously, then show your faith in your belief by not colluding your message with your own personal bias and emotion.
Otherwise, you're just a shallow talking head, regurgitating abstract theories you read in a textbook somewhere.
HarblTheCat1 1 year ago
Nice reading...
bodybuilder444444 1 year ago
Lane just doesn't get it.
One suspects he never read Bill Bryson...
TheNeognostic 1 year ago
OH GOD, MY SOUL IT HURTS AUUUUUUUGGGGGHHHHH
ChickenRamen 1 year ago
How about some philosophy? I need some after this drivel. :-)
If i imagine the universe as part of something bigger, i get infinite recursion (multiverse? and what does that exist in?)
If i think everything has a cause, including the universe itself, i get infinite recursion. (what caused the universe? and what in turn caused that?)
But if i think the universe is all there is, i feel like the fish that thinks the pond is the whole universe.
I suggest the infinite recursion itself is real.
Cihl280777 1 year ago
Shit flinging pseudo philosopher... lol
planeshaperman 1 year ago
DAA, you are proving his point. You are arguing that nothing except the universe begins to exist and he is explaining that is not true. Existence is a function of time coupled with the first law of thermodynamics. Thus I cause, my fingers to type this, chemistry, biology, physics, cause my body to exist in order to type this. One day we may discover the higgs boson that causes matter to have mass. Thus existence is everything as it is, and the cause can be walked back to the big bang.
Uhlbelk 1 year ago
William Lane Craig is pure Hawking radiation, I think thats what he was trying to say in his video. You've obviously missed his point DAA, lol.
fauyd 1 year ago
Wow, bro! Take deep breaths...relax a bit. You know how much damage you do to yourself by living in anger? Cortisol & other CATABOLIC hormones destroy you. Not to mention your cholesterol! Breathe deep. Relax. Understand that it's just the love of your unrighteousness that forces you to react as such: killing yourself.
DoKtaTre 1 year ago
what I especially like is the flabbergasted tone he takes. He seems utterly frustrated but his arguments are so pathetically weak. He can't step down and admit he's a pseudo intellectual; he has to take the same outraged posture as a true intellectual (hitchens, harris) while saying so much less than they possibly could have.
thegreatestbak 1 year ago
This is one of the best videos that I have ever seen. Excellent job, James!
qqquigley 1 year ago
William Lane Craig, I'm utterly bewildered at how dense you are.
AtheistAltar 1 year ago
William Lane Craig has perfected the art of strawman arguments, that is his O-N-L-Y claim to fame. He is not a great philosopher or intellectual, he just preys on the weak minded.
tipoomaster 1 year ago 17
@tipoomaster Have have a look at Craig liturature, you dont get published in peer reviewed journals ( IE, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Alethia, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, International Philisophical Quarterly, all of which have published Craig) unless other philosphers of repute think your ideas are worth reading. You watch 10 minute video clips from debate on youtube and dont understand the aregument. Give an argument or say nothing
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
You don't present an argument, just a hopelessly out of date reductionist position and ad hominem attacks on the mental abilities of your opponent laced with a bit of well-poisoning for the viewer.
If the cosmological argument is wrong it can only be falsified on complex mathematical grounds; grounds which, by the nature of mathematics, are simply expression of a certain framework imposed on the analysis of the universe.
Your formless ranting will not suffice in this regard.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter Many of us reject the cosmological argument because it's first premise is based on a misunderstanding of the very science it is meant to rely on. Energy is conserved. Without that, law science doesn't work. The very basis of all science is that nothing is ever created or destroyed, merely re-arranged. It is a waste of time to dissect a logical argument, which proceeds from a flawed premise.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 Well that is granted, but since observed reality clearly exists science must make provision for that fact, rather than sweep it aside because it doesn't fit with science.
Science must explain the world, the world doesn't have to observe the laws of science as we understand them.
If all that is required to bring the world into existence is the laws of physics you have still not explained the existence of the laws of physics.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter That is shifting focus. Explaining the origins of energy itself, whether it be part of the big bang or in some "time" before it, is a different topic altogether.
