You have got to be joking. This video misquotes the KCA, takes arguments and clips from debates utterly out of context, misquotes proper scientific theory, and then approaches it not only from a fallacious view, but comes to a contradictory conclusion. It states untested theory as fact, borrows fallacious arguments and STILL quotes them incorrectly.
Please, I beg of you, before declaring your victory over a philosophical argument, read at least one book in philosophy.
In order for the phrase 'Everything that begins to exist" to be meaningfully different than "Everything that exists has a cause" we need to have good evidence that there are things that don't begin to exist. Well what evidence is there? They assume god has this property because they've defined it that way, hence the distinction is simply wordplay.
What would you say to people who think that "Everything that exists has a cause" and "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" are not just "wordplay," as you put it, and completely different premises of completely different arguments?
Yet does this clip bury the stupid superstitious argument? Hell no. Zombie-cultists and mudslimes and other cultists keep on spewing their nonsense, all the way to the grave.
Only way we can end this bullshit is by protecting children from indoctrination in to superstition. If religious people cant target defenceless children anymore, organised superstition dies in one generation. And this world would be so much happier and brighter for it.
Very very well done. I still hold that Craig's primary problem is that, ultimately, he always ends up with some variation of "my holy book is better than yours."
@foneyop The picture behind is made from somthing called a "duratran", its basically a transparent photo (taken from Spitzer Space telescope) backlit with Led lights.
Part of the the case made by WLC in establishing Premise 2 of the KAlam is that infinities don't exist in reality , hence the past cannot be infinite and so premise 2 is true. So the Kalam as presented by WLC does say there is no infinity.
Kalam cosmological argument does not say there is no "infinity" hence I had to stop watching this video after the first few minutes to prevent brain damage. LULZ!
@TheJimmyBacon " Inept science " - ....and???? It's easy to declare something inept and run away, much harder to actually prove it. Now, that makes me laugh.
@schluder23 " Obviously, my lack of cosmological expertise cannot dialogue with such logical and evidentially based arguments " - Obviously, but it doesn't stop you from trying to argue with the video... Good luck with your future YouTube comments, because, speaking as a 3rd party...you just got your backside handed to you.
Alternatively type this into google:" before the big bang john barrow" read the article on plus.maths . This is written by a theistic cosmologists that WLC has quoted many times.
She fully admits that none of her refutations regarding quantum gravity have been confirmed by science. She provides no valid refutations regarding any of the premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The dismissive response regarding the physical number of "infinity" is astonishing to me. Also, her acceptance of the "Multiverse" without any evidence for another universe outside of our own is irresponsible. Her theological background is evidently lacking based upon her approach to theism.
@schluder23 The point about quantum gravity is that we cant have a confident view of the Planck scale era until we have a well verified quantum gravity. Its not us that pretends to know what happens in the Planck era its WLC. So the point stands. Our point is not to show the points of the KAlam are false but to show that they are unproven. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. We dont claim the multiverse eixsts, we claim eternal inflation implies it. Thats not in dispute.
@skydivephil WLC asserts that anything that begins to exist has a cause, which implies that something cannot pop into existance from nothing. That is consistent with all known scientific laws. While you claim it is "word play" concerning God being the creator and imply that "why can't the same be said concerning the universe?". The universe is scientifically proven to be finite while God would be in existance as a necessity of His own nature and would therefore be infinite as a creator.
@schluder23 If you define "nothing" as a vacuum thins do pop into existence from nothing. If you say the vaccum is not nothing, what is you empirical basis to say "something cannot pop into existence out of nothing". You claim the universe has been proven to be finite are claiming spatially or temporally or both? what is this proof?
@skydivephil I don't define nothing as a vacuum. To say that things comes into being by vacuums from seemingly nothing provides no credibility to your argument that the universe could have established it's existance from nothing. Regarding the universe being finite, this has been scientifically well established and investigated by modern scholarship since Hubble discovered the first observational evidence of it. Given modern day science, the universe being infinite is highly implausible.
@schluder23 "I don't define nothing as a vacuum." Thats fine, but you conveniently ignore the question we asked as a consequence of this. So lets ask it again. if the nothing isnt nothing ten on what empirical basis do you say somethinh cant come from nothing ?
