I am a Christian studying apologetics in seminary, and I want to say that I agree with you; the Kalam argument has long been insufficient in my view. You've given me new insight with this video. Thanks. I wonder, do you anywhere respond to a Christian position that takes the position of Karl Barth (and others) that there is no "analogy of being" between creature and Creator, and therefore no possible analogy between our methods of "creation" and His? (and therefore no critique of a creator)
You hit the nail right on the head there: human perception and comprehension is so ridiculously and inescapably limited, that we will almost certainly never be able to accurately perceive or fully understand the objective and dispassionate truth of our own existence here in reality...
2.Burden of proof is not mine. As stated above, I am not.
3.Yes. Yes.
4.You are not. That concept is irrelevant. Just because If I, indeed am faulty in my reasoning, and what Christianity says is true, meaning I will burn in the fiery pits of hell for an eternity, does not mean that it will shift my opinion the other way. I will not be scared into believing that which does not make logical sense to me and does not stand up to criticism.
Many Atheists, when asked this question, will usually answer YES, "Do you believe life may exist somewhere in the universe besides Earth?". However, when you ask them if God exists, then say, "NO!".Yet a minute ago they admitted that life may exist somewhere else in the universe, yet then they claim God does not exist. It's funny to watch these Atheists run around like headless chickens not knowing what they are doing or believing, they are so closed minded and arrogant and proud
To claim that "everything begins to exist" in the sense that Craig means it (out of complete non-existence), presupposes the implicit premise that complete non-existence is a contingent ( realizable in some possible world), if that's the case, then since Craig's God is necessary (exists in all possible worlds), that means his premise and conclusion are contradictory. Craig can only mean "begin to exist" as some re-arrangement of matter and energy, and quantum physics is enough to disprove that.
@devdissent Non-existence is contingent in the sense that something has not existed before. I did not exist 100 years ago. Even though 100 years ago there was an entire universe of existence and other people, I did not exist. I was non-existent. WLC's idea doesn't require that God was non-existent (that there was absolute zero) only that there was nothing other then God (no universe, no world, no material substance). So no, Craig is not limited to that definition.
@Sickopath333 You failed to understand my point. Craig states "Nothing that begins to exist, is without a cause", there are two ways in which this can be understood: Something begins to exist but is preceded by some existence (quantum physics thoroughly demolishes this premise) OR something begins existing out of non-existence, in which case that means absolute non-existence is contingent and therefore contradictory to the necessary God.
@devdissent The only way to escape the conclusion is to state the premise as PHYSICAL non-existence: "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" implies only that it was preceded by physical non-existence, which is circular since the cause is then by definition non-physical, and is identical to the conclusion.
@devdissent You're contradicting yourself. If quantum physics demolishes the idea that something begins to exist with some prior existence then that would mean things can begin to exist without a prior existence/cause (so something which did not exist before can suddenly exist; which you're saying is a refutation of the second interpretation).
Again, you aren't demonstrating why something coming into existence from nothingness requires absolute nothingness. Why is this necessary?
So, in your premises, you have one premise that is false for you and thus your logic is invalid. Either that, or you've never taken a logic class.
You're also very easy to relate to, saying 'sup' at the beginning saying 'peace' at the end. 'Aha!' you might say. Well, I would say you've never taken a metaphysics class or a logic class.
You also talk about nominalism (reality is only what we think) and reductionism (everything is only its smallest part). And Heraclitus.
I had honestly never before thought about the point you raise about the way matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, so thanks for that.
When arguing Kalam with Craig fanboys, I usually just focus on the 'who created God' attack, with the conclusion that if you have to have an uncreated God, you may as well chuck him out and have an uncreated universe instead.
But your argument is better so I'll use both henceforth :)
If you know anyone who's been falsely DMCA'd by William Lane Craig collaborator John Leonard, otherwise known as drcraigvideos, please contact @thunderf00t.
"Quentin Smith, Michael Martin, Graham Oppy, Nicholas Everitt"
Namedropping, the clearest sign that somebody is not willing to enter any meaningful discussion.
"intellectually shallow minded idiots like you. "
And you think by banning people with opposing views instead of confronting them you will show them your "mental superiority"? Not a chance in hell. You only prove what a cowardly nitwit you are.
Well, it's guys like YOU who give theism a bad name. Theistic claims crumble when scrutinized, and the only way to prevent people from doing that is to prevent them from being heard. Of course, it won't work on a medium like the Internet, but that won't keep you from trying.
The user @EnlightenedReader, who posted a response to this video, is apparently not so enlightened after all, since he blocked me from his channel. In the end, all theists can do is trying to silence opposing views. They will fail, of course, and the voices of people like TB will only get harder to suppress in time.
@TheoreticalBullshit I'd be interested to know what your opinion is on virtual particles (/vacuum energy to be less speculative) regarding P1. This would appear to me to be an an event whereby nothing (that is, a vacuum) becomes something in the form of VPs and so would seem to counteract your assertion that nothing can't generate something. Of course an important response is that there is no obvious existant cause for this that isn't conceptual (i.e. QM) but I'd be interested by your response.
Basically the flaw with this line of logic is that it doesn't recognize the dilemma of saying that the universe did not have a cause. What he must posit and argue for in order to refute KCA's 1st premise is that the universe, or more concisely, all matter and energy, has always existed, without any prior cause. The problem being that you have an infinite retraction, an infinite chain, etc. Also, the premises here don't even make sense. If nothing began to exist why do you posit P1/2/3/5?
@d007ization So what you're saying is that even if the universe had a beginning it is only speculatory to then say that this event had a cause, though our entire universe functions on cause/event relationships. I wouldn't say applying an essentially universal law to an event is merely speculation.
1. Precisely! Why should we apply laws to any event, observed or considered, that are outside the universe? At least based on what we observe in the universe (I mean, the best argument against applying thermodynamics against the universe having a beginning is that it only holds true AFTER the universe began). All the laws about reality are only about how the universe behaves.
@d007ization 1. Because if we don't apply the laws we see in the universe to outside of the universe, how are we going to discuss that theoretical concept with any sense or reason? Cause and effect exists inside the universe, but we can't assume that before the universe existed; so let's just assume there was madness and chaos and make up something because it is conceivably as good as any other proposition. You either apply the same standards or you allow gibberish.
@Sickopath333 Why do you think no serious scientists has been (able to) theorize about such a case? Firstly creation ex nihilo is nonsensical (as tbs pointed out quite nicely). Secondly that there are a myriad of problems with a timeless, spaceless and matterless state goes without saying.
And yes we can, of course, infer how the universe was "created" by looking at it and how it began but if we dont know the exact process of the beginning then it's just a guessing game.
@d007ization Something from nothing is a problem. A timeless, spaceless, matterless state is a problem. Going backwards into the past forever and ever without having an ultimate cause is a problem. You don't have many options. You either posit there was an ultimate cause (from which you can make the KCA), creation ex nihilo (similar idea) or you can posit an infinite regress (with which to discredit KCA). Either way the KAAG presented here is not internally logical.
@d007ization P2 and P3 do not fit in with what he says in this video whatsoever. His entire point is that nothing has been demonstrated to ever begin existing, so why should we think it ever did? We are merely rearranging atoms. So how can you make an argument that is based upon things beginning to exist? The universe began to exist. You said in the video nothing has been observed to begin to exist! Nothing begins to exist! This argument is a complete failure.
@d007ization At the 2:12 in the video, word for word. "Thermodynamics tells us something a little different. What it tells us is that NOTHING ACTUALLY BEGINS TO EXIST." emphasis my own. I would bold the text if I knew how to instead of using capslock, but I am not shouting or screaming at you, I am merely using emphasis to highlight my point as is accepted in scholarly writing. So, I will have to disagree with you, he clearly says that in fact nothing begins to exist.
@Sickopath333 Well sure. He doesent flatout deny the possibility though. Also this doesent mean that he thinks the universe is eternal (a little off-topic but important nevertheless).
Furthermore, as he pointed out quite nicely, it should be logically impossible for something to causally begin existing out of nothing.
@d007ization So he says that nothing begins to exist in his video, as a main counter-argument to the KCA (which presupposes that things do in fact begin to exist), yet you are saying, well he doesn't flat out deny the possibility... he either affirms it happens (as P2 and P3 of his argument says) or rejects it as a criticism of KCA.
And I pretty much addressed that already when I listed the problems you have when proposing any ultimate cause for existence (creation ex nihilo).
@d007ization He is doubling back on himself. He either refutes the idea that the universe began to exist, which is his big counter-point against KCA (since things do not in fact begin to exist, they merely have the appearance of doing so; in the small scale, all the atoms already existed to begin with) and sacrifices his own argument, P3, or he preserves his argument and loses his criticism of KCA. If this makes sense, this is why I say his argument fails. Anything unclear?
He correctly states that the Big Bang is the cause of the universe (as we know it). Anything else, such as why it happened or if it was the ultimate beginning is extrapulation.
And you're completely misunderstanding his argument: it centers around the fact that "causal relationships only exist between things that already exist"
@d007ization I am not misunderstanding his argument. You are trying to give it far more credence then it deserves. I gave you an exact quote of his that absolutely defends my interpretation and criticism of what he is trying to argue for. Either the universe began to exist, or it didn't. It is either infinite/eternal or it had a cause (and you can stipulate the Big Bang, but you are still stuck explaining either an infinite regression or an ultimate cause).
@Sickopath333 I'll give you that. But I think he was trying to argue against matter "popping" into existence in all the cases we have of things "beginning to exist". Which is why he says that since we dont have any case(s) of creation ex nihilo and dont even know what it's like (i.e. how it happened/s) we cant make any statements about its nature.
@d007ization That isn't a bad thing to point out, but that basically is the point and gist of the first premise of the KCA. Things do not just spontaneously generate out of nothingness; if a horse was in your living room you'd want to know how it got there, its "cause." From this accepted idea we then propose that the universe itself had a beginning, and therefore needs an explanation. The theist then proposes that there is an ultimate cause to everything; God.
@Sickopath333 The thing is: you can't prove that. We live in the time-space contiuum and there things do not spontaneously pop into existence uncaused (because of the first law of thermodynamics).
And if you found a horse in your room it must have existed in one form or another. It follows logically that the universe did too.
@d007ization Your concept is more or less right, but I have to disagree on the phrasing. It isn't that the horse had to have existed in one form or another, but that we require an explanation for its existence.
What you propose with your language is what the video-maker must also propose. The universe (or its parts), in one form or another, has always existed for all of eternity. That is not logically valid however.
@Sickopath333 My explanation is that the horse always existed in one way or another.
Yes it is. Not only is it entirely correct that the constituents of the horse always existed somehow, it is also true for everything that exists (or can exist).
It's utterly irrelevant if you regard one certain thing or everything. Everything must be eternal (not temporarily (though), if that's possible).
@d007ization So everything has existed for all of eternity? Well, the main problem when you propose that is that you lose some of your point in trying to argue against an eternal God. If the universe and its components could just exist for all of eternity without an explanation, then why couldn't the same idea apply to God? You aren't against objects just existing forever and unexplained.