The Kalam argument is all I'm rejecting here. It does not actually proceed from science of cosmology, it cherry picks and alters it to rationalize a presupposed opinion.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 "The Kalam argument is all I'm rejecting here."
I will reserve judgement about this, I don't actually anything whatsoever about it outside of the wikipedia article.
"It does not actually proceed from science of cosmology, it cherry picks and alters it to rationalize a presupposed opinion."
See my other comment. This is what Ayer referred to as imposing a matrix on the world so we can study it. The choice of the matrix is not arbitrary, but neither is it truly a posteriori.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter Indeed science IS adjusting theories in response to new evidence. However, when science has no facts to base theories upon, it does not follow that we should start making some up. We don't know what came before the big bang, or what that even means. We lack the physics to even describe the singularity just before the big bang properly. We are driven to accept that all energy/space-time must have been in one place. We don't have a reason to call that 'creation'.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 "However, when science has no facts to base theories upon, it does not follow that we should start making some up."
What is the "fact" thing you are talking about, can you define it for me? Or better yet, give me an example of a "fact".
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter Fair question.
Hypothesis - tentative explanation/assumption for observed phenomena
Fact - observable/reproducible quantum of data regarding observed phenomena
Theory - posited explanation of a large body of facts regarding observed phenomena, makes testable predictions regarding observed phenomena, must be adjusted with introduction of new facts.
Example of fact: objects fall to the earth when not supported by exterior force
Example of theory: gravitation
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 "Fact - observable/reproducible quantum of data regarding observed phenomena"
Excellent. Let's go from this point.
"Example of fact: objects fall to the earth when not supported by exterior force"
So take the apple falling. Are you observing the apple a) directly, or b) through some sort of apparatus.
If b) then would you not say that what you are observing is the reading from this apparatus?
(you probably know where I am going with this already)
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 The more important point is that if you are not AWARE of the fact that you have unsupported a priori assumptions when doing any kind of a posteriori investigation and, even more crucially, if you are not explicitly aware what they are, you are bound to commit large "rational" errors.
It would be like doing mechanics problems and forgetting that you are ignoring friction.
Recognizing assumptions is the most important part of any scientific endeavor. They cannot be dispensed with.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter You are correct.
The Kalam cosmological argument still claims to proceed from mainstream scientific theory, but does not. If presented as a purely philosophical argument proceeding from a recognized a priori belief, I have little problem with it. However, the target of this video is William Lane Craig.
He presents The Kalam as a logical progression from science. That smacks of intellectual dishonesty. He has since engaged in straw-manning. He had ridicule coming.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 Sorry, but ever cosmologist of repute disagree with you here. why? Because in 2003 proven by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenken that any universe that is on a state of cosmic expansion must have and absolute beginnig. For more on this I suggest you read Vilenkens book "Many Wolds in One: The Search for Other Universes." And please actually read it dont attack it without reading it first.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly This is about universes as constructs not the energy that constitutes them. So far as I'm aware, there is no working theory to explain the origins of energy itself. Even in string theory the energy of universe was some kind of kinetic transfer of pre-existing energy between branes.
More importantly the Kalam argument does not address the work of the those men, but proceeds from misrepresentation of scientific theory.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 You are missing the difference between efficient causes and material cuases. Craig deal with your objection in his book, but it is to long to give here.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly Please define "efficient causes".
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 Aristotle deined four causes, Formal, final, material, and efficeint.
A formal cause is the form of the object.
A material cause is the material in the object.
A final cause is purpose of the object
An efficient cause is the thing that brings the object about.
For a snowball, the snow is the material cause, the roundness is the formal cause, the final cause is the prupose for which I make the snowball and the efficient cause is my hands moving to make the snowball.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly Ah. Very good.
I still don't see a basis for making the assumptions the Kalam does about the universe and causation. Not from cosmological evidence or physics. I'm pretty comfortable with the argument as a philosophical one. But, WLC goes around saying that science proves God and uses the Kalam as his centerpiece.
I've seen the Kalam presented before without the "scientists must accept god" spin he puts on it. It's perfect logic. WLC is dishonest though IMO.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 I dont think he says that. He gave a lecture where a scientist said the same thing to him that oyu just said and Craig responded by claim that this is a metaphysical argument, but it has scientific support for premise two. So I dont think that he is saying science proves God, he is only saying that there is some scientific support for a metaphysical argument for Gods existence.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly I would have to find the lecture I watched. He began with, "Today I'll be explaining to you how science has actually proven God, and why any serious scientist accepts the existence of a creator." It was the first time I encountered WLC and is the source of my derision for him. He may have said something different elsewhere. You may be intellectually honest. I really don't think he is.
At any rate he was clearly straw-manning in the video DAA attacked.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 He does not say that, he might have been saying that any serious science accepts that the universe had a beginnig, (no one accepts steady state models, and oscilating a cyclical ekpyrotic models have beginnigs for the universe). Also Carig IS intellectually honest, shrtening objections for youtube videos because youtubers wont watch him take two hours to defend his ides in not dishonest. Also, please note that DAA's objection in all its forms depends on a faulty theory of language.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter This is false. I took the exact sentence that DasAmerican Atheist (DAA) said, I then showded, using William Lane Cragis (WLC) book, that what DAA accused WLC of was false. Second i would like to see you falsify the Kalam on mathematical grounds. Craig goes into an extremely detailed defense of his math in his book, unless you provide such a proof calling my video formless ranting does you nothing.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly I agree with your rebuttal, I have it saved to my favorites in fact. I was referring to DAA's argument. not yours.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooterSorry darkwing, My bad, thought you were ref3erring to mine, but thanks for adding it.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly No worried, it happens hehe.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
My reaction to WLC – I've seen this clip several times and it has yet to change – is not laughter. I cringe, like someone is poking me in the brain with a stick. The feeling is of affront and annoyance. Frustration.
Blackmark52 1 year ago 7
@Blackmark52 Well then maybe you could give an argument. Watch my video called sinking sysiphus. that will help.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly I watched Part 1. Before I continue, can you confirm that beginning, as you use it, always refers to a rearrangement of existing matter, that it never invokes anything new. i.e.- that there is no creation of matter from nothing.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 I deal with that in my video called sinking sysiphus. Something can begin to exist in 2 ways. 1. Beginning to exist by rearranging existing matter such that you get new properties.2. beginning to exist where both the object and the mateiral is fresh on the scene (WLC calls this creation)
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly #2 is why WLC fails. He can't supply empirical evidence for his key premise. The cumulative understanding of science is that such creation is impossible. It doesn't matter how detailed the argument, or how many truths infused into it: you can't talk something into existence.
WLC's argument fails even as rhetoric. He is talking about creation and pretends to reference cause and effect. But "nothing" cannot be effected, "nothing" can have no cause or effect.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 Heis not arguing that "nothing is causing or effecting. He is arguing that the universe, and all it's constituant parts, had an absolute beginning and for that there is good evidence. He need ot present amaterial cause for he is arguing for an efficient cause.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly A premise must be true. Citing "good" evidence is insufficient, at best, it is subjective opinion. A magical concept such as creation requires empirical proof.
WLC fails on a rhetorical level as well. A creator negates the idea of absolute beginning. If a creator pre-existed, on what grounds can it be assumed that matter didn't? Further, a creator must be more complex than what it creates. How is postulating a greater complexity efficient cause?
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 without creation or something to provide an efficient cause your finished. I may have magic, but at least I have a magician.Sans that you idea of an eternally existing material falls into the problem of actually infinite sets. See Craigs book for the full argument here. It is to long for comments.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly I have no need for creation because I am not the one trying to prove a creator. Matter doesn't need a creation because it can be shown to exist. A creator of all matter, on the other hand, would have to be accounted for and "efficient cause" is not an efficient explanation. If anything were to exist eternally, the simplest, most efficient answer would be matter and energy.
Your problem of infinite sets is a made up problem. You could file god there though.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 The ontology of existing infinite sets is a huge problem in math. If you think this is made up you either dont get math meta-theory or have confused a theoretical actual infinite with a physically existing actual infinite.