@schluder23 Im going to guess you haven't studied much cosmology. Hubble din't discover any evidence that the universe is finite, he found evidence of expansion. But expansion itself tells cant tell between Hoyle's steady state model and the big bang. That was determined later by the CMB, galaxy evolution and light element abundances. Now it was thought that the big bang proved an ultimate beginning and WLC has pushed this for years, but watch the video and c why this is wrong.
@skydivephil Obviously, my lack of cosmological expertise cannot dialogue with such logical and evidentially based arguments proposing the Universe is uncaused and eternal. According to you, vacuums are randomly popping out universes and other random objects suggesting that our universe coming into being from nothing (uncaused) would be plausible. Good luck defending this argument, especially with the video you posted. I wish you the best in your studies
@schluder23 This is straw man argument. We make no claims for the origin of the universe. We dont says its uncaused or eternal. Maybe it is, maybe it isnt We don't know the answer to these deep mysteries. The burden of proof is on those that make the claims not those that question them.
@schluder23 Sorry a few typos in a previous post , this should read better:
"I don't define nothing as a vacuum." Thats fine, but you conveniently ignore the question we asked as a consequence of this. So lets ask it again. if the vacuum isnt nothing then on what empirical basis do you say somethinh cant come from nothing ?
Does our universe require god-like power to create? If it does, then for the truth of science we would like a demonstration from that God. If your God won't oblige then it is proper to assert at the least agnosticism is civil and right.
I urge you to reconsider who has a right to be astonished. No truth that you are arguing for is yet to be established as a crisis in mainstream of science.
@MrSharewndws Its interesting that in the bible Moses is given evidence of god with a burning bush, so why is everyones else expected to simply have faith?
Well validating ideas with evidence is what I am talking about. The question is why should you not have to validate your ideas with evidence. and labelling it "philosophy" and saying its different doest cut it. Please answer my question properly, why does a murder trial need evidence but cosmology does not?
@CoryTheRaven ...Cool, in that case the last word will be ...this video totally undermines any scientific truth value in the second premise, thus leaving the kalam debunked. That makes me happy. But your inability to cope with that fact makes me happier.
@CoryTheRaven .... Yeah...sure. Actually, you've avoided the point again and again. Read you last post...no actual answer, just bluster and insistence that you're right. Sorry, but regardless of how many posts you use, or how much time you waste - the point still stands. This video completely undermines the truth value of the second premise...regardless of philosophy, atheism, rationalism or anything else. Whether you like it or not. Job done.
@CoryTheRaven Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...Oh? Sorry...what was that? 4 posts in a row without actually dealing with the point? " The video completely undermines any scientific proof of the kalam, making it impossible to claim the second premise is true ". Still, 4 posts...good time wasting. I bet that was rude too : )
@Roper122 Once again you are appealing to the tactic of hiding accountability for your behaviour behind claims that I just can't deal with the actual subject. In case you missed it, I already stated that you overestimate how damaging and insightful your (few, brief) comments have been. I already answered everything you brought up. To repeat, and I'll make it as simple for you as I can: no, the video did not accomplish that mission.
Oh, and did Hawking say that "Science will win because it works"? - what a philosophical statement! I thought he thinks philosophy is dead? He seems to use it quite a lot himself...I guess philosophy is something like a zombie, then. :o)
Let side his poor definition of the basis of religion (the basis for these arguments isn't "authority", but philosophy...)
The point about us having no experience with "really" nothing was good
Still - before the universe, you have neither time nor space (a vacuum has both).
How can something come into existence uncaused without time in which it comes into existence and without space it can be in? And for me, a balance of energy also just isn't nothing - it's a quite remarkable something, isn't it?
I think you're also kind of selective about when you quote Craig - he gives quite some reason why it should be God
@mawa89g We dont claim to have answers to the profound mysteries of our utlimate origin, if there is such a thing. All we claim is that the supposed evidence presented by WLC does not stand up.
@xknowledgeisfreex I think the phrase outside of space and time is a phrase thats very convenient for theists but n reality is simply gibberish, know one really has any clue what it really means.
@31Uriel Yes Vilenkin says the universe had a beginning , he also says the universe does not need a cause. So if you are going to appeal to his authority for the Kalam then you are going to gain premise 2 but lose premise 1. Furthermore many other well renonwned professional cosmologists disgree with him. Sean Carroll, Roger Penrose, Abhay Ashketar to name but a few. When we have disagreements like this we need data to decide the issue. But at the moment the data we have cant do that, sorry.
