The Cosmological Argument (St Anne's)

[theBartone9119]

**Arm Moves**....What caused that? "Signal sent to my arm from my brain" What caused that? "My brain" what caused that? "Me being born", What caused that? " My parents having sex" what caused that "Them meeting at a book store" what caused that? "My dad leaving his place and my mom leaving hers" what caused that? See? This could go back forever, only, the universe had a beginning meaning the universe must be an uncaused event, this is the only way to stop the problem of infinite regress.

[theBartone9119]

Cosmological Argument = Logical Fallacy

It’s actually only logical that there must be uncaused events otherwise every event/cause would rest upon an infinite regress of preceding causes. Since we know the universe had a beginning, it’s only logical to accept the likelihood that The Big Bang was an uncaused event.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

So you're basically claiming that everything needs a cause, so you introduce a cause that ... has no cause itself. Self-refuting much?

[alainareneex]

@MomoTheBellyDancer not exactly. Everything that is finite has come into existance at one point. For something finite to come into existance, it needs to have a cause. And that cause must also have a cause itself, and that cause... so on and so forth. There must be a final cause at the end of this line, and that cause is God. God is infinite, He has no cause because He's always been there. Not an effect of something. I apologize if this is too difficult for you to understand.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@alainareneex

"Everything that is finite has come into existance at one point."

Yes, in the existing universe. But all those "finite" things are simply concepts we give labels such as "star", "chair" or "I". When do they really begin to exist? When did I begin? When the sperm and the egg met? When they were created themselves? The problem gets much worse with the beginning of EVERYTHING. We can't simply impose the same logic on that.

[1GodOnlyOne]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand Copleston's comment about being checkmated. I mean, I don't understand how it relates to the issue of the universe having an external cause or not.

Can you explain the connection to me, please? Thanks.

[UninstallingWindows]

energy isnt created or destroyed

done

also, there is no reason to claim that the first cause must be god, or even living intelligent complex being.

so far everything in universe starts off simple and gets more complex, including our knowledge and science.

its far more irrational to assume that at the beginning there was extremely complex thing that started creating other complex things.

[pdobbing]

Video done for students at St Anne's Sixth Form College, Southampton, UK.

[De4sher]

Well as ZJ said it "everything requires a cause....well... not really... therefore, there god exists".

This is the cosmological argument in 1 bite.

You know how you can tell if an argument is stupid? if you wouldn't believe it if a member of another religion told you their analogue version.

[ISullyHDI]

@De4sher Precisely, there are examples where some things do not have a cause, but have an effect. Sub-atomic electrons or 'Quarks' pass through the universe without a cause but still have an effect, and are not caused by anything.

[De4sher]

@ISullyHDI just so you know, i studied physics in college... what you are saying is simply false.

[ISullyHDI]

@De4sher Well go look it up and talk to the guy that founded quarks you utter pleb. If you studied Physics you would know, and this is Philosophy, you clearly know nothing and think you know more than you actually do! Its an response provided by Hume so get your facts right

[De4sher]

@ISullyHDI i assure you, you are simply wrong all the way.

but even if you were right, about the unintelligible things you want to say, you would still have no point at all.

it is interesting to deal with your kind of people. it's fascinating how you can fail on every level immaginable

[ISullyHDI]

@De4sher And you simply didn't study Physics at college as you are a dumb red-neck. I fail on every level!? When the guy who studied Physics at college whom doesn't know what Quarks are! Shut your'e fuckign mouth you poor cunt, there is no purpose for your'e existence, go die.

[De4sher]

@ISullyHDI i know what quarks are, i also know how to spell correctly "your".

however that has nothing to do with the fact that you are absolutelly wrong about quarks.

be pissed off as much as you want. by all means, take a day off from work and be pissed off, you simply have no idea what you are talking about when you go into physics :)

[ISullyHDI]

@De4sher Please feel free to tell me what they are then. Don't use Wikipedia as well. I think I know more than you.

[De4sher]

@ISullyHDI The quarks are a proposed set of elementary particles that conform to a specific type of property symmetry.

However i'm not that stupid to go into this conversation with you. The point is that you said "quarks are uncaused, and yet they cause stuff" and that is a retarded phrase. So before even beginning to talk about quarks, please tell me where do you know that they're "uncaused"... did god tell you or something?

[ISullyHDI]

@De4sher You clearly went onto the Google and typed define Quarks. I mean, you sound like Borat, I can't take you seriously. I was merely saying that Quarks are an example of something that has no cause but has an effect and this is proven as it is a response from David Hume to the Cosmological argument. You are boring, pretentious and incompetent.

[De4sher]

@ISullyHDI and you're a fucking idiot who's got no idea what he's talking about :D

what the fuck does hume have to do with quarks you moron?

i'll try to speak in simpler words, so you can understand me better (even though english is my third language)

you can't say that quarks are uncaused, because you don't know that.... do i need to insert a few "uhhhmm"s and "

"like"s so you understand?

i'm boring... well dunno, ask your mom. she'd take by balls over any lolipop any time.

[ISullyHDI]

@De4sher Really, when you're the one living in some shit hole of a flat. Hume is a thinker funnily enough whom produced a critical response to the Cosmological argument, in reference to the second way of causation and the third premise : Everything that has an effect has a cause. You know nothing of this argument or Philosophy in general. Sub-atomic electrons seem to have no cause. Go to university, gain a degree and then come back to me. But I suppose you can't because you're poor.

[De4sher]

@ISullyHDI look man, this is just an ego fight.

there are no "sub atomic electrons". the wave function of every particle is deterministic, that means that at least the wave function is caused, and at that level, you can't really talk about "particles", so the wave function is a complete description of what is going on.

and as for a degree, i have one already. but even if i had none, that wouldn't what i was saying wrong. Check out wiki, it has enough information to show you you're wrong.

[ISullyHDI]

@De4sher Then what is the point of Hume saying to Aquinas that not all things have a cause and gives the example of sub-atomic electrons. If they are cause in you're opinion, how are they? Give me you're evidence to support the point that you are attempting to convey.

[De4sher]

@ISullyHDI dude.. every time you say "subatomic electrons" a bunny rabbit cries. hume died about 200 years before the atom was discovered, not to mention any subatomic PARTICLES, so hume couldn't have made that argument.

we simply don't know whether all things are caused, So you don't even need to present evidence that something isn't caused, in the first place. aquinas was just being stupid, and no further explanation is necessary.

so a simple "you don't know that" makes aquinas useless.

[1GodOnlyOne]

@De4sher You don't know that we don't know.

In reality, we DO know.

[De4sher]

@1GodOnlyOne then we can just throw out any hope of ever using the word "to know" in a manner that makes sense.

tell me, what means "to know" for you?

and after you answer, please try to separate what you "know" from what any random crazy person in the sanitarium "knows"..... do that and you'll get a nobel prize from me.

acting like you know, when you don't even have a clue what words mean, isn't really impressive.

[indigoskrubz]

so then... who made God? you cant say everything needs a cause but over look one thing and call that God?

[LucasNation]

@indigoskrubz

This is where us christians get tricky, okay, before our lord spoke the words;

'let there be light'

There was no time, nothingness. So if something that lived before time existed, it would not need a cause. God lived before time, so he needs no cause.

This would seem confusing to us becuase we live in time itself. God did not.

[indigoskrubz]

@LucasNation so God is just a random happening?

[CarmineFragione]

Bertrand Russell retired in ignorance to say we can ask a question for which there is no answer. The only unanswerable query should be where no one has cause to ever ask the question. Once the question exists, that existence must be part of the answer, and the question itself is the impending arrival of the answer. Has any one ever thought of a question that cannot have an answer ? It goes to the nature of what is a question. Something must already be, to inspire the question.

[StopSpamming1]

So what is the cause of radioactive decay or the universe as a singularity?

Aristotle did not have the knowledge we have today, which is why his postulation could not be refuted 2300 years ago.

[louisaracket]

a prosteriori is based on experiance right? thanks

[diamondemz]

@louisaracket yes it is )

[Dominick7]

Good video, but I think Aquinas' Cosmological Argument is based on reduction to first principles, not mere aposteriori inferences.

[Ammo888]

Nice video, very educational.

I have an exam on this in around a week or two, if anyone could clearify Hume's criticisms on the cosmological argument that would be pretty helpful -- i don't get the first one.

[Dominick7]

Little late, but if you mean the reason why it must be a classical Theistic God, the reason and answer comes from just unpacking what a necessary being is by definition and arguing from effect (the world) to the cause. That is, if a necessary being exists a necessary being must exist necessarily, it must be and cannot not be. It has no potential for change or betterment, and can have no potential at all. If it did have potential then it could change from being to non being.

[Dominick7]

Since a necessary being has no potential whatsoever, it cannot change from being to non being. As such a necessary being cannot come to be or cease to be, it must thereby be infinite and eternal. While contingent beings are composed of actuality because we exist and potential because we change, a necessary being has no potential for betterment, differences, or parts, it rather must be pure (and simple) actuality w no potential. We have parts, God is simply one and indivisible, not many.

[Dominick7]

He is immutable/unchangeable. Having no potential God has no limiting potential of what He could be or could have but doesn't, therefore He is unlimited, not limited by anything external to Himself. Having no potential for betterment, God cannot get better, but is the most optimal being, ie perfect. The other attribute like intelligence, power, personhood, moral perfection, etc come from seeing these in limited fashion in the effect.

[Dominick7]

A thing can only give what it has, it cant give what it doesnt have. If a person has money they can give money, if they don't have money they can't give any. So if the effect has something, it must have been given it by the cause. So if we see personhood, intelligence, power, emotions, will, morality in the effect, the world, then the only way the effect could have them is if they were given by the cause. God would have these in an unlimited fashion, the effect in limited fashion.

[Dominick7]

And since evil is a lack of good in a substantially existing good thing, and God can have no potential for change or betterment or lack of something He doesn't have but could or should, God cannot have or communicate/give evil. Evil as such is not a substance, but a lack of substance in a substantially existing good thing, so evil cannot be created anymore than a moth eaten hole in a shirt can be literally brought INTO BEING. Rather being is being taken away in a way opposing its design.

[Dominick7]

So the reason why we know this necessary being is a classical Theistic kind of God is because that is what you get when you unpack what a necessary being is by definition and by arguing back from what we find in the world in finite limited and changing fashion back to the cause who has these things in an infinite unchanging and unlimited way. Hope I answered the correct thing. Sorry it was late.

[Beefstew2011]

Even the premise that everything must have a cause becomes incredibly scrutinized by the subtle complexities that arise when actual scientists conduct an analysis of spacetime in the context of cosmology.

[djbanizza]

What was the cause of God's decision to create the universe ...

Hahahhahahaha. Gotcha !!!!11!!!

[donovanrules123123]

/watch?v=VSDvYRskgqg

Watch for "who created God?"

[usernamesaregay222]

y is god exempt from having a cause? and y cant the universe be the uncaused cause?

[justforflag2]

-- That's my response to the cosmological argument.

[donovanrules123123]

Everything which has a BEGINNING has a cause. The universe has a beginning, therefore the universe needs a cause. All of science would fall apart if this wasn't true. God doesn't have a beginning therefore he doesn't have a cause. Not to mention that he created time, matter and space - therefore he is outside of time.

[usernamesaregay222]

who said the universe had or needed a beginning? if god is timeless then why can't that apply to the universe as well? but i see your idea of god being outside of time, very intriguing.

[donovanrules123123]

The universe can't have existed for an infinite amount of time, that is a logical absurdity. Nearly all scientists agree with this statement. I could point you to the 2nd law of thermodynamics and so on. And there are a few books were it's well explained.

[usernamesaregay222]

i understand your point of view that the universe is bound by all these rules and so on, so many look for a less scientific reason for the creation of everything. i believe in no god that man has thought up. if this being still exists, he is too complex for up to imagine. so i guess the cosmological argument does help religions in the theoretical side of things. but this issue will never be resolved unless some hard evidence is put forth, which is impossible, because of that whole 'faith' thing.

[donovanrules123123]

Okay I understand your point of view. But I just want you to know, even if you do disagree with the idea of a God, that is no reason to assume things such as a universe with an infinite amount of time. It also isn't a reason to assume that theories such as evolution and the big bang are correct. If you go to physicsforums. com then you'l find many people unbelievers who agree that the big bang is an unprovable hypothesis. Many being experts in physics, chemistry, biology, and so on.

[usernamesaregay222]

thanks for the link. i don't disagree with a possible existence of a god but i just find it unlikely that it's existence will ever be provable in solid evidence, perhaps the only way to prove it is to disprove all the other possible theories. but i'm not going to let a theory change my lifestyle.

[hybridamerica]

You sound like another WLC Parrot - one WORD: WRONG.

Your understanding relies too heavily on short-sighted premises. When one considers the Universe as a "whole" it is far different than a consideration that the Universe is "part of a whole".

Fact is - the Universe itself doesn't know - GOD Himself couldn't know... It is a final impossibility.

Your GOD is absolutely NOT necessary - and in fact - is impossible.

[FightsWithPreachers]

Something just are and require no explanation... So perhaps there was no "god cause" but something else more scientific and factual.. Why does the current unexplainable have to be a god without a cause? If the first cause was a god then which god? Perhaps not a god that is even written about in any current holy book?

[PanDeism]

Note that the cosmological argument is really an argument for pandeism and NOT for theism, as it makes no allowance for a Creator needing to interfere with the Universe after the moment of Creation (quite the opposite, a Creator that was successful in its creation would truck no such interference) nor must the Creator even exist once the Creation has taken place.... again, pandeism....

[AbdielAbiram]

Depends on what cosmological argument your talking about. Most do in fact make it impossible that the cause should not exist after the creation, most arguments make the cause eternal and completely necessary.

[PanDeism]

The pandeistic creator becomes the Creation itself-- so in a sense, and only in this sense, is it necessary to exist after the Creation; all conceptions which require the Creator to exist after the Creation require a flawed Creator, due to the flawed nature of the Creation....

[AbdielAbiram]

Not quite sure what your even arguing. The Creator, as Aquinas argues, is eternal, timeless that is. The argument implies that this cause is completely simple and thereby immutable, so it cannot change at all.

[PanDeism]

And why does Aquinas believe it to be immutable? There is much that he presumes out of pure wishful thinking, rather than defensible logic.... simply put, Aquinas was a hack -- a fervent and honest hack, but a hack naetheless....

[AbdielAbiram]

rofl. Seriously, thats the best you got? Why don't you actually respond to St. Thomas instead of just throwing out these disrespectful claims about one of the greatest philosophers of all time. He wrote 1000 pages proving deductively everything he claimed about God.

[PanDeism]

One can not "prove deductively" claims about the type of God for which Aquinas seeks to offer proofs -- Eriugena trumps Aquinas there.... I will grant that Aquinas' claims were not wholly invalid for a time when the Sun was believed to orbit the Earth, when matter and energy were perceived as distinct things, and when time and space were understood as constants.

[AbdielAbiram]

what does that have to do with anything?

When dealing with metaphysical concepts, such as God or numbers and so forth, you obviously can prove things deductively. Do you doubt the transitive property? Or how bout the Pythagorean Theorem, why those were discovered by men who thought the earth was the center of the universe and had no knowledge of atoms, lets reject that too. The whole point of the Unchanging Changer argument is that he intends to prove an immutable being, hence the name unchangi

[hybridamerica]

Victor Stenger already destroyed The Cosmological Argument via his debate with William Lane Craig.

All the Theist premises are erroneously assumed.

Jesus did not exist and GOD does not exist.

[AbdielAbiram]

that was so completely irrelevant

[hybridamerica]

Oh, you'll see the relevance when the truth is revealed.

[AbdielAbiram]

lol

[Smpunditzfan]

Abiram, you are so amazingly ignorant. I am very thankful your arrogant behind has not made a new video in 2 months. The less ignorance you spread the better, you clown.

[AbdielAbiram]

you are one of the creepiest people I have ever encountered, seriously, you need help.

[Beefstew2011]

How the hell does he need help?

[AbdielAbiram]

@Beefstew2011

I had to already block that guy because he trolls everywhere he goes. Seriously, he will not leave me alone

[Smpunditzfan]

Abdiel, your incredible ignorance, is only matched by your disgusting arrogance.

You give Christians a bad name you clown.

[hybridamerica]

The huge void in Aquinas' argument lies in about 4:44 - "Aquinas dismissed the possibility of an infinite series of changes"

Why?

[ThoriaBladecadas]

Because if there was an infinite series of changes it would mean the universe is infinitely old thus therefore before the changes happening now there would be an infinite chain of events happened in the past meaning as many changes that have happened in the past would of happened would of happened today and an equal amount of changes will happen in the future (an actual infinite amout of changes) we know actual infinites don't exist and can't exist in the physical universe: that's why.

[hybridamerica]

Infinities are the very definition of the Universe.

Study more.

[sjmeerkees]

well actualization isnt possible then.

[hybridamerica]

Actualization is relative to the "known" whole.

[AbdielAbiram]

Aquinas gives 3 arguments for the impossibility of an infinite per se causal chain of events.

[PanDeism]

Aquinas was unfamiliar with time travel, and at any rate could not have known what Einstein later discovered -- that time is a function of space, and does not exist outside of it!!

[sjmeerkees]

the text isnt there...

[Bethany1689]

Again: SO HELPFUL! I tried that URL adress in your video on the ontological argument but it said it didn't work so I was wondering if you have this in writing too? Just so I can read along (Y).

[alilmutaqaat]

hello there

is it possible to get a document of you containing all of this in writing?

[depthinblue]

Just browsing Youtube for A level revision on Philosophy + Ethics, and this is the best i have found by far! Thankyou for producing this, very clear, concise and Well constructed!

[madeinengland90]

thankyou! this is very helpful =]

[N1na0102]

thankyou, this is so helpful, i have this on a test tomorrow!