@d007ization I think one addition to your rephrasing would be the point that everything that exists had the potential to exist because all of existence and matter already existed for all of eternity (and as long as natural laws are followed, there is no limit on what could exist in the future) and has done so without any ultimate cause. Which is also a necessity of this idea of eternal existence. And is a logically invalid point to establish.
Take for example Stephen Hawking's (& co's) M-Theory. It is based on our universe having a beginning and being the necessary result of a certain set of circumstances (correct me if I'm mistaken please)
You're right that I have to add something to my premises:
Something however must have always existed either way (e.g. (natural) laws; God)
@d007ization Don't know much about M-Theory really; sounds like an attempt to explain everything though, which we'll see how that goes.
That's my point, and I just wrote it out to another person on here. If you propose eternal existence, it is either naturalistic only or supernatural (God). If you have no issues with unexplained, uncaused natural forces existing you lose making the same argument against an unexplained, uncaused God.
@Sickopath333 Sure. A law is basically a certain behaviour that is always followed. The thing following it has no say about wether it can or cant (because othrerwise the law would be changed (not broken)).
Nothing that exists or can exist is exempt from that.
@d007ization Here's kind of a tricky question to that idea though. If you find something that breaks that law (or a condition where the law does not apply; think Newtonian physics for instance) is the law broken or are there things that do not have to follow the law?
I'm not entirely sure that's correct. It seems logical, but how does one even know that what is thought of as a law is in a fact a law at all? Until you test every item under every condition you can't be sure.
Also, how does one ever demonstrate that anything is indeed a law? To say something is a law is to claim to know that the prescribed attributes of the law occurs 100% of all times no matter the variables present, which of course contradicts the notion that science never states anything with such certainty. So, how does one know that a law is indeed a law and not just a principle that has yet to be disproven/broken?
@Sickopath333 It's irrelevant. The law doesent have to be defined (precisely, I mean). Though I disagree with you that said "princible" would be worthless:
for anything to behave a certain way (no matter why) it must follow some kind of law. If it didnt then it wouldnt behave at all.
Because something cannot choose how it behaves. If it could, then it be a different "something"
@d007ization Again, how does one demonstrate that there is ever any law operating though? How do you know that something has to behave according to one law or another?
And what sort of different "something" would this something be if it could choose how it behaves? Is there any law saying this "something" could not exist? Again, if so, how do you know that? And I imagine you don't mean in the simple way sentient beings choose how they are going to act one day to the next.
@Sickopath333 I'm sorry for expressing myself so unclearly:
1. A law is merely an observation of behaviour. There may be exceptions to this but those arent acausal (probably nothing is, anyway) and can be added to the law/explained via an external effect
2. Changing your nature is only possible if part of your nature allows you to do this. When you can, a law is used to describe all things with said nature (choice = impossible is wrong, I'll explain if you have no other questions)
@d007ization 1. Well, assuming I understand you, how does a law restrict God whatsoever? If they are merely observations, in essence it seems the most they could ever do is explain what God is, not somehow restrict what He can(not) do (which I thought was a point you mentioned earlier).
2. So, the law would say, this thing can change its nature, and the law would try to do the best it can outlining any attributes which allows it to do so, assuming it can even do that much.
@Sickopath333 Spot on! My intention was to show that God and the laws of nature (because they are laws only in the way I described them) arent so different.
@d007ization But by definining natural laws in that way what you're saying is that naturalism is correct so we should accept it since it allows for the application of God. However, with such a generalized definition, at least in my reckoning you've really lost much prominence or impact with what a law is. A law is nothing more than a descriptive sentence, little more then me saying the sky is blue. Why should we ascribe any scientific awe to such watered-down ideas?
@d007ization I suppose that is all it is, but with the way some people discuss them they act like they were established concepts you should never dare challenge so science help you.
@d007ization a) It entails the violation of the first law of thermodynamics (e.g. an effect not preceded by a cause).
b) You should be able to type in any of the keywords I provided into Google, and they will show up on wikipedia. Or you can go to the physics forums, which has very trustworthy members. You can read about any of those topics at great these via numerous physics sites. Good luck.
@Sickopath333 He isn't saying that 'nothing begins existing' (I don't think). He's mainly attacking the concept of 'causing something that does not exist to begin existing', since there isn't anything to affect so that it can become an effect, the idea of 'affecting' or 'causing' something which does not exist to begin existing is incoherent.
@bizzyb1999 No, he really is. That's what his whole spiel about atoms rearranging is trying to explain; things appear to have a beginning existence (you were born and began existing X years ago), but what you are composed of already existed in the form of atoms.
I don't think it's incoherent. If something was generated from nothing, that thing would be the effect. Whatever created that thing would be the cause. That thing began to exist when it was made.
@Sickopath333 Quantum mechanics says otherwise (quantum foam, random decay etc.), that an effect may not be preceded by a cause. That isn't what this was directed at. This certainly isn't tantamount to a critique of 'beginning to exist'. The intent is to show that 'acting upon', 'affecting' or 'causing' (however one would like to put it) something non-existent to begin existing is incoherent, he's saying that you can not 'generate' something non-existent to begin existing.
@bizzyb1999 Then he is proposing that the universe is eternal as a system. All of the energy and matter already existed and it has just been going through a cycle of compression and expansion, or what is commonly called The Big Bang and The Big Crunch (if I remember the term properly). He is free to do so, or a variant thereof, but this is incoherent as well. You cannot have an infinite regression. Pick your poison.
@Sickopath333 You can have an infinite regression. But that isn't what he's arguing for, and is irrelevant, he's simply arguing against the idea of causing something non-existent to begin existing ex nihilo, which again, is seperate from 'beginning to exist' (e.g. quantum foam, virtual particles, HUP, quantum fluctuation).
Causing something to begin existing ex nihilo is the same as saying that you affected 'nothing', thus can not engender an effect (according to his argument).
@bizzyb1999 No, an infinite regression is logically invalid. What caused that? Something else. And what caused that? Something else. Another variant to this is when atheists present the question of where did God come from? God 1; where did God 1 come from? God 2. Etc. I think you get the point.
And the point is that if he refutes creation ex nihilo he then has to deal with the implications of denying that idea, which is an infinite regression.
@Sickopath333 You didn't show why an infinite regress of past events is logically invalid, all you did was affirm what an infinite regression posits, and not why that denotation is logically invalid.
Again, creation ex nihilo and emergence ex nihilo are two discrete concepts, and acting as though a refutation of one is as well a refutation of the other is fallacious. Even if that was true, he wouldn't be reduced to only an infinite regression (no boundary proposal).
@bizzyb1999 It's logically invalid because you cannot continually regress into the past for eternity. You cannot keep listing off one more cause to what we thought was the primary cause. You can't zip back forever, a trillion years per second, and never find a stopping point.
Whatever his choices might be, none of them are truly logically flawless. When he refutes the KCA he has to accept the repercussions and address the problems with his proposed explanation.
@Sickopath333 No one made the argument that "a trillion years" could elapse in one second. I'm not suggesting an infinite regress of events, or "causes", but that the concept of an infinite regression of time is possible (not that it makes to big a difference), you could start by objecting to that, rather than making bare assertions about its invalidity.
Since you seem to be sure that none of the alternatives are logically flawless, please address those logical inconsistencies.
@bizzyb1999 That was part of my explanation on why it is invalid.. even if you went back at the rate of a trillion years per second (insanely quickly backwards in time) you would never find a beginning cause that ended the infinite cycle of, there was something prior to that and something prior to that, etc. or in your idea that time regressed infinitely (either way, not valid).
Elaborate on what you're asking for. Address them in what sense?
@Sickopath333 How does that demonstrate the invalidity of an infinite regress? I agree that an infinite amount of preceding time has no beginning, thus no matter how far back you go, no beginning would be reached. What's invalid about this?
You claimed that none of the alternatives were "logically flawless", I'm asking you to evince that accusation. What's logically inconsistent about vacuum fluctuation models, or the no boundary proposal?
@bizzyb1999 What is invalid with this proposal is that if you propose an eternity of time in the past then you concede that things can exist without a cause. Time has always been, it had no beginning.
Essentially the problem with these higher-level quantum physics is that they delve into such theoretical mathematics without any evidence to demonstrate they are correct. For the most part VFM models are outdated and Hawking's proposal seems.. I'll say absurd.
@Sickopath333 Sickopath, some points I'd like to bring up:
- quantumatics is one of the most successful, well supported models per se
- quantumatics indicates that what we ordinarily think of as causation (and other aspects) in our macro-world is "blurred" out in the micro-world (e.g. Planck-scales)
- quantumatics indicates genuinely stochastic aspects of nature
- a Hawking-Penrose theorem indicates that some causal chains have a definite first event, i.e. causes that are not effects
@Sickopath333 Even if existence 'without a cause' poses a problem (numerous observations in nature have suggested otherwise), god doesn't evade the purported looming problem. If the only apparent problem you see with an infinite past is the lack of a (perhaps primary) cause, then god is subject to this cause-less problem too.
@bizzyb1999 That's basically my point though with what I said earlier; all proposed explanations have a serious logical flaw in one form or another. So either you have no qualms with eternal existence with no explanation (which means you can't lob that attack against God) or you do, which then means you must explain an ultimate cause for naturalism. Does that make sense?
@Sickopath333 The gist of my response was not to emphasize that all proposed explanations accommodate logical flaws, rather that god does not elude the problems that you pose which attempt to favor his existence; I do think that effects can exist without a cause (examples can be seen throughout nature), but if you're not willing to grant that, than you can't use it as an argument for god.
I hope you know that the phrase "imaginary time" isn't literal.
@bizzyb1999 I wouldn't expect you to since that's my argument and not yours. I'm not saying that God does elude these problems; I think it is a very fair question to ask where God came from. It is a mind-boggling proposal. However, I also state that other explanations face similar breakdowns or issues.
I can only think of quantum examples; not quite what I'd call nature, but anyways.
I know it isn't, but they have to keep.. "inventing" new ideas to explain their ideas.
@Sickopath333 You said "that's basically my point", I thought "that" was referring to my post, but evidently it wasn't.
But we've meandered off topic, my point was that if causeless effects or infinite regressions engender logical contradictions or inconsistencies then God is subject to those same quandaries, but you don't disagree with me here. Consequently, I'd like to emphasize my original point, causeless effects and infinite regressions don't pose problems or "face breakdowns."
@bizzyb1999 Not sure how that was mistaken, but that's fine.
Let me try to simplify this. I disagree a bit, but essentially you could sum up my position as, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If causeless effects or infinite regressions are a logical breakdown, flaw, whatever word you want to use, it is a problem for both naturalistic and theistic interpretations of existence. If it is not a problem, then neither explanation can be criticized on that ground.
@Sickopath333 I agree, but the problem is that without any proposed problems with a naturalist (materialist, physicalist etc.) conception of reality, the theist has no basis on which he invoke a god, the 'god' concept now becomes tantamount to any other fictional character.
@bizzyb1999 Well, I'm not conceding that there are no proposed problems with a naturalistic conception of reality, even if we were to agree that the ultimate origin issue was irrelevant to either proposed explanation. Even assuming naturalism was without criticism, how would that then demonstrate theism has no basis? I think you're jumping the gate here.
That purported non-basis depends on the epistemological framework one starts with. So you really don't have a point here.
@Sickopath333 When a god is employed by a theist, that employment is predicated upon the notion that there exists facets of reality which cannot be accounted for otherwise (i.e. without a god) (e.g. morality, origin, governing etc.), this is the groundwork on which a theist demonstrates the feasibility of their god's existence. Without this basis/foundation their particular god so described is indistinguishable from (i.e. tantamount to) 'bullshit' (fabricated myth/fairy tale).
@bizzyb1999 I get what you're saying, but it's slightly off. It isn't necessarily that whatever item in question exists and can only exist if God made it, but that it is most logically explained by the properties usually attributed to God (all-knowing, all-powerful, etc.). So naturalism can propose mindless, blind occurrence, and the theist will not merely invoke impossibility but that an intelligent operator creating these things is more rational.
@Sickopath333 This still remains an utterly arbitrary imputation, as mentioned, this god-concept persists indiscernible (i.e. no distinction drawn) from other man-made fabrications.
As for whether it's more rational: Working with probabilities (e.g. it's more probable that reality as we know it is the result of intelligent design) is self defeating (in the case of a god) as one purports that the ungoverned complexity of reality is irrational, but a God far more complex isn't (Occam's razor).
@bizzyb1999 Based on your epistemological background of naturalism that is. Depending on one's standards you could compare fairy tales to other man-made structures such as law, science, mathematics, etc. since we invented these systems.
That's not how the probability argument works, nor is that how Occam's Razor operates. It only removes unneccessary complexities that don't add to explanatory power. Saying that something which appears designed had a creator isn't privy to OR.
@Sickopath333 Under any worldview. A concept which is invoked unnecessarily without substantiation (i.e. justification) is indistinguishable from any other unsubstantiated concept posited by man.
Reductive fallacy. Saying something that appears designed had a creator isn't in violation of Occam's Razor, however, saying that a reality (and what intuitively appears to be designed about it) which can be veritably accounted for without a creator has one ads unnecessary verbosity to the status quo.
@bizzyb1999 But who determines that it is either unnecessary or unsubstantiated? The theist will say that naturalism is not a satisfactory answer and under a different epistemological standard would deny that it is unsubstantiated. So, it does matter what worldview you operate from.
Something can be explained without the force of a mind behind it, but that is no guarantee that this explanation is satisfactory or accurate. One could hypothesize computers weren't invented for ex.
@Sickopath333 Who determines what is unsubstantiated or unnecessary is irrelevant, my point was that any model which elicits a transcendent/supernatural entity without justification has no discernible difference (regarding the truth-value) between itself and any other uncorroborated concept.
A computer, being made of inorganic material, as well as for the purpose of computing, would have no veritable explanation for its presence. This isn't the case with reality.
@bizzyb1999 Again, saying that it is unjustified is a judgment call. Someone has to determine whether it is justified or not. Again, the issue of whether it's corroborated or not depends on ones epistemological standard. If you take a naturalistic approach then you would probably say that a God concept is uncorroborated, but if you take another approach you would be more open to logical arguments and other forms of evidence.
You can conjure up some explanation for it though.
@Sickopath333 I think you've simply missed my point, I'm not accusing any particular concept of being uncorroborated or unjustified, rather that when a concept is uncorroborated or unjustified there is an adequation of sorts between it and other unjustified concepts, the logical consequence of inadequacy, and the inadequacy itself are two discrete topics.
'Conjuring up some explanation' doesn't equate to modern physics, mind you, we build our models around observation, not vice versa.
@bizzyb1999 Then why do you keep mentioning God/theist position at the same time you bring up your point against uncorroborated/unjustified concepts? I might disagree with wording/conceptualization, but random, illogical, or falsified claims can be more easily dismissed (though it'd be wise to demonstrate their error).
Right, but my point was that you theoretically can impose a simpler, non-intelligent source as the explanation for something existing w/out it being satisfying.
@Sickopath333 There's a reason why I've been discussing god in a separate reply. As I've said, whether or not a concept is unsubstantiated, and the logical consequence of being unsubstantiated are discrete discussions. in this line of reasoning, I've only addressed the former.
So back to the beginning of this discussion, do you plan on demonstrating how an atheistic world-view is 'unsatisfactory', or perhaps what it is that a 'god' satisfies that an atheistic world-view doesn't?
@bizzyb1999 So you're saying you aren't necessarily linking God to unsubstantiated claims? It sure has seemed like you have, but okay. I thought you had been talking about the consequences of unsubstantiated claims already.
It satisfies the notion that stability, order, complexity, intelligence, morality, love, etc. came from an intelligent, all-powerful source as opposed to blind, thoughtless, apathetic forces occurring over long periods of time.
@Sickopath333 With that line of reasoning I wasn't accusing any concept of being unsubstantiated, yet again, I was only elaborating upon what is to be made of unsubstantiated claims.
Again, this is self-refuting. Some state they cannot possibly imagine our rich and complex universe, containing life and all, without an intelligent designer.
Oddly enough, they can imagine such a transcendent entity, possessing the capability to create our rich and complex universe?
@bizzyb1999 Okay, then you are not accusing anything of being unsubstantiated.
Yes, because it fits our observed experiences. Complex, intricate, stable, purposeful items only exist when an intelligent force has made them. We see these same traits in our universe. You get the rest.
This is not self-refuting by your own standard. If time and existence has always existed in an infinite regress, unexplained and uncaused, then you cannot charge this idea against God.
@bizzyb1999 Okay, then you are not accusing anything of being unsubstantiated.
Yes, because it fits our observed experiences. Complex, intricate, stable, purposeful items only exist when an intelligent force has made them. We see these same traits in our universe. You get the rest.
This is not self-refuting by your own standard. If time and existence has always existed in an infinite regress, unexplained and uncaused, then you cannot lodge this complaint against God.
@Sickopath333 I wasn't arguing that origin was irrelevant to either propositions, but that it doesn't pose an irreconcilable/insoluble dilemma thus, again, the theist has no foundation on which he can invoke a god for that purported quandary, because there is none.
@bizzyb1999 First, this still assumes that an infinite regress is not an absurd issue. I haven't shown it is to you satisfactorily, but just saying.
Secondly, if this is not a problem, then the concept of a God existing forever and unexplained has no flaws either. One cannot take fault with that idea if one accepts that attribute of the naturalistic claim.
Third, it doesn't have to be impossible without God, it is a matter of which proposed idea is the best explanation.
@Sickopath333 First: We were following the concept I proposed to its logical conclusion, so yes, we were working with some assumptions. If you'd like to proceed our discussion on infinite regression, I'd be glad to.
Second: As mentioned earlier, if a theist bears admission to the validity of an infinite regress, then he can't invoke a god on the grounds of its invalidity. But if he does concede the validity of an infinite regress, and still employ a god, this falls victim to Occam's razor.
@bizzyb1999 Which concept? Before I follow along I'll need to know precisely which idea I'm following to a supposed logical conclusion (not to sound dismissive, but I think you get what I mean). Eh, I think we're both at a standstill on infinite regress though.
If a theist accepted that idea they wouldn't speak on its invalidity, only on its deficit of satisfactory explanation. And trying to employ OR ignores the other issues relevant to origins other than the infinite regress.
@Sickopath333 The notion/concept that without any proposed flaws with naturalist (materialist, physicalist) models of reality, there is no basis on which one can posit a god without adding unnecessary verbosity (i.e. deferring something that already has an explanation, to a mystery).
Employing Occam's Razor is only to address the notion that the invocation of a god-concept is more rational (i.e. that the existence of a God is more probable).
@Sickopath333 The notion/concept that without any proposed flaws with naturalist (materialist, physicalist) models of reality, there is no basis on which one can posit a god without adding unnecessary verbosity (i.e. deferring something that already has an explanation, to a mystery).
Employing Occam's Razor is only to address the notion that the invocation of a god-concept is more rational (i.e. that the existence of a God is more probable).
@bizzyb1999 The infinite regress which we couldn't agree upon is only one hurdle for the naturalist model to overcome when explaining the issue of ultimate origin/existence though. So to follow along that logic I have to ignore the other criticisms in order for you to make the point that the theist is making an unnecessary complication by invoking God.
To be honest I'm not quite sure what you mean with this second part. You mean you're using it to argue against God's probability?
@Sickopath333 Sickopath, there exists no observed phenomena (or gaps in our models) in which a priori cannot be accounted for by emergent events processes or agency ... there simply aren't any intelligible grounds for doubting that nature suffices. If you feel as though I've made fallacious arguments regarding an infinite regress, or that I'm missing any particular issues in our current models, please address them.
I'm using it against the unnecessary verbosity elicited by a god.
@bizzyb1999 I think that's rather presumptious. What you're essentially saying is that no one has any good reason to think that the order, stability, and complexity we see in the universe could possibly not be explained by blind, thoughtless, uncontrolled processes. That's quite a strong bias for me to go up against and I don't know that it'd be worth my effort.
Considering your worldview I can see why you would dismiss a God concept as verbose, though I clearly disagree with it.
@Sickopath333 I'm saying that things which may viscerally seem to be intricate have perfectly adequate accounts, but the unwarranted invocation of a god ads unnecessary complexion.
I'm not dismissive of any concept merely because it's verbose, it's a matter of whether or not the employment of verbosity is warranted, and if it isn't, then as mentioned, that concept is tantamount to any other unwarranted postulation (e.g. Santa Claus, Easter bunny, tooth fairy etc.).
@bizzyb1999 I hate to be redundant, but that is another judgment call (perfectly adequate). Science has proposed theories to explain existence naturalistically, yet I am skeptical of their explanatory power and overall consistency, especially since the modern scientific paradigm is unabashedly naturalistic (a bias).
Broken record time. One has to determine for themselves if the employment of an idea is warranted or not. Odd ex. since those aren't used to explain anything.
@Sickopath333 Whether or not an asserted reality is warranted or not isn't merely a subjective 'judgement call'. If a concept is ascribed objective predicates then it can be tested, and if found uncorroborated (i.e. does not meet the ascribed predicates) then it necessarily obtains that the concept proposed doesn't correspond with reality.
If one posits a god that is currently unassociated with our reality (i.e. can not be tested) then you must show what about reality is reminiscent of a god.
@bizzyb1999 Wait. How does something being objective necessarily predicate that it can be tested? For ex. on the issue of morality science can never bridge the ought gap, so assuming there is objective morality science cannot speak on it, which only serves to demonstrate that this notion of yours is false. But one's view of reality would determine the parameters for whether or not it has warranted that or not.
Cannot be tested on what standard of testing or scientific basis?
@Sickopath333 I reject the premise that morality is objective. Normative sentences are not statements (i.e. corresponding with some aspect of reality).
Can one's view of reality not be unwarranted in and of itself? An unwarranted conception of something will no doubt entail unwarranted conclusions of it.
@bizzyb1999 So you propose that morality is subjective. Therein, your normative sentence would also have the same issue as the other would (supposedly; not sure what precisely you were trying to say there).
"Normative sentences.." what now?
Every view of reality is based upon presuppositions so it's somewhat possible, but you're going to have to work pretty hard to support that idea, not just speculate or make weak links.
So in other words The Bible cannot be used as a reference.
@Sickopath333 "Normative sentences" do not need to be "true descriptions of the world" in order to be adaptive to states of the world; they are, in fact, instructions (not propositions) which only need to be performatively consistent.
It's rather prevalent that individuals cite evidence for a 'god' that's predicated upon an erroneous perception of reality (e.g. 'design requires designer').
No, personal experience in general cannot be used as a reference, not just for Christianity either.
@bizzyb1999 I've been able to understand most of your wordy statements, but this is another one that's too clunky.
And how would you know that their perception of reality is erroneous? You have a litmus test that demonstrates there is no designer? And that example is not erroneous at all; when has complexity not needed an intelligent force behind it? I'm thinking more advanced than crystal formations, FYI.
Sorry for the long response time; sometimes I just like taking a break from it.
@Sickopath333 "True normative sentences" makes no sense because, as pointed out already, normative sentences are instructions and not propositions. Rather than "true" they are either useful (in the sense of adaptive) to some degree or not.
By evaluating the validity of the truth-claims and the ascribed predicates of the regarded worldview, and if it offers an unnecessarily verbose account for phenomena that already have an explanation, then it can be ruled out by Occam's Razor.
@Sickopath333 Complexity arguments are self-refuting, these are some metrics, by which their reasoning goes: incomprehensible, grand, complex (but there may be any number of metrics).
Naturally, by that same reasoning we now get:
1. our universe is so high in those metrics that there must be an intelligent designer
2. the intelligent designer is no less in those metrics
3. the intelligent designer must have been created by another intelligent designer
@Sickopath333 "Norms are concepts (sentences) of practical import, oriented to effecting an action, rather than conceptual abstractions that describe, explain, and express. Normative sentences imply “ought-to” types of statements and assertions, in distinction to sentences that provide “is” types of statements and assertions." - Wikipedia
@Sickopath333 I was providing you a definition of a phrase that you seemed to be confused by, I wasn't citing evidence for something. If you think I'm distorting definitions then feel free to look it up for yourself.
@Sickopath333 Aside from that, I'd like to add that not all vacuum fluctuation models are necessarily dead, I'd also like for you to elaborate upon why the no boundary proposal is absurd. Thanks.
@Sickopath333 How does that demonstrate the invalidity of an infinite regress? I agree that an infinite amount of preceding time has no beginning, thus no matter how far back you go, no beginning would be reached. What's invalid about this?
You claimed that none of the alternatives were "logically flawless", I'm asking you to evince that accusation. What's logically inconsistent about vacuum fluctuation models, or the no boundary proposal?
@Sickopath333 How does that demonstrate the invalidity of an infinite regress? I agree that an infinite amount of preceding time has no beginning, thus no matter how far back you go, no beginning would be reached. What's invalid about this?
You claimed that none of the alternatives were "logically flawless", I'm asking you to evince that accusation. What's logically inconsistent about vacuum fluctuation models, or the no boundary proposal?
@Sickopath333 How does that demonstrate the invalidity of an infinite regress? I agree that an infinite amount of preceding time has no beginning, thus no matter how far back you go, no beginning would be reached. What's invalid about this?
You claimed that none of the alternatives were "logically flawless", I'm asking you to evince that accusation. What's logically inconsistent about vacuum fluctuation models, or the no boundary proposal?
@Sickopath333 How does that demonstrate the invalidity of an infinite regress? I agree that an infinite amount of preceding time has no beginning, thus no matter how far back you go, no beginning would be reached. What's invalid about this?
You claimed that none of the alternatives were "logically flawless", I'm asking you to evince that accusation. What's logically inconsistent about vacuum fluctuation models, or the no boundary proposal?
@Sickopath333 2. I only mean this in the sense that an "outside" cause caused the universe. If you say that the properties of something are enough for it to change (and thusly begin existing) then sure, everything has a cause for its existence.
@d007ization 2. That's not the point I was making. I'm saying that if we take the video's point that everything already exists, it is just reforming of atoms, that does not erase either the nature of cause and effect relationships (the underlying concept behind KCA) or the dilemma of positing that the universe had no beginning (infinite regression into the past).
"...properties of something are enough for it to change... etc." Not sure what you meant at all there.
Tbs doesen't address infinite regress but there is a problem with it. An infinity isn't a number (so saying it's that old is problematic).
And as I and Tbs have already said: saying it has to be an outside, personal cause can in no way be proven since we dont know the process of creation ex nihilo.
In short what you are saying is if energy is neither created nor destroyed, then nothing begins to exist: all energy has been and will always be here. I understand why you put that in the framework of a kalam argument but I think that step is unnecessary and clouds the issue. keep up the good work by the way love your vids :)
What? no it doesn't , the funny thing is this isn't an objection to god but the big bang , All these cosmologists who believe in it would be contradicting thermodynamics.
The standard Big bang model says energy & matter came into existance at the big bang, The laws of nature like thermodynamics only apply every moment after the big bang, they only work once the arena is set up since its a law of nature.
@lxAgnosticxl Ouch, you have some reading to do. Research something called the Big Bang Phase, dark energy, quantum loop gravitation and string theory. All will be explained :)
I know what the theory is , any text book on the subject will tell you energy , space & time began at the big bang , that is a religiously neutral statement.
@lxAgnosticxl That's incorrect. The Big Bang deals with what happened 10^-43 (I think) seconds after the expansion from the singularity that was the universe.
Now, according to relativity, for anything in a singularity time only exists in the sense that it is infinite.
But since relativity isn't true on a microscopic scale we'll have to keep searching for the truth.
"What? no it doesn't , the funny thing is this isn't an objection to god but the big bang , All these cosmologists who believe in it would be contradicting thermodynamics.
The standard Big bang model says energy & matter came into existance at the big bang, The laws of nature like thermodynamics only apply every moment after the big bang, they only work once the arena is set up since its a law of nature. "
@lxAgnosticxl nope sorry cant see the "stunningly clear problem"! if the universe is infinite ie energy can neither be created nor destroyed which would leave me the assumption that it has always been there,, then there is no need for God. The universe was created at the big bang or in other words changed from whatever state it was in to what we currently call the universe !.. obviously I am missing something and would be very grateful for you to enlighten me if you can spare the time. Ta :)
the funny thing is this isn't an objection to god but the big bang , All these cosmologists who believe in it would be contradicting thermodynamics.
The standard Big bang model says energy & matter came into existance at the big bang, The laws of nature like thermodynamics only apply every moment after the big bang, they only work once the arena is set up since its a law of nature. "
C.W. Davies Britains leading quantum gravity expert & a Christians says " The coming into being of the universe as described in modern science is not just a matter of imposing organization upon a previous incoherent state but literaly the coming into being of all physical things from nothing." Also Stephen Hawking worlds most famous theoretical physicst & an Atheist says "Now almost evey one believes the universe including time itself began at the Big Bang."
@lxAgnosticxl well you may convince CW Davis of this but certainly not me :) creation ex nihilo just seems less probable than an infinite universe. I realise this is just an assertion and I have no proof but the Kalam argument is just an assertion to :)
My view doesnt disagree with Hawkins time only exists when you have events to place time upon its a man made concept placed upon the universe !!!
PCW Davies is britains leading quantom gravity expert, "less probable than an infinte universe" it doesn't matter what you prefer the evidence is clear (BGV theorm) Proves the univers began, The Kalam is not an assertion Craig gives good reason for both premises, Your view deos contradict Hawking he has a no boundary model he believes ex nihilo creation, And he does say physical time began he tries to use it to disprove God.
there's a difference between creating and "causing to exist"
youngmilli208 3 days ago
@youngmilli208 Is there?
Anomalous59 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
P1: All examples of causes are followed by the effect of changes/ rearrangements taking place involving pre-existing materials.
P2: There is no logic which can lead us to the conclusion that a cause is followed by the effect of materials coming into existence.
P3: There is a distinct difference between materials beginning to exist, and pre-existing materials changing form or becoming rearranged.
P4: There is no logical reason to believe that if materials began to exist, they had a cause.
theBartone9119 1 week ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 week ago
I am a Christian studying apologetics in seminary, and I want to say that I agree with you; the Kalam argument has long been insufficient in my view. You've given me new insight with this video. Thanks. I wonder, do you anywhere respond to a Christian position that takes the position of Karl Barth (and others) that there is no "analogy of being" between creature and Creator, and therefore no possible analogy between our methods of "creation" and His? (and therefore no critique of a creator)
MPWorthMcEwan 1 week ago
You hit the nail right on the head there: human perception and comprehension is so ridiculously and inescapably limited, that we will almost certainly never be able to accurately perceive or fully understand the objective and dispassionate truth of our own existence here in reality...
DarkTrojanHorse 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You stated that you are 100% sure God does not exist. So onto my next question:
Are you 100% sure no life exists anywhere in the entire universe besides Earth? Yes or No?
If no, then how can you count out a God living somewhere in the universe?
EvangelistEvan 2 weeks ago
Atheists:
1. Are you 100% sure God does not exist? If no, then do you admit God may exist?
2. Do you have proof that God does not exist? If not, then how can you be 100% sure God doesn't exist?
3. Do you admit you could wrong? As a Christian and Creationist, I humbly admit I could be wrong. What about you? Do you admit you could be wrong?
4. If you are right, how am I going to be worse off than you in the grave? But if I am right, are you going to be worse off than me in the grave?
EvangelistEvan 2 weeks ago
@EvangelistEvan
1.No. Yes.
2.Burden of proof is not mine. As stated above, I am not.
3.Yes. Yes.
4.You are not. That concept is irrelevant. Just because If I, indeed am faulty in my reasoning, and what Christianity says is true, meaning I will burn in the fiery pits of hell for an eternity, does not mean that it will shift my opinion the other way. I will not be scared into believing that which does not make logical sense to me and does not stand up to criticism.
phenomenon91 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Many Atheists, when asked this question, will usually answer YES, "Do you believe life may exist somewhere in the universe besides Earth?". However, when you ask them if God exists, then say, "NO!".Yet a minute ago they admitted that life may exist somewhere else in the universe, yet then they claim God does not exist. It's funny to watch these Atheists run around like headless chickens not knowing what they are doing or believing, they are so closed minded and arrogant and proud
EvangelistEvan 1 week ago
@EnlightenedReader no u dumb ho!
d007ization 3 weeks ago
To claim that "everything begins to exist" in the sense that Craig means it (out of complete non-existence), presupposes the implicit premise that complete non-existence is a contingent ( realizable in some possible world), if that's the case, then since Craig's God is necessary (exists in all possible worlds), that means his premise and conclusion are contradictory. Craig can only mean "begin to exist" as some re-arrangement of matter and energy, and quantum physics is enough to disprove that.
devdissent 1 month ago
@devdissent Non-existence is contingent in the sense that something has not existed before. I did not exist 100 years ago. Even though 100 years ago there was an entire universe of existence and other people, I did not exist. I was non-existent. WLC's idea doesn't require that God was non-existent (that there was absolute zero) only that there was nothing other then God (no universe, no world, no material substance). So no, Craig is not limited to that definition.
Sickopath333 4 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 You failed to understand my point. Craig states "Nothing that begins to exist, is without a cause", there are two ways in which this can be understood: Something begins to exist but is preceded by some existence (quantum physics thoroughly demolishes this premise) OR something begins existing out of non-existence, in which case that means absolute non-existence is contingent and therefore contradictory to the necessary God.
devdissent 4 weeks ago
@devdissent The only way to escape the conclusion is to state the premise as PHYSICAL non-existence: "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" implies only that it was preceded by physical non-existence, which is circular since the cause is then by definition non-physical, and is identical to the conclusion.
devdissent 4 weeks ago
@devdissent You're contradicting yourself. If quantum physics demolishes the idea that something begins to exist with some prior existence then that would mean things can begin to exist without a prior existence/cause (so something which did not exist before can suddenly exist; which you're saying is a refutation of the second interpretation).
Again, you aren't demonstrating why something coming into existence from nothingness requires absolute nothingness. Why is this necessary?
Sickopath333 4 weeks ago
So, in your premises, you have one premise that is false for you and thus your logic is invalid. Either that, or you've never taken a logic class.
You're also very easy to relate to, saying 'sup' at the beginning saying 'peace' at the end. 'Aha!' you might say. Well, I would say you've never taken a metaphysics class or a logic class.
You also talk about nominalism (reality is only what we think) and reductionism (everything is only its smallest part). And Heraclitus.
thegreattesm 1 month ago
I had honestly never before thought about the point you raise about the way matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, so thanks for that.
When arguing Kalam with Craig fanboys, I usually just focus on the 'who created God' attack, with the conclusion that if you have to have an uncreated God, you may as well chuck him out and have an uncreated universe instead.
But your argument is better so I'll use both henceforth :)
kanojo1969 1 month ago
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 1 month ago in playlist William Lane Craig
@EnlightenedReader
"I only mentioned those philosophers because I have respect for them and none for internet atheists."
Which adds absolutely nothing to the discussion, and is nothing but an attempt at poisoning the well.
"And yet you wonder why you're blocked."
I know very well why I am blocked, and I stated those reasons already.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 month ago
@EnlightenedReader
"Quentin Smith, Michael Martin, Graham Oppy, Nicholas Everitt"
Namedropping, the clearest sign that somebody is not willing to enter any meaningful discussion.
"intellectually shallow minded idiots like you. "
And you think by banning people with opposing views instead of confronting them you will show them your "mental superiority"? Not a chance in hell. You only prove what a cowardly nitwit you are.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 month ago
@EnlightenedReader
"lol u mad bro?"
Well, it's guys like YOU who give theism a bad name. Theistic claims crumble when scrutinized, and the only way to prevent people from doing that is to prevent them from being heard. Of course, it won't work on a medium like the Internet, but that won't keep you from trying.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 month ago
Great video! Solid argument. Logical. Liked. Subbed.
JayJayAbels 1 month ago
The user @EnlightenedReader, who posted a response to this video, is apparently not so enlightened after all, since he blocked me from his channel. In the end, all theists can do is trying to silence opposing views. They will fail, of course, and the voices of people like TB will only get harder to suppress in time.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 month ago
@TheoreticalBullshit I'd be interested to know what your opinion is on virtual particles (/vacuum energy to be less speculative) regarding P1. This would appear to me to be an an event whereby nothing (that is, a vacuum) becomes something in the form of VPs and so would seem to counteract your assertion that nothing can't generate something. Of course an important response is that there is no obvious existant cause for this that isn't conceptual (i.e. QM) but I'd be interested by your response.
jez2718 1 month ago
Basically the flaw with this line of logic is that it doesn't recognize the dilemma of saying that the universe did not have a cause. What he must posit and argue for in order to refute KCA's 1st premise is that the universe, or more concisely, all matter and energy, has always existed, without any prior cause. The problem being that you have an infinite retraction, an infinite chain, etc. Also, the premises here don't even make sense. If nothing began to exist why do you posit P1/2/3/5?
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 Saying existence needs a cause EVEN IF it begins is based entirely on speculation.
d007ization 1 month ago
@d007ization So what you're saying is that even if the universe had a beginning it is only speculatory to then say that this event had a cause, though our entire universe functions on cause/event relationships. I wouldn't say applying an essentially universal law to an event is merely speculation.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 Two points:
1. Precisely! Why should we apply laws to any event, observed or considered, that are outside the universe? At least based on what we observe in the universe (I mean, the best argument against applying thermodynamics against the universe having a beginning is that it only holds true AFTER the universe began). All the laws about reality are only about how the universe behaves.
d007ization 1 month ago
@d007ization 1. Because if we don't apply the laws we see in the universe to outside of the universe, how are we going to discuss that theoretical concept with any sense or reason? Cause and effect exists inside the universe, but we can't assume that before the universe existed; so let's just assume there was madness and chaos and make up something because it is conceivably as good as any other proposition. You either apply the same standards or you allow gibberish.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 Why do you think no serious scientists has been (able to) theorize about such a case? Firstly creation ex nihilo is nonsensical (as tbs pointed out quite nicely). Secondly that there are a myriad of problems with a timeless, spaceless and matterless state goes without saying.
And yes we can, of course, infer how the universe was "created" by looking at it and how it began but if we dont know the exact process of the beginning then it's just a guessing game.
d007ization 1 month ago
@d007ization Something from nothing is a problem. A timeless, spaceless, matterless state is a problem. Going backwards into the past forever and ever without having an ultimate cause is a problem. You don't have many options. You either posit there was an ultimate cause (from which you can make the KCA), creation ex nihilo (similar idea) or you can posit an infinite regress (with which to discredit KCA). Either way the KAAG presented here is not internally logical.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 You mean the argument against Kalam? Following his logic, no it isnt.
Furthermore as tbs pointed out we dont know what it was like "before" the universe or if it's even explicable.
d007ization 1 month ago
@d007ization P2 and P3 do not fit in with what he says in this video whatsoever. His entire point is that nothing has been demonstrated to ever begin existing, so why should we think it ever did? We are merely rearranging atoms. So how can you make an argument that is based upon things beginning to exist? The universe began to exist. You said in the video nothing has been observed to begin to exist! Nothing begins to exist! This argument is a complete failure.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 Well, uhm.. No. He argued against something beginning to exist by something that isnt rearrangement or change.
Nowhere did he ever say "didnt happen, doesent happen" (or vice versa)
d007ization 1 month ago
@d007ization At the 2:12 in the video, word for word. "Thermodynamics tells us something a little different. What it tells us is that NOTHING ACTUALLY BEGINS TO EXIST." emphasis my own. I would bold the text if I knew how to instead of using capslock, but I am not shouting or screaming at you, I am merely using emphasis to highlight my point as is accepted in scholarly writing. So, I will have to disagree with you, he clearly says that in fact nothing begins to exist.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 Well sure. He doesent flatout deny the possibility though. Also this doesent mean that he thinks the universe is eternal (a little off-topic but important nevertheless).
Furthermore, as he pointed out quite nicely, it should be logically impossible for something to causally begin existing out of nothing.
d007ization 1 month ago
@d007ization So he says that nothing begins to exist in his video, as a main counter-argument to the KCA (which presupposes that things do in fact begin to exist), yet you are saying, well he doesn't flat out deny the possibility... he either affirms it happens (as P2 and P3 of his argument says) or rejects it as a criticism of KCA.
And I pretty much addressed that already when I listed the problems you have when proposing any ultimate cause for existence (creation ex nihilo).
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 What I and he is saying is that the beginning of the universe is an
unknown event which may well defy the laws of nature but there's no definite way of knowing that.
d007ization 1 month ago
@d007ization He is doubling back on himself. He either refutes the idea that the universe began to exist, which is his big counter-point against KCA (since things do not in fact begin to exist, they merely have the appearance of doing so; in the small scale, all the atoms already existed to begin with) and sacrifices his own argument, P3, or he preserves his argument and loses his criticism of KCA. If this makes sense, this is why I say his argument fails. Anything unclear?
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 Before I say anything else:
He correctly states that the Big Bang is the cause of the universe (as we know it). Anything else, such as why it happened or if it was the ultimate beginning is extrapulation.
And you're completely misunderstanding his argument: it centers around the fact that "causal relationships only exist between things that already exist"
d007ization 1 month ago
@d007ization I am not misunderstanding his argument. You are trying to give it far more credence then it deserves. I gave you an exact quote of his that absolutely defends my interpretation and criticism of what he is trying to argue for. Either the universe began to exist, or it didn't. It is either infinite/eternal or it had a cause (and you can stipulate the Big Bang, but you are still stuck explaining either an infinite regression or an ultimate cause).
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 I'll give you that. But I think he was trying to argue against matter "popping" into existence in all the cases we have of things "beginning to exist". Which is why he says that since we dont have any case(s) of creation ex nihilo and dont even know what it's like (i.e. how it happened/s) we cant make any statements about its nature.
d007ization 1 month ago
@d007ization That isn't a bad thing to point out, but that basically is the point and gist of the first premise of the KCA. Things do not just spontaneously generate out of nothingness; if a horse was in your living room you'd want to know how it got there, its "cause." From this accepted idea we then propose that the universe itself had a beginning, and therefore needs an explanation. The theist then proposes that there is an ultimate cause to everything; God.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 The thing is: you can't prove that. We live in the time-space contiuum and there things do not spontaneously pop into existence uncaused (because of the first law of thermodynamics).
And if you found a horse in your room it must have existed in one form or another. It follows logically that the universe did too.
d007ization 1 month ago
@d007ization Your concept is more or less right, but I have to disagree on the phrasing. It isn't that the horse had to have existed in one form or another, but that we require an explanation for its existence.
What you propose with your language is what the video-maker must also propose. The universe (or its parts), in one form or another, has always existed for all of eternity. That is not logically valid however.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 My explanation is that the horse always existed in one way or another.
Yes it is. Not only is it entirely correct that the constituents of the horse always existed somehow, it is also true for everything that exists (or can exist).
It's utterly irrelevant if you regard one certain thing or everything. Everything must be eternal (not temporarily (though), if that's possible).
d007ization 1 month ago
@d007ization So everything has existed for all of eternity? Well, the main problem when you propose that is that you lose some of your point in trying to argue against an eternal God. If the universe and its components could just exist for all of eternity without an explanation, then why couldn't the same idea apply to God? You aren't against objects just existing forever and unexplained.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 It's a problem but a logical necessity, though I should say that I should rephrase it into:
"Everything that exists had the potential to exist because of a specific set of circumstances"
d007ization 1 month ago
@d007ization I think one addition to your rephrasing would be the point that everything that exists had the potential to exist because all of existence and matter already existed for all of eternity (and as long as natural laws are followed, there is no limit on what could exist in the future) and has done so without any ultimate cause. Which is also a necessity of this idea of eternal existence. And is a logically invalid point to establish.
Sickopath333 4 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 You misunderstand me.
Take for example Stephen Hawking's (& co's) M-Theory. It is based on our universe having a beginning and being the necessary result of a certain set of circumstances (correct me if I'm mistaken please)
You're right that I have to add something to my premises:
Something however must have always existed either way (e.g. (natural) laws; God)
d007ization 4 weeks ago
@d007ization Don't know much about M-Theory really; sounds like an attempt to explain everything though, which we'll see how that goes.
That's my point, and I just wrote it out to another person on here. If you propose eternal existence, it is either naturalistic only or supernatural (God). If you have no issues with unexplained, uncaused natural forces existing you lose making the same argument against an unexplained, uncaused God.
Sickopath333 4 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 Maybe. But don't forget that, for anything to behave/ act it must "follow" certain laws. God isn't excluded from that.
d007ization 3 weeks ago
@d007ization Care to elaborate what you're getting at here, if you don't mind. I have an idea of what you mean, but I'm not positive.
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 Sure. A law is basically a certain behaviour that is always followed. The thing following it has no say about wether it can or cant (because othrerwise the law would be changed (not broken)).
Nothing that exists or can exist is exempt from that.
d007ization 3 weeks ago
@d007ization Here's kind of a tricky question to that idea though. If you find something that breaks that law (or a condition where the law does not apply; think Newtonian physics for instance) is the law broken or are there things that do not have to follow the law?
I'm not entirely sure that's correct. It seems logical, but how does one even know that what is thought of as a law is in a fact a law at all? Until you test every item under every condition you can't be sure.
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 If something breaks the law it must follow some other law
d007ization 3 weeks ago
@d007ization And you know this how...?
Also, how does one ever demonstrate that anything is indeed a law? To say something is a law is to claim to know that the prescribed attributes of the law occurs 100% of all times no matter the variables present, which of course contradicts the notion that science never states anything with such certainty. So, how does one know that a law is indeed a law and not just a principle that has yet to be disproven/broken?
Sickopath333 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 It's irrelevant. The law doesent have to be defined (precisely, I mean). Though I disagree with you that said "princible" would be worthless:
for anything to behave a certain way (no matter why) it must follow some kind of law. If it didnt then it wouldnt behave at all.
Because something cannot choose how it behaves. If it could, then it be a different "something"
d007ization 2 weeks ago
@d007ization Again, how does one demonstrate that there is ever any law operating though? How do you know that something has to behave according to one law or another?
And what sort of different "something" would this something be if it could choose how it behaves? Is there any law saying this "something" could not exist? Again, if so, how do you know that? And I imagine you don't mean in the simple way sentient beings choose how they are going to act one day to the next.
Sickopath333 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 I'm sorry for expressing myself so unclearly:
1. A law is merely an observation of behaviour. There may be exceptions to this but those arent acausal (probably nothing is, anyway) and can be added to the law/explained via an external effect
2. Changing your nature is only possible if part of your nature allows you to do this. When you can, a law is used to describe all things with said nature (choice = impossible is wrong, I'll explain if you have no other questions)
d007ization 2 weeks ago
@d007ization 1. Well, assuming I understand you, how does a law restrict God whatsoever? If they are merely observations, in essence it seems the most they could ever do is explain what God is, not somehow restrict what He can(not) do (which I thought was a point you mentioned earlier).
2. So, the law would say, this thing can change its nature, and the law would try to do the best it can outlining any attributes which allows it to do so, assuming it can even do that much.
Sickopath333 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 Spot on! My intention was to show that God and the laws of nature (because they are laws only in the way I described them) arent so different.
d007ization 1 week ago
@d007ization But by definining natural laws in that way what you're saying is that naturalism is correct so we should accept it since it allows for the application of God. However, with such a generalized definition, at least in my reckoning you've really lost much prominence or impact with what a law is. A law is nothing more than a descriptive sentence, little more then me saying the sky is blue. Why should we ascribe any scientific awe to such watered-down ideas?
Sickopath333 1 week ago
@Sickopath333 So what is a law?
Science is about discovering new things/confirming them. The only way we can do that is by descriptions
d007ization 1 week ago
@d007ization I suppose that is all it is, but with the way some people discuss them they act like they were established concepts you should never dare challenge so science help you.
Sickopath333 1 week ago
@d007ization You may want to read a bit on quantum mechanics (i.e. quantum fluctuations, quantum foam, virtual particles, HUP)
bizzyb1999 1 month ago
@bizzyb1999 Before I do:
a)what does it entail
b)could you name a reliable website on the subject, please?
d007ization 1 month ago
@d007ization a) It entails the violation of the first law of thermodynamics (e.g. an effect not preceded by a cause).
b) You should be able to type in any of the keywords I provided into Google, and they will show up on wikipedia. Or you can go to the physics forums, which has very trustworthy members. You can read about any of those topics at great these via numerous physics sites. Good luck.
bizzyb1999 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 He isn't saying that 'nothing begins existing' (I don't think). He's mainly attacking the concept of 'causing something that does not exist to begin existing', since there isn't anything to affect so that it can become an effect, the idea of 'affecting' or 'causing' something which does not exist to begin existing is incoherent.
bizzyb1999 1 month ago
@bizzyb1999 No, he really is. That's what his whole spiel about atoms rearranging is trying to explain; things appear to have a beginning existence (you were born and began existing X years ago), but what you are composed of already existed in the form of atoms.
I don't think it's incoherent. If something was generated from nothing, that thing would be the effect. Whatever created that thing would be the cause. That thing began to exist when it was made.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 Quantum mechanics says otherwise (quantum foam, random decay etc.), that an effect may not be preceded by a cause. That isn't what this was directed at. This certainly isn't tantamount to a critique of 'beginning to exist'. The intent is to show that 'acting upon', 'affecting' or 'causing' (however one would like to put it) something non-existent to begin existing is incoherent, he's saying that you can not 'generate' something non-existent to begin existing.
bizzyb1999 1 month ago
@bizzyb1999 Then he is proposing that the universe is eternal as a system. All of the energy and matter already existed and it has just been going through a cycle of compression and expansion, or what is commonly called The Big Bang and The Big Crunch (if I remember the term properly). He is free to do so, or a variant thereof, but this is incoherent as well. You cannot have an infinite regression. Pick your poison.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 You can have an infinite regression. But that isn't what he's arguing for, and is irrelevant, he's simply arguing against the idea of causing something non-existent to begin existing ex nihilo, which again, is seperate from 'beginning to exist' (e.g. quantum foam, virtual particles, HUP, quantum fluctuation).
Causing something to begin existing ex nihilo is the same as saying that you affected 'nothing', thus can not engender an effect (according to his argument).
bizzyb1999 1 month ago
@bizzyb1999 No, an infinite regression is logically invalid. What caused that? Something else. And what caused that? Something else. Another variant to this is when atheists present the question of where did God come from? God 1; where did God 1 come from? God 2. Etc. I think you get the point.
And the point is that if he refutes creation ex nihilo he then has to deal with the implications of denying that idea, which is an infinite regression.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 You didn't show why an infinite regress of past events is logically invalid, all you did was affirm what an infinite regression posits, and not why that denotation is logically invalid.
Again, creation ex nihilo and emergence ex nihilo are two discrete concepts, and acting as though a refutation of one is as well a refutation of the other is fallacious. Even if that was true, he wouldn't be reduced to only an infinite regression (no boundary proposal).
bizzyb1999 1 month ago
@bizzyb1999 It's logically invalid because you cannot continually regress into the past for eternity. You cannot keep listing off one more cause to what we thought was the primary cause. You can't zip back forever, a trillion years per second, and never find a stopping point.
Whatever his choices might be, none of them are truly logically flawless. When he refutes the KCA he has to accept the repercussions and address the problems with his proposed explanation.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 No one made the argument that "a trillion years" could elapse in one second. I'm not suggesting an infinite regress of events, or "causes", but that the concept of an infinite regression of time is possible (not that it makes to big a difference), you could start by objecting to that, rather than making bare assertions about its invalidity.
Since you seem to be sure that none of the alternatives are logically flawless, please address those logical inconsistencies.
bizzyb1999 1 month ago
@bizzyb1999 That was part of my explanation on why it is invalid.. even if you went back at the rate of a trillion years per second (insanely quickly backwards in time) you would never find a beginning cause that ended the infinite cycle of, there was something prior to that and something prior to that, etc. or in your idea that time regressed infinitely (either way, not valid).
Elaborate on what you're asking for. Address them in what sense?
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 How does that demonstrate the invalidity of an infinite regress? I agree that an infinite amount of preceding time has no beginning, thus no matter how far back you go, no beginning would be reached. What's invalid about this?
You claimed that none of the alternatives were "logically flawless", I'm asking you to evince that accusation. What's logically inconsistent about vacuum fluctuation models, or the no boundary proposal?
bizzyb1999 1 month ago
@bizzyb1999 What is invalid with this proposal is that if you propose an eternity of time in the past then you concede that things can exist without a cause. Time has always been, it had no beginning.
Essentially the problem with these higher-level quantum physics is that they delve into such theoretical mathematics without any evidence to demonstrate they are correct. For the most part VFM models are outdated and Hawking's proposal seems.. I'll say absurd.
Sickopath333 4 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 Sickopath, some points I'd like to bring up:
- quantumatics is one of the most successful, well supported models per se
- quantumatics indicates that what we ordinarily think of as causation (and other aspects) in our macro-world is "blurred" out in the micro-world (e.g. Planck-scales)
- quantumatics indicates genuinely stochastic aspects of nature
- a Hawking-Penrose theorem indicates that some causal chains have a definite first event, i.e. causes that are not effects
bizzyb1999 4 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 Even if existence 'without a cause' poses a problem (numerous observations in nature have suggested otherwise), god doesn't evade the purported looming problem. If the only apparent problem you see with an infinite past is the lack of a (perhaps primary) cause, then god is subject to this cause-less problem too.
bizzyb1999 4 weeks ago
@bizzyb1999 That's basically my point though with what I said earlier; all proposed explanations have a serious logical flaw in one form or another. So either you have no qualms with eternal existence with no explanation (which means you can't lob that attack against God) or you do, which then means you must explain an ultimate cause for naturalism. Does that make sense?
I'll summarize it with the term imaginary time.
Quantumatics; that's a new one I must admit.
Sickopath333 4 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 The gist of my response was not to emphasize that all proposed explanations accommodate logical flaws, rather that god does not elude the problems that you pose which attempt to favor his existence; I do think that effects can exist without a cause (examples can be seen throughout nature), but if you're not willing to grant that, than you can't use it as an argument for god.
I hope you know that the phrase "imaginary time" isn't literal.
bizzyb1999 4 weeks ago
@bizzyb1999 I wouldn't expect you to since that's my argument and not yours. I'm not saying that God does elude these problems; I think it is a very fair question to ask where God came from. It is a mind-boggling proposal. However, I also state that other explanations face similar breakdowns or issues.
I can only think of quantum examples; not quite what I'd call nature, but anyways.
I know it isn't, but they have to keep.. "inventing" new ideas to explain their ideas.
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 You said "that's basically my point", I thought "that" was referring to my post, but evidently it wasn't.
But we've meandered off topic, my point was that if causeless effects or infinite regressions engender logical contradictions or inconsistencies then God is subject to those same quandaries, but you don't disagree with me here. Consequently, I'd like to emphasize my original point, causeless effects and infinite regressions don't pose problems or "face breakdowns."
bizzyb1999 3 weeks ago
@bizzyb1999 Not sure how that was mistaken, but that's fine.
Let me try to simplify this. I disagree a bit, but essentially you could sum up my position as, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If causeless effects or infinite regressions are a logical breakdown, flaw, whatever word you want to use, it is a problem for both naturalistic and theistic interpretations of existence. If it is not a problem, then neither explanation can be criticized on that ground.
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 I agree, but the problem is that without any proposed problems with a naturalist (materialist, physicalist etc.) conception of reality, the theist has no basis on which he invoke a god, the 'god' concept now becomes tantamount to any other fictional character.
bizzyb1999 3 weeks ago
@bizzyb1999 Well, I'm not conceding that there are no proposed problems with a naturalistic conception of reality, even if we were to agree that the ultimate origin issue was irrelevant to either proposed explanation. Even assuming naturalism was without criticism, how would that then demonstrate theism has no basis? I think you're jumping the gate here.
That purported non-basis depends on the epistemological framework one starts with. So you really don't have a point here.
Sickopath333 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 When a god is employed by a theist, that employment is predicated upon the notion that there exists facets of reality which cannot be accounted for otherwise (i.e. without a god) (e.g. morality, origin, governing etc.), this is the groundwork on which a theist demonstrates the feasibility of their god's existence. Without this basis/foundation their particular god so described is indistinguishable from (i.e. tantamount to) 'bullshit' (fabricated myth/fairy tale).
bizzyb1999 2 weeks ago
@bizzyb1999 I get what you're saying, but it's slightly off. It isn't necessarily that whatever item in question exists and can only exist if God made it, but that it is most logically explained by the properties usually attributed to God (all-knowing, all-powerful, etc.). So naturalism can propose mindless, blind occurrence, and the theist will not merely invoke impossibility but that an intelligent operator creating these things is more rational.
Sickopath333 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 This still remains an utterly arbitrary imputation, as mentioned, this god-concept persists indiscernible (i.e. no distinction drawn) from other man-made fabrications.
As for whether it's more rational: Working with probabilities (e.g. it's more probable that reality as we know it is the result of intelligent design) is self defeating (in the case of a god) as one purports that the ungoverned complexity of reality is irrational, but a God far more complex isn't (Occam's razor).
bizzyb1999 2 weeks ago
@bizzyb1999 Based on your epistemological background of naturalism that is. Depending on one's standards you could compare fairy tales to other man-made structures such as law, science, mathematics, etc. since we invented these systems.
That's not how the probability argument works, nor is that how Occam's Razor operates. It only removes unneccessary complexities that don't add to explanatory power. Saying that something which appears designed had a creator isn't privy to OR.
Sickopath333 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 Under any worldview. A concept which is invoked unnecessarily without substantiation (i.e. justification) is indistinguishable from any other unsubstantiated concept posited by man.
Reductive fallacy. Saying something that appears designed had a creator isn't in violation of Occam's Razor, however, saying that a reality (and what intuitively appears to be designed about it) which can be veritably accounted for without a creator has one ads unnecessary verbosity to the status quo.
bizzyb1999 2 weeks ago
@bizzyb1999 But who determines that it is either unnecessary or unsubstantiated? The theist will say that naturalism is not a satisfactory answer and under a different epistemological standard would deny that it is unsubstantiated. So, it does matter what worldview you operate from.
Something can be explained without the force of a mind behind it, but that is no guarantee that this explanation is satisfactory or accurate. One could hypothesize computers weren't invented for ex.
Sickopath333 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 Who determines what is unsubstantiated or unnecessary is irrelevant, my point was that any model which elicits a transcendent/supernatural entity without justification has no discernible difference (regarding the truth-value) between itself and any other uncorroborated concept.
A computer, being made of inorganic material, as well as for the purpose of computing, would have no veritable explanation for its presence. This isn't the case with reality.
bizzyb1999 2 weeks ago
@bizzyb1999 Again, saying that it is unjustified is a judgment call. Someone has to determine whether it is justified or not. Again, the issue of whether it's corroborated or not depends on ones epistemological standard. If you take a naturalistic approach then you would probably say that a God concept is uncorroborated, but if you take another approach you would be more open to logical arguments and other forms of evidence.
You can conjure up some explanation for it though.
Sickopath333 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 I think you've simply missed my point, I'm not accusing any particular concept of being uncorroborated or unjustified, rather that when a concept is uncorroborated or unjustified there is an adequation of sorts between it and other unjustified concepts, the logical consequence of inadequacy, and the inadequacy itself are two discrete topics.
'Conjuring up some explanation' doesn't equate to modern physics, mind you, we build our models around observation, not vice versa.
bizzyb1999 2 weeks ago
@bizzyb1999 Then why do you keep mentioning God/theist position at the same time you bring up your point against uncorroborated/unjustified concepts? I might disagree with wording/conceptualization, but random, illogical, or falsified claims can be more easily dismissed (though it'd be wise to demonstrate their error).
Right, but my point was that you theoretically can impose a simpler, non-intelligent source as the explanation for something existing w/out it being satisfying.
Sickopath333 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 There's a reason why I've been discussing god in a separate reply. As I've said, whether or not a concept is unsubstantiated, and the logical consequence of being unsubstantiated are discrete discussions. in this line of reasoning, I've only addressed the former.
So back to the beginning of this discussion, do you plan on demonstrating how an atheistic world-view is 'unsatisfactory', or perhaps what it is that a 'god' satisfies that an atheistic world-view doesn't?
bizzyb1999 2 weeks ago
@bizzyb1999 So you're saying you aren't necessarily linking God to unsubstantiated claims? It sure has seemed like you have, but okay. I thought you had been talking about the consequences of unsubstantiated claims already.
It satisfies the notion that stability, order, complexity, intelligence, morality, love, etc. came from an intelligent, all-powerful source as opposed to blind, thoughtless, apathetic forces occurring over long periods of time.
Sickopath333 1 week ago
@Sickopath333 With that line of reasoning I wasn't accusing any concept of being unsubstantiated, yet again, I was only elaborating upon what is to be made of unsubstantiated claims.
Again, this is self-refuting. Some state they cannot possibly imagine our rich and complex universe, containing life and all, without an intelligent designer.
Oddly enough, they can imagine such a transcendent entity, possessing the capability to create our rich and complex universe?
bizzyb1999 1 week ago
@bizzyb1999 Okay, then you are not accusing anything of being unsubstantiated.
Yes, because it fits our observed experiences. Complex, intricate, stable, purposeful items only exist when an intelligent force has made them. We see these same traits in our universe. You get the rest.
This is not self-refuting by your own standard. If time and existence has always existed in an infinite regress, unexplained and uncaused, then you cannot charge this idea against God.
Sickopath333 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bizzyb1999 Okay, then you are not accusing anything of being unsubstantiated.
Yes, because it fits our observed experiences. Complex, intricate, stable, purposeful items only exist when an intelligent force has made them. We see these same traits in our universe. You get the rest.
This is not self-refuting by your own standard. If time and existence has always existed in an infinite regress, unexplained and uncaused, then you cannot lodge this complaint against God.
Sickopath333 1 week ago
@Sickopath333 I wasn't arguing that origin was irrelevant to either propositions, but that it doesn't pose an irreconcilable/insoluble dilemma thus, again, the theist has no foundation on which he can invoke a god for that purported quandary, because there is none.
bizzyb1999 2 weeks ago
@bizzyb1999 First, this still assumes that an infinite regress is not an absurd issue. I haven't shown it is to you satisfactorily, but just saying.
Secondly, if this is not a problem, then the concept of a God existing forever and unexplained has no flaws either. One cannot take fault with that idea if one accepts that attribute of the naturalistic claim.
Third, it doesn't have to be impossible without God, it is a matter of which proposed idea is the best explanation.
Sickopath333 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 First: We were following the concept I proposed to its logical conclusion, so yes, we were working with some assumptions. If you'd like to proceed our discussion on infinite regression, I'd be glad to.
Second: As mentioned earlier, if a theist bears admission to the validity of an infinite regress, then he can't invoke a god on the grounds of its invalidity. But if he does concede the validity of an infinite regress, and still employ a god, this falls victim to Occam's razor.
bizzyb1999 2 weeks ago
@bizzyb1999 Which concept? Before I follow along I'll need to know precisely which idea I'm following to a supposed logical conclusion (not to sound dismissive, but I think you get what I mean). Eh, I think we're both at a standstill on infinite regress though.
If a theist accepted that idea they wouldn't speak on its invalidity, only on its deficit of satisfactory explanation. And trying to employ OR ignores the other issues relevant to origins other than the infinite regress.
Sickopath333 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 The notion/concept that without any proposed flaws with naturalist (materialist, physicalist) models of reality, there is no basis on which one can posit a god without adding unnecessary verbosity (i.e. deferring something that already has an explanation, to a mystery).
Employing Occam's Razor is only to address the notion that the invocation of a god-concept is more rational (i.e. that the existence of a God is more probable).
bizzyb1999 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 The notion/concept that without any proposed flaws with naturalist (materialist, physicalist) models of reality, there is no basis on which one can posit a god without adding unnecessary verbosity (i.e. deferring something that already has an explanation, to a mystery).
Employing Occam's Razor is only to address the notion that the invocation of a god-concept is more rational (i.e. that the existence of a God is more probable).
bizzyb1999 2 weeks ago
@bizzyb1999 The infinite regress which we couldn't agree upon is only one hurdle for the naturalist model to overcome when explaining the issue of ultimate origin/existence though. So to follow along that logic I have to ignore the other criticisms in order for you to make the point that the theist is making an unnecessary complication by invoking God.
To be honest I'm not quite sure what you mean with this second part. You mean you're using it to argue against God's probability?
Sickopath333 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 Sickopath, there exists no observed phenomena (or gaps in our models) in which a priori cannot be accounted for by emergent events processes or agency ... there simply aren't any intelligible grounds for doubting that nature suffices. If you feel as though I've made fallacious arguments regarding an infinite regress, or that I'm missing any particular issues in our current models, please address them.
I'm using it against the unnecessary verbosity elicited by a god.
bizzyb1999 2 weeks ago
@bizzyb1999 I think that's rather presumptious. What you're essentially saying is that no one has any good reason to think that the order, stability, and complexity we see in the universe could possibly not be explained by blind, thoughtless, uncontrolled processes. That's quite a strong bias for me to go up against and I don't know that it'd be worth my effort.
Considering your worldview I can see why you would dismiss a God concept as verbose, though I clearly disagree with it.
Sickopath333 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 I'm saying that things which may viscerally seem to be intricate have perfectly adequate accounts, but the unwarranted invocation of a god ads unnecessary complexion.
I'm not dismissive of any concept merely because it's verbose, it's a matter of whether or not the employment of verbosity is warranted, and if it isn't, then as mentioned, that concept is tantamount to any other unwarranted postulation (e.g. Santa Claus, Easter bunny, tooth fairy etc.).
bizzyb1999 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Sickopath333 2 weeks ago
@bizzyb1999 I hate to be redundant, but that is another judgment call (perfectly adequate). Science has proposed theories to explain existence naturalistically, yet I am skeptical of their explanatory power and overall consistency, especially since the modern scientific paradigm is unabashedly naturalistic (a bias).