I notice this seem to be quote jumping.Where you don't finish the whole quote and then you go to another quote without getting the whole point out.
You can scroll down from what you were quoting at 15:13 and you would see he adds to what you were arguing and you completely ignored it and went to the next quote which ruined the point he made. She is in fact quote mining an argument.I wonder does she realize that this comes off as very unorganized and misleading when you do this.
@ninetailschris " You can scroll down from what you were quoting at 15:13 and you would see he adds to what you were arguing and you completely ignored it and went to the next quote which ruined the point he made "
- Did you read the entire thing?
He added yes... but he didn't change his position.
Sorry, that's not quote mining.
Ironically you come off as very disorganized and misleading.
I just started watching, but I was struck by how your "proofreader" on astrophysics said there were no errors on that front but I'm assuming you didn't have a "proofreader" on theology. Your video is introduced with the assumption of a literal reading of Genesis and that philosophical arguments like Kalam are trying to somehow cohere with that literal reading. That is a pretty massive theological error right out of the gate.
@CoryTheRaven I also notice that, in summarizing Kalam you skip a pretty major part, which is the step between "the universe needed a cause" and "that cause is God". Craig has expounded at length, repeatedly, on the chain of philosophical proofs that lead to the conclusion that God is the cause.
You also don't seem to make a distinction that Craig does between actual and potential infinities.
Refuting an argument does sort of require fully understanding and responding to the whole thing.
@CoryTheRaven Going along here... Good call on some selective arguments made by Craig, but you in turn seem rather selective about his arguments. I've seen him address the argument that the universe does not have a beginning because it is made of pre-existing stuff, using the analogy of a person having a beginning even though they were also formed of pre-existing stuff. Your comment on multiverses inadvertantly suggests that Craig's argument is sound insofar as THIS universe having a beginning.
@CoryTheRaven In fact, it would seem that you're already acknowledging the first three points of Kalam: that everything that begins to exist has a cause; that the universe (by which we can safely assume THIS universe) began to exist; therefore the universe has a cause. Your dispute seems to be more over WHAT the cause is. You're proposing loop quantum activity on pre-existing universes as the cause.
@CoryTheRaven Hello Cory, sorry if dont respond to all of your 9 posts, far too busy for that as Im writing my dissertation as well. If you to focus on one topic i will try and respond. But I thought id pick one for you. We do not in fact propose LQC as a pre existing cause, we simply say its one out fo several possibilities. We do not know what the cause of the big bang is, its WLC that claims that and the evidence does not support what he's saying.
@skydivephil ", far too busy for that as Im writing my dissertation as well."
No worries! Thank you for taking the time and good luck on the dissertation.
"We do not in fact propose LQC as a pre existing cause, we simply say its one out fo several possibilities."
Fair enough, but my point was more that a concession was already made to the universe needing a cause. The debate is just over what that cause is. That's basically accepting 3/5ths of Kalam right there.
@skydivephil As I noted in my previous posts, you don't fully address the agrument that the universe had a beginning as proposed by Craig. He has already addressed this objection, in particular using the analogy of a person. According to your own video, the clear implication is that THIS universe had a beginning in the expansion phase. The question is whether it is an absolute or an effective beginning. The question of causation is the same.
@CoryTheRaven The problem is if the big bang is simply a phase in a bigger narrative then it cannot support the Kalam and the so called evidence for premise 2 falls over.
@skydivephil Actually it doesn't collapse Kalam, on two grounds that Craig has already addressed. The first was the one I keep referring to, which is that the Big Bang is still the EFFECTIVE beginning of THIS universe. Craig uses the analogy of a person, which has a distinct beginning that cannot be reduced to "simply a phase" of an egg or a sperm...
@skydivephil ...The second is that even if we are simply in one phase of the universe, then you STILL have the problem: did the universe have a beginning and if so what was its cause? All you've done is set up the Big Bang as that point of the universe's history beyond which science so-far cannot know. That then leaves the field open to philosophical inquiry like whether an infinite universe or an infinite regress is possible, etc...
@skydivephil ...The only time you sort of get close to actually debunking any part of Kalam is with the argument that something with a beginning does not need a cause. Even then you raise a question: does that matter that pops into existence from nothing totally spontaneously, or is it doing so according to a pre-existing, literally super-natural, quantum law? If the former it begs "why?" If the latter, that puts those laws in the same position as God in the argument (a position you mocked).
@CoryTheRaven The Kalam is supposed to be proving god exists. So if our universe had a beginning via the collapse of a previous universe, how does that show god exists? It doesn't. This is the key point you seem to miss. The Kalam needs an ultimate beginning , not some local beginning. WLC since 1979 has been going around claiming the big bang provides such a global beginning. Weve argued in this video thats wrong, do you accept that or not?
@skydivephil IF this universe formed from the collapse of a previous universe, then you have only regressed the question of where it came from, not eliminated it. Kalam comes out largely intact from this. It's only the specifics of when exactly the whole chain of universes began.
What your video ignored is that Craig has various philosophical arguments for why he interprets the science the way he does. He has his reasons and your rebuttal is weakened by not addressing them.
@CoryTheRaven Where do we claim to have eliiminated the problem of where the universe came from? WlC is the one claiming to have solved the the problem of where the universe came from and hes been misleading his audience for decades. His philisophical arguments don't count as evidence. You can make an amazingly convincing case for the existence of the HIggs ,yet no one claims this as evidence it exists. .Cosmology is a science and you need evidence to back your claims.
@skydivephil Until you have answered or eliminated the question, you have not debunked Kalam. You rightly say that his philosophical arguments don't count as evidence, but Kalam is a philosophical argument itself. As I've been saying, until you address the philosophy, you're not really debunking Kalam. You're just clarifying what is being said in the scientific literature. It sheds no real light on why Craig is saying what he is saying.
@CoryTheRaven You cant simply label the argument a "Philosophical argument" and then exempt from yourself from evidence. MAybe in your world you can, but not in mine. If there's insufficient evidence that the premises are true then the argument doesn't work. WLC has made a a lot noise claiming to revive Kalam based upon the big bang. Do you agree or not agree that hes been doing this and that its wrong?
@skydivephil That is not what I've done. What I've said is that Kalam is a philosophical argument. It is not strictly scientific: it is a philosophical interpretation of scientific evidence, yes, but not a strict scientific argument. You have done a good job of clarifying the science being talked about, but you haven't at all addressed the philosophy. Nested in that philosophy is WHY Craig makes the arguments and prefers the explanations he does. To debunk Kalam you MUST tackle this...
@CoryTheRaven Its his philosophical biases that get him in such a muddle. He wants to believe there's an ultimate beginning and so jumps on the big bang = ultimate beginning bandwagon. If he left his philosophical baggage at home maybe he would make such a glaring error. Its not just the big bang either.
@skydivephil I see no particular reason not to take him at his word that, for him, the evidence came first and the philosophical muddle came as a product of it.He has spoken quite frequently, even repetitively, about it. I've even read atheist critiques which observe that there is no excuse for not addressing the full compliment of his views because he basically repeats them verbatim in every debate.
@CoryTheRaven Take his claim that we know from our experience that somehting cant come from nothing. Yet at the same time he claims that the even a vacuum doesn't count as nothing. Well if thats true how can we know from our experience that something cant come from nothing? Where would be observe such a nothing?
@skydivephil You would have to ask him (and I'm pretty sure you can, via his website). Based on what I've seen of his debates, his observation that "something cannot come from nothing" has more to do with the lack of observation of any uncaused event. I've seen him use the example of no one at his debates being worried about a horse spontaneously appearing in their living rooms while they're away...
@skydivephil You're asking me to give a certain answer when one of the central propositions of your video is that the Big Bang offers no certainty. It MIGHT offer that ultimate beginning, it MIGHT not, and neither proposition really affects the validity of Kalam one way or the other.
@CoryTheRaven Well Im glad we are agreed that WLC got it wrong then when he said :
"This cosmological singularity, from which the universe sprang, marked the beginning, not only of all matter and energy in the universe, but of physical space and time themselves. The Big Bang model thus dramatically and unexpectedly supported the biblical doctrine of creatio ex nihilo."
@skydivephil Your video didn't say that Craig got it wrong. Your video said that Craig MIGHT have gotten it wrong.
You can't really have it both ways of saying that modern cosmology undermines Craig's certainty because it undermines ALL certainty and then following that up with saying that Craig is probably wrong because these people who believe different things than him believe different things than him. If science does not offer us the certainty then its up to convincing argumentation.
The whole point of this video is this: WLC claims certainty, or at least he makes it appear as if he has good reason to be certain. This video shows otherwise. Therefore WLCs claim is unjustified.
If science offers no certainty, then maybe there is none, for now at least, and it doesn´t hurt to admit it. Unless you want to throw in the god of the gaps (which you seem to prefer).
Apart from that: KCA can be critizised and attacked on a number of other issues and points.
@2hanscgn "If science offers no certainty, then maybe there is none, for now at least"
That conclusion doesn't follow at all from the premise. You would have to argue that science has epistemological primacy in order to impart upon it the status as aribter of certainty (which is also counter-intuitive since one of the prime characteristics of science is the tentative nature of its conclusions). You're implying that reason, aesthetics, personal revelation, etc. offer no more certainty...
Which conclusion? I have no problem saying "I don´t know", which is what this video is about. I do have a problem with others claiming certainty based upon reasons that do not withstand scrutiny. Personal revelation doesn´t offer any certainty, sorry. Aesthetics - huh?! Explain! Reason - well, it can be reasonable to withhold claims about certainty, which is what scientists like to do.
Thought-terminating cliche. If you want me to unpack my "torrents of error" you only have to ask. This is not a formal debate with a time limit.
"I do have a problem with others claiming certainty based upon reasons that do not withstand scrutiny."
The thing is, this video didn't actually scrutinize Craig's reasoning because his reasoning is philosophical as well as scientific, which has been the whole point of my critique...
@2hanscgn "Personal revelation doesn´t offer any certainty, sorry."
Okay, technically personal revelation does require an act of faith. But with everything I know about my girlfriend and all the experiences we have shared, I think that believing her she she says she loves me is a justifiable degree of certainty.
"Aesthetics - huh?! Explain!"
"Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste, and with the creation and appreciation of beauty."
@2hanscgn "Unless you want to throw in the god of the gaps (which you seem to prefer)."
Craig has stated repeatedly and at length that his conclusions are based on what he feels is justifiably known, not what is unknown. You're saying that his certainty is unjustified from a purely scientific point of view, but he's not making a purely scientific argument. He's making a philosophical argument that interprets the scientific evidence a certain way...
He´s making certain points from a misrepresentation of scientific findings. If he ventures into modern cosmology, then he must square it off with cosmologists. If a scientific premise he uses does not support his philosophical conclusion, then that part of the argument collapses.
@2hanscgn This video never once demonstrated that the science DOES NOT support his philosophical conclusions. In fact, it verified that his philosophical conclusions MIGHT be right. What it did is clarify what is going on in cosmology beyond what Craig presents as support for his arguments. That is good and necessary, but it didn't aspire to as lofty a goal as actually debunking Kalam. For that you would have to actually tackle his philosophy.
@2hanscgn ...The ironic inverse of the accusation of a "god of the gaps" is an "scientism of the gaps": the conviction that someday all those blank spots in the map of reality currently being occupied by theism and spirituality and aesthetics and relationships and anything not-science will get filled in by empirical science. Promisory note in hand, it is then argued that God is not necessary and probably non-existant. This is usually followed by emotional guilting theists for their "arrogance".
I never said what you just implied I did. Read my words carefully! You said this: "If science does not offer us the certainty then its up to convincing argumentation". That to me has the bytaste of the god of the gaps.
I used the words "maybe" and "at least for now". Rejecting a position doesn´t mean having to adopt the opposite position.
@2hanscgn "That to me has the bytaste of the god of the gaps."
No more so than aesthetics occupying the "gap" of science not weighing in on the question of beauty. If we are outside of science's raison d'etre, then we are justified in appealing to other ways of knowing.
All premises, and the conclusion, for starters. They´re far from being evident. The whole argument is question begging, plus it ventures into an area about which no reasonable statement can be made. It uses supposedly "intuitively" obvious statements to construct an allegedly existing being in a realm which is outside of any humanly possible intuition and understanding, only to attach very human-like traits to it in the end.
@2hanscgn Okay, so you disagree that things with beginnings need causes and that the universe had a beginning. I'd like to hear more about how it is question begging. I'm not sure about "venturing into an area about which no reasonable statement can be made" because Kalam is a rational, deductive philosophical argument. The objection to "human-like traits" is irrelevant because if the deductive reasoning takes to that place, then so be it.
@CoryTheRaven Maybe you have misunderstood exactly what WLC has got wrong and who has the burden of evidence here.
Watch the video at 2:12 note WLC claims the big bang shows an absolute beginning, hes made this claim elsewhere of course. The big bang does not show this and thats what he's got wrong. We don't claim that the premise 2 is false only that the evidence presented for it doesn't hold. We don't need to show its false, the burden or proof is on the one making the claim.
@skydivephil A good analogy here is the case Sally Clark, convicted of murder when an expert cited in her trial that the chances of both her children dying of SIDS was 1 in 73 mio. She won on appeal as it was shown the original evidence was false. Death from SIDS are not independent probabilities so the 1 in 73 mio nuber was debunked. The defense didnt have to prove Clark did not kill her children, only that the original evidence was shoddy. This is what we have done with WLC big bang claims.
@skydivephil If you're going to claim to debunk Kalam, then yes you do need to show it is false. What I took away from your video is that Craig might be right. The Big Bang might be the absolute beginning of the universe. Furthermore, science so far cannot tell us with any certainty, which means the question falls to other forms of argument. If I was going to present this to Craig, I guess all I would say is that he should clarify his justifications for thinking that the Big Bang is the begining
@CoryTheRaven" If you're going to claim to debunk Kalam, then yes you do need to show it is false." No we don't , we only have to show that the evidence provided doesn't stand up. Does a defendant need to prove they are innocent? No they only have to show the evidence against them is not good enough. The one making the claim has the burden of proof. The Kalam makes a number of claims and the proof is not there, thats all thats needed .
@skydivephil The "burden of proof" gets a lot of mileage, but in this case you set yourself up for it by how you titled your video. In claiming to debunk Kalam, it is not satisfactory to simply say that the evidence might not as fully support Craig as he interprets it to. The careful viewer might notice that your case for uncertainty never actually proved him wrong. You actually do have to demonstrate where Craig is wrong to consider the philosophical argument debunked.
@CoryTheRaven The burden of proof get a lot of mileage because its essential. If I accused you of murder and said I had your finger prints on the murder weapon I might have a case against you. But if you then showed the finger prints were not a proper match you would have debunked the claim against you. You don't need to prove you didn't commit the murder. Its the same here, we don't need to prove WLC is wrong, we only need to prove he hasn't demonstrated what he claims to have
@skydivephil If this were a murder case and not a philosophical argument then you would have a point. Philosophical arguments adhere to different sets of rules.
I would also argue that, in theism/atheism debates, "burden of proof" gets the most mileage because it's a convenient way of not having to justify one's point of view. There's a lot of currency in projecting one's own position as a properly basic belief that is true until proven otherwise.
@CoryTheRaven I find it interesting that you seem to agree that in a murder trial you need evidence to back up claims. Yet you seem to be saying you dont need that here. Why they should be treated differently you dont say. So perhaps you could enlighten us. Why should we drop the bar of evidence down simply because you label it philosophy?
@skydivephil Philosophical arguments are not decided on the basis of evidence alone, but also on the basis of sound reasoning. At this point you're not arguing with Craig as a theist so much as you are arguing with Craig as an example of a philosopher. The question of whether or not reliable knowledge can be deduced from reason apart from evidence is the major divide between rationalism and empiricism. In philosophy, an argument needs a sound counter-argument to be considered debunked...
@CoryTheRaven You haven't remotely answered the question. Why do you feel its appropriate to sue evidence in a murder trial , but not for cosmology? Fortunately in science we do require evidence, very high bars are set for what is accepted. That how we make progress.
@skydivephil That is how you make progress IN SCIENCE. But we're not talking about science. We're talking about a philosophical argument that interprets science in a certain way. And as I keep saying, until you face the philosophical argument you haven't come close to debunking Kalam. You've only articulated the ambiguities of the scientific debate...
@skydivephil ...As for why I wouldn't apply the same rules to a philosophical argument that I would apply to a murder trial, the answer is simple: it's not a murder trial. There are lots of systems that apply to one subject that I would not apply to a different subject that require a different system.
One of the most self-evidently foolish claims of New Atheism is that everything falls under the umbrella of rationalism and empiricism, and anything that doesn't isn't a valid subject.
@CoryTheRaven So you wouldn't apply the rules of evidence because its not a murder trial? Well thats true, but whether the Earth rotates around the sun or the age of the Earth aren't either. Yet we ask for evidence. The reason is they are question that have an objective answer. Sure for subjective questions such as which is the most beautiful painting , we cant answer in the same way. But you've given no reason other than to label it "philosophy" to be exempted for the need for evidence.
@skydivephil ...In the case of atheism, there is no reason to assume that it is any kind of properly basic belief which is true until proven otherwise. In fact, different types of atheism makes appeals to different positive philosophical claims. Communism rests on Marx's historical dialectic. Samkhya Hinduism rests on the Vedas. New Atheism rests on the epistemological primacy of rationalism and empiricism. All of these are positive claims that must be demonstrated through sound argumentation.
@CoryTheRaven Atheism is not a claim , its a rejection of a claim. The starting point fo all science testing is to start with the null hypothesis, surely you are familiar with this concept.
@skydivephil "Atheism is not a claim , its a rejection of a claim."
That is not true, for exactly the reasons I gave. The various different forms of atheism are sets of contingent beliefs that rely on other beliefs to argue their validity, such as the epistemological primacy of rationalism and empiricism (New Atheism), the historical dialectic of Marx (Communism), the Vedas (Samkhya Hinduism), the teachings of Buddha (atheism Buddhism), the philosophy of Ayn Rand (Objectivism), etc...
@skydivephil ...Your appeal to science doesn't help your case because science DOES NOT start with a null hypothesis. Science DOES start with a set of validating philosophical assumptions about the nature of the universe: that is it comprehensible, regular, and so on.
If one is not accustomed to looking at the philosophical basis of their own discipline, then it's not surprising that they should not even be cognizant of the philosophical basis of their beliefs (or that it even is a belief).
@CoryTheRaven "Science DOES start with a set of validating philosophical assumptions ... that is it comprehensible, regular, and so on." It seem this is right out of a philosophy of science textbook. But if you follow how science is really done you find that even these basic assumptions are happily challenged in science. For example scientists are currently challenging the constancy of the laws of nature, how? by collecting evidence as always. Google "varying alpha Barrow"
@skydivephil On the contrary, others would point to such science in action as a validation of its philosophical premeses. The comprehensibility of the universe allows such variations to be understood, the constancy of mathematics allows it to be calculated, the reliability of human senses allows for the collection of supporting evidence, and so on. Implicit to your argument for evidence is the philosophical assumption that the universe is real and the mind reliable.
@skydivephil I'll even go you one further: the debate between theism and atheism is NOT actually a debate about the existence of God. The debate over the existence of God is secondary. What it is actually a debate about, at its very core, is that same age-old debate between Rationalism and Romanticism. It is a debate between competing epistemological philosophies, and has more far-reaching implications than whether or not God exists.
@CoryTheRaven If the BIg bang doesnt affect the Kalam then why does WLC sped so much time on it? It is in fact important because the origin of the universe is a question of cosmology. You can think up any numbers of models that might so logical but that doesnt mean they are right. We need observational evidence. WLC thought he had found that evidence and many cosmologists probably agreed. Unfortunately the field hasmoved on from that view, too bad for WLC.
@skydivephil If the Big Bang IS the begining of the universe, then it means that Kalam's second proposition is right. If the Big Bang is NOT the beginning of the universe, then it has only regressed the issue back beyond it. The only way you're really going to defeat Kalam's second proposition is to prove that the universe did not have a beginning. For why Craig prefers the view that the universe did have a beginning, he has given his philosophical reasons many times.
@CoryTheRaven Sorry that was phrased badly, let me rephrase. WLC has claimed for years that the big bang proves an ultimate beginning, do you agree or not?
@skydivephil ...That is also why I asked for clarification on particles seemingly appearing out of nothing. If they actually appear causelessly, then you've actually undermined the principle that "everything with a beginning needs a cause." If they are caused by quantum laws, then you haven't, and consequently demonstrated that it is possible for a literally super-natural force that is beginningless, causeless, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and immensely powerful to exist.
@CoryTheRaven Virtual particles appear out of a vacuum, whether they do so with cause or without cause is irrelevant in this case. Why? Because Craig claim the vacuum is not nothing but he also claims that our observation verify something cant come from nothing. But this is a contradiction. If the vacuum doesnt count as nothing, then no observation can verify the claim "something cant come from nothing". If the vacuum is nothing then the statement is wrong, either way WLC loses.
@skydivephil Ah... when you put it that way, the experiment in virtual particles is totally irrelevant. Like the creation of amino acids in a prehistoric earth simulator, it is impossible to prove from a designed experiment that the product could arise without design...
@CoryTheRaven " it is impossible to prove from a designed experiment that the product could arise without design." that is probably one of the least intelligent things you have said. If true it would put an end to most science, Fortunately scientists know better. If I design an experiment where I keep dropping apples from trees, I can make some conclusion about what happens in nature when apples fall by themselves.
@skydivephil "that is probably one of the least intelligent things you have said."
And here I thought it was just supposed to be those mean nasty faithheads who replied to everything with insults.
Allow me to clarify: it is impossible to prove from a designed experiment that the philosophical premise that the universe was designed is false. The very act of designing an experiment philosophically demonstrates the opposite. In other words, the scientist is acting in the place of God.
@CoryTheRaven" it is impossible to prove from a designed experiment that the philosophical premise that the universe was designed is false." If you claim it was designed you have to provide the evidence. The first thing you learn in a cosmology course is that you can't really do experiments. But you can make models , see what predictions the model makes for the next set of data and see if they match. If you want to claim the universe is designed you cant opt out of the same burden of evidence.
@skydivephil Red Herring. Whether or not empirical evidence for design can be found (and, I should mention, we do not have to limit the proofs to empirical evidence), that matter has nothing to do with the problem that you cannot disprove the necessity of a designer from an experiment that was itself designed. Such a claim is self-contradictory and in practice only validates the philosophical claims of theists.
@skydivephil I neither accept it nor not accept it. Mostly I'm amused by the way it gets held out as a hoepful replacement for God that actually doesn't answer any of the questions surrounding the issue (which is an entirely separate issue from whether or not there is a multiverse). Kalam, for example, would still be a valid argument whether you used a singular or a plural of "universe".
@skydivephil ... see both your point and his. A vacum is not absolute nothing because it still occupies space and time. But how can we know that someing cannot arise from nothing until we find absolute nothing and observe nothing arising from it? Scientifically it's a conundrum because it means an eternally tentative question given that a negative cannot be proved (though Craig disagrees with that), but this is where it seems to me that Craig is appealling to philosophy. You should ask him.
@skydivephil ...For his part, Craig actually HAS addressed many of the points brought up in this video, which I've kept referring you to. He gives quite detailed philosophical arguments for why he feels justified in preferencing certain explanations, interpretations and so on.
@CoryTheRaven I'm impressed that you were actually smirking while talking about the first point of Kalam and special pleading God's case, but you don't actually refute it. The argument here is that time necessitates causality and therefore anything that exists outside of time exists outside of causality. It is uncaused because the idea of causing something with no beginning, or end, or middle, etc. has no meaning...
@CoryTheRaven ...So far I see you arguing that things with beginnings don't need causes, but I haven't seen you argue that things that do not have beginnings DO need causes, which is the argument you need to make to say that God needs a cause.
Furthermore, it is not a case of special pelading for God because it's not being argued that God has a special status. This goes back to that whole chain of philosophical proofs you avoided in summarizing Kalam...
@CoryTheRaven ...It doesn't say that God doesn't need a cause because He's God. It's saying that the cause of the universe must itself be uncaused, must exist outside of conditions of space and time, must be immensely powerful and must be creative (in order to innovate something that did not exist before). You are welcome to call this uncaused cause whatever you want, but it matches most traditional descriptions of the attributes of God.
@CoryTheRaven On the idea that things that do not have beginnings DO need causes, you avoided Craig's argument on things that exist without beginnings: logical/mathematical abstracