If you know anyone who's been falsely DMCA'd by William Lane Craig collaborator John Leonard, otherwise known as drcraigvideos, please contact @thunderf00t.
Does WLC still think Richard Nixon is Presidents of the United States?maybe he could read a few current books on cosmology and he would find out that the universe did not come out of nothing "membranes colliding" is the current idea how would he work that into Kalam?may be he would look at a 1973 book for that.
This video is stupid. No matter who said it, or when it was said, it does not matter one bit. Truth is truth no matter who believes it, and a lie is a lie if everyone believes it.
An appeal to authority is (1) A believes P, (2) A is an authority, therefore (3) P is true. That isn't in any way what Craig does. He's just saying "Here's what an Atheist has said about a philosophical consequence of Atheism." He does go on to explain why this is a necessary and rational conclusion.
If he really is sound in his rational conclusion, the addition of someone's name was just a kind of appeal to authority to back him up though. He does this a lot in his debates, quotes scientists who say things that agrees with his point and completely ignores all of them who disagree. That's not an honest strategy at all.
The problem is that Kalam can be stated in a formally valid way ie that lead us the conclusion that either the universe has a creator or has an infinite regress of causes, or is uncaused. I think Craig's exposition of this, unchanged over so many years is guilty of presenting it in a way which its terms can be denied ie with reference to time. However no atheist can escape having to subscribe to the alternatives listed above ie infinite regress of causes or being un-caused.
Wait wait wait, you say that we shouldn't take his word for it (Anthony Kenny) but then you say it doesn't represent opinion due to Hawking, Vilenkin, Greene contribution which would make it a fact, how can we still not take his claim? The argument for what Craig says and Kenny says is basically the same thing, matter came from nothing and by nothing that is the key.
@samuellis You lost me at the end of the first sentence. You must be missing a word or two in there because I've read it about a dozen times and can't make any sense of it.
None of those people, save Craig and Kenny, claim that the universe came from "nothing" in the way that is necessary for Kalam.
@antybu86 hello, I respectfully want to understand your objection- "a proponent of the big bang theory must believe, if he is an atheist, the universe came from nothing BY nothing". Of course Anthony kenny is philosophizing the ontology of the cosmos. I fail to see how is it an appeal to authority? good video btw. thank you in advance
@imermiguel "a proponent of the big bang theory must believe, if he is an atheist, the universe came from nothing BY nothing". Actually no.The Big Bang theory discusses the 'expansion' of the universe,it does not say that it came from nothing. This is something those like Craig love to throw around, however it's false.The universe appears to have existed as a singularity prior to the expansion. Of course nobody knows,since we can't peer into the early universe, although there are theories.
@pillsareyummy then your conclusion doesn't follow the evidence. The theory does include a boundary to the cosmos. Here is a short video regarding the beginning boundary-
@ I don't need to watch a video about cosmology.I studied it at university. We can't see into the very early universe because it was a plasma that was opaque to light.Thus,we don't know anything about it (with some exceptions).Also, the video you gave me is just more bunk à la Craig. I don't watch anything from Dr.Craig videos, that poster is an intellectually dishonest prat.If you want to understand current cosmology, don't listen to dishonest sophists like Craig(who isn't a scientist anyway).
@pillsareyummy I studied Cosmology as an undergrad also and the standard model does include the boundary (i have the textbook is in my car). I also understand the difference between physics and meta-physics and the video includes what Alan Guth and Vilenkin have said. But, this is way beyond the scope of my question, is ontology not a part of philosophy? i just asked didn't mean to offend
@imermiguel First, any theories about a boundary have no evidence to support them. Even the Big Bang theory has its detractors (other scientists that don't fully accept it). If the early universe was a singularity, or 'brane' (M theory) it may have a boundary (a bubble universe would be another example). However, there are others who believe that the universe maybe infinite. Anyway... Also, I'm no expert in this, so... Cosmology wasn't my major. So, we're only educated laymen.
@pillsareyummy Your first sentence is false the Big Bang is the begin of the expansion. Detractors critic the expansion mechanism which describes what happen at the boundary. If you would actually watch the video you would get off this topic because there is mathematical proof for any, physics explaining an expanding, universe began. I was going to major in astronomy but went into government contracting so speak for yourself please.
@imermiguel I never said that the Big Bang wasn't 'the beginning of the expansion', in fact I stated that in my first comment to you. I have no idea what you're talking about. I was only illustrating that there is debate regarding the Big Bang theory, however, it's a theory that I believe in (because of the evidence like the CMB). However, as I stated in my first comment, it (the Big Bang) doesn't state that the universe came from nothing.
@pillsareyummy Yes but that is what is called the boundary and prevails at any expanding model no matter what physics is used. the "by nothing" is a metaphysical atheistic conclusion regarding the the cause.
@imermiguel what is this 'atheistic conclusion' nonsense? My point was that we don't know anything about the state of the universe when it was in it's singularity state. That's not being atheist; that's being honest. And I don't care about the mathematics unless there is observation evidence to back them up. For example, String Theory (or M Theory) has some pretty far out mathematics inherent in it,as do other theories, however, until evidence is given I'll reserve my judgement regarding them.
@i... I don't what you're referring to? However,it's ironic that you bring up Dennett since he was the very one that has stated that philosophy is useless in understand nature. I remember him stating that, " we just have to sit on the sidelines and see where the research takes us". Anyway, I'm not a philosopher. I'll give a quote, I believe by Einstein when he said: "philosophy is like honey, it looks good and smells good, until you stick your fingers in it, and find it's a sticky gooey mess".
@imermiguel As far as your question is concerned, Philosophy ends where science begins. All that we can do is look at nature and let it gives us the answers. Injecting philosophical conjecture into the discussion gets us no where, since there's no empirical evidence for it. Even G. Lemaître, who proposed the Big Bang theory, was not fond of doing so, and even went so far as to tell the Pope to leave out the philosophical/theological implications, at least where the science was concerned.
The'empirical evidence'is that philosophy has been around for thousands of years,where as science has only been around for a fraction of that time (born out of the enlightenment).Since then we have learned a staggering amount about the universe in which we live,and as a result we have the modern world.Your question was rhetorical?Science works because it employs empiricism as the foundation of it's functioning. Modern philosophers even admit that philo... is useless in understand the universe.
@imermiguel Nice try. My point was that science relies on empirical data, where as philosophy for the most part doesn't. There is a reason for why we call certain enterprises scientific and others philosophical. I assumed you understood my point. Please, make sure that your comments are apropos to my statements (I don't like strawman tactics). I'm well aware that philosophy gave birth to science, however, that doesn't negate that fact that they are different magisteria.
@i... If you don't know what a strawman fallacy is, look it up. I already explained myself. My point was that science and philosophy can be thought of as two different approaches to understanding nature ( falsifiability through empirical research being a main difference between the two).I didn't know what you were referring to in regards to Dennett, obviously I was asking you to elaborate.How else can I do this if I don't respond to you? Are you acting like a pompous ass now? I'm done...
@pillsareyummy you haven't made any logical argument for fallacies to apply, and you did not explain yourself. You went off on a tangent to prove something beyond of anything i have said to you. It's very unfortunate you quote Einstein for he said "a man of science is a poor philosopher". Ask yourself; did you use the scientific method to come to those conclusions or something else? How can i speak to you about philosophy if you have no respect for the discipline or it's application
@imIn regards to 'using the scientific method' to come to my 'conclusions', again the evidence (which is based on observation) for science 'as a process' (a method of learning about nature) being superior to what we call philosophy, is the fact that it changed the world in a relatively short time.Our modern world is based on it.You also appeared to be alluding to the fact that science and philosophy are the same thing, however you just provided a comment (Einstein) which states the oppsite...
@imermiguel If science and philosophy are the same thing, which you appeared to be alluding to (at least that's how I took it), how can a 'man of science be a poor philosopher'. That's a non sequitor based on what you said and the quote that you provided. Again, maybe I'm just misunderstanding you. And for clairities sake, you can't have a discussion about philosophy with me, since I'm not a philosopher. And yes I do have respect for it, outside of trying to understand nature...
As far as stating that you had made a strawman fallacy, well, my point was that science and philosophy are two different processes for understanding the universe (at least that's what I learned). You then stated something about Aristotle, which although might be correct, wasn't apropos to what I had said (hence the strawman). I wasn't being rude. Anyway, that`s not what started this discussion. I`m done with this, ok.
@imermiguel The topic that started this discussion, from what I remember, was that arguments, like Kalam, as used by those like WLC are BS. Simply because the premises can't be proven. We started off by debating if the universe had a beginning.
@pillsareyummy now getting back to KCA; unfortunately the 2nd premise that the universe began to exist is scientifically based and you can ask Hawking, Alan Guth, Alexander Vilenkin and philosophically base on the absurdness of infinite regression . Any pre-bang era is in the realm of metaphysics it is literally beyond physics. to deny such a fact is going against evidence and reason as it is far more true than its negation.
@imermiguel Again, the 'pre Big Bang universe may have existed as a Brane (M-theory), or may have been created by some other means, such as the creation of a Black hole in another universe (as proposed by lee Smolin), or by other mechanisms found in modern cosmology. Non require God. My point was, and still is, we have no knowledge about the state of the pre-Big Bang universe outside of mathematical models, thus they can't be used when discussing God in any meaningful way. OK, I'm done.
@pillsareyummy i haven't made any arguments yet you're trying to treat this as a debate.
"science and philosophy are the same thing, which you appeared to be alluding to (at least that's how I took it)"
really? Can you show me empirical data for such conclusion? The irony and hypocrisy is that this is text book definition of a straw man. I'm well aware that you're not a philosopher since you are unaware when you are speaking metaphysics.
@samuellis 1) It doesn't represent opinion because the book is dated from the 60's. Present cosmology has changed much since then.
2) We can use Hawking, Vilenkin, and Greene because, not only are they the top experts in their field of expertise, but their views on cosmology are up to date. Unlike philosopher anthony kenny.
It is the expansion of the universe (hubble's law) that is explained using relativity that accounts acurately for the red shifting of distant galaxies at tremendous high speeds. So Craig, stop trying to suggest solutions to stuff you dont even understand thoroughly. He's a paradigmatic seudoscience charlatan, disguising his religious crap in a scientific jargoon.
We just caught Craig bullshiting about physics. The standard model is Weinberg's partially successfull attempt to unify the fundamental forces of physics into one single model. It is a model of PARTICLE PHYSICS concerning the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear interactions. If you read Weinberg's book The First Three Seconds, he explains the initial stages of the universe only in terms of particles. Craig, the standard model unifies atomic phenomena, but does not include relativity.