Second, according to the standard Big Bang model, yes, you do have to account for creation becausewe have good reason to believe that causally prior to the big bang there was no material to be the material cause.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly
Why do we have good reason to believe that causally prior to the Big Bang there was no material? How does energy come from non-energy?
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly I am not impressed with your attempt to flummox. I would rather you try to deal with the major structural errors and blatant double standards inherent in your argument. If the eternal existence of matter is such a problem, how do you account for it not being a problem for your creator?
Again with the good reason to believe. You seem to forget that you claim to be able to prove your beliefs. Just where do you get your pre big bang evidence from?
Blackmark52 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Blackmark52 Im not sure what the structural error is.This is the argumen in symbolic logic.t:
Let "B" be the predicate "Begins to exist" and "C" be the predicate "has a cause," and "u" stand for "the universe."
\/x(Bx → Cx)
[Bu]
(Bu → Cu) 1, universal instantiation
Cu, 2, 3, modus ponens
Where is the sturctural error.
Second, what is the blatant double standard? I can find one, if you can lets see what it is.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly The sentences that end in that curious mark –– ? –– when you figure out how to respond to them let me know.
P.S. per "... at least I have a magician." No, you have something to prove.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 You have misstated the problem. The problem is the question of how an eternal cause can give rise to a non-eternal effect If it is an eternal mechanical caause you have a problembecasue that means both an infnite regress of causes (which is impossible) and the problem of how an eternal cause can arbitrarily create a non-eternal effect. Only a free agent can decide what he causes and when to cause some even, or to withhold from causeing. Please do not misstate the argument.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly Why are you unable to answer questions in a straightforward manner? Eternal cause is gibberish. Infinite regress only applies to the claim that there must be a creation event that requires a creator. If that premise is accepted, then equally true is that the creator requires a creation event or creator. etc. etc. Since you can't show a need for the creation of matter, your argument doesn't prove anything but that it doesn't work.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 No, an eternal cause is not Gibberish. No matter what you do, you need to have something that is eternal. If you do not have an eternally existing thing then you have causes goin back infinitly. if nothing is eternal then you have a universe that just popped into being uncaused. And if you think that, I am oging to ask why do only universes pop into being?
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly A cause by definition is an event, so eternal cause is meaningless, hence gibberish. I have been clear and consistent regarding matter. Matter (slash energy) cannot be created or destroyed. Matter is eternal. Speculation of "before" the big bang is largely meaningless, since our notion of time does not extend into that realm; however, there are much more plausible explanations than the complexity of an intelligent creator.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 I can be the cause of something and I am not an event. So being an efficient cause of something does not make it an event.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly You are not using the word in a scientific sense. I don't want to risk getting into determinism, but you are not the cause of anything. You are yourself a series of cause and effect with each singular event advancing time. A cause does not exist in perpetuity. Only the effect, or more precisely the repercussions of that effect through more cause and effect, continues to exist.
Defining cause as the act of an intelligent agency circumvents your proof.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 A causes B
There is a difference between A, and the event of A causing B.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly The difference you speak of is between "the cause of" and "cause." In an interaction between two particles, the particles themselves are not cause and effect. Cause and effect relates to that event in time, with the arrow of time for cause coming from the past (or going backward), and for effect going forward (or coming from the future). Cause is not an entity.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 Take an event with two billiard balls A and B. Say A hits B knocking B into a pocket.The Efficient Cause of B moving into the pocket is the energy that was trasnfered from A. It is not the event of transfer of energy that is the cause of A knocking B into a pocket, the energy could be transfered but if it were latent (and thus not kinetic) nothing would happen. Thus it is the energy itself that is the cause of B moving. Energy is a thing not an event. Case closed..
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly The following extract highlights at least one reason your argument falls short. "An efficient cause of x can be present even if x is never actually produced." The very concept is assumed without evidence.
Case closed? Hardly: Even though cause relies on energy, energy relies on matter. You haven't begun to show how energy can exist in perpetuity without matter, much less how energy alone could manifest intelligence, much less how intelligence alone could create matter.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 I wasnt trying to prove any of the things in your second paragraph. All I was dpoing is showing that an an Event is not synonymous with its cause, nor are efficient causes totally exhausted by the caegory of event. Causes can be things, entites, objects, substances etc. I agree that the cause of X can subsist (or exist) without causeing X, but that does not show that the Cause of X is the event of X occuring.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly I see you still insist on using cause to mean the agent of cause. There is no reason for me to adopt that restriction. "Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect) ..." (Wiki)
The goal of the WLC/Kalam is to prove the existence of god. It is not merely to allow the definition of cause to include a god if one existed. The points in my second paragraph are all reasonable prerequisites to that proof or its particular premises.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 No one is claim that God is made form energy or anyhting else. All that is occuring is an attempt to explain the efficient cause of the universe in terms of agent causation. No one is claiming to give a full robust and exhaustive explanation of what an agent is.
Second Don't try to Wiki me. I already showed how Kinetic energy (A thing) is the cause of the ball moving. Once I have that I get that efficient causes could be things.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly Claiming that god isn't energy only protects it from critique by making it more imaginary. By not giving an explanation of what god could be or how it could exist, it is unclear what you think you are proving.
You haven't shown anything. Your last posts have only run in circles insisting on substituting cause for efficient cause. But the concept of e.c. isn't relevant to causation, if it's valid at all.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 I take a ball, I life it in my hand and hold it. I let it go and it falls. Gravity is what makes the ball fall. If not for gravit letting go of the ball would do nothing and the ball would float. Gravity is a thing (or a force if you like), it is also a cause. Gravity is not an event
Second, I need not give an exhaustive list of all of God's attributes for him to be an explanation. I can't give an exhaustive list of all the properties of quantum foam but it is still an explanation.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly What nonsense you spout. Gravity is not an event, neither is it cause. But so what? Your insistence on using cause in the colloquial sense of something or someone is becoming tiresome. Quantum foam isn't an explanation, it's a description and a figurative one at that. And what exhaustive explanation? You have described god as nothing.
You can't prove god with belief that it must be so. Belief has to be extracted from the argument.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly There are two fairly major differences between creator gods and "quantum foam" though. First, the former is more complex than the phenomenon to be explained, the latter is not. Second, Gods are unobserved(even indirectly), quantum effects are not.
The first of these issues causes infinite regress. Your need for an explanation in the first place can not be satisfied that way except by special pleading, which can be done at any point, even before introducing the god.
Gnomefro 1 year ago
@Gnomefro God is not made of parts, and therefore cannot be described in terms of the same type of complexity that we describe the world. Second, without God you get and infinite regress of mechanical causes. Read Dr. Craigs book
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly What a hypocrite! You deny that you should be expected to be able describe the nature of the god, yet are quick to supply an explanation to counter any description inferred from your arguments.
Just what does physicality have to do with complexity? The very reason theists claim there must be a god is based their perceived complexity of the human mind! Something which theists also claim is independent of the physical brain. More hypocrisy.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 No hypocrisy, if anything I am being inconsistent (which I deny) hypocrisy would entail that I am lying to you or trying to decive you, which I am not. Second to describe a the nature of a thing is not the same as describing the things ontological expression. or to say it another way, there is a difference between a things nature and what the thing is made of. Second, only physical things are made of parts and complexity is a function of part whole relations.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly The second issue means you don't have a good reason to introduce your unobserved being. We simply don't know if it needs to exist, because there is not a trace of any phenomena that we can be sure requires it. That's basically Occam's razor. Such unnecessarily multiplied entities can not be part of a rational explanation. If they could, "Fairies did it!" could be a universal answer to any question of causality or origins.
Gnomefro 1 year ago
@Gnomefro You make a false deduction. It is the argument against infinites that forces us to posit a cause of the universe. We then try to abstract what attributes the cause of the universe must have. It turns out that the only way we get out of an eternal universe (which we know we dont have) without getting an infinite regress is to posit that the entity which caused the universe has free will.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly Why are you trying this nonsense again? You argue that infinites are impossible, so therefore an infinite god is necessary. That is obviously a dumb deduction. Repeating it just makes it dumber.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 You need to read my responses carefully or you will make mistakes. The argument is (as stated 11 responses ago) against the existence of an actually existing infnite set. God is not a set. When we say God is omnipotent that means Gods ability unlimited, it is not an infinite set. Be careful Blackmark, or you will miss small but important detail like this one.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 No, I am arguing that there is ot actally existing infinit SET. not infinite SETS. that does not apply to God because God is not a SET. note how I have capitalized the word SET. God is not a collection of anything, when we say he is infinite we are meaning that he is not limited except by hs own nature. We do not argue that God is an infinite and completed SET
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly I’m not sure why you’re posting another response. When you start making things up, I stop taking you seriously. Much like WLC, clearly you will say anything to support your beliefs. That’s fine with me, but you shouldn’t call such drivel proof. It’s simply not convincing to anyone but a WLC devotee.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 I am not making up anything. I have not made up a single thing. Go back and read my responses: I was very clear in saying right from the outset that I deny the existence of any completed infnite sets. You are the one who thinks that God is a set ( which makes no sense, God is a set of what "god particles?" "Atoms") and you are the one who keeps changing to point (continued)
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly You tried to say that Causes are events ( what about gravity) You claimed the Kalam is structurally flawed, I showed it in symbolic form and you never showed where in its structure it is flawed. You asked why the argument against infinities doesnt work against God and I said because I only argued against infinite sets and God is not a set . You claimed Gravity is not an event or a cause. give arguments, stop making assertions with no arguments.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly
I've read your responses and found them less than convincing. You are making up the parameters from which you formulate your premises: Creation from nothing. Set theory as a limiter of physical matter and energy. And since when did I say god is a set? You made that up. God isn’t a set, god isn’t anything until you can give some evidence for its existence. And again, by definition gravity is not a cause! But what’s the point of my responding when you don’t read what I type?
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 I never said set theory was a limiter of anything. I said actually existing infinite sets cannot exist as physical things (Ie an actually existing infinite set of apples). You said that was a problem because God is infinite and I pointed out that God is not a set. Second, Gravity is obviously a cause. If you think not, then tell me if this sentence makes sense :what is the effect of gravity? if that question has an answer gravity is a cause becasue only causes can have effects.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly You say energy/matter cannot be eternal because of set theory. Finite is a limit. Get it? But, e/m is not Things, like apples. Your next two points are still stupid no matter how often you repeat them.
Your argument relies upon your definitions. But those definitions have a colloquial bent inappropriate to the topic and are chosen specifically to support the conclusion to come. Beginning cannot mean creation until C. is shown possible. Cause does not mean agent of cause.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 What is an apple made of? Second, I talked about an infinite series of events. Third, matter is made up of things Quarks, atoms Etc. The fact is, once you get an atom, you cannot have an infinite set of atoms. However, and infinite amount of e/m (your term ill use it) implies the possibility of an infinite set of atoms, but this is impossible for the reasons I gave. Read the book before you respond.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly Apples are objects in the macro world. They are finite individually and as a collective entity. But those characteristics do not influence the stuff they are made of. Sub atomic particles are not things in the same sense of the word. All electrons are exactly the same. There is no infinite set of particles because they are interchangeable with energy which is not discrete units. Nowhere did I say infinite AMOUNT of e/m.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
This is one of the many reasons why Dawkins does not debate WLC! LOL
I also love (aka hate) the way WLC puts on the whiney, shaking of head, question-asking mantra... as if he is trying to deal with other peoples stupidity! Oh the irony!
jimnebob 1 year ago
WLC is to real philosophy (or any intellectual endeavor for that matter) as Kent Hovind is to Richard Dawkins on Biology. If a theist mentions WLC as a source for anything I know instantly that they have not done a moments thinkng on the issues for themselves.
Thanks for a great video and I really wish more people would point out the asinine nature of WLC bullshit arguments.
Kudos
singring76 1 year ago
Good job man, A+
MrJackHaas 1 year ago
Let "B" be the predicate "Begins to exist" and "C" be the predicate "has a cause," and "u" stand for "the universe."
\/x(Bx → Cx)
[Bu]
(Bu → Cu) 1, universal instantiation
Cu, 2, 3, modus ponens
You hit the argument with a charge of circularity, but this cannot be as is shown in symbolic logic. lrn2quantification theory
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly @timetothinkclearly The argument is circular because the all in your first premise (For all x) is a set which contains only matter and energy in the materialist sense of the phase. Hence the argument amounts to "There exist C such that Cu". Your first premise is identical to your conclusion because the set of x contains only u. Premise 2 is also an assertion that remains to be demonstrated. In short unless you equivocate on 'cause' if Materialism is true Kalam is false.
nanoduckling 1 year ago
@nanoduckling You have the predicate and variable backwards. There cannot exist a C such that Cu, because the C is the predicate and the "u" is the universe What you have is a u such that Cu. Second, if you knew predicate logic you would know that the fact that first premiseof Kalam is quantified universally nullifies your objection.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly You are right, it has been a while since I did predicate logic and I messed up, your argument actually just collapses to Cu. Being universally quantified loses all of it's persuasive power if the set from which the 'for all x' is drawn contains only one element. If the only thing which begins to exist is matter and energy P1 can be restated as Bx->Cx where x is matter and energy, or just Bu->Cu, P1 is your conclusion. Now do you see why the argument is circular?
nanoduckling 1 year ago
@nanoduckling "For all X" is not drawn from any set at all, it is Univesal (Vx) not existential (Ex) quantification and Universally quantified premises do not imply that any x or how many x exist. Second, x in P1 is a free variable bound under Vx. To say x = Matter and energy (m&e) is to change P1 From Vx (Bx ->Cx) into (Bm&e -> Cm&e). Fourth, Bu->Cu comes from universal instantiation and instantiated statments cannot be universally quantified, as such P1 is logically distinct from Bu->Cu.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly D = 'is my friend Doug', T = 'Exactly as tall as my friend Doug'.
Vx(Dx->Tx)
The only thing x can be which allows me to use this statement to make a deduction is Doug. x can be anything but I cant use this statement to deduce anything about x unless x is Doug. Your first premise is supposed to be an inference about all things but the only thing x can be which will allow you to make a deduction is 'the universe' because nothing else begins to exist.
nanoduckling 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly Put another way, your first premise is supposed to be an inference drawn from a large set of things begining to exist then having a cause, but unless you equivocate on 'begins to exist' the only thing one could base ones inference is your conclusion. Hence your conclusion is used to infer your first premise which is used to deduce your conclusion, and so on.
nanoduckling 1 year ago
If Kalam is being used as an attempt to demonstrate the existence of a god, I say it doesn't even matter one bit whether it's correct or not. Even if the universe needed a cause to begin to exist, you'd still have to then make a faith leap to claim the cause was supernatural (god) as opposed to any other possible cause, known or unknown.
In your best back road Billy-Bob-Joe-Jack-Redneck accent, say "Ya cain't git thar frum he-ur!"
The KCA is crap.
stimpson65 1 year ago
@stimpson65 This is going on my list of top ten favorite comments I've seen on youtube.
Idofphoenix 1 year ago
@stimpson65 Actually if you had read Craig's book the Kalam Cosmological argument you would know how you can say (in your best stimpson65 redneck accent) "I cain git thar frum he-ur." But you dont know that cause you haven't read the liturature. See my upcoming video where I knock DAA out on this.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly
Oh goody!
Another white board... lecture.
I can hardly wait.
I'm sure it will be very entertaining.
You know, I could probably learn a lot more about subjects such as homeopathy by reading all the literature produced by the manufacturers of homeopathic products but no matter how much I read, homeopathy would still be a load of crap... just like the KCA.
stimpson65 1 year ago
@stimpson65 You may not have noticed, but in this video DAA claims that Craig "Is trying to argue that the universe began to exist by saying that everything that begins to exist has a cause." Although, if you had stopped beign sarcastic long enough to read the work, you would realize that nowehere in the liturature does Craig argue this.
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly
Wow, If you've learned nothing else, at least WLC has taught you how to strawman.
No where in the video is DAA speaking about WLC's "literature".
In fact he even provides the video statements he is specifically responding to.
This video is about WLC's blatant intellectual dishonesty and speaks to his use of outrageous strawmen and circular "reasoning".
I'm sure you think WLC is a great guy but his "material" is crap just like all theist apologetics.
stimpson65 1 year ago
@stimpson65 Nowhere in the video that DAA attacks does WLC say The universe began to exist because everything that begins to exist has a cause. WLC never says that anywhere, not in the video, not in the literature, not anywhere. I was being charitable and assuming that DAA was talking about WLC's liturature becuase the claim: the universe began to exist because everything that begins to exist has a "cause" IS NOT IN THE VIDEO DAA IS ATTACKING!!!!!
timetothinkclearly 1 year ago
@timetothinkclearly Wow...the video that DAA attacks is about the Kalam cosmological argument. The opening premise of that argument is "Everything that exists has a beginning/cause. The counter-argument in question is that all the energy in the universe is conserved and has never been observed being created. WLC was engaging is a rambling, poorly conceived, straw-man attack on this counter-argument. Something disgustingly below a man who claims the level of philosophical acumen he does.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
So IF the universe.... including matter and energy....began to exist, it didn't have a cause?
Really James?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920 Wouldn't the supposed cause of the universe itself require a cause? The only way to break that cycle is to use special pleading to make an "uncaused cause" - and by the principle of parsimony that would be the universe itself.
FYI your view of the "singularity" seems outdated and wrong. Might want to bone up on the more recent formulations. (Hint: it wasn't an "explosion")
And for a laugh, check out video 7ImvlS8PLIo (You can skip to 32m20s if you're impatient but I'd watch it all...)
Smidge204 1 year ago
@Smidge204
How is this special pleading? Nobody is saying that EVERYTHING requires a cause. Only things which begin to exist require a cause.
Anything necessary thing would not need a cause. Only contingent things do.
My question to you is what MAKES it impossible for matter and energy to have been caused?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920 It's special pleading because your proposed cause is somehow cause-less and non-contingent. You are defining it in such a way as to be exempt from your own requirements.
My question to you is: What makes it impossible for matter and energy to be non-contingent?
Smidge204 1 year ago
@Smidge204
It's not special pleading homie. Special pleading would be like me saying "Everything in existence does X, except for Y. Y is the only thing that doesn't do X,"
Nobody is saying that EVERYTHING is caused, except for God.
All we are saying is that whatever begins to exist is caused.
Do you see what I'm saying?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920 So you're saying that the universe began to exist, therefore had a cause, but whatever caused the universe never began to exist, therefore did not have a cause?
So how is it that the thing that caused the universe never began to exist? (Yet it somehow existed anyway in order to cause the universe?)
That's the special pleading I'm talking about.
Smidge204 1 year ago
@Smidge204
That's still not special pleading because nobody is saying that *everything* must have a cause, only things which begin to exist. If God never began to exist then of course God wouldn't need a cause. But that's neither nor there. Dasamericanatheist wasn't talking about that issue. He was talking about premise 1 in the Kalam, "everything which begins to exist has a cause". That's what I'm talking about as well.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@Smidge204
Only things which begin to exist must have a cause.
That is all anyone is saying...
If God has always existed, then he doesn't need a cause. No special pleading at all. Nobody is changing the rules for God. That's what special pleading IS.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920 Yes, that IS special pleading. Why does God get to be the only thing that "always existed?"
Smidge204 1 year ago
@Smidge204
I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm just saying that I do not believe matter and energy are necessary. I can easily imagine a possible world where this universe did not exist.
The burden is on you to demonstrate that it is impossible for matter and energy to begin existing, or for them to be created.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920 No, the burden is not on me because I'm not making a specific claim... It's not up to me to prove you're wrong - it's up to you to prove you're right.
It has been (indirectly) observed that matter spontaneously pops into existence and vanished spontaneously. Watch the video I mentioned for some details on that.
Smidge204 1 year ago
@Smidge204
But it doesn't pop into existence from literally nothing...it does have a material cause.
As far as burdens go, you do have one to bear if you make the claim that matter was never caused, especially when it comes to me, because I am not convinced of this.
And I'll rephrase...the singularity occupied no space, because at one time, there was no space at all, literally nothing.
vbfl920 1 year ago