Broken record time. One has to determine for themselves if the employment of an idea is warranted or not. Odd ex. since those aren't used to explain anything.
Sickopath333 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 Whether or not an asserted reality is warranted or not isn't merely a subjective 'judgement call'. If a concept is ascribed objective predicates then it can be tested, and if found uncorroborated (i.e. does not meet the ascribed predicates) then it necessarily obtains that the concept proposed doesn't correspond with reality.
If one posits a god that is currently unassociated with our reality (i.e. can not be tested) then you must show what about reality is reminiscent of a god.
bizzyb1999 2 weeks ago
@bizzyb1999 Wait. How does something being objective necessarily predicate that it can be tested? For ex. on the issue of morality science can never bridge the ought gap, so assuming there is objective morality science cannot speak on it, which only serves to demonstrate that this notion of yours is false. But one's view of reality would determine the parameters for whether or not it has warranted that or not.
Cannot be tested on what standard of testing or scientific basis?
Sickopath333 1 week ago
@Sickopath333 I reject the premise that morality is objective. Normative sentences are not statements (i.e. corresponding with some aspect of reality).
Can one's view of reality not be unwarranted in and of itself? An unwarranted conception of something will no doubt entail unwarranted conclusions of it.
Cannot be tested non-anecdotally.
bizzyb1999 1 week ago
@bizzyb1999 So you propose that morality is subjective. Therein, your normative sentence would also have the same issue as the other would (supposedly; not sure what precisely you were trying to say there).
"Normative sentences.." what now?
Every view of reality is based upon presuppositions so it's somewhat possible, but you're going to have to work pretty hard to support that idea, not just speculate or make weak links.
So in other words The Bible cannot be used as a reference.
Sickopath333 1 week ago
@Sickopath333 "Normative sentences" do not need to be "true descriptions of the world" in order to be adaptive to states of the world; they are, in fact, instructions (not propositions) which only need to be performatively consistent.
It's rather prevalent that individuals cite evidence for a 'god' that's predicated upon an erroneous perception of reality (e.g. 'design requires designer').
No, personal experience in general cannot be used as a reference, not just for Christianity either.
bizzyb1999 1 week ago
@bizzyb1999 I've been able to understand most of your wordy statements, but this is another one that's too clunky.
And how would you know that their perception of reality is erroneous? You have a litmus test that demonstrates there is no designer? And that example is not erroneous at all; when has complexity not needed an intelligent force behind it? I'm thinking more advanced than crystal formations, FYI.
Sorry for the long response time; sometimes I just like taking a break from it.
Sickopath333 1 day ago
@Sickopath333 "True normative sentences" makes no sense because, as pointed out already, normative sentences are instructions and not propositions. Rather than "true" they are either useful (in the sense of adaptive) to some degree or not.
By evaluating the validity of the truth-claims and the ascribed predicates of the regarded worldview, and if it offers an unnecessarily verbose account for phenomena that already have an explanation, then it can be ruled out by Occam's Razor.
bizzyb1999 1 day ago
@Sickopath333 Complexity arguments are self-refuting, these are some metrics, by which their reasoning goes: incomprehensible, grand, complex (but there may be any number of metrics).
Naturally, by that same reasoning we now get:
1. our universe is so high in those metrics that there must be an intelligent designer
2. the intelligent designer is no less in those metrics
3. the intelligent designer must have been created by another intelligent designer
4. and so on, regressus ad infinitum
bizzyb1999 1 day ago
@Sickopath333 "Norms are concepts (sentences) of practical import, oriented to effecting an action, rather than conceptual abstractions that describe, explain, and express. Normative sentences imply “ought-to” types of statements and assertions, in distinction to sentences that provide “is” types of statements and assertions." - Wikipedia
bizzyb1999 1 week ago
@bizzyb1999 Wikipedia - a source no one should ever use.
Sickopath333 1 day ago
@Sickopath333 I was providing you a definition of a phrase that you seemed to be confused by, I wasn't citing evidence for something. If you think I'm distorting definitions then feel free to look it up for yourself.
bizzyb1999 1 day ago
@Sickopath333 Aside from that, I'd like to add that not all vacuum fluctuation models are necessarily dead, I'd also like for you to elaborate upon why the no boundary proposal is absurd. Thanks.
bizzyb1999 4 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 How does that demonstrate the invalidity of an infinite regress? I agree that an infinite amount of preceding time has no beginning, thus no matter how far back you go, no beginning would be reached. What's invalid about this?
You claimed that none of the alternatives were "logically flawless", I'm asking you to evince that accusation. What's logically inconsistent about vacuum fluctuation models, or the no boundary proposal?
bizzyb1999 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sickopath333 How does that demonstrate the invalidity of an infinite regress? I agree that an infinite amount of preceding time has no beginning, thus no matter how far back you go, no beginning would be reached. What's invalid about this?
You claimed that none of the alternatives were "logically flawless", I'm asking you to evince that accusation. What's logically inconsistent about vacuum fluctuation models, or the no boundary proposal?
bizzyb1999 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sickopath333 How does that demonstrate the invalidity of an infinite regress? I agree that an infinite amount of preceding time has no beginning, thus no matter how far back you go, no beginning would be reached. What's invalid about this?
You claimed that none of the alternatives were "logically flawless", I'm asking you to evince that accusation. What's logically inconsistent about vacuum fluctuation models, or the no boundary proposal?
bizzyb1999 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 How does that demonstrate the invalidity of an infinite regress? I agree that an infinite amount of preceding time has no beginning, thus no matter how far back you go, no beginning would be reached. What's invalid about this?
You claimed that none of the alternatives were "logically flawless", I'm asking you to evince that accusation. What's logically inconsistent about vacuum fluctuation models, or the no boundary proposal?
bizzyb1999 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 2. I only mean this in the sense that an "outside" cause caused the universe. If you say that the properties of something are enough for it to change (and thusly begin existing) then sure, everything has a cause for its existence.
d007ization 1 month ago
@d007ization 2. That's not the point I was making. I'm saying that if we take the video's point that everything already exists, it is just reforming of atoms, that does not erase either the nature of cause and effect relationships (the underlying concept behind KCA) or the dilemma of positing that the universe had no beginning (infinite regression into the past).
"...properties of something are enough for it to change... etc." Not sure what you meant at all there.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 Basically it's "cause itself".
Tbs doesen't address infinite regress but there is a problem with it. An infinity isn't a number (so saying it's that old is problematic).
And as I and Tbs have already said: saying it has to be an outside, personal cause can in no way be proven since we dont know the process of creation ex nihilo.
d007ization 1 month ago
Example 1: If someone asks "what causes asteroids to hit planets?" I would say "Gravity"...
Gravity would be a force acting on pre-existing matter (the asteroid)
Example 2: If a book falls and someone asked "what caused it?", I could say "my arm hit it"...
Well the arm moving would be a rearrangement of matter, and it must precede it's effect in time.
So since matter and time did not exist until the universe existed, then how could there be a cause?
theBartone9119 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Did the Universe have a cause? First we must look at what we know about causes, and what we know about the universe.
What do we know about causes?
Every cause is a force acting on pre-existing matter/ a rearrangement of pre-existing matter that precedes it's effect in time.
What do we know about the universe?
Matter and time did not exist until the universe existed
Based on what we know about causes and the universe, it's completely illogical to say the universe had a cause..
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 month ago
In short what you are saying is if energy is neither created nor destroyed, then nothing begins to exist: all energy has been and will always be here. I understand why you put that in the framework of a kalam argument but I think that step is unnecessary and clouds the issue. keep up the good work by the way love your vids :)
Grimmy67 1 month ago
@Grimmy67
Seriously, you think that qualifies as a refutation of the kalam? The problem is stunningly clear, im wanna see if you can figure it out?
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl Have you ever heard of a concept called dark energy? That's why it works :)
Floortjahh 1 month ago
@Floortjahh
What? no it doesn't , the funny thing is this isn't an objection to god but the big bang , All these cosmologists who believe in it would be contradicting thermodynamics.
The standard Big bang model says energy & matter came into existance at the big bang, The laws of nature like thermodynamics only apply every moment after the big bang, they only work once the arena is set up since its a law of nature.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl Ouch, you have some reading to do. Research something called the Big Bang Phase, dark energy, quantum loop gravitation and string theory. All will be explained :)
Floortjahh 1 month ago
@Floortjahh
I know what the theory is , any text book on the subject will tell you energy , space & time began at the big bang , that is a religiously neutral statement.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl That's incorrect. The Big Bang deals with what happened 10^-43 (I think) seconds after the expansion from the singularity that was the universe.
Now, according to relativity, for anything in a singularity time only exists in the sense that it is infinite.
But since relativity isn't true on a microscopic scale we'll have to keep searching for the truth.
d007ization 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl Oh by all means, enlighten me.
Keep in mind though that refuting one thing doesen't prove the other ;-)
d007ization 1 month ago
@d007ization
True but if you read back (including this comment) 6 comments i've already explained.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl Wth? When did you do that?
I'm not reading all the comments from 1 year ago!!!
d007ization 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@d007ization
"What? no it doesn't , the funny thing is this isn't an objection to god but the big bang , All these cosmologists who believe in it would be contradicting thermodynamics.
The standard Big bang model says energy & matter came into existance at the big bang, The laws of nature like thermodynamics only apply every moment after the big bang, they only work once the arena is set up since its a law of nature. "
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl Please show me a video, PM me or summarize your arguments refuting TBS
d007ization 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl nope sorry cant see the "stunningly clear problem"! if the universe is infinite ie energy can neither be created nor destroyed which would leave me the assumption that it has always been there,, then there is no need for God. The universe was created at the big bang or in other words changed from whatever state it was in to what we currently call the universe !.. obviously I am missing something and would be very grateful for you to enlighten me if you can spare the time. Ta :)
Grimmy67 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Grimmy67
the funny thing is this isn't an objection to god but the big bang , All these cosmologists who believe in it would be contradicting thermodynamics.
The standard Big bang model says energy & matter came into existance at the big bang, The laws of nature like thermodynamics only apply every moment after the big bang, they only work once the arena is set up since its a law of nature. "
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@Grimmy67
C.W. Davies Britains leading quantum gravity expert & a Christians says " The coming into being of the universe as described in modern science is not just a matter of imposing organization upon a previous incoherent state but literaly the coming into being of all physical things from nothing." Also Stephen Hawking worlds most famous theoretical physicst & an Atheist says "Now almost evey one believes the universe including time itself began at the Big Bang."
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl well you may convince CW Davis of this but certainly not me :) creation ex nihilo just seems less probable than an infinite universe. I realise this is just an assertion and I have no proof but the Kalam argument is just an assertion to :)
My view doesnt disagree with Hawkins time only exists when you have events to place time upon its a man made concept placed upon the universe !!!
Grimmy67 1 month ago
@Grimmy67
PCW Davies is britains leading quantom gravity expert, "less probable than an infinte universe" it doesn't matter what you prefer the evidence is clear (BGV theorm) Proves the univers began, The Kalam is not an assertion Craig gives good reason for both premises, Your view deos contradict Hawking he has a no boundary model he believes ex nihilo creation, And he does say physical time began he tries to use it to disprove God.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago