Humans are a race with a finite understanding of all things. we need there to be boundaries on ideas for us to accept them. However just because this is the only way we can at this point in time understand our universe is not to say that there are truths which lack boundaries which is why we cannot understand or even comprehend those concepts and resort to pointless arguments about what we already think we know as if no other truths are out there to be found
His entire argument breaks down if you consider the possibility that the singularity is timeless. No creator, no mind, just a timeless singularity. The Big Bang happens, measurable time begins, therefore we are not yet at the point where everything has expanded to its infinite possibility. That is still in front of us.
Also, his argument seems to come down to "we can't name anything other than a creator that can do this, so a creator did it". Ugh.
What an asshat. The Big Bang model is only capable of describing the state of our universe back to a certain point. It in no way implies that there was nothing BEFORE that time, just that the model is unable to describe anything before it. What if the universe has continued to expand and collapse, over and over, forever before us and forever after us? A single example only, but enough to show that it is not theoretically impossible for an eternal universe, even according to Big Bang cosmology.
The question posed by RationalResponse was based on the Premise made by those being debated.
Their question wasn't an outright question in it's own right.
The use of Dr. Craig's deep, but flawed speech during a debate (in which the possibility of an infinite universe was not the topic) is not only an inappropriate use of his speech, but inaccurately frames the context the original question that was asked.
9)Nice try - but when he tried to slip in a fast one, he lost me. He said that only two things can create: minds and abstract concepts (i.e. numbers). From this, he concluded that it must have been a mind that created the universe. But what about evolution? It is not a mind, it is not an abstract concept. And yet, it is the most creative force in the world. This is where his assume dualism of creativity falls apart: Craig's philosopy is so Charles Darwin, it's unbelievable.
No one that I know of, can talk as much as he can as say absolutely fuck all at the same time.
He is trying to sound like he knows the "Truth" and yet he knows bugger all. He is a deluded idiot who knows how to use his words carefully to make other idiots follow him.
The mere fact that almost everything this "idiot" has ever said has been ripped apart by many many people, and yet he still comes back to the same old stupid flawed arguements and this only proves that he, and his sheeple are exactly that... IDIOTS!
As for me refuting him, well, lets put it this way, if someone kept tellign you the sky was pink, and even when it has been proven its blue, would you waste you time with that moron?
im not even going to respond to him directly (FatRakoon), i just want to reassure you that this is one very, very stupid person.. and i applaud you for not commenting back, dont ever put your mind so far low to reach his and engage in a conversation with people like this!.. Reading comments like his, makes me feel very smart!
The Bible tells us, if there ignorant of the truth and have hatred and close mindedness to salvation, do not insist your argument to them!..
@JusJuiceIt That helps. Thank you. It's unusual for me to get a positive constructive YouTube response. I didn't respond to him because his follow up comment didn't present anything new, so my original response applied to it just the same.
believe me, i no exactly how you feel with these ignorant youtubers, just remember some of them are kids, and if they arent but still respond with anger, and swear words, ignore them and leave the page! as Christians our number one goal is not to convince people of Christ, its to glorify his name! they make there own choices, its them who will be there own destruction! but i must say before i started debating and talking on youtube to the many atheists/evolutionists
im just astonished and amazed at how gullible these people are, its simply incredible, they literally eat up anything dawkins type say!.. and coming on youtube every week really makes me feel like im superior simple because i no what the truth is, and im not so easily brainwashed into believing there idiotic theories!.. but then i remember the Bible dosent teach me to think of myself as superior to anyone, and so i come right back down lol..
@EVSjahms He's an idiot because he's an intellectually dishonest snake oil salesman. He tries to use science to prove god which is ridiculous because science DISPROVES the god of the bible.
Despite the fact that idiotic Christians are fighting against evolution right now, in a few years they will be claiming evolution as proof of gods existence. Mark my words.
Almost everyone believes the universe had a beginning? Even Steven Hawking reversed his position on this. I guess everyone means everyone Craig wants to hear from.
Since we have no factual evidence regarding the exact origins of the universe, any talk of the cause, which exists outside of the universe, is mere speculation, not even worthy of the name hypothesis. To postulate that that cause is god, surely reflects the bias of WLC.
It is through arrogance that philosophers project their logic onto a universe that they don't understand. His conclusion makes no predictions or testable points. If you want to know the truth make a testable claim. Then test it. If you cannot test it then it is not but theoretical speculation
in order for athiests to attack Christianity, they create straw people and attack it. so every time they are forced to defend an issue, they deflect and have you chasing in circles. Their content is not historically accurate, so to debate on that level is not valid to start with. lets preach the gospel to all creatures, not carry the burden of proof to these unbelievers. Shake the dust off your feet They are nothing more then a distraction planted by satan.
@trubornagain hahaha what a fag. people like you shouldnt have been aborted. its too bad you don't believe in that sort of thing. fuck god. fuck jesus, fuck allah, fuck yawe, fuck them all they are all bullshit and can suck my dick. none of them ever existed or ever will.
even understand what he's talking about. Mr. Craig's PhD is in Religion, and as far as I can determine, has never taken any college level course in any of the natural sciences. Here's a question for all you believers out there: If God is infinate and created the universe some 14 billion years ago, what was he doing for the 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years before? Or for the 10^100 years before that?
@jfrancal2007 time is like snapping your fingers in infinity. but wait!!! we all forget that you know God, you know his heart and his mind. lol. you think you could possibly fathom the mind of something that created the entire universe? hahaha. if i were you i wouldnt try to understand something that is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times smarter than you. give it a shot, my friend. the world is brighter with Him in your life
Sorry to break it to you, jeremy208, but there is no god and never was. The idea of a god sprang into being because our prehistoric ancestors looked up at the night sky and were afraid of the stars; they were afraid of the things that go bump in the night; they needed a simple answer to explain what they couldn't understant: presto! god. Modern humans have tried to quantify this superstitious, and irrational, belief in a magical being and have written stories about magical beings, and each new
civilization has invented new, more powerful gods to "one up" their predecessors, eventually relegating those "gods" to mythology until finally inventing the "One all-knowing, all-powerful God" of the present. And because it's an irrational belief, people like you say, "you can't understand the will or mind of God." I don't know God because there is no such thing. I also don't know Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny or leprechauns. Each is as real as your god.
If you, and superstitious people like you, want to waste your time studying a book of fables written thousands of years ago by MEN, that's your right. If you want to believe in The Force and become a Jedi Knight, that's your right, too. But that doesn't change the fact that "Dr." Craig's fantasy explanation of the Big Bang is as rational as the belief in a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.
"Dr." William Lane Craig is a fraud. In a nutshell, his "rebuttle" is, if the universe began with the big bang, there must have been some unembodied entity who initiated the big bang and therefore God exists. This is called a "fallacy of necessity": the universe began therefore God created it. He tries to bolster this idea by giving a 5 minute explanation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but he has no science credentials and doesn't
I've never understood how Craig says that the universe began to exist out of nothing. Didn't it begin to exist from the singularity? Wasn't it just really, really dense, instead of non-existent?
then why do they repeat what Craig is saying about the big bang and time having a beginning, etc. at the Planetariium? Check out the Adler Planetarium -- I'm sure other Planetariums say the same thing. Also, I learned about what Craig is saying at College level Astronomy/cosmology courses. Also, just using mathematics you can prove that there has to be a beginning. If you go back in time to infinity then today does not exist since infinity goes on forever and you can never arrive at today.
Actually if u use General Relativity then at a point u come to realize that there is no matter or space at the singularity. if thats true then what we consider "TIME" WOULDNT exist.....HOWEVER, energy cannot be created nor destroyed. we know this from labratory experiments on earth. we also know that (because of special relativity) things like light, which has infinitly dilated time. that means that even though time doesnt exist as a motion of mass it still exists as a dynamic force........cont.
this suggests that even in a sigularity where space and mass do not exist time is still dynamic. this and the conservation of energy suggests that the universe couldnt have sprung from NOTHING. instead what we see as kinetic energy(space growing/galaxies moving) is just a phase shift from the state the universe was in before the big bang. what craig does is use the math and predictions of general relativit(which we know is wrong at the singularity) to try and make the strawman argument......cont
that because "TIME" as weknow it to exist( as related to matter) must not exist and therefor god must have created everything. this is illogical on the basis that not only have REAL physicists like stephen hawking and sir robert penrose shown that "imaginary time(time existing before the unvierse to allow cause to make the universe an effect)" can and should exist. u should watch penrose's video "before the big bang?" it shows the assuptions craig makes to be inaccurate at the least.......cont.
"time" as perceived in General Relativity did only start to exist when the matter of the universe first came into existence. however, for the universe to come into existence something must have been dynamic and changing in order to phase shift from one state to the next. this highly suggest "TIME". even if ur hypothesis includes a god.u must say that this god works within time. anything created, destroyed, thought, or anything dynamic at all must exist within time......cont.
now if the universe came from nothing then it would be completely possible that before the universe was nothing not even time...however we know from the conservation of energ(matter/energy cannot be creaed nor destroyed) that the universe must have been in a differnt energy state before its current inflation. much like an electron in a higher energy shell( higher orbit) it potentian energy turning into kinetic energy...... BTW im sorry for all my typos...i type to fast some times.
well, honestly I don't know about all that. My degrees are in Chemistry, biology and pharmacy. The beginning of time is a rather difficult concept. All I know is that the big bang is accepted by the majority of scientists. It of course had to be created regardless of how it started. The laws are too complicated and ordered to just have happened without reason or thought. I think the big bang is the most logical but it could have happened some other way. Most theories change from time to time.
whatever theory we develope would need to include the big bang. we just know the big bang as an event that we inevitably reach when we extrapulate back in time. our current theory is called "the inflationary theory" it includes the big bang but reaches a limit at the point of singularity. our math isnt good enough yet to explain what it was or hoe it became.
first off...we know because of the math and because of other theories that are out there that GR is WRONG! the singularity is not an accurate account of the Big Bang and its impossible for us to know what happened at that time or before it. we cant see that far back nor can we even find out if all the matter of the universe ejected from said singularity. the reason we cant tell that is because we cant see the whole universe! we know its at least 1000x bigger then what we see. craig is a douche!
Craig fails to mention that the big bang model only refers to the observable universe (not all of physical existence), and how it doesn't posit an absolute beginning to anything. All the model does is trace the expansion of the known universe back as far as possible; there is no mention of time, space or matter "coming into existence".
Also, Hawking acknowledges that time/space/matter may have existed before the big bang, noting that we just couldn't know anything about them if they did.
if it did exist it still had to have a beginning. The big bang is just a theory which does pose some problems but it is the best theory yet. Most scientists do agree with it but of course that doesn't prove it is true.
This argument automatically presumes there HAS to be a greater being to start it all rather than a natural process, this is where it falls on its ass and fails.
Because he says alot of elouquent crap that sounds intimidating to hear, but collapses when held to scrutiny?
The way he words his arguments is...'tricky'. It takes alot more effort to break it down than it does for him to say it. Refuting this kind of stuff is tiring.
You speak like someone who has never read the positions of the people that you criticize.
To say that no atheist questions or dislikes Hitchens betrays a willful ignorance of a position you stand against. This is no different than WLC who revives long dead arguments with absolute no concept as to how their veracity has been rebuked and addressed - without adequate response to such.
William Craig has done his doctoral work in these "dead argumnents." and has debates multiple exprets in cosmology and astrophysics. It's a little redendant to say they've been rebuked when I doubt you have read any of his works.
The Kalam cosmological argument is airtight. Many dispute its validity, yes! But to say it's been completely discredited or debunked is a gross overstatement; and I'm saying this as someone who has read an extensive amount of material from both sides.
...I have yet to find an atheist who would say anythinhg negative about his positions ( and I'm not talking politics. I'm sure there are those who hate his political views)
Check anhy YT video when he debates religious scholars. The run along the lines of " knockout round 3," "what a Fing moron! Give Hitchens a real challange," " Lol, he really thought he stood a chance?" etc.
I persoanlly like Hitch', it's just that I have never seen an atheist who disagrees with him to any serious extent
"I have yet to find an atheist who would say anythinhg negative about his positions"
Honestly, this isn't surprising. It's like someone saying that all atheists love Dawkins and worship him as a messiah. Just pure, unbridled, ignorance.
The Moral argument regards issues specific to christianity that do not apply outside of it, the ontological argument is circular, and the transcendental argument is equally unsound, despite a degree of validity.
I'm honestly not surprised though. For you to imply that I haven't read his material because I disagree with him says more than enough.
Those issues are hot-button topics and are indeed disputed. But so is almost every other new hypothesis in Quantum physics. The Kalam cosmo. argument has withstood scrutiny since the late 70's when Craig modified it.
I don't see how the ontological argument is circular anymore than the standard Athropic principle, and the moral argument isn't predicated upon any specific religion, much less Christianity.
"But so is almost every other new hypothesis in Quantum physics"
Nothing within the realm of actual science can be written off with the likes of the Kalam argument. The Kalam argument is not science.
Additionally, the Athropic principle is likewise, not science. It is a concept created to rationalize something currently unknown.
The moral argument presupposes, incorrectly, that a specific (usually christian-based) line of morals exists in a realm contingent upon a diety. It's nonsense.
It's nonsense to assume his argument from morality is predicated upon any Christian doctrine. THAT is nonsense. Comeone dude, get familiarized with his arguments. Not once does he tackle the epistomological view of morality.
No one claimsthe Kalam argument is science. It's aphilosophical argument.
The Kalam cosmological is hardly airtight. It relies on "special pleading". That is that the universe can't have existed eternally but GOD can because of these special rules that are defined as excusing god from the very logic that says that an eternal can't actual exist.
It's not special pleading...It's based strictly on current cosmology. The atheistic argument that the universe is eternal(why isn't THIS special pleading?) is the one that deviates from the evidence.
You can read about this in his book "The Kalam Cosmological Argument"...he addresses a lot o these objections.
And read into ,freind. An eternal universe is an impossibilty.
No, sorry, it isn't. See, the universe is composed of ENERGY, which we know cannot be created or destroyed (1st law of thermodynamics). Thus, energy is ETERNAL. Since the universe is ENERGY at it's most basic level, the universe is ETERNAL.
Meanwhile, for the Kalam argument to work, as I said, you have to excuse the god being from the very same logic of the argument.
Wrong...He addressed this objection too. The 1st law oif thermodynamics suggests NOTHING about the origine of the universe. Physics break down at Planck time. The First law of Thermo' applies within the universe alone so you're extrapolation demonstrates nothing.
I'm sorry friend, but you're wrong. The First Law applies within what we observe now as the universe. It implies NOTHING about its origine or about the "time" that came before the Big Bang. That's outside its field of application.
I'm sorry again, but you are soo wrong. It's says energy within the universe cannot be created or destroyed. It says nothing whatsoever about the origine or the contingency of the universe. Nothing at all...
A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite.
Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.
This is the Kalam arguments supporting principle. So, a beginningless series of events is impossible as this would be an actual infinite, which is impossible? Then this principle holds true for God. But, no, it doesn't because you then excuse God from this saying that God is eternal?
Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.
This is the definition of special pleading. As I said, the Kalam argument...
Why isn't the exemption justified? We're arguing about the contigency and necessity. It's a conditional claim. The unoiverse came into existance at some point, as modern physics show us. For the entirty of the physical world and space-time to be born out of nothing is silly. Therefore, you have people who postulate alternative theories like The Oscilliating Model,Vaccum Fluctuations Model,etc.
So if you say the universe always existed, it's special pleading too as it goes against what we know.
is defeated by it's own attempt at logic. If a beginningless series of events is impossible because such a thing would be an actual infinite and an actual infinite cannot exist then, sorry, this applies to GOD as well as God has no beginning either. However, since you then attempt to exempt YOUR explanation from this very argument, this is SPECIAL PLEADING, a logical fallacy.
Again.... It's a conditional claim. If we granbt there is a creator--for the sake of argument-- then it's not special pleading; it's internally coherent. A creator has to be outside of time and space in order for it to create all of time and space. If he weren't, he wouldn't be the creator.
Comparing physical occurences with a spirit is a non-sequitur as far as I'm concenred.
But I don't grant a creator, which is why it becomes special pleading.
Look, this "argument" breaks down from both directions. It only works when you grant the special plea that MY eternal CAN be eternal while YOURS can't. Thus, this "argument" is no argument at all.
is defeated by its' own attempt at logic. If an actual infinite cannot exist and a beginningless series of events is an actual infinite, which cannot exist, then God cannot exist as God has no beginning. When you then attempt to exempt YOUR explanation from this very logic, this is SPECIAL PLEADING, a logical fallacy.
However, I feel like--and correct me if I'm wrong-- that you are genuinely interested in a normal debate. I appreciate your somewhat civil tone, as I hate to engage in piss fights over YouTube.
No matter how much we disagree, lets keep an open mind. I'm not making a 100% positive claim, but I do consider the arguments. I think you should too.
The big bang only created time, and we can see that higher areas of gravity like black holes, the sun, or even saturn experience time slower than we do. At the point where the big bang happened, time started, but not what makes up the unverse. if God can be without time, so can energy.
Not exactly. The Big Bang created all of SPACE-time; not merely time. The entire universe which we now observe came into existance at the Big Bang. The singularity holds to the theory in almost every aspect. The only way one can postulate an eterna;l universe is to appeal to alternative theories, which have been rejected almost unanimously.
I dunno where you're getting this from, but it's simply nonsense.
There is no suggestion there existed a universe "before this one." Quite the contrary, physics supports the idea that everything we do know about the universe and its laws break down before the Planck time which initiated the Big Bang.
Time did not exist until the big bang. Plank time can only take us back to within a few units of plank time after this began. Meanwhile, the energy that composes the universe clearly existed BEFORE this. So, before time even began, seperate from it, was ENERGY. Said energy cannot be created or destroyed, it is eternal.
You are misrepresenting current physics, sir. I'm sorry but It's not true, you're not basing it on any study. Everything that comes before Planck time cannot be observed by us, or extrapoltaed beyond the universe. It's a known fact that physics BREAK DOWN if we go back beofre the Planck time.
No we don't. The energy created at the Big Bang came into being at the singularity. The law of conservation suggests nothing about the origine of the universe.
The law of conservation of energy tells us that there was no CREATION of energy at the big bang. We know that energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is demonstratable in the laboratory and by mathmatical demonstration. The energy that is now the universe we know existed then as well. It existed before plank time.
*Sigh*...not---it did not! It's not a mainstream idea of modern physics. You're just extrapolating. It's comendable that you're interested in it, and I admire your enthusiasm, but it's not true. The energy was created a fraction of a second after the Big Bang--it does not pre-dates it.
NO...I am TIRED of arguing this CRAP with you fucktard! The energy that began the universe was there before the furthest point of time we can extrapolate. The singularity that began to expand at the point of the Big Bang existed BEFORE the Big Bang. The big bang theory tells us that the universe began to expand from an superdense energy state. This energy state existed PREVIOUS to the expansion called the big bang. This energy that ultimately all things are is ETERNAL. FUCK OFF!
If you think that childish bickering and insults exempt you from criticism, then I suggest you hit that ol' drawing board.
For the last time Sparky...no, the energy present at the singularity did NOT exist prior to the Planck time, as modern physics show us that the laws of physics themselves nor eveything that compiles the universe today existed before the singularity.
The conservation of energy law says nothing about the origine. Get this through your head.
No seriously...40 years old? I recently just ended a debate with a 16 year old, and even he had a better grasp of basic concepts of etiquette; not to mention that even the most hateful ppl I know can come up with a better insult :-P
Look, this conversation is clearly going nowhere. All I was trying to say is that the Kalam argument fails without special pleading on the part of the theist trying to say that while the universe couldn't have existed eternally HIS diety clearly can. That is attempting to excuse HIS argument from the argument he is trying to make, which is special pleading.
Therein lies the disagreement and the reason that it IS special pleading. For me to accept the Kalam argument I have to accept that there is an unprovable spiritual realm. That is special pleading. Read the definition.
Sorry, but so is the claim that the universe always existed. It cuts both ways; no matter how much you try to avoid it.
The only difference is in my view, is that the idea of an omnipotent creator makes far more sense than the idea that a physical universe with an infinite xstring of events always existed, when it's both mathematically impossible and logically impossible.
The difference is that the omnipotent creator needs special rules to tell us that he himself didn't need a creator whereas the law of conservation of energy tells us that energy is eternal, not capable of being created or destroyed. The universe doesn't need to be and isn't an infinite string of events. It is itself eternal as the energy that makes it up is eternal.
However, I will agree that the kalam argument fails from both sides...which is why it isn't airtight...which is where we started.
You haven't demonstrated why it isn't airtight. All you've said is that energy is eternal(false statement). That is your whole argumentative trajectory, and it's based on a false premise.
A universe that began to exist needs a cause. It cannot pop into being from nothing.
A universe that began to exist needs a cause. It cannot pop into being from nothing.
Yet you believe this to be true. The universe began from nothing when a god being who is eternal (which, according to the argument, is impossible, but, we then exempt this being from that argument) willed/wished it into being. POP, it comes from nothing.
If you live in Dallas, TX... can you direct me to the best burger in town. I'm talking huge, greasy, heart clogging, a cardiac arrest waiting to be eaten burger.
Wow! Ne leaps of faith there. Classic "I don't know how the effect could exist in time and the cause be timeless, therefor God exists!" argument. I supposed as long as there are limits to scientific knowledge, God will exist. Here I thought the "cause" of the big bang is widely believed to be a collision between two massive objects.
wow i was so wrong there is a god yes i can see that now oh i am sorry baby jesus.......yeah ok ever wonder why the religious only use science to prove god is real. it is because they know if people actually dug into history they would find man made god, and there is no god plain and simple. so they attack something that doesn't have all of the answers.
Well, if you are so easily impressed- it literally means philosophy doctor, but is used to denote a degree of accomplishment in different fields, including science.
But that is niether here nor there and doesn't take away from the fact that when this speaks on physics or logic, he either speaks from ignorance, or a lack of intellectual integrity. I guess I prefer to think of him as stupid, instead of corrupt.
lol...I had forgoten about this "video". But upon listening to it again and wishing I had that 7 minutes of my life back, I had to laugh at this "Ph.D." and his ridiculous argument. Any, and I mean ANY novice student of logic can see through his errors in premise. But I guess it works for Christians, being mentally softened up by delusion and all.
If science is inductive than the premises aren't going to be valid. Theories aren't valid in physics or any other science. We instead draw conclusions on probablities. If i drop chalk from my hand it would be logical to say that it will fall. Not on fact but on past experiences. The stronger the argument the more times the premise has been observed. Basic logic my friend.
physics doesn't follow the logic that you think it does. It follows induction. Dr. Craig has a ph. d. in philosophy. He's not an idiot. If you can tell me what ph. d. stands for i'll be impressed.
The Big Bang is bull shit! The universe is constantly creating new matter, so his theory of everything spreading out so thin that atoms will not even function is in error, because he assumes that gravity will cease to exist.
GKA, you're arguing in a circle by using the 1st Law of thermo. to prove itself to be correct.
Secondly, if there exists an infinite amount of events before the present, then logically you will NEVER reach the present. Imagine I have an infinite number of dominoes and out of those I label one of them 'X'. I have an inifinte number of dominoes before & after X. If I have an infinite number fall before reaching X, X will NEVER fall over because the sequence of dominoes before X is endless.
The NOW only happens for a brief second, but it still occurs and its all based on math.
We are but a flicker of digits on the neon clock of time.
The number always exists and always will because if it does not then time cannot move to the next number.
I don't remember what I said about 2nd law thermodynamics sometimes I just repeat what creationists say to make them argue that i'm wrong and I don't have time to look up my past post anyhow Enjoy!
I'm going to have to agree with BassP86 about the issue of infinite regress. It is logically certain that we would not be here today if there was an infinite amount of time before now. The issue is that infinity is a concept, not necessarily a mathematical sequence. No offense, but it really isn't a debatable issue. The universe DID begin to exist in the finite past because infinite regress is logically impossible and our our own existence confirms that.
There is a fallacy in the argument from regress. It assumes a STARTING point and extends time infinitely into the future while at the same time claiming that time extends infinitely into the past. To both claim that something can proceed from a finite starting point and simultaneously assume it has no limit in the opposite direction is a fallacy. It makes no sense because the premise is flawed, not because it refutes anything absurd.
there is really no sense in paradoxical structures but are they infinite or infinitesimal really what one is greater? there really is no sense for a single point but one exists somewhere that is for sure....
Of course points on a continuum are discrete. But infinite regress by definition assumes that no one point is preferred over another. Thus to label one point as "the start" when you assume infinite regress into the past is just asinine.
I never claimed that an infinite past was asinine. I claimed that your claim that a point in the finite past having temporal meaning when an infinity of time extends beyond it into the past is asinine. It's the plucking out of a specific point in an infinite timeline that is silly.
I am not arguing for magic. I am arguing that I don't know what started the universe and neither do you. Arguing from our own limited experience is futile.
By the way, you do realize we are on the same side of the issue here right? I'm an atheist too. But I reject your brane collision theory on the same grounds as I reject the god theory. It's untestable. Granted, it is at least founded in something rational, but it's still just speculation.
thats why its called theoretical physics I don't put any faith in it if you see me quote it then its only because it is supported by the most facts we have for a explanation we have currently...thats all
But that's also what I'm disputing. What facts do we have that support it as plausible or is it still just a hypothesis? Sounds like it hasn't gotten past the mathematical gymnastics stage to me.
I have not used personal incredulity for my claim that time is infinite I use logic you're just all hot and bothered that you sound silly saying that reality is asinine
In the fewest words possible, please lay out your logical argument that shows time is infinite. And it better not be a rehash of infinite regress, because that doesn't resolve anything.
in the words of my 7 year old "because there is NO evidence" ....seriously I feel like I'm being trolled why do you think that there is a end of the time before time began??? in the fewest words possible and lay it out all logical and shit.....
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I was asserting that YOU were making the "I said so" argument. As far as we can tell, yes, time will go on forever and the universe is open. That has -nothing- to do with whether time had a beginning or not. The truth is, we don't know. Anyone who claims differently is making a baseless claim. You're an atheist and so am I. Is it that hard to apply the same principles that you use to reject god to this problem too?
Err...I'm not making a statement of knowledge about what happened at or before the big bang.
My point of contention is that people such as WLC make assertions based off of false dichotomy and fallible proof by contra-positive.
Essentially, he builds his opponent's arguments, presuming to know more about their position than they do, then claim that he is right because the opposition is 'wrong' for not having an answer.
'I have an answer, you don't, so I'm right', more or less.
Okay. Guess I missed the sarcasm on the first reply. I think we are in agreement. Yes I agree: rejecting a claim doesn't require an alternative explanation to justify the rejection.
I agree with what the others say. This guy is pure bullshyt. Even if you find an answer to that question(which a doubt), that's not gonna prove that god exists.
I actually have a masters degree in physics from CalTech.
Baaa. Baaa. Go back to pumping gas. Or better yet, how about getting an education beyond than the twelfth grade -- maybe you'll learn to think for yourself rather than believing everything a whacko tells you.
I did not have the patience to watch this foisted pablum.
twistedH3L1X 3 months ago
Humans are a race with a finite understanding of all things. we need there to be boundaries on ideas for us to accept them. However just because this is the only way we can at this point in time understand our universe is not to say that there are truths which lack boundaries which is why we cannot understand or even comprehend those concepts and resort to pointless arguments about what we already think we know as if no other truths are out there to be found
popifar 4 months ago
This guy clearly has a poor grasp of what he is trying to tackle
arshsingh1984 6 months ago
His entire argument breaks down if you consider the possibility that the singularity is timeless. No creator, no mind, just a timeless singularity. The Big Bang happens, measurable time begins, therefore we are not yet at the point where everything has expanded to its infinite possibility. That is still in front of us.
Also, his argument seems to come down to "we can't name anything other than a creator that can do this, so a creator did it". Ugh.
SchMETAL20lml 7 months ago
What an asshat. The Big Bang model is only capable of describing the state of our universe back to a certain point. It in no way implies that there was nothing BEFORE that time, just that the model is unable to describe anything before it. What if the universe has continued to expand and collapse, over and over, forever before us and forever after us? A single example only, but enough to show that it is not theoretically impossible for an eternal universe, even according to Big Bang cosmology.
Lowraith 7 months ago
The question posed by RationalResponse was based on the Premise made by those being debated.
Their question wasn't an outright question in it's own right.
The use of Dr. Craig's deep, but flawed speech during a debate (in which the possibility of an infinite universe was not the topic) is not only an inappropriate use of his speech, but inaccurately frames the context the original question that was asked.
bayanimills 8 months ago
I think your ego is currently suffering expansionary inflation at this moment.
You sir,need medication.
rickuj 11 months ago
...and two universes?
...and a thousand million universes???
(je,je,je,,,)
MegaCaracolillo 11 months ago
9)Nice try - but when he tried to slip in a fast one, he lost me. He said that only two things can create: minds and abstract concepts (i.e. numbers). From this, he concluded that it must have been a mind that created the universe. But what about evolution? It is not a mind, it is not an abstract concept. And yet, it is the most creative force in the world. This is where his assume dualism of creativity falls apart: Craig's philosopy is so Charles Darwin, it's unbelievable.
JohannMint 1 year ago
WLC is a genius.
No one that I know of, can talk as much as he can as say absolutely fuck all at the same time.
He is trying to sound like he knows the "Truth" and yet he knows bugger all. He is a deluded idiot who knows how to use his words carefully to make other idiots follow him.
FatRakoon 1 year ago
@FatRakoon Oh, I see, you can't refute any of his points, so you just resort to calling him an "idiot" a few different ways.
EVSjahms 1 year ago 3
@EVSjahms
I know that you are not serious in that post.
The mere fact that almost everything this "idiot" has ever said has been ripped apart by many many people, and yet he still comes back to the same old stupid flawed arguements and this only proves that he, and his sheeple are exactly that... IDIOTS!
As for me refuting him, well, lets put it this way, if someone kept tellign you the sky was pink, and even when it has been proven its blue, would you waste you time with that moron?
Nuf-said
FatRakoon 1 year ago
@EVSjahms
im not even going to respond to him directly (FatRakoon), i just want to reassure you that this is one very, very stupid person.. and i applaud you for not commenting back, dont ever put your mind so far low to reach his and engage in a conversation with people like this!.. Reading comments like his, makes me feel very smart!
The Bible tells us, if there ignorant of the truth and have hatred and close mindedness to salvation, do not insist your argument to them!..
Take care bro
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@JusJuiceIt That helps. Thank you. It's unusual for me to get a positive constructive YouTube response. I didn't respond to him because his follow up comment didn't present anything new, so my original response applied to it just the same.
Peace in Him -EVS
EVSjahms 1 year ago
@EVSjahms
believe me, i no exactly how you feel with these ignorant youtubers, just remember some of them are kids, and if they arent but still respond with anger, and swear words, ignore them and leave the page! as Christians our number one goal is not to convince people of Christ, its to glorify his name! they make there own choices, its them who will be there own destruction! but i must say before i started debating and talking on youtube to the many atheists/evolutionists
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@EVSjahms
im just astonished and amazed at how gullible these people are, its simply incredible, they literally eat up anything dawkins type say!.. and coming on youtube every week really makes me feel like im superior simple because i no what the truth is, and im not so easily brainwashed into believing there idiotic theories!.. but then i remember the Bible dosent teach me to think of myself as superior to anyone, and so i come right back down lol..
God Bless you
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@EVSjahms
by the way nice dunks.. that you?
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@EVSjahms He's an idiot because he's an intellectually dishonest snake oil salesman. He tries to use science to prove god which is ridiculous because science DISPROVES the god of the bible.
Despite the fact that idiotic Christians are fighting against evolution right now, in a few years they will be claiming evolution as proof of gods existence. Mark my words.
MrTruthAddict 7 months ago
Almost everyone believes the universe had a beginning? Even Steven Hawking reversed his position on this. I guess everyone means everyone Craig wants to hear from.
poduck2 1 year ago
Since we have no factual evidence regarding the exact origins of the universe, any talk of the cause, which exists outside of the universe, is mere speculation, not even worthy of the name hypothesis. To postulate that that cause is god, surely reflects the bias of WLC.
s3tione 1 year ago
@s3tione "To postulate that that cause is god, surely reflects the bias of WLC"
well if he doesn't, this would ammount to him admitting he's been delusional since his teenage conversion. Craig and bias? noooo :))
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
since when is a mind infinite? his whole supposition is based on an opinion.
raohthekenoh 1 year ago
I hope more Religious people take this type of approach to trying to understand the universe.
Unfortunately, most will simply leave it up to others to "understand" for them. :(
TzuDevil 1 year ago
It is through arrogance that philosophers project their logic onto a universe that they don't understand. His conclusion makes no predictions or testable points. If you want to know the truth make a testable claim. Then test it. If you cannot test it then it is not but theoretical speculation
ripemind 1 year ago
what???they want to attack christians and start with W.L.Craig?? LMAO.
theuserD 1 year ago
in order for athiests to attack Christianity, they create straw people and attack it. so every time they are forced to defend an issue, they deflect and have you chasing in circles. Their content is not historically accurate, so to debate on that level is not valid to start with. lets preach the gospel to all creatures, not carry the burden of proof to these unbelievers. Shake the dust off your feet They are nothing more then a distraction planted by satan.
trubornagain 2 years ago
@trubornagain hahaha what a fag. people like you shouldnt have been aborted. its too bad you don't believe in that sort of thing. fuck god. fuck jesus, fuck allah, fuck yawe, fuck them all they are all bullshit and can suck my dick. none of them ever existed or ever will.
RGDA4LIFE 1 year ago
Why was Father Georges LeMaitre left out?
EnemyofCredulity 2 years ago
Must have been really bored, I guess. What made him decide, after being in existence forever, to suddenly create the universe? Was God lonely?
jfrancal2007 2 years ago
even understand what he's talking about. Mr. Craig's PhD is in Religion, and as far as I can determine, has never taken any college level course in any of the natural sciences. Here's a question for all you believers out there: If God is infinate and created the universe some 14 billion years ago, what was he doing for the 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years before? Or for the 10^100 years before that?
jfrancal2007 2 years ago
@jfrancal2007 time is like snapping your fingers in infinity. but wait!!! we all forget that you know God, you know his heart and his mind. lol. you think you could possibly fathom the mind of something that created the entire universe? hahaha. if i were you i wouldnt try to understand something that is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times smarter than you. give it a shot, my friend. the world is brighter with Him in your life
jeremy208 2 years ago
Sorry to break it to you, jeremy208, but there is no god and never was. The idea of a god sprang into being because our prehistoric ancestors looked up at the night sky and were afraid of the stars; they were afraid of the things that go bump in the night; they needed a simple answer to explain what they couldn't understant: presto! god. Modern humans have tried to quantify this superstitious, and irrational, belief in a magical being and have written stories about magical beings, and each new
jfrancal2007 2 years ago
civilization has invented new, more powerful gods to "one up" their predecessors, eventually relegating those "gods" to mythology until finally inventing the "One all-knowing, all-powerful God" of the present. And because it's an irrational belief, people like you say, "you can't understand the will or mind of God." I don't know God because there is no such thing. I also don't know Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny or leprechauns. Each is as real as your god.
jfrancal2007 2 years ago
If you, and superstitious people like you, want to waste your time studying a book of fables written thousands of years ago by MEN, that's your right. If you want to believe in The Force and become a Jedi Knight, that's your right, too. But that doesn't change the fact that "Dr." Craig's fantasy explanation of the Big Bang is as rational as the belief in a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.
jfrancal2007 2 years ago
"Dr." William Lane Craig is a fraud. In a nutshell, his "rebuttle" is, if the universe began with the big bang, there must have been some unembodied entity who initiated the big bang and therefore God exists. This is called a "fallacy of necessity": the universe began therefore God created it. He tries to bolster this idea by giving a 5 minute explanation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but he has no science credentials and doesn't
jfrancal2007 2 years ago
I've never understood how Craig says that the universe began to exist out of nothing. Didn't it begin to exist from the singularity? Wasn't it just really, really dense, instead of non-existent?
Jugglable 2 years ago
this guy is such a mental gymnist...
keggerous 2 years ago
then why do they repeat what Craig is saying about the big bang and time having a beginning, etc. at the Planetariium? Check out the Adler Planetarium -- I'm sure other Planetariums say the same thing. Also, I learned about what Craig is saying at College level Astronomy/cosmology courses. Also, just using mathematics you can prove that there has to be a beginning. If you go back in time to infinity then today does not exist since infinity goes on forever and you can never arrive at today.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
Actually if u use General Relativity then at a point u come to realize that there is no matter or space at the singularity. if thats true then what we consider "TIME" WOULDNT exist.....HOWEVER, energy cannot be created nor destroyed. we know this from labratory experiments on earth. we also know that (because of special relativity) things like light, which has infinitly dilated time. that means that even though time doesnt exist as a motion of mass it still exists as a dynamic force........cont.
keggerous 2 years ago
this suggests that even in a sigularity where space and mass do not exist time is still dynamic. this and the conservation of energy suggests that the universe couldnt have sprung from NOTHING. instead what we see as kinetic energy(space growing/galaxies moving) is just a phase shift from the state the universe was in before the big bang. what craig does is use the math and predictions of general relativit(which we know is wrong at the singularity) to try and make the strawman argument......cont
keggerous 2 years ago
that because "TIME" as weknow it to exist( as related to matter) must not exist and therefor god must have created everything. this is illogical on the basis that not only have REAL physicists like stephen hawking and sir robert penrose shown that "imaginary time(time existing before the unvierse to allow cause to make the universe an effect)" can and should exist. u should watch penrose's video "before the big bang?" it shows the assuptions craig makes to be inaccurate at the least.......cont.
keggerous 2 years ago
"time" as perceived in General Relativity did only start to exist when the matter of the universe first came into existence. however, for the universe to come into existence something must have been dynamic and changing in order to phase shift from one state to the next. this highly suggest "TIME". even if ur hypothesis includes a god.u must say that this god works within time. anything created, destroyed, thought, or anything dynamic at all must exist within time......cont.
keggerous 2 years ago
now if the universe came from nothing then it would be completely possible that before the universe was nothing not even time...however we know from the conservation of energ(matter/energy cannot be creaed nor destroyed) that the universe must have been in a differnt energy state before its current inflation. much like an electron in a higher energy shell( higher orbit) it potentian energy turning into kinetic energy...... BTW im sorry for all my typos...i type to fast some times.
keggerous 2 years ago
well, honestly I don't know about all that. My degrees are in Chemistry, biology and pharmacy. The beginning of time is a rather difficult concept. All I know is that the big bang is accepted by the majority of scientists. It of course had to be created regardless of how it started. The laws are too complicated and ordered to just have happened without reason or thought. I think the big bang is the most logical but it could have happened some other way. Most theories change from time to time.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
whatever theory we develope would need to include the big bang. we just know the big bang as an event that we inevitably reach when we extrapulate back in time. our current theory is called "the inflationary theory" it includes the big bang but reaches a limit at the point of singularity. our math isnt good enough yet to explain what it was or hoe it became.
keggerous 2 years ago
first off...we know because of the math and because of other theories that are out there that GR is WRONG! the singularity is not an accurate account of the Big Bang and its impossible for us to know what happened at that time or before it. we cant see that far back nor can we even find out if all the matter of the universe ejected from said singularity. the reason we cant tell that is because we cant see the whole universe! we know its at least 1000x bigger then what we see. craig is a douche!
keggerous 2 years ago
Craig fails to mention that the big bang model only refers to the observable universe (not all of physical existence), and how it doesn't posit an absolute beginning to anything. All the model does is trace the expansion of the known universe back as far as possible; there is no mention of time, space or matter "coming into existence".
Also, Hawking acknowledges that time/space/matter may have existed before the big bang, noting that we just couldn't know anything about them if they did.
army103 2 years ago
if it did exist it still had to have a beginning. The big bang is just a theory which does pose some problems but it is the best theory yet. Most scientists do agree with it but of course that doesn't prove it is true.
heymanhmm 2 years ago
He denies no concpet of mainstream science. Plus, you commit the Ad Hominem fallacy and the appeal to Authority.
theonlyway2truth 2 years ago
This argument automatically presumes there HAS to be a greater being to start it all rather than a natural process, this is where it falls on its ass and fails.
p0rkch0ps 2 years ago
Because he says alot of elouquent crap that sounds intimidating to hear, but collapses when held to scrutiny?
The way he words his arguments is...'tricky'. It takes alot more effort to break it down than it does for him to say it. Refuting this kind of stuff is tiring.
Mathenaut 2 years ago
Well, he has dealt with professionalcosmologists in the past ever since he began his studies back in the 70's.
Be more modest as I'm sure you (as well as myself) are a *little* less wellversed in these topic as are pHD's whom Craig has debated in the past.
The "eloquent" crap" is more aptly deserving of Hitchens when he debates, yet I'm sure no atheist, including you, will ever call him out on it.
Interesting...
regelemihai 2 years ago
You speak like someone who has never read the positions of the people that you criticize.
To say that no atheist questions or dislikes Hitchens betrays a willful ignorance of a position you stand against. This is no different than WLC who revives long dead arguments with absolute no concept as to how their veracity has been rebuked and addressed - without adequate response to such.
Mathenaut 2 years ago
William Craig has done his doctoral work in these "dead argumnents." and has debates multiple exprets in cosmology and astrophysics. It's a little redendant to say they've been rebuked when I doubt you have read any of his works.
The Kalam cosmological argument is airtight. Many dispute its validity, yes! But to say it's been completely discredited or debunked is a gross overstatement; and I'm saying this as someone who has read an extensive amount of material from both sides.
As for Hitch...
regelemihai 2 years ago
...I have yet to find an atheist who would say anythinhg negative about his positions ( and I'm not talking politics. I'm sure there are those who hate his political views)
Check anhy YT video when he debates religious scholars. The run along the lines of " knockout round 3," "what a Fing moron! Give Hitchens a real challange," " Lol, he really thought he stood a chance?" etc.
I persoanlly like Hitch', it's just that I have never seen an atheist who disagrees with him to any serious extent
regelemihai 2 years ago
"I have yet to find an atheist who would say anythinhg negative about his positions"
Honestly, this isn't surprising. It's like someone saying that all atheists love Dawkins and worship him as a messiah. Just pure, unbridled, ignorance.
Mathenaut 2 years ago
Glad to hear that, in this case. It's good news.
But the ones I have encountered are fanatics about these guys. Just look at Amazon. thousand upon thousands on reviewers lauding Dawkins.
regelemihai 2 years ago
**debated
**redundant
regelemihai 2 years ago
"The Kalam cosmological argument is airtight"
No, it's not. That is why it is so disputed.
The Moral argument regards issues specific to christianity that do not apply outside of it, the ontological argument is circular, and the transcendental argument is equally unsound, despite a degree of validity.
I'm honestly not surprised though. For you to imply that I haven't read his material because I disagree with him says more than enough.
Mathenaut 2 years ago
Glad you have.
Those issues are hot-button topics and are indeed disputed. But so is almost every other new hypothesis in Quantum physics. The Kalam cosmo. argument has withstood scrutiny since the late 70's when Craig modified it.
I don't see how the ontological argument is circular anymore than the standard Athropic principle, and the moral argument isn't predicated upon any specific religion, much less Christianity.
regelemihai 2 years ago
"But so is almost every other new hypothesis in Quantum physics"
Nothing within the realm of actual science can be written off with the likes of the Kalam argument. The Kalam argument is not science.
Additionally, the Athropic principle is likewise, not science. It is a concept created to rationalize something currently unknown.
The moral argument presupposes, incorrectly, that a specific (usually christian-based) line of morals exists in a realm contingent upon a diety. It's nonsense.
Mathenaut 2 years ago
It's nonsense to assume his argument from morality is predicated upon any Christian doctrine. THAT is nonsense. Comeone dude, get familiarized with his arguments. Not once does he tackle the epistomological view of morality.
No one claimsthe Kalam argument is science. It's aphilosophical argument.
The anthropic principle is a joke.
regelemihai 2 years ago
The Kalam cosmological is hardly airtight. It relies on "special pleading". That is that the universe can't have existed eternally but GOD can because of these special rules that are defined as excusing god from the very logic that says that an eternal can't actual exist.
Wonko101 2 years ago
It's not special pleading...It's based strictly on current cosmology. The atheistic argument that the universe is eternal(why isn't THIS special pleading?) is the one that deviates from the evidence.
You can read about this in his book "The Kalam Cosmological Argument"...he addresses a lot o these objections.
And read into ,freind. An eternal universe is an impossibilty.
regelemihai 2 years ago
No, sorry, it isn't. See, the universe is composed of ENERGY, which we know cannot be created or destroyed (1st law of thermodynamics). Thus, energy is ETERNAL. Since the universe is ENERGY at it's most basic level, the universe is ETERNAL.
Meanwhile, for the Kalam argument to work, as I said, you have to excuse the god being from the very same logic of the argument.
Wonko101 2 years ago
Wrong...He addressed this objection too. The 1st law oif thermodynamics suggests NOTHING about the origine of the universe. Physics break down at Planck time. The First law of Thermo' applies within the universe alone so you're extrapolation demonstrates nothing.
regelemihai 2 years ago
The first law of thermodynamics tells us that there is no need for an origin as energy is ETERNAL.
Wonko101 2 years ago
I'm sorry friend, but you're wrong. The First Law applies within what we observe now as the universe. It implies NOTHING about its origine or about the "time" that came before the Big Bang. That's outside its field of application.
regelemihai 2 years ago
I'm sorry again, but you are soo wrong. It's says energy within the universe cannot be created or destroyed. It says nothing whatsoever about the origine or the contingency of the universe. Nothing at all...
regelemihai 2 years ago
An actual infinite cannot exist.
A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite.
Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.
This is the Kalam arguments supporting principle. So, a beginningless series of events is impossible as this would be an actual infinite, which is impossible? Then this principle holds true for God. But, no, it doesn't because you then excuse God from this saying that God is eternal?
Wonko101 2 years ago
Well...yeah. You're comparing physical events to the existance of a non-corporeal entity? Is the difference reallt that hard to see?
regelemihai 2 years ago
Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.
This is the definition of special pleading. As I said, the Kalam argument...
Wonko101 2 years ago
Why isn't the exemption justified? We're arguing about the contigency and necessity. It's a conditional claim. The unoiverse came into existance at some point, as modern physics show us. For the entirty of the physical world and space-time to be born out of nothing is silly. Therefore, you have people who postulate alternative theories like The Oscilliating Model,Vaccum Fluctuations Model,etc.
So if you say the universe always existed, it's special pleading too as it goes against what we know.
regelemihai 2 years ago
is defeated by it's own attempt at logic. If a beginningless series of events is impossible because such a thing would be an actual infinite and an actual infinite cannot exist then, sorry, this applies to GOD as well as God has no beginning either. However, since you then attempt to exempt YOUR explanation from this very argument, this is SPECIAL PLEADING, a logical fallacy.
Wonko101 2 years ago
Again.... It's a conditional claim. If we granbt there is a creator--for the sake of argument-- then it's not special pleading; it's internally coherent. A creator has to be outside of time and space in order for it to create all of time and space. If he weren't, he wouldn't be the creator.
Comparing physical occurences with a spirit is a non-sequitur as far as I'm concenred.
regelemihai 2 years ago
But I don't grant a creator, which is why it becomes special pleading.
Look, this "argument" breaks down from both directions. It only works when you grant the special plea that MY eternal CAN be eternal while YOURS can't. Thus, this "argument" is no argument at all.
Wonko101 2 years ago
I already answered this objection.
regelemihai 2 years ago
is defeated by its' own attempt at logic. If an actual infinite cannot exist and a beginningless series of events is an actual infinite, which cannot exist, then God cannot exist as God has no beginning. When you then attempt to exempt YOUR explanation from this very logic, this is SPECIAL PLEADING, a logical fallacy.
Wonko101 2 years ago
However, I feel like--and correct me if I'm wrong-- that you are genuinely interested in a normal debate. I appreciate your somewhat civil tone, as I hate to engage in piss fights over YouTube.
No matter how much we disagree, lets keep an open mind. I'm not making a 100% positive claim, but I do consider the arguments. I think you should too.
regelemihai 2 years ago
P.S- I myself am also quite a big Martial Arts fan :-)
regelemihai 2 years ago
The big bang only created time, and we can see that higher areas of gravity like black holes, the sun, or even saturn experience time slower than we do. At the point where the big bang happened, time started, but not what makes up the unverse. if God can be without time, so can energy.
Wonko101 2 years ago
Not exactly. The Big Bang created all of SPACE-time; not merely time. The entire universe which we now observe came into existance at the Big Bang. The singularity holds to the theory in almost every aspect. The only way one can postulate an eterna;l universe is to appeal to alternative theories, which have been rejected almost unanimously.
regelemihai 2 years ago
No. The big bang began the concept of time. The energy of the universe that existed before this was there previous to the beginning of time.
Wonko101 2 years ago
I dunno where you're getting this from, but it's simply nonsense.
There is no suggestion there existed a universe "before this one." Quite the contrary, physics supports the idea that everything we do know about the universe and its laws break down before the Planck time which initiated the Big Bang.
regelemihai 2 years ago
Time did not exist until the big bang. Plank time can only take us back to within a few units of plank time after this began. Meanwhile, the energy that composes the universe clearly existed BEFORE this. So, before time even began, seperate from it, was ENERGY. Said energy cannot be created or destroyed, it is eternal.
Wonko101 2 years ago
You are misrepresenting current physics, sir. I'm sorry but It's not true, you're not basing it on any study. Everything that comes before Planck time cannot be observed by us, or extrapoltaed beyond the universe. It's a known fact that physics BREAK DOWN if we go back beofre the Planck time.
regelemihai 2 years ago
Yet we know that the energy that composed the singularity existed. This energy existed before time.
Wonko101 2 years ago
No we don't. The energy created at the Big Bang came into being at the singularity. The law of conservation suggests nothing about the origine of the universe.
regelemihai 2 years ago
The law of conservation of energy tells us that there was no CREATION of energy at the big bang. We know that energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is demonstratable in the laboratory and by mathmatical demonstration. The energy that is now the universe we know existed then as well. It existed before plank time.
Wonko101 2 years ago
*Sigh*...not---it did not! It's not a mainstream idea of modern physics. You're just extrapolating. It's comendable that you're interested in it, and I admire your enthusiasm, but it's not true. The energy was created a fraction of a second after the Big Bang--it does not pre-dates it.
regelemihai 2 years ago
NO...I am TIRED of arguing this CRAP with you fucktard! The energy that began the universe was there before the furthest point of time we can extrapolate. The singularity that began to expand at the point of the Big Bang existed BEFORE the Big Bang. The big bang theory tells us that the universe began to expand from an superdense energy state. This energy state existed PREVIOUS to the expansion called the big bang. This energy that ultimately all things are is ETERNAL. FUCK OFF!
Wonko101 2 years ago
You called me a fucktard :-(
If you think that childish bickering and insults exempt you from criticism, then I suggest you hit that ol' drawing board.
For the last time Sparky...no, the energy present at the singularity did NOT exist prior to the Planck time, as modern physics show us that the laws of physics themselves nor eveything that compiles the universe today existed before the singularity.
The conservation of energy law says nothing about the origine. Get this through your head.
regelemihai 2 years ago
Umm...fuck off was clearly too complicated...
EAT SHIT?
Wonko101 2 years ago
Lol...you sure you're 40 years old? :-P
regelemihai 2 years ago
Umm...fuck off was clearly too complicated...
EAT SHIT?
Wonko101 2 years ago
No seriously...40 years old? I recently just ended a debate with a 16 year old, and even he had a better grasp of basic concepts of etiquette; not to mention that even the most hateful ppl I know can come up with a better insult :-P
regelemihai 2 years ago
Umm...fuck off was clearly too complicated...
EAT SHIT?
Wonko101 2 years ago
Is that how you react when one of your children pisses you off? LOL.
You'd haul some asses in a debate with this type of immpecable style of argumentation.
My best wishes :-)
regelemihai 2 years ago
Umm...fuck off was clearly too complicated...
EAT SHIT?
Wonko101 2 years ago
You're just too fun.... :D
Which part of the Bushido code are you applying when throwing around moronic slurs? I'm intrigued...
regelemihai 2 years ago
Umm...fuck off was clearly too complicated...
EAT SHIT?
Wonko101 2 years ago
I love you! I do....I should stop lying to myself....I LOVE YOU!!!!
regelemihai 2 years ago
Umm...fuck off was clearly too complicated...
EAT SHIT?
Wonko101 2 years ago
*Screams like Marlon Barndo*
Wonko!!!!!
Don't ever leave me baby....Don't ever leave me...
regelemihai 2 years ago
Look, this conversation is clearly going nowhere. All I was trying to say is that the Kalam argument fails without special pleading on the part of the theist trying to say that while the universe couldn't have existed eternally HIS diety clearly can. That is attempting to excuse HIS argument from the argument he is trying to make, which is special pleading.
You disagree. Got it.
Wonko101 2 years ago
My disagreement is based on o logical view of ontology. You're just making faulty analogies where they simply don't belong.
Failure in seeing the difference between a spirit and a physical cosmos is elementary.
regelemihai 2 years ago
Therein lies the disagreement and the reason that it IS special pleading. For me to accept the Kalam argument I have to accept that there is an unprovable spiritual realm. That is special pleading. Read the definition.
Wonko101 2 years ago
Sorry, but so is the claim that the universe always existed. It cuts both ways; no matter how much you try to avoid it.
The only difference is in my view, is that the idea of an omnipotent creator makes far more sense than the idea that a physical universe with an infinite xstring of events always existed, when it's both mathematically impossible and logically impossible.
We can chalk it up to that.
regelemihai 2 years ago
The difference is that the omnipotent creator needs special rules to tell us that he himself didn't need a creator whereas the law of conservation of energy tells us that energy is eternal, not capable of being created or destroyed. The universe doesn't need to be and isn't an infinite string of events. It is itself eternal as the energy that makes it up is eternal.
However, I will agree that the kalam argument fails from both sides...which is why it isn't airtight...which is where we started.
Wonko101 2 years ago
You haven't demonstrated why it isn't airtight. All you've said is that energy is eternal(false statement). That is your whole argumentative trajectory, and it's based on a false premise.
A universe that began to exist needs a cause. It cannot pop into being from nothing.
regelemihai 2 years ago
A universe that began to exist needs a cause. It cannot pop into being from nothing.
Yet you believe this to be true. The universe began from nothing when a god being who is eternal (which, according to the argument, is impossible, but, we then exempt this being from that argument) willed/wished it into being. POP, it comes from nothing.
Wonko101 2 years ago
"Impossible", I think not. An eternal universe is indeed impossible as I said, mathematically and logically.
regelemihai 2 years ago 5
If you live in Dallas, TX... can you direct me to the best burger in town. I'm talking huge, greasy, heart clogging, a cardiac arrest waiting to be eaten burger.
cboadicea 2 years ago
this is no more a doctor than dr hovind
1moreAtheist 2 years ago
ya this guy is way out of his league
he is very good at confusing people with nonsense
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
Wow! Ne leaps of faith there. Classic "I don't know how the effect could exist in time and the cause be timeless, therefor God exists!" argument. I supposed as long as there are limits to scientific knowledge, God will exist. Here I thought the "cause" of the big bang is widely believed to be a collision between two massive objects.
boxa78 2 years ago
wow i was so wrong there is a god yes i can see that now oh i am sorry baby jesus.......yeah ok ever wonder why the religious only use science to prove god is real. it is because they know if people actually dug into history they would find man made god, and there is no god plain and simple. so they attack something that doesn't have all of the answers.
laxguy22655 2 years ago
Strawman. He doesn't use the argument to justify any Biblical doctrine. That is not even remotely the scope of the whole argument.
regelemihai 2 years ago
Reductio ad absurdum.
Not an argument, my friend.
regelemihai 2 years ago
Well, if you are so easily impressed- it literally means philosophy doctor, but is used to denote a degree of accomplishment in different fields, including science.
But that is niether here nor there and doesn't take away from the fact that when this speaks on physics or logic, he either speaks from ignorance, or a lack of intellectual integrity. I guess I prefer to think of him as stupid, instead of corrupt.
What can I say, I'm an optimist.
judoyodan 3 years ago
This idiot needs a lesson in logic and physics.
Religion, ALL religions, make you stupid.
judoyodan 3 years ago
the guy has a Ph.D....hardly unprepared.
MrBubbles70 3 years ago
lol...I had forgoten about this "video". But upon listening to it again and wishing I had that 7 minutes of my life back, I had to laugh at this "Ph.D." and his ridiculous argument. Any, and I mean ANY novice student of logic can see through his errors in premise. But I guess it works for Christians, being mentally softened up by delusion and all.
Doesn't he also remind you of Ted Haggard?
judoyodan 3 years ago
if it lets u sleep at night..
MrBubbles70 3 years ago
If science is inductive than the premises aren't going to be valid. Theories aren't valid in physics or any other science. We instead draw conclusions on probablities. If i drop chalk from my hand it would be logical to say that it will fall. Not on fact but on past experiences. The stronger the argument the more times the premise has been observed. Basic logic my friend.
sporque325 3 years ago
This guy is seriuously telling William Lane Craig to take a lesson in logic and physics?
What is the world coming to?
AmI2Hvy4ya 3 years ago 2
Actually "William Lane Craig" would need more than one lesson, in logic AND physics.
This guys PhD is in theology. He is hardly qualified to speak on issues of science, unless it is the science of bullshit.
judoyodan 3 years ago
He has two PhD's:
One in Philosophy and One in Theolgoy. Both from secular accredited universities.
You could watch him give atheists lessons on logic in some of his debates? That might work in your case.
AmI2Hvy4ya 3 years ago
Seriously?!
I've watched a couple of his "debates". He is a joke. Either laughed at, or pittied, by anybody with a brain.
You should consider giving up christianity, it's making you stupid.
judoyodan 3 years ago
"This idiot needs a lesson in logic and physics."
"Religion, ALL religions, make you stupid. "
physics doesn't follow the logic that you think it does. It follows induction. Dr. Craig has a ph. d. in philosophy. He's not an idiot. If you can tell me what ph. d. stands for i'll be impressed.
sporque325 3 years ago
The Big Bang is bull shit! The universe is constantly creating new matter, so his theory of everything spreading out so thin that atoms will not even function is in error, because he assumes that gravity will cease to exist.
His speech is so full of errors its just silly
GodKillerAtheist 3 years ago
GKA, you're arguing in a circle by using the 1st Law of thermo. to prove itself to be correct.
Secondly, if there exists an infinite amount of events before the present, then logically you will NEVER reach the present. Imagine I have an infinite number of dominoes and out of those I label one of them 'X'. I have an inifinte number of dominoes before & after X. If I have an infinite number fall before reaching X, X will NEVER fall over because the sequence of dominoes before X is endless.
BassP86 2 years ago
The NOW only happens for a brief second, but it still occurs and its all based on math.
We are but a flicker of digits on the neon clock of time.
The number always exists and always will because if it does not then time cannot move to the next number.
I don't remember what I said about 2nd law thermodynamics sometimes I just repeat what creationists say to make them argue that i'm wrong and I don't have time to look up my past post anyhow Enjoy!
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
I'm going to have to agree with BassP86 about the issue of infinite regress. It is logically certain that we would not be here today if there was an infinite amount of time before now. The issue is that infinity is a concept, not necessarily a mathematical sequence. No offense, but it really isn't a debatable issue. The universe DID begin to exist in the finite past because infinite regress is logically impossible and our our own existence confirms that.
AOPrinciple 2 years ago
Time did start for our universe at some point, but theoretical physics says that time also existed before our universe please research M theory
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
PRECISELY. i have this theory that the universe always existed. ours is one of many.
1moreAtheist 2 years ago
I have a few theories of reality yours is totally plausible they all may be.
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
yea would love to hear. i also love stephen hawking too . :)
1moreAtheist 2 years ago
There is a fallacy in the argument from regress. It assumes a STARTING point and extends time infinitely into the future while at the same time claiming that time extends infinitely into the past. To both claim that something can proceed from a finite starting point and simultaneously assume it has no limit in the opposite direction is a fallacy. It makes no sense because the premise is flawed, not because it refutes anything absurd.
Grak70 2 years ago
there is really no sense in paradoxical structures but are they infinite or infinitesimal really what one is greater? there really is no sense for a single point but one exists somewhere that is for sure....
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
Of course points on a continuum are discrete. But infinite regress by definition assumes that no one point is preferred over another. Thus to label one point as "the start" when you assume infinite regress into the past is just asinine.
Grak70 2 years ago
I disagree! To think that there was no infinite past, but an infinite future is even more asinine.
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
So basically, your "evidence" boils down to argument from personal incredulity. "I don't see how X can be possible, therefore Y."
Grak70 2 years ago
NO but the evidence is all around us just look at the law of conservation
You were arguing that the infinite past was asinine.... so your comment about personal incredulity is in error
basically you must be arguing that magic made everything Poof!
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
I never claimed that an infinite past was asinine. I claimed that your claim that a point in the finite past having temporal meaning when an infinity of time extends beyond it into the past is asinine. It's the plucking out of a specific point in an infinite timeline that is silly.
I am not arguing for magic. I am arguing that I don't know what started the universe and neither do you. Arguing from our own limited experience is futile.
Grak70 2 years ago
a point on a infinite scale is not asinine since we live in such a point are you calling all of reality asinine?
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
You are presupposing the truth of your claim in order to ask that question.
Grak70 2 years ago
no you're right all space time and reality is a single non linear point ....there, its over we can go back to nothingness now *sarcasm*
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
saying "single nonlinear point" just belies a misunderstanding of what is meant by "nonlinear", not to mention "point."
Grak70 2 years ago
Yes a point is nonlinear that was my point...just what is your point, besides critiquing (in error) everything I say fellow atheist???
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
By the way, you do realize we are on the same side of the issue here right? I'm an atheist too. But I reject your brane collision theory on the same grounds as I reject the god theory. It's untestable. Granted, it is at least founded in something rational, but it's still just speculation.
Grak70 2 years ago
thats why its called theoretical physics I don't put any faith in it if you see me quote it then its only because it is supported by the most facts we have for a explanation we have currently...thats all
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
But that's also what I'm disputing. What facts do we have that support it as plausible or is it still just a hypothesis? Sounds like it hasn't gotten past the mathematical gymnastics stage to me.
Grak70 2 years ago
once you can claim you know the smallest and largest number that can exist then you can claim that infinity is silly
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
Personal incredulity is not evidence for your claim.
Grak70 2 years ago
I have not used personal incredulity for my claim that time is infinite I use logic you're just all hot and bothered that you sound silly saying that reality is asinine
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
In the fewest words possible, please lay out your logical argument that shows time is infinite. And it better not be a rehash of infinite regress, because that doesn't resolve anything.
Grak70 2 years ago
in the words of my 7 year old "because there is NO evidence" ....seriously I feel like I'm being trolled why do you think that there is a end of the time before time began??? in the fewest words possible and lay it out all logical and shit.....
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
Bah. This isn't going anywhere. Nevermind. I don't want to make an enemy out of an ally.
Grak70 2 years ago
LOL I agree happy tubing!
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
"In the fewest words possible, please lay out your logical argument that shows time is infinite"
Time, and the universe, are currently expanding, without bound, and without end. By definition, they are infinite.
Mathenaut 2 years ago
translation: "I say so. Q.E.D."
Saying something will continue forever is not the same as saying it has always existed.
Grak70 2 years ago
Relevance?
Mathenaut 2 years ago
Uh, "I say so" isn't an argument?
Grak70 2 years ago
Not one with any real bearing, no.
Mathenaut 2 years ago
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I was asserting that YOU were making the "I said so" argument. As far as we can tell, yes, time will go on forever and the universe is open. That has -nothing- to do with whether time had a beginning or not. The truth is, we don't know. Anyone who claims differently is making a baseless claim. You're an atheist and so am I. Is it that hard to apply the same principles that you use to reject god to this problem too?
Grak70 2 years ago
Err...I'm not making a statement of knowledge about what happened at or before the big bang.
My point of contention is that people such as WLC make assertions based off of false dichotomy and fallible proof by contra-positive.
Essentially, he builds his opponent's arguments, presuming to know more about their position than they do, then claim that he is right because the opposition is 'wrong' for not having an answer.
'I have an answer, you don't, so I'm right', more or less.
Mathenaut 2 years ago
Okay. Guess I missed the sarcasm on the first reply. I think we are in agreement. Yes I agree: rejecting a claim doesn't require an alternative explanation to justify the rejection.
Grak70 2 years ago
this infinite void that he is calling "god" may not have "created" the universe but rather caused it, this is not the way to argue for transcendence
undergradgnome 3 years ago
I agree with what the others say. This guy is pure bullshyt. Even if you find an answer to that question(which a doubt), that's not gonna prove that god exists.
Nightmare0805 3 years ago
I actually have a masters degree in physics from CalTech.
Baaa. Baaa. Go back to pumping gas. Or better yet, how about getting an education beyond than the twelfth grade -- maybe you'll learn to think for yourself rather than believing everything a whacko tells you.
makakioclark 3 years ago
Jackass. What does this guy know about science and quantum physics? He has a PhD in THEOLOGY. For you retards, that's a degree in RELIGION.
makakioclark 3 years ago
Bro, me thinks you need to have some serious me time and get in touch with your inner child or something. Peace!
emopeacekid 3 years ago