Someone who believes in the the big bang theory has to also believe the universe came from nothing? How is that so? The big bang theory doesn't even say where or what the universe came from. I guess it's just like how the theory of evolution states that life came from mud and we evolved from rocks. Even though it doesn't say how life was formed, it only explains it's diversity.
Bill Craig's argument is based on equivocation between the meaning of terms such as 'nothing' as laypersons understand them and the actual reality of physics. We have NEVER seen Craig's version of 'nothing', spacetime is understood by modern physics as a seething foam of virtual particles -- therefore he has no basis to make claims about properties that 'nothing' might possess, if it exists at all (etc).
Mention 'macro-evolution' and he will turn into a skeptic that would make Missouri proud.
Im sorry, the use of Kenny is not an appeal to authority. Craig uses the quote to exemplify a point he has already (presumably) proven or argued for. Its funny you mention Vilenkin, because he proved the universe must have begun to exist. Thus, if the first premise of the Kalam is true, and Craig assumes this before using Kenny, then it would follow that the universe, on an atheistic view, came from and by nothing. Craig just uses Kenny as a PROPER appeal to authority in order to conclude
@CzarDB This is nonsense. If Craig has already "proven" the point, then really there should be no reason to quote Kenny. What you seem to be saying is that expertise is irrelevant to Craig's citation, so Craig could have quoted a bum on then? Don't be silly.
Also, you should try reading Vilenkin's book because I don't think you quite understand the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem you refer to, Craig's quote-mine from it not withstanding.
@antybu86 No, I am not saying expertise is irrelevant to Craig's citation. I am saying that the fact that Kenny is not a physicist, and the fact that it is "outdated" does not mean the words Craig quotes are untrue. Craig is using the quote as a means to exemplify his already supported premise in sum. Or to make the lens through which Craig wants the audience to see the argument clearer.
"Inflationary Spacetimes are not past complete," read the study, BVG findings point to likely finitude.
@CzarDB In regards to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, I've read the paper. Firstly, it uses the term "universe" in a local sense whereas Craig always uses the word to mean something like 'all physical existence.' This is equivocation. Secondly, it only shows that "most" universe which are expanding must have some boundary. This theorem is consistent with cyclic quantum gravity models, as well as vilenkin's own model of cosmogony or even Hawking's no-boundary model. You should know this.
In regards to Kenny, we have established that Kenny is no expert and was writing at a time before many major advancements in cosmology. So, his quote has no bearing on the argument. You seem to agree with this, saying that it's used simply to clarify... that's different from what a Reasonable Faith representative told me, but whatever.
Let's get to the important question: How has Craig proved that the universe came from nothing?
@antybu86 Your question is meaningless since Craig is not trying to show that the universe came from nothing, that is what he is attempting to disprove. My point about Kenny was that EVEN IF it was written before new cosmological findings were revealed, that does not mean the words are disconfirmed. You have to give positive reasons to show why they are untrue, right now you are simply asserting that because x took place before y, therefore x is unreliable. Craig supports the claim, or tries to
@antybu86 BVG found that the vast majority of universes at a constant rate of expansion had some beginning point. That is not all of them, but the argument they present gives good ground to think our universe had a beginning. "almost all causal geodesics, when ex- tended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the bound- ary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time"
@CzarDB Craig is trying to show that, according to current cosmology, the universe can from nothing (and, apparently, atheists "must" believe this). However, this is clearly not true (even according to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem which you cite).
Also, all you can say here is that the universe - by which you must mean our current observable universe - had a beginning. This is not surprising and it doesn't help Craig very much. It shows that an eternal expansion is not possible... so what?
continued... As I said, it doesn't rule out cyclical universes, nor does it rule out a no-boundary condition as posed by Hawking, nor does it rule out VIlenkin's "quantum tunneling" model. Each of these are naturalistic explanations for our current observable universe. None of them, by the way, claim that the universe came from "nothing" by the definition that Craig uses.
@antybu86 No, Craig is trying to show that the current universe has a cause. You are confusing philosophy and metaphysical principles now with science. Since Craig's argument is deductive, the conclusion follows necessarily. So if you concede that the universe began to exist, and premise one is true, then there must be a cause. Thus, atheists CAN (better word) believe that the universe came from nothing and argue against premise one. I think this is semantics really. Kenny's quote is irrelevant
@CzarDB Kenny's quote is used in Craig's scientific defense of premise 2. So, actually, we are talking about science. I wouldn't have a problem with the quote if it said atheist "can" believe the universe came from nothing - anybody "can" believe anything for any number of good or bad reasons. This would only make the quote more useless, as the question is about whether such beliefs are rational (though this would further depend on Kenny's unstated definitions of "universe" and "nothing" ).
@CzarDB Not at all. Atheism does not say the universe doesn't have a cause. Atheists simply say we don't see any evidence that this cause is a supernatural sentient being who also happens to be an intervening theistic god.
Most atheists (skeptics that they are) would then add that they don't know what caused the universe to exist nor if this question even makes sense to ask.
Further, the cosmological argument in no way logically concludes with "therefore god" but only "therefore something"
@LetReasonPrevail1: Here you are using causality, the most naive argument and assuming you can speak for "Atheists", "most of atheists". The 'creation of the universe' is the "creationist" birth after the endorsement of the pope to a bizarre take on the big bang (50's). To say there's a "cause" for something you need a little more. I give you all you creativity to make up any prove(s) you want an ask you to link it to something that you only know "caused the universe". And make sense...
I love how Craig said that the current models are not good enough, as if it were a problem for athiests. Most atheists (without stereotyping too much) generally are skeptic and curious about these things, and I don't think you'll find an atheist that will cling to the current models, if they were subject to change in the future.
Great video and I know I'm nitpicking but in the description you describe cosmology as the study of the universe's origin. More accurately it is the study of the cosmos in general and the way it works. I'm sure you're already aware of this I just feel kind of critical at the moment. :)
If Craig is wrong in citing Kenny, could you tell us what a more up-to-date atheist would say, how it would differ from Kenny? If Kenny's model (misquoted as you say) is not the only model, what is the better, more up-to-date model which has more merit?
Craig is still correct from where I am sitting on the quote. He may have omitted "matter in the," but according to modern knowledge of physics an mathmatics, matter and energy are interchangable are they not? Or does the formula E=mc^2 stand falsified? So wether or not craig misqoutes, how does it affect the truthfulness of what he was saying here? I dont think it does.
@arktheball The m stands for mass, not matter (yes there is a difference - anti-matter has mass). All mass can be expressed as energy by this equation, but you can't say that all energy corresponds to a mass (photons are massless but have energy). The full equation is E^2=(mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 where p is momentum.
Anti-matter is constantly forming spontaneously in vacuum with matter for short periods of time before annihilating again, so it is possible for 'something' to come from nothing
Kenny works philosophically; such claims are not necessarily disproven by future scientific discoveries. If what physicists as Hawking say is true, then the universe came from absolutely nothing. Then Kenny CAN deal with it philosophically as he talks of composites in his book Five Ways which doesn't require a begining. Current QM still supports the standard model. A non-physical/energy QM (or what we call energy) doesn't have causal relations for a material universe. Also QP requires space
@metalnecromancer When does Hawking ever say that the universe came from absolutely nothing? That is completely opposite to his no-boundary proposal which states that the universe had no beginning.
As for current QM supporting the standard model... what are you talking about? No it doesn't. The standard model predicts a singularity which doesn't make sense in QM.
@antybu86 Hawking converts the singularity into imaginary numbers. The point of the beginning of the universe is only extended further back with imaginary numbers, numbers that Hawking even stated may not even exists. His model in no way says the univese didn't come into being. Its "no-boundary" cause its rounded off. QM requires space to have its energy fluctuations actualiaze what it does, it cannot create anything physical if QM is not matter and energy as we understand them.QM is a composite
@metalnecromancer Woah, woah, woah... slow down. You just jumbled a lot of Craigian nonsense. Converting the singularity into imaginary numbers? That doesn't make any sense... I think you mean he uses imaginary numbers to calculate time at the origin of the universe. Hawking never said that imaginary numbers don't exist. They exist just as much as "real" numbers ("imaginary numbers" is just a term that Descartes came up with that stuck).
...and your whole discussion of QM is just plain wrong.
@antybu86 Hawking correctly has stated abstract math, such as dealing with imaginary numbers, don't necessarily correspond to reality, and he is a positivist. This was shown through work such as Russell's. "your whole discussion of QM is just plain wrong" no, actually Kenny points out the being AND form of things. One of which would have to be QM itself. Prime matter doesn't exist. This stuff isn't "Craigian"
@metalnecromancer He also stated that "real" numbers (in regards to time) doesn't necessarily correspond to reality - you shouldn't ignore this.
And yes, you are wrong, about QM. Your sentence about it doesn't even make grammatical sense:
"QM requires space to have its (sic) energy fluctuations actualiaze what it does, it cannot create anything physical if QM is not matter and energy as we understand them.QM is a composite"
That is ridiculous. If matter came from anything, it came from energy. Perhaps energy in a form that we do not readily recognize today, yet energy all the same.
@freethinker923 perhaps. maybe. And it may have possibly kinda, could have, come from pink ponies lying in a soup can in a space ship.... Hey if theists are silly for doing it, then so is everyone else.
I don't think your argument is an application of logic, more an abuse of logic. A concious entity which perceives outside of itself draws hard and fast conclusions only on the reality it perceives, it doesn't presume that its reality is the only reality that can/does exist. That would be an act of faith, not logic. Logic on the issue decrees a state of unknowing, and that is the unpalatable fact of human existence that you simply cannot come to terms with.
Sorry to disagree with you, but once again your analogies are false. Where does up begin doesn't (in itself) apply to anything tangible. It does apply however if related to north of my head. How far is left doesn't refer to anything tangible. But how far left did the deed occur DOES apply, and is similar to my point about finite beginnings and eternity. In referring to the concrete events of the universe, I invoke something tangible for 'beginning' to have relevance to
@wwickeddogg I am not referring to either concept specifically. The concept 'time' is similar to 'direction' 'length' 'height' etc - they are merely concepts that do not refer to anything concrete in actual existence. That is why I use the term 'existence', whereas your persistant use of the general non-specific term 'time' confuses the issue. The concept "when time began" isn't the issue I was getting at. I am discussing the very first (or last) concrete entity / phenomenon in existence.
@houghhill So when you say "first" concrete entity, what do you mean by "first"? Because the point I am trying to make is that there was no time when some particular matter or energy existed before other matter or energy, the expansion in the Big Bang resulted in the conditions of the universe that we see today. There were no causes or events before the big bang.
@wwickeddogg I've heard this argument before from atheistic scientists. It is where science goes beyond mere observation and slips into the realm of the all-knowing. The whole point of anything that may or may not exist is that the very conditions of its existence may lie outside the realm of our comprehension. You are (in effect) asserting as a simple self-evident fact atheism and disbelief in anything existing independent of this physical universe.
@houghhill I don't think that you have any support for your conclusion. You are asserting that believing in the existence of things that actually exist is some type of assumption. You are arguing that a person should believe in all things existent and non-existent, but if anyone actually held such beliefs they would not be able to function. Do you believe that e ery god exists until proven otherwise?
@wwickeddogg there is a fundamental difference between believing wholeheartedly in the actual real existence of something that is detectable, and merely contemplating the possibility of that which may (or may not) exist outside of our perception, and you don't seem to understand the difference. The reality for any thinking concious being is that it must have a prevailing sense of unceratinty regarding anything that may exist outside of what it can comprehend.
@wwickeddogg ah - slight problem here... you do not expect the Goldfish to comprehend what exists outside the fish tank. Our boundary is the physical universe and reality we directly perceive, and our inability to perceive, understand and define something does not guarantee against its existence. But an example of something suggested is 'god' and the 'afterlife' (concepts that I do not necessarily subscribe to).
@houghhill So you are telling me that on the one hand we cannot comprehend the existence of things that don't exist, but on the other hand we should assume that such things exist. That is either pointless or stupid but I'm not going to believe in things that I cannot comprehend and which don't exist in the universe without any reason.
@wwickeddogg No that isn't what I'm saying at all. My argument was simple - believe in what we can comprehend, and remain open-minded as to what we MAY not be able to comprehend. It isn't about arguing for or against the existence of anything. And do forgive my stupidity, but I'm sure that most (if not all) of the most intelligent atheists who ever lived didn't find it so quick and easy to flippantly dismiss the notion of something that may exist independent of this universe.
@houghhill Are you arguing that we cannot know whether or not "god" exists? The only reason that you have to take such a position is because there is no definition of "god" that is not self-contradictory or insufficiently specific. If there are things that are unable to interact with the matter and energy in the universe, then I categorize those things as non-existent. I have a big problem if you want to argue that such things can cause effects in this universe.
@houghhill I have thought about what you said and here is the problem I have. There are lots of things I don't know and will never know. Your proposition regarding openmindedness appears reasonable at first blush, but what you want me to concede is that there is a specific place, which you have named "outside the universe" and that there are specific things that have specific characteristics in "outside the universe". You might as well say that imagination land exists.
@wwickeddogg so the bottom line here is that if any one species is incapable of ever perceiving/ comprehending another realm/dimension then by definition it cannot exist. Like the fish that cannot perceive beyond the ocean, the perception of humans trapped within the boundaries of this universe does by default eliminate any possibility of anything else. You sound like an 'objectivist' to me, and since Atlas Shrugged shows a stunning lack of imagination I'll happily remain in 'imagination land' !
@houghhill lol, your assumption regarding fish has no basis. You are incorrectly using the word's realm and dimension to mean something which does not have a name because it does not exist. You are stating ostensibly that you believe in something that you are unable to believe it.
My lack of imagination does not compare to your abandonment of logic and reasoning. Like the cate that cannot speak English, you seem to be unable to follow a logical train of thought.
@wwickeddogg I have never stated that I believe in anything outside this universe, and neither (unlike you) have I asserted that something does not and (crucially) CANNOT exist simply because it is outside the realm of human perception in this universe. On this point you seem determined to argue black is white, probably because you simply cannot accept that there is a middle-ground between atheism and theism that is a perfectly reasonable position to take.
@houghhill The point that you keep ignoring is that you cannot hold a belief about something unless you are able to identify what that something is. Your position is untenable because you simply keep repeating that you can believe that something exists without knowing what that something is. You cannot give any examplesand you can't explain this because it does not make any sense. There is no middle ground between believing something and not believing it, sorry.
@wwickeddogg My agnosticism is not based on idle thinking, but is grounded on the simple hard reality of human existence. Like it or not your atheism is (like theism) based on presumption and faith, not logic. It is not logical to decree that because something lies outside the perception and understanding of a particular animal species it cannot exist. And I don't hold a belief about what may/may not exist outside of this universe - look up the word 'conjecture'.
@wwickeddogg ignore yeoldedogge. that was a friend using my laptop who didn't sign out. Back to the issue, you could be right about atheism and this being it with nothing else besides. I'm just not willing to commit myself, and to you this is some sort of intellectual crime that you cannot stomach.
@wwickeddogg I am using the concept 'time' to relate to anything concrete in existence (matter, energy, space, god, laws etc), which is why I discuss the eternal and the something out of nothing problem. You however use the concept 'time' to relate to time itself, which isn't the same thing.
Craig has already stated that the beginning of the Universe is independent of our early descriptions of it. In other words, the fact that we can't describe what happened at the Planck time in no way says or implies that the Universe had no absolute beginning from nothing. From surveying the literature on this, cosmologists seem pretty unanimous on that point. Indeed, that's why so many cosmologists now try to defend models of the Universe out of nothing (ie. Vilenkin's quantum tunneling model).
@Christianjr4 I'm assuming that you've never actually read Vilenkin, but instead only read what Craig has written on Vileknin.
If you read the book Many Worlds in One (by Vilenkin himself) he states quite clearly that his model does not denote a beginning out of absolutely nothing, but that the laws of physics (QM specifically) would exist even without any universe - because in his model, the universe arises from those laws.
Actually I have read the book, but nice dodge. Whether or not Vilenkin thinks the physical laws themselves came into existence out of nothing is irrelevant. It's sufficient enough that Vilenkin believes that all matter and energy came into existence from nothing, which means that even the dense like state prior to the planck time came into existence, effectively refuting your point that the planck time renders the question of the universe's origin in doubt. It doesn't.
@Christianjr4 You write, "whether or not Vilenkin thinks the physical laws themselves came into existence out of nothing is irrelevant." But of course it is relevant! If the laws of QM exist without a universe (as Vilenkin's theory requires) and if QM caused the the matter and universe to be "created," then exactly what role is God supposed to fill?
That's a separate issue. Sure, it's relevant to the question of God's role in creating the universe. I'm not disputing that. What I was disputing was the erroneous suggestion in this video that the PLANCK TIME somehow makes the origin of the universe from nothing in doubt. It has no consequence on the beginning whatsoever, and that's why Vilenkin doesn't appeal to it anywhere in his book on his scenario. Thus Craig's use of Kenny is still perfectly legitimate given current cosmology.
@Christianjr4 I hope you realize that there are many theories about the origin of the universe. Many of them do not posit that the universe came from nothing and none of them posit that the universe came from "nothing" in the way that Craig defines the word - as "the lack of all being whatsoever" (Vilenkin makes it very clear that this is *not* what his theory states).
Besides, none of these current theories of cosmogony were around when Kenny wrote his book.
Yes, there are many theories of the origin of the universe. These theories wouldn't be possible if the Planck time really did render the origin of the universe in doubt, which also supports my previous point. That none of these theories were around at Kenny's time (actually some of them were but ok) doesn't go against Kenny's statement. Indeed, the fact that so many cosmologists today are now arguing for an origin out of nothing only goes to show that Kenny was right all along.
@Christianjr4 You have it backwards: the reason there are so many theories is because nobody is sure what happens at the Planck time. If we had an accurate model of quantum gravity, many of these theories would be sunk.
Which of the current theories of cosmogony were around in 1969? I'd be interest to know.
And once again I'd like to point out that not a single one of the current theories state the universe came from "nothing" in the way that Craig defines the word. Not even Vilenkin's.
That's not quite true. Theories aren't based on speculations. Most cosmologists developed their theories of the origin because they knew the planck time was irrelevant to the origin of the Universe (ie. it still had a beginning regardless of the uncertainty of the era). Alexander Vilenkin helped to develop a kinematic theorem that made the absolute cosmic origin of the universe an accepted fact independent of the planck time as you probably know.
@Christianjr4 Vilenkin's theorem denotes a beginning of the universe, true, but *not* a beginning of the universe out of "absolutely nothing."
And, there is a certain amount of speculation within all these theories of cosmogony. If there weren't any speculation, then there simply wouldn't be so many. But I think the issue is that you keep confusing the "origin of the universe" with the "origin of the universe from absolute nothingness" - they are not the same.
I agree that there is a certain amount of speculation involved, but my point is that it's not pure speculation or even generally so (at least today). It's a reasonable hypothesis with some speculation. You make it sound like the Planck time is why all these quantum creation scenarios come up at all, when that's not true. These theories are based on evidence and logical deductions. And I'm not confusing the two, but I do think absolute nothing vs nothing are close to the same thing.
@Christianjr4 I didn't mean to imply that all these theories are pure speculation, and I apologize if that's the way it sounded.
As for "absolute nothing vs nothing" being "close to the same thing." I couldn't disagree more. The difference is important for Kalam. If "nothing" means a quantum field or quantum foam, then that means the conclusion of Kalam probably doesn't point to God.
When I said "close to the same thing" I meant it in the sense that these theories (with the exception of Stenger's) about the universe from nothing by Vilenkin, Davies et al. really amount to absolute nothingness, even if they think the laws always existed. In other words, I don't think these laws really existed apart from the Universe other than in a possible platonic sense which is beyond the scope of this discussion. A quantum field has a beginning so it doesn't effect the Kalam.
@Christianjr4 Davies has a theory on cosmogony? What is it? I've only ever heard him talking about the standard model.
I don't understand how you can appeal to Vilenkin and then say that QM doesn't exist apart from the universe when his theory is, specifically, that the universe arose from QM. Can you explain this?
Yes, Paul Davies has argued, similar to Vilenkin, that the Universe also came into existence via quantum tunneling, just as is seen in the spontaneous emissions of virtual particles.
I appealed to Vilenkin only with respect to the Planck time. When it comes to the relationship between QM, the physical Universe and nothing, I have questions about how he views it and the inferences he makes as a result.
Also, it's not true that "none of them" posit the origin of the universe from nothing in the way Craig describes. Victor Stenger for example, thinks that his scenario of the Universe from nothing (via the quantum vacuum) constitutes an absolute origin from nothing (at least's that's exactly what he said in his interview with Robert Kuhn). Now of course one can dispute whether the vaccuum is really absolute nothingness, but it's noteworthy that Stenger seems to think that it is.
@Christianjr4 No, that's not "nothing" in the way Craig defines the word. He has said explicitly that anything coming from a quantum vacuum is *not* nothing in the way that he describes. If he did think that this sort of thing was coming from nothing, then he's first premise of Kalam would be in huge trouble due to virtual particles.
Yes, but that's Craig!! He thinks it's not nothing. I happen to agree with him, but Stenger happens to think it's absolute nothingness. Therefore some physicists do think that the origin of the Universe is from absolute nothingness, in the way that Craig defines it. The point here isn't about what it actually represents, it's about what cosmologists who represent the theories think that they show.
1. If Strenger is correct in saying that a quantum fluctation is equivalent to the universe coming from nothing, then Kalam is wrong because that means VPs come from nothing all the time (meaning P1 of Kalam is wrong).
2. If Craig is correct in saying that this is *not* nothing, then Kalam is in trouble because no model of cosmogony agrees with Craig about the origin of the universe.
Yes to (1). As for (2), that doesn't follow. First of all, the theories are all unanimous in the universe having a beginning. Insofar as that is concerned they are in agreement with premise 2 of the Kalam. Secondly, cosmologists try to explain the beginning via a natural explanation, without appeals to the supernatural. It's not surprising they come up with theories that ultimately exclude God. None of them, however, explain the origin of the laws that allow for their theories.
@Christianjr4 The origin of the laws that allow for their theories is a separate question. We can talk about that problem, but appealing to it would just be shifting the goalposts.
But I will again say that none of the theories support Craig's idea about a universe beginning from "absolutely nothing." It's fine if you want to talk about an absolute beginning, but an "absolute beginning from absolutely nothing" is simply contradicting current theoretical physics.
It's not a separate question when you suggest that these laws, which are a part of their theories, suddenly make Craig's view of cosmology very different from theirs. Of course it's going to be somewhat different since cosmologists only appeal to natural explanations only. If that's what you mean by not supporting Craig's idea then yeah, obviously it's different. I still take issue when you say "absolutely nothing" is not supported. There are people (ie. Stenger) who think otherwise.
@Christianjr4 I've never heard Stenger claim that a quantum vacuum is "absolutely nothing" but, for the sake of argument, let's say he does. Then it's just a problem if definitions. His definition of "absolute nothing" is not the definition of "absolute nothing" which Craig needs for Kalam. It's as simple as that.
Well if you watch Stenger's interview with Dr. Kuhn from the "Closer to Truth" tv series (CTT website), he clarifies that what he means by empty space is something without properties. Absolute nothingness is exactly that (ie. no properties). So it does appear he's equivocating the two. And on the contrary, Craig does not need "absolute nothing" in this case. That's precisely what he needs to avoid in order for premise 1 to survive (ie. that things can come from absolute nothingness).
Also, forgive me, but I really fail to see how any of these differences reflect negatively on Craig's theism. If cosmologists generally hold that all matter, space, and time had an absolute beginning, is it really so damning that some of them (ie. Vilenkin) think that the laws still existed? Many Christian philosophers believe that the laws of logic and other abstract entities always existed. How does that show that the creation of the Universe by God isn't a reasonable stance?
@Christianjr4 Well, take Vilenkin. His theory infers that the universe arose due to QM. If his theory is correct, then that means God didn't create the universe. Now, you could push it back a step (as you did previously) by suggesting that God created QM, but I don't see how that is anything more than appeal to ignorance (or a God of the Gaps argument).
Well you could push it back a step, which does raise interesting questions. More importantly, however, Vilenkin doesn't offer an account of how the laws of QM always existed. Usually cosmologists think that no scientific laws existed without the Universe, rather they are applications within the Universe's domain such as the 1st law of thermodynamics. To say that the laws existed before the Universe is just to say that the Universe always existed, since QM is a feature of the Universe.
@antybu86 I understand QM as a set of laws. Surely laws are a result of something concrete that exists and not vice-versa. QM is an innate part of this universe, the two always co-exist with the former merely being a feature of the latter and how it works. So the notion of QM preceding the universe and 'causing' it is surely a logical fallacy. QM in existence prior to the big bang must actually be this universe in existence but just in a different form.
@houghhill "QM in existence prior to the big bang must actually be this universe in existence but just in a different form." Yeah, I think this is probably a good description; a universe that is some sort of quantum void.
Though, I think people would find it difficult to call that a "universe" since it is so wildly different from anything that we would think of as a universe (Vilenkin chooses to describe it as "nothing" while distinguishing it from "absolute nothing"). It's a language problem.
@antybu86 sounds like a universe in its most basic, most fundamental, most stripped down form then. Maybe a 'sub-universe' or 'fledgling universe' completely devoid of the elements required to class it is anything truly real, but still capable of eventually giving rise to something more concrete and substantial.
@antybu86 And again - the question for me would be did this originally arise out of 'absolute nothing' or is it always the first and last thing in existence that shields against total non-existence (a bit like the notion of 'god'). A question that may remain outside the realm of science.
@antybu86 Ah, but there IS a difference between "nothing" or "nothingness" and "absolute nothing". An enormous amount of the mass of the universe is contained in nothingness. Quantum fluctuations pop it in and out of existence. Any given point at any given time is most likely going to be nothing, but it occasionally becomes something, then goes back to nothing again. I'm not even sure if "absolute nothing" even exists.
@gimmethegepgun This is a bad argument to get into. You really want someone else to take the position that nothing does exist, while you take the position that nothing does not exist? I have spent hours on this argument without getting anywhere.
@antybu86 The fact is that the universe existed at time zero and therefore there was no time when the universe "began". Since there was no time when the universe began, it is meaningless to talk about the begining of the universe. Until such time when a creationist wants to present a theory about how something that does not exist in the universe can interact physical with matter or energy inside the universe, there is no point upon which scientific debate can be conducted with a creationist.
@Christianjr4 You are not being precise enough in your statements to debate the topic. The phrase "from nothing" means that there was a cause, but the situation you are describing was not caused, so you are attempting to use terms that do not actually apply. The matter and energy did not "come" from anything. The universe exists. By definition there is no "before" or any place where it came from.
I sincerely hope Dr. Craig answers you, Antybu. As an aside, what are your thoughts on Craig's assertions that New Atheists (if you would label yourself as such) are not "intellectually bright"?
Ok, but there was a point in this video where you pointed out that Craig believes the universe is only made up of matter, implying that this isn't true. I'm no cosmologist, but it was my understanding that the universe is made up of both matter and energy, and that energy is matter in another form and vice versa. Could anybody clear this up for me? I don't know that much about cosmology, so please don't call me an idiot or something if I'm wrong, I'm just trying to learn more.
Craig, along with Plantinga, are the worst of the worst--pseudo-philosophers, content only with selling a shody product called god. And another thing, is anyone else pissed at them being labelled analytic philosophers, you know, philosophers who are suppose to base their thoughts on reason, logic and analysis?
Both atheists and theists use the same tactic when confronted with this problematic question of existence. Theists would argue that god simply exists and has always existed, whilst athesists use similar arguments relating to the universe and any non-godlike phenomena from which it is derived. All I am arguing is that this is not a line of reasoning to rest easy on, because there must always be an the unanswerable mystery as to why anything should exist as opposed to nothing.
This has been flagged as spam show
If you know anyone who's been falsely DMCA'd by William Lane Craig collaborator John Leonard, otherwise known as drcraigvideos, please contact @thunderf00t.
YOURINQUIRER 3 weeks ago in playlist William Lane Craig
I thought a Human dirt napped this subhuman degenerate. Why is it still alive. Put craig down before it hurts a Human
699backstab 1 month ago
Nice to see my Craig Cooke video put to good use :-)
ginganz13 1 month ago
Does WLC still think Richard Nixon is Presidents of the United States?maybe he could read a few current books on cosmology and he would find out that the universe did not come out of nothing "membranes colliding" is the current idea how would he work that into Kalam?may be he would look at a 1973 book for that.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
Don't hold your breath for a response.
PlutoPowered 2 months ago
This video is stupid. No matter who said it, or when it was said, it does not matter one bit. Truth is truth no matter who believes it, and a lie is a lie if everyone believes it.
TheTrueConservative 2 months ago
That WLC is rather dishonest in his approach isn't exactly news.
Though, it is good that you've dug this out and exposed it. I doubt you will get a response.
Mathenaut 2 months ago
An appeal to authority is (1) A believes P, (2) A is an authority, therefore (3) P is true. That isn't in any way what Craig does. He's just saying "Here's what an Atheist has said about a philosophical consequence of Atheism." He does go on to explain why this is a necessary and rational conclusion.
JWHurwitz 4 months ago
@JWHurwitz
If he really is sound in his rational conclusion, the addition of someone's name was just a kind of appeal to authority to back him up though. He does this a lot in his debates, quotes scientists who say things that agrees with his point and completely ignores all of them who disagree. That's not an honest strategy at all.
GodTheHypothesis 3 months ago
The problem is that Kalam can be stated in a formally valid way ie that lead us the conclusion that either the universe has a creator or has an infinite regress of causes, or is uncaused. I think Craig's exposition of this, unchanged over so many years is guilty of presenting it in a way which its terms can be denied ie with reference to time. However no atheist can escape having to subscribe to the alternatives listed above ie infinite regress of causes or being un-caused.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
Did he ever respond?
mewboy5 7 months ago
Wait wait wait, you say that we shouldn't take his word for it (Anthony Kenny) but then you say it doesn't represent opinion due to Hawking, Vilenkin, Greene contribution which would make it a fact, how can we still not take his claim? The argument for what Craig says and Kenny says is basically the same thing, matter came from nothing and by nothing that is the key.
samuellis 9 months ago
@samuellis You lost me at the end of the first sentence. You must be missing a word or two in there because I've read it about a dozen times and can't make any sense of it.
None of those people, save Craig and Kenny, claim that the universe came from "nothing" in the way that is necessary for Kalam.
antybu86 9 months ago
@antybu86 Huh.... I'm just saying your making the claim it can't be reliable then you said it was verified by contributions of these guys....
samuellis 9 months ago
@antybu86 hello, I respectfully want to understand your objection- "a proponent of the big bang theory must believe, if he is an atheist, the universe came from nothing BY nothing". Of course Anthony kenny is philosophizing the ontology of the cosmos. I fail to see how is it an appeal to authority? good video btw. thank you in advance
imermiguel 4 months ago
@imermiguel "a proponent of the big bang theory must believe, if he is an atheist, the universe came from nothing BY nothing". Actually no.The Big Bang theory discusses the 'expansion' of the universe,it does not say that it came from nothing. This is something those like Craig love to throw around, however it's false.The universe appears to have existed as a singularity prior to the expansion. Of course nobody knows,since we can't peer into the early universe, although there are theories.
pillsareyummy 3 months ago
@pillsareyummy then your conclusion doesn't follow the evidence. The theory does include a boundary to the cosmos. Here is a short video regarding the beginning boundary-
/watch?v=-aemfYmusSY
the metaphysical implications follow from it
imermiguel 3 months ago
@ I don't need to watch a video about cosmology.I studied it at university. We can't see into the very early universe because it was a plasma that was opaque to light.Thus,we don't know anything about it (with some exceptions).Also, the video you gave me is just more bunk à la Craig. I don't watch anything from Dr.Craig videos, that poster is an intellectually dishonest prat.If you want to understand current cosmology, don't listen to dishonest sophists like Craig(who isn't a scientist anyway).
pillsareyummy 3 months ago
@pillsareyummy I studied Cosmology as an undergrad also and the standard model does include the boundary (i have the textbook is in my car). I also understand the difference between physics and meta-physics and the video includes what Alan Guth and Vilenkin have said. But, this is way beyond the scope of my question, is ontology not a part of philosophy? i just asked didn't mean to offend
imermiguel 3 months ago
@imermiguel First, any theories about a boundary have no evidence to support them. Even the Big Bang theory has its detractors (other scientists that don't fully accept it). If the early universe was a singularity, or 'brane' (M theory) it may have a boundary (a bubble universe would be another example). However, there are others who believe that the universe maybe infinite. Anyway... Also, I'm no expert in this, so... Cosmology wasn't my major. So, we're only educated laymen.
pillsareyummy 3 months ago
@pillsareyummy Your first sentence is false the Big Bang is the begin of the expansion. Detractors critic the expansion mechanism which describes what happen at the boundary. If you would actually watch the video you would get off this topic because there is mathematical proof for any, physics explaining an expanding, universe began. I was going to major in astronomy but went into government contracting so speak for yourself please.
imermiguel 3 months ago
@imermiguel I never said that the Big Bang wasn't 'the beginning of the expansion', in fact I stated that in my first comment to you. I have no idea what you're talking about. I was only illustrating that there is debate regarding the Big Bang theory, however, it's a theory that I believe in (because of the evidence like the CMB). However, as I stated in my first comment, it (the Big Bang) doesn't state that the universe came from nothing.
pillsareyummy 3 months ago
@pillsareyummy Yes but that is what is called the boundary and prevails at any expanding model no matter what physics is used. the "by nothing" is a metaphysical atheistic conclusion regarding the the cause.
imermiguel 3 months ago
@imermiguel what is this 'atheistic conclusion' nonsense? My point was that we don't know anything about the state of the universe when it was in it's singularity state. That's not being atheist; that's being honest. And I don't care about the mathematics unless there is observation evidence to back them up. For example, String Theory (or M Theory) has some pretty far out mathematics inherent in it,as do other theories, however, until evidence is given I'll reserve my judgement regarding them.
pillsareyummy 3 months ago
@pillsareyummy the conclusion has been propound by Quentin Smith in his published work and also Peter Atkins and Daniel Dennett to name a few.
imermiguel 3 months ago
@i... I don't what you're referring to? However,it's ironic that you bring up Dennett since he was the very one that has stated that philosophy is useless in understand nature. I remember him stating that, " we just have to sit on the sidelines and see where the research takes us". Anyway, I'm not a philosopher. I'll give a quote, I believe by Einstein when he said: "philosophy is like honey, it looks good and smells good, until you stick your fingers in it, and find it's a sticky gooey mess".
pillsareyummy 3 months ago
@pillsareyummy You don't know what I'm referring to yet you are still responding
imermiguel 3 months ago
@imermiguel As far as your question is concerned, Philosophy ends where science begins. All that we can do is look at nature and let it gives us the answers. Injecting philosophical conjecture into the discussion gets us no where, since there's no empirical evidence for it. Even G. Lemaître, who proposed the Big Bang theory, was not fond of doing so, and even went so far as to tell the Pope to leave out the philosophical/theological implications, at least where the science was concerned.
pillsareyummy 3 months ago
@pillsareyummy Really. Is that a philosophical or scientific statement? if it's a scientific statement where is the empirical evidence?
imermiguel 3 months ago
The'empirical evidence'is that philosophy has been around for thousands of years,where as science has only been around for a fraction of that time (born out of the enlightenment).Since then we have learned a staggering amount about the universe in which we live,and as a result we have the modern world.Your question was rhetorical?Science works because it employs empiricism as the foundation of it's functioning. Modern philosophers even admit that philo... is useless in understand the universe.
pillsareyummy 3 months ago
@pillsareyummy Empiricism IS A PHILOSOPHY! and traces its origin with Aristotle! Please educate yourself
imermiguel 3 months ago
@imermiguel Nice try. My point was that science relies on empirical data, where as philosophy for the most part doesn't. There is a reason for why we call certain enterprises scientific and others philosophical. I assumed you understood my point. Please, make sure that your comments are apropos to my statements (I don't like strawman tactics). I'm well aware that philosophy gave birth to science, however, that doesn't negate that fact that they are different magisteria.
pillsareyummy 3 months ago
@pillsareyummy Please check the historical facts. What's a straw man tactic? what exactly am i arguing to deploy such a thing?
imermiguel 3 months ago
@i... If you don't know what a strawman fallacy is, look it up. I already explained myself. My point was that science and philosophy can be thought of as two different approaches to understanding nature ( falsifiability through empirical research being a main difference between the two).I didn't know what you were referring to in regards to Dennett, obviously I was asking you to elaborate.How else can I do this if I don't respond to you? Are you acting like a pompous ass now? I'm done...
pillsareyummy 3 months ago
@pillsareyummy you haven't made any logical argument for fallacies to apply, and you did not explain yourself. You went off on a tangent to prove something beyond of anything i have said to you. It's very unfortunate you quote Einstein for he said "a man of science is a poor philosopher". Ask yourself; did you use the scientific method to come to those conclusions or something else? How can i speak to you about philosophy if you have no respect for the discipline or it's application
imermiguel 3 months ago
Please read all my post before you comment...
pillsareyummy 3 months ago
@imIn regards to 'using the scientific method' to come to my 'conclusions', again the evidence (which is based on observation) for science 'as a process' (a method of learning about nature) being superior to what we call philosophy, is the fact that it changed the world in a relatively short time.Our modern world is based on it.You also appeared to be alluding to the fact that science and philosophy are the same thing, however you just provided a comment (Einstein) which states the oppsite...
pillsareyummy 3 months ago
@imermiguel If science and philosophy are the same thing, which you appeared to be alluding to (at least that's how I took it), how can a 'man of science be a poor philosopher'. That's a non sequitor based on what you said and the quote that you provided. Again, maybe I'm just misunderstanding you. And for clairities sake, you can't have a discussion about philosophy with me, since I'm not a philosopher. And yes I do have respect for it, outside of trying to understand nature...
pillsareyummy 3 months ago
@imermiguel
As far as stating that you had made a strawman fallacy, well, my point was that science and philosophy are two different processes for understanding the universe (at least that's what I learned). You then stated something about Aristotle, which although might be correct, wasn't apropos to what I had said (hence the strawman). I wasn't being rude. Anyway, that`s not what started this discussion. I`m done with this, ok.
pillsareyummy 3 months ago
@imermiguel The topic that started this discussion, from what I remember, was that arguments, like Kalam, as used by those like WLC are BS. Simply because the premises can't be proven. We started off by debating if the universe had a beginning.
pillsareyummy 3 months ago
@pillsareyummy now getting back to KCA; unfortunately the 2nd premise that the universe began to exist is scientifically based and you can ask Hawking, Alan Guth, Alexander Vilenkin and philosophically base on the absurdness of infinite regression . Any pre-bang era is in the realm of metaphysics it is literally beyond physics. to deny such a fact is going against evidence and reason as it is far more true than its negation.
imermiguel 3 months ago
@imermiguel Again, the 'pre Big Bang universe may have existed as a Brane (M-theory), or may have been created by some other means, such as the creation of a Black hole in another universe (as proposed by lee Smolin), or by other mechanisms found in modern cosmology. Non require God. My point was, and still is, we have no knowledge about the state of the pre-Big Bang universe outside of mathematical models, thus they can't be used when discussing God in any meaningful way. OK, I'm done.
pillsareyummy 3 months ago
@pillsareyummy i haven't made any arguments yet you're trying to treat this as a debate.
"science and philosophy are the same thing, which you appeared to be alluding to (at least that's how I took it)"
really? Can you show me empirical data for such conclusion? The irony and hypocrisy is that this is text book definition of a straw man. I'm well aware that you're not a philosopher since you are unaware when you are speaking metaphysics.
imermiguel 3 months ago
@samuellis 1) It doesn't represent opinion because the book is dated from the 60's. Present cosmology has changed much since then.
2) We can use Hawking, Vilenkin, and Greene because, not only are they the top experts in their field of expertise, but their views on cosmology are up to date. Unlike philosopher anthony kenny.
Drgamedood 6 months ago
well done antybu86, very good.
6hundred3score6 9 months ago
My mistake, it was 'The First Three Minutes'. lapsus mentis.
sirdelrio 10 months ago
It is the expansion of the universe (hubble's law) that is explained using relativity that accounts acurately for the red shifting of distant galaxies at tremendous high speeds. So Craig, stop trying to suggest solutions to stuff you dont even understand thoroughly. He's a paradigmatic seudoscience charlatan, disguising his religious crap in a scientific jargoon.
sirdelrio 10 months ago
We just caught Craig bullshiting about physics. The standard model is Weinberg's partially successfull attempt to unify the fundamental forces of physics into one single model. It is a model of PARTICLE PHYSICS concerning the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear interactions. If you read Weinberg's book The First Three Seconds, he explains the initial stages of the universe only in terms of particles. Craig, the standard model unifies atomic phenomena, but does not include relativity.
sirdelrio 10 months ago
What a deceiving bitch:D Thank you for the uploads! You make me wan to resubscribe!
buktomsin 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
did he respond to your video post on his website?
chessgod34 11 months ago
Someone who believes in the the big bang theory has to also believe the universe came from nothing? How is that so? The big bang theory doesn't even say where or what the universe came from. I guess it's just like how the theory of evolution states that life came from mud and we evolved from rocks. Even though it doesn't say how life was formed, it only explains it's diversity.
urantivirus 11 months ago
Bill Craig's argument is based on equivocation between the meaning of terms such as 'nothing' as laypersons understand them and the actual reality of physics. We have NEVER seen Craig's version of 'nothing', spacetime is understood by modern physics as a seething foam of virtual particles -- therefore he has no basis to make claims about properties that 'nothing' might possess, if it exists at all (etc).
Mention 'macro-evolution' and he will turn into a skeptic that would make Missouri proud.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
Can you please use logic to refute instead of pointless side talking.
Inmatinus 1 year ago
Im sorry, the use of Kenny is not an appeal to authority. Craig uses the quote to exemplify a point he has already (presumably) proven or argued for. Its funny you mention Vilenkin, because he proved the universe must have begun to exist. Thus, if the first premise of the Kalam is true, and Craig assumes this before using Kenny, then it would follow that the universe, on an atheistic view, came from and by nothing. Craig just uses Kenny as a PROPER appeal to authority in order to conclude
CzarDB 1 year ago
@CzarDB This is nonsense. If Craig has already "proven" the point, then really there should be no reason to quote Kenny. What you seem to be saying is that expertise is irrelevant to Craig's citation, so Craig could have quoted a bum on then? Don't be silly.
Also, you should try reading Vilenkin's book because I don't think you quite understand the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem you refer to, Craig's quote-mine from it not withstanding.
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86 No, I am not saying expertise is irrelevant to Craig's citation. I am saying that the fact that Kenny is not a physicist, and the fact that it is "outdated" does not mean the words Craig quotes are untrue. Craig is using the quote as a means to exemplify his already supported premise in sum. Or to make the lens through which Craig wants the audience to see the argument clearer.
"Inflationary Spacetimes are not past complete," read the study, BVG findings point to likely finitude.
CzarDB 1 year ago
@CzarDB In regards to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, I've read the paper. Firstly, it uses the term "universe" in a local sense whereas Craig always uses the word to mean something like 'all physical existence.' This is equivocation. Secondly, it only shows that "most" universe which are expanding must have some boundary. This theorem is consistent with cyclic quantum gravity models, as well as vilenkin's own model of cosmogony or even Hawking's no-boundary model. You should know this.
antybu86 1 year ago
Continued....
In regards to Kenny, we have established that Kenny is no expert and was writing at a time before many major advancements in cosmology. So, his quote has no bearing on the argument. You seem to agree with this, saying that it's used simply to clarify... that's different from what a Reasonable Faith representative told me, but whatever.
Let's get to the important question: How has Craig proved that the universe came from nothing?
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86 Your question is meaningless since Craig is not trying to show that the universe came from nothing, that is what he is attempting to disprove. My point about Kenny was that EVEN IF it was written before new cosmological findings were revealed, that does not mean the words are disconfirmed. You have to give positive reasons to show why they are untrue, right now you are simply asserting that because x took place before y, therefore x is unreliable. Craig supports the claim, or tries to
CzarDB 1 year ago
@antybu86 BVG found that the vast majority of universes at a constant rate of expansion had some beginning point. That is not all of them, but the argument they present gives good ground to think our universe had a beginning. "almost all causal geodesics, when ex- tended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the bound- ary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time"
CzarDB 1 year ago
@CzarDB Craig is trying to show that, according to current cosmology, the universe can from nothing (and, apparently, atheists "must" believe this). However, this is clearly not true (even according to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem which you cite).
Also, all you can say here is that the universe - by which you must mean our current observable universe - had a beginning. This is not surprising and it doesn't help Craig very much. It shows that an eternal expansion is not possible... so what?
antybu86 1 year ago
continued... As I said, it doesn't rule out cyclical universes, nor does it rule out a no-boundary condition as posed by Hawking, nor does it rule out VIlenkin's "quantum tunneling" model. Each of these are naturalistic explanations for our current observable universe. None of them, by the way, claim that the universe came from "nothing" by the definition that Craig uses.
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86 No, Craig is trying to show that the current universe has a cause. You are confusing philosophy and metaphysical principles now with science. Since Craig's argument is deductive, the conclusion follows necessarily. So if you concede that the universe began to exist, and premise one is true, then there must be a cause. Thus, atheists CAN (better word) believe that the universe came from nothing and argue against premise one. I think this is semantics really. Kenny's quote is irrelevant
CzarDB 1 year ago
@CzarDB Kenny's quote is used in Craig's scientific defense of premise 2. So, actually, we are talking about science. I wouldn't have a problem with the quote if it said atheist "can" believe the universe came from nothing - anybody "can" believe anything for any number of good or bad reasons. This would only make the quote more useless, as the question is about whether such beliefs are rational (though this would further depend on Kenny's unstated definitions of "universe" and "nothing" ).
antybu86 1 year ago
@CzarDB Not at all. Atheism does not say the universe doesn't have a cause. Atheists simply say we don't see any evidence that this cause is a supernatural sentient being who also happens to be an intervening theistic god.
Most atheists (skeptics that they are) would then add that they don't know what caused the universe to exist nor if this question even makes sense to ask.
Further, the cosmological argument in no way logically concludes with "therefore god" but only "therefore something"
LetReasonPrevail1 1 year ago 2
@LetReasonPrevail1: Here you are using causality, the most naive argument and assuming you can speak for "Atheists", "most of atheists". The 'creation of the universe' is the "creationist" birth after the endorsement of the pope to a bizarre take on the big bang (50's). To say there's a "cause" for something you need a little more. I give you all you creativity to make up any prove(s) you want an ask you to link it to something that you only know "caused the universe". And make sense...
strattfordcrass 11 months ago
@CzarDB "then there must be a cause" or anything else.
strattfordcrass 11 months ago
@CzarDB: The only think Craig proved is that he loves Kant and knows how to say something stupid and pretend it isn't
strattfordcrass 11 months ago
I love how Craig said that the current models are not good enough, as if it were a problem for athiests. Most atheists (without stereotyping too much) generally are skeptic and curious about these things, and I don't think you'll find an atheist that will cling to the current models, if they were subject to change in the future.
HorridDreams 1 year ago
What about Hawkings book, "The Grand Design"? Doesn't he assert that the universe came from nothing as well?
dannyboi104 1 year ago
@dannyboi104 Kind of... though Craig rejects his concept of nothing.
antybu86 1 year ago
This video is helpful. Thanks.
MetaphysicsAddict 1 year ago
Great video and I know I'm nitpicking but in the description you describe cosmology as the study of the universe's origin. More accurately it is the study of the cosmos in general and the way it works. I'm sure you're already aware of this I just feel kind of critical at the moment. :)
socer777 1 year ago
@socer777 The description talks about cosmogony, not cosmology.
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86 Ah, I see. My mistake.
socer777 1 year ago
If Craig is wrong in citing Kenny, could you tell us what a more up-to-date atheist would say, how it would differ from Kenny? If Kenny's model (misquoted as you say) is not the only model, what is the better, more up-to-date model which has more merit?
WSGAC 1 year ago
Craig is still correct from where I am sitting on the quote. He may have omitted "matter in the," but according to modern knowledge of physics an mathmatics, matter and energy are interchangable are they not? Or does the formula E=mc^2 stand falsified? So wether or not craig misqoutes, how does it affect the truthfulness of what he was saying here? I dont think it does.
arktheball 1 year ago
@arktheball The m stands for mass, not matter (yes there is a difference - anti-matter has mass). All mass can be expressed as energy by this equation, but you can't say that all energy corresponds to a mass (photons are massless but have energy). The full equation is E^2=(mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 where p is momentum.
Anti-matter is constantly forming spontaneously in vacuum with matter for short periods of time before annihilating again, so it is possible for 'something' to come from nothing
jimi3001 1 year ago
Kenny works philosophically; such claims are not necessarily disproven by future scientific discoveries. If what physicists as Hawking say is true, then the universe came from absolutely nothing. Then Kenny CAN deal with it philosophically as he talks of composites in his book Five Ways which doesn't require a begining. Current QM still supports the standard model. A non-physical/energy QM (or what we call energy) doesn't have causal relations for a material universe. Also QP requires space
metalnecromancer 1 year ago
@metalnecromancer When does Hawking ever say that the universe came from absolutely nothing? That is completely opposite to his no-boundary proposal which states that the universe had no beginning.
As for current QM supporting the standard model... what are you talking about? No it doesn't. The standard model predicts a singularity which doesn't make sense in QM.
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86 Hawking converts the singularity into imaginary numbers. The point of the beginning of the universe is only extended further back with imaginary numbers, numbers that Hawking even stated may not even exists. His model in no way says the univese didn't come into being. Its "no-boundary" cause its rounded off. QM requires space to have its energy fluctuations actualiaze what it does, it cannot create anything physical if QM is not matter and energy as we understand them.QM is a composite
metalnecromancer 1 year ago
@metalnecromancer Woah, woah, woah... slow down. You just jumbled a lot of Craigian nonsense. Converting the singularity into imaginary numbers? That doesn't make any sense... I think you mean he uses imaginary numbers to calculate time at the origin of the universe. Hawking never said that imaginary numbers don't exist. They exist just as much as "real" numbers ("imaginary numbers" is just a term that Descartes came up with that stuck).
...and your whole discussion of QM is just plain wrong.
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86 Hawking correctly has stated abstract math, such as dealing with imaginary numbers, don't necessarily correspond to reality, and he is a positivist. This was shown through work such as Russell's. "your whole discussion of QM is just plain wrong" no, actually Kenny points out the being AND form of things. One of which would have to be QM itself. Prime matter doesn't exist. This stuff isn't "Craigian"
metalnecromancer 1 year ago
@metalnecromancer He also stated that "real" numbers (in regards to time) doesn't necessarily correspond to reality - you shouldn't ignore this.
And yes, you are wrong, about QM. Your sentence about it doesn't even make grammatical sense:
"QM requires space to have its (sic) energy fluctuations actualiaze what it does, it cannot create anything physical if QM is not matter and energy as we understand them.QM is a composite"
What?
antybu86 1 year ago
That is ridiculous. If matter came from anything, it came from energy. Perhaps energy in a form that we do not readily recognize today, yet energy all the same.
freethinker923 1 year ago
@freethinker923 perhaps. maybe. And it may have possibly kinda, could have, come from pink ponies lying in a soup can in a space ship.... Hey if theists are silly for doing it, then so is everyone else.
arktheball 1 year ago
I don't think your argument is an application of logic, more an abuse of logic. A concious entity which perceives outside of itself draws hard and fast conclusions only on the reality it perceives, it doesn't presume that its reality is the only reality that can/does exist. That would be an act of faith, not logic. Logic on the issue decrees a state of unknowing, and that is the unpalatable fact of human existence that you simply cannot come to terms with.
houghhill 1 year ago
@antybu86 Did Dr. Craig ever get back to you?
FatalKnight 1 year ago
@FatalKnight Not Dr. Craig, but a volunteer from Reasonable Faith (his ministry). I'll probably do a video on it soon.
antybu86 1 year ago
What's your take on Plasma cosmology, ie., the big bang is incorrect? v=1yTfRy0LTD0
AnnRKey 1 year ago
i hate the bullshit argument that "atheists believe that everything came from nothing so they are wrong"
theyre main idea meaning that god created it, not nothing. But who created God? exactly
06stephend 1 year ago
5:2 odds, WLC will be smug as hell if he does reply.
MinervaInTheBrain 1 year ago
don't count on it
that fucker knows nothing about science he is
just like Kent Hovind
just prick with fake degrees.
atheistkyo 1 year ago
Sorry to disagree with you, but once again your analogies are false. Where does up begin doesn't (in itself) apply to anything tangible. It does apply however if related to north of my head. How far is left doesn't refer to anything tangible. But how far left did the deed occur DOES apply, and is similar to my point about finite beginnings and eternity. In referring to the concrete events of the universe, I invoke something tangible for 'beginning' to have relevance to
houghhill 1 year ago
@houghhill Are you saying that time is tangible or the "universe" is tangible?
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg I am not referring to either concept specifically. The concept 'time' is similar to 'direction' 'length' 'height' etc - they are merely concepts that do not refer to anything concrete in actual existence. That is why I use the term 'existence', whereas your persistant use of the general non-specific term 'time' confuses the issue. The concept "when time began" isn't the issue I was getting at. I am discussing the very first (or last) concrete entity / phenomenon in existence.
houghhill 1 year ago
@houghhill So when you say "first" concrete entity, what do you mean by "first"? Because the point I am trying to make is that there was no time when some particular matter or energy existed before other matter or energy, the expansion in the Big Bang resulted in the conditions of the universe that we see today. There were no causes or events before the big bang.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg I've heard this argument before from atheistic scientists. It is where science goes beyond mere observation and slips into the realm of the all-knowing. The whole point of anything that may or may not exist is that the very conditions of its existence may lie outside the realm of our comprehension. You are (in effect) asserting as a simple self-evident fact atheism and disbelief in anything existing independent of this physical universe.
houghhill 1 year ago
@houghhill I don't think that you have any support for your conclusion. You are asserting that believing in the existence of things that actually exist is some type of assumption. You are arguing that a person should believe in all things existent and non-existent, but if anyone actually held such beliefs they would not be able to function. Do you believe that e ery god exists until proven otherwise?
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg there is a fundamental difference between believing wholeheartedly in the actual real existence of something that is detectable, and merely contemplating the possibility of that which may (or may not) exist outside of our perception, and you don't seem to understand the difference. The reality for any thinking concious being is that it must have a prevailing sense of unceratinty regarding anything that may exist outside of what it can comprehend.
houghhill 1 year ago
@houghhill why don't you give me a couple of examples of things that may exist outside of what you can comprehend?
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg ah - slight problem here... you do not expect the Goldfish to comprehend what exists outside the fish tank. Our boundary is the physical universe and reality we directly perceive, and our inability to perceive, understand and define something does not guarantee against its existence. But an example of something suggested is 'god' and the 'afterlife' (concepts that I do not necessarily subscribe to).
houghhill 1 year ago
@houghhill So you are telling me that on the one hand we cannot comprehend the existence of things that don't exist, but on the other hand we should assume that such things exist. That is either pointless or stupid but I'm not going to believe in things that I cannot comprehend and which don't exist in the universe without any reason.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg No that isn't what I'm saying at all. My argument was simple - believe in what we can comprehend, and remain open-minded as to what we MAY not be able to comprehend. It isn't about arguing for or against the existence of anything. And do forgive my stupidity, but I'm sure that most (if not all) of the most intelligent atheists who ever lived didn't find it so quick and easy to flippantly dismiss the notion of something that may exist independent of this universe.
houghhill 1 year ago
@houghhill Are you arguing that we cannot know whether or not "god" exists? The only reason that you have to take such a position is because there is no definition of "god" that is not self-contradictory or insufficiently specific. If there are things that are unable to interact with the matter and energy in the universe, then I categorize those things as non-existent. I have a big problem if you want to argue that such things can cause effects in this universe.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@houghhill I have thought about what you said and here is the problem I have. There are lots of things I don't know and will never know. Your proposition regarding openmindedness appears reasonable at first blush, but what you want me to concede is that there is a specific place, which you have named "outside the universe" and that there are specific things that have specific characteristics in "outside the universe". You might as well say that imagination land exists.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg so the bottom line here is that if any one species is incapable of ever perceiving/ comprehending another realm/dimension then by definition it cannot exist. Like the fish that cannot perceive beyond the ocean, the perception of humans trapped within the boundaries of this universe does by default eliminate any possibility of anything else. You sound like an 'objectivist' to me, and since Atlas Shrugged shows a stunning lack of imagination I'll happily remain in 'imagination land' !
houghhill 1 year ago
@houghhill lol, your assumption regarding fish has no basis. You are incorrectly using the word's realm and dimension to mean something which does not have a name because it does not exist. You are stating ostensibly that you believe in something that you are unable to believe it.
My lack of imagination does not compare to your abandonment of logic and reasoning. Like the cate that cannot speak English, you seem to be unable to follow a logical train of thought.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg I have never stated that I believe in anything outside this universe, and neither (unlike you) have I asserted that something does not and (crucially) CANNOT exist simply because it is outside the realm of human perception in this universe. On this point you seem determined to argue black is white, probably because you simply cannot accept that there is a middle-ground between atheism and theism that is a perfectly reasonable position to take.
houghhill 1 year ago
@houghhill The point that you keep ignoring is that you cannot hold a belief about something unless you are able to identify what that something is. Your position is untenable because you simply keep repeating that you can believe that something exists without knowing what that something is. You cannot give any examplesand you can't explain this because it does not make any sense. There is no middle ground between believing something and not believing it, sorry.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg My agnosticism is not based on idle thinking, but is grounded on the simple hard reality of human existence. Like it or not your atheism is (like theism) based on presumption and faith, not logic. It is not logical to decree that because something lies outside the perception and understanding of a particular animal species it cannot exist. And I don't hold a belief about what may/may not exist outside of this universe - look up the word 'conjecture'.
houghhill 1 year ago
Comment removed
YeOldeDogge 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg ignore yeoldedogge. that was a friend using my laptop who didn't sign out. Back to the issue, you could be right about atheism and this being it with nothing else besides. I'm just not willing to commit myself, and to you this is some sort of intellectual crime that you cannot stomach.
houghhill 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg I am using the concept 'time' to relate to anything concrete in existence (matter, energy, space, god, laws etc), which is why I discuss the eternal and the something out of nothing problem. You however use the concept 'time' to relate to time itself, which isn't the same thing.
houghhill 1 year ago
It's amazing that someone who can't even do philosophy right will mouth off about yet-to-be resolved matters in modern physics.
jessemaurais 1 year ago
And as always Craig's goons come to defend him.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
Did he respond on his website?
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
Craig has already stated that the beginning of the Universe is independent of our early descriptions of it. In other words, the fact that we can't describe what happened at the Planck time in no way says or implies that the Universe had no absolute beginning from nothing. From surveying the literature on this, cosmologists seem pretty unanimous on that point. Indeed, that's why so many cosmologists now try to defend models of the Universe out of nothing (ie. Vilenkin's quantum tunneling model).
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 I'm assuming that you've never actually read Vilenkin, but instead only read what Craig has written on Vileknin.
If you read the book Many Worlds in One (by Vilenkin himself) he states quite clearly that his model does not denote a beginning out of absolutely nothing, but that the laws of physics (QM specifically) would exist even without any universe - because in his model, the universe arises from those laws.
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86
Actually I have read the book, but nice dodge. Whether or not Vilenkin thinks the physical laws themselves came into existence out of nothing is irrelevant. It's sufficient enough that Vilenkin believes that all matter and energy came into existence from nothing, which means that even the dense like state prior to the planck time came into existence, effectively refuting your point that the planck time renders the question of the universe's origin in doubt. It doesn't.
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 You write, "whether or not Vilenkin thinks the physical laws themselves came into existence out of nothing is irrelevant." But of course it is relevant! If the laws of QM exist without a universe (as Vilenkin's theory requires) and if QM caused the the matter and universe to be "created," then exactly what role is God supposed to fill?
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86
That's a separate issue. Sure, it's relevant to the question of God's role in creating the universe. I'm not disputing that. What I was disputing was the erroneous suggestion in this video that the PLANCK TIME somehow makes the origin of the universe from nothing in doubt. It has no consequence on the beginning whatsoever, and that's why Vilenkin doesn't appeal to it anywhere in his book on his scenario. Thus Craig's use of Kenny is still perfectly legitimate given current cosmology.
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 I hope you realize that there are many theories about the origin of the universe. Many of them do not posit that the universe came from nothing and none of them posit that the universe came from "nothing" in the way that Craig defines the word - as "the lack of all being whatsoever" (Vilenkin makes it very clear that this is *not* what his theory states).
Besides, none of these current theories of cosmogony were around when Kenny wrote his book.
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86
Yes, there are many theories of the origin of the universe. These theories wouldn't be possible if the Planck time really did render the origin of the universe in doubt, which also supports my previous point. That none of these theories were around at Kenny's time (actually some of them were but ok) doesn't go against Kenny's statement. Indeed, the fact that so many cosmologists today are now arguing for an origin out of nothing only goes to show that Kenny was right all along.
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 You have it backwards: the reason there are so many theories is because nobody is sure what happens at the Planck time. If we had an accurate model of quantum gravity, many of these theories would be sunk.
Which of the current theories of cosmogony were around in 1969? I'd be interest to know.
And once again I'd like to point out that not a single one of the current theories state the universe came from "nothing" in the way that Craig defines the word. Not even Vilenkin's.
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86
That's not quite true. Theories aren't based on speculations. Most cosmologists developed their theories of the origin because they knew the planck time was irrelevant to the origin of the Universe (ie. it still had a beginning regardless of the uncertainty of the era). Alexander Vilenkin helped to develop a kinematic theorem that made the absolute cosmic origin of the universe an accepted fact independent of the planck time as you probably know.
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 Vilenkin's theorem denotes a beginning of the universe, true, but *not* a beginning of the universe out of "absolutely nothing."
And, there is a certain amount of speculation within all these theories of cosmogony. If there weren't any speculation, then there simply wouldn't be so many. But I think the issue is that you keep confusing the "origin of the universe" with the "origin of the universe from absolute nothingness" - they are not the same.
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86
I agree that there is a certain amount of speculation involved, but my point is that it's not pure speculation or even generally so (at least today). It's a reasonable hypothesis with some speculation. You make it sound like the Planck time is why all these quantum creation scenarios come up at all, when that's not true. These theories are based on evidence and logical deductions. And I'm not confusing the two, but I do think absolute nothing vs nothing are close to the same thing.
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 I didn't mean to imply that all these theories are pure speculation, and I apologize if that's the way it sounded.
As for "absolute nothing vs nothing" being "close to the same thing." I couldn't disagree more. The difference is important for Kalam. If "nothing" means a quantum field or quantum foam, then that means the conclusion of Kalam probably doesn't point to God.
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86
When I said "close to the same thing" I meant it in the sense that these theories (with the exception of Stenger's) about the universe from nothing by Vilenkin, Davies et al. really amount to absolute nothingness, even if they think the laws always existed. In other words, I don't think these laws really existed apart from the Universe other than in a possible platonic sense which is beyond the scope of this discussion. A quantum field has a beginning so it doesn't effect the Kalam.
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 Davies has a theory on cosmogony? What is it? I've only ever heard him talking about the standard model.
I don't understand how you can appeal to Vilenkin and then say that QM doesn't exist apart from the universe when his theory is, specifically, that the universe arose from QM. Can you explain this?
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86
Yes, Paul Davies has argued, similar to Vilenkin, that the Universe also came into existence via quantum tunneling, just as is seen in the spontaneous emissions of virtual particles.
I appealed to Vilenkin only with respect to the Planck time. When it comes to the relationship between QM, the physical Universe and nothing, I have questions about how he views it and the inferences he makes as a result.
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@antybu86
Also, it's not true that "none of them" posit the origin of the universe from nothing in the way Craig describes. Victor Stenger for example, thinks that his scenario of the Universe from nothing (via the quantum vacuum) constitutes an absolute origin from nothing (at least's that's exactly what he said in his interview with Robert Kuhn). Now of course one can dispute whether the vaccuum is really absolute nothingness, but it's noteworthy that Stenger seems to think that it is.
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 No, that's not "nothing" in the way Craig defines the word. He has said explicitly that anything coming from a quantum vacuum is *not* nothing in the way that he describes. If he did think that this sort of thing was coming from nothing, then he's first premise of Kalam would be in huge trouble due to virtual particles.
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86
Yes, but that's Craig!! He thinks it's not nothing. I happen to agree with him, but Stenger happens to think it's absolute nothingness. Therefore some physicists do think that the origin of the Universe is from absolute nothingness, in the way that Craig defines it. The point here isn't about what it actually represents, it's about what cosmologists who represent the theories think that they show.
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 So, let me sort this out.
1. If Strenger is correct in saying that a quantum fluctation is equivalent to the universe coming from nothing, then Kalam is wrong because that means VPs come from nothing all the time (meaning P1 of Kalam is wrong).
2. If Craig is correct in saying that this is *not* nothing, then Kalam is in trouble because no model of cosmogony agrees with Craig about the origin of the universe.
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86
Yes to (1). As for (2), that doesn't follow. First of all, the theories are all unanimous in the universe having a beginning. Insofar as that is concerned they are in agreement with premise 2 of the Kalam. Secondly, cosmologists try to explain the beginning via a natural explanation, without appeals to the supernatural. It's not surprising they come up with theories that ultimately exclude God. None of them, however, explain the origin of the laws that allow for their theories.
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 The origin of the laws that allow for their theories is a separate question. We can talk about that problem, but appealing to it would just be shifting the goalposts.
But I will again say that none of the theories support Craig's idea about a universe beginning from "absolutely nothing." It's fine if you want to talk about an absolute beginning, but an "absolute beginning from absolutely nothing" is simply contradicting current theoretical physics.
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86
It's not a separate question when you suggest that these laws, which are a part of their theories, suddenly make Craig's view of cosmology very different from theirs. Of course it's going to be somewhat different since cosmologists only appeal to natural explanations only. If that's what you mean by not supporting Craig's idea then yeah, obviously it's different. I still take issue when you say "absolutely nothing" is not supported. There are people (ie. Stenger) who think otherwise.
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 I've never heard Stenger claim that a quantum vacuum is "absolutely nothing" but, for the sake of argument, let's say he does. Then it's just a problem if definitions. His definition of "absolute nothing" is not the definition of "absolute nothing" which Craig needs for Kalam. It's as simple as that.
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86
Well if you watch Stenger's interview with Dr. Kuhn from the "Closer to Truth" tv series (CTT website), he clarifies that what he means by empty space is something without properties. Absolute nothingness is exactly that (ie. no properties). So it does appear he's equivocating the two. And on the contrary, Craig does not need "absolute nothing" in this case. That's precisely what he needs to avoid in order for premise 1 to survive (ie. that things can come from absolute nothingness).
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@antybu86
Also, forgive me, but I really fail to see how any of these differences reflect negatively on Craig's theism. If cosmologists generally hold that all matter, space, and time had an absolute beginning, is it really so damning that some of them (ie. Vilenkin) think that the laws still existed? Many Christian philosophers believe that the laws of logic and other abstract entities always existed. How does that show that the creation of the Universe by God isn't a reasonable stance?
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 Well, take Vilenkin. His theory infers that the universe arose due to QM. If his theory is correct, then that means God didn't create the universe. Now, you could push it back a step (as you did previously) by suggesting that God created QM, but I don't see how that is anything more than appeal to ignorance (or a God of the Gaps argument).
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86
Well you could push it back a step, which does raise interesting questions. More importantly, however, Vilenkin doesn't offer an account of how the laws of QM always existed. Usually cosmologists think that no scientific laws existed without the Universe, rather they are applications within the Universe's domain such as the 1st law of thermodynamics. To say that the laws existed before the Universe is just to say that the Universe always existed, since QM is a feature of the Universe.
Christianjr4 1 year ago
Comment removed
BulldoggeThe1st 1 year ago
@antybu86 I understand QM as a set of laws. Surely laws are a result of something concrete that exists and not vice-versa. QM is an innate part of this universe, the two always co-exist with the former merely being a feature of the latter and how it works. So the notion of QM preceding the universe and 'causing' it is surely a logical fallacy. QM in existence prior to the big bang must actually be this universe in existence but just in a different form.
houghhill 1 year ago
@houghhill "QM in existence prior to the big bang must actually be this universe in existence but just in a different form." Yeah, I think this is probably a good description; a universe that is some sort of quantum void.
Though, I think people would find it difficult to call that a "universe" since it is so wildly different from anything that we would think of as a universe (Vilenkin chooses to describe it as "nothing" while distinguishing it from "absolute nothing"). It's a language problem.
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86 sounds like a universe in its most basic, most fundamental, most stripped down form then. Maybe a 'sub-universe' or 'fledgling universe' completely devoid of the elements required to class it is anything truly real, but still capable of eventually giving rise to something more concrete and substantial.
houghhill 1 year ago
@antybu86 And again - the question for me would be did this originally arise out of 'absolute nothing' or is it always the first and last thing in existence that shields against total non-existence (a bit like the notion of 'god'). A question that may remain outside the realm of science.
houghhill 1 year ago
@antybu86 Ah, but there IS a difference between "nothing" or "nothingness" and "absolute nothing". An enormous amount of the mass of the universe is contained in nothingness. Quantum fluctuations pop it in and out of existence. Any given point at any given time is most likely going to be nothing, but it occasionally becomes something, then goes back to nothing again. I'm not even sure if "absolute nothing" even exists.
gimmethegepgun 1 year ago
@gimmethegepgun This is a bad argument to get into. You really want someone else to take the position that nothing does exist, while you take the position that nothing does not exist? I have spent hours on this argument without getting anywhere.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@antybu86 The fact is that the universe existed at time zero and therefore there was no time when the universe "began". Since there was no time when the universe began, it is meaningless to talk about the begining of the universe. Until such time when a creationist wants to present a theory about how something that does not exist in the universe can interact physical with matter or energy inside the universe, there is no point upon which scientific debate can be conducted with a creationist.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 You are not being precise enough in your statements to debate the topic. The phrase "from nothing" means that there was a cause, but the situation you are describing was not caused, so you are attempting to use terms that do not actually apply. The matter and energy did not "come" from anything. The universe exists. By definition there is no "before" or any place where it came from.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 Do you believe that time had a begining?
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
I sincerely hope Dr. Craig answers you, Antybu. As an aside, what are your thoughts on Craig's assertions that New Atheists (if you would label yourself as such) are not "intellectually bright"?
/watch?v=14YM7MP6HzY
kevlonk 1 year ago
Ok, but there was a point in this video where you pointed out that Craig believes the universe is only made up of matter, implying that this isn't true. I'm no cosmologist, but it was my understanding that the universe is made up of both matter and energy, and that energy is matter in another form and vice versa. Could anybody clear this up for me? I don't know that much about cosmology, so please don't call me an idiot or something if I'm wrong, I'm just trying to learn more.
FaithWillSetYouFree 1 year ago
Craig, along with Plantinga, are the worst of the worst--pseudo-philosophers, content only with selling a shody product called god. And another thing, is anyone else pissed at them being labelled analytic philosophers, you know, philosophers who are suppose to base their thoughts on reason, logic and analysis?
niriop 1 year ago
ive allways thought it but never said it, you would make a great lawyer antybu86...
SgtUnicorn 1 year ago
@SgtUnicorn Well, both my parents are lawyers...
antybu86 1 year ago
Both atheists and theists use the same tactic when confronted with this problematic question of existence. Theists would argue that god simply exists and has always existed, whilst athesists use similar arguments relating to the universe and any non-godlike phenomena from which it is derived. All I am arguing is that this is not a line of reasoning to rest easy on, because there must always be an the unanswerable mystery as to why anything should exist as opposed to nothing.
houghhill 1 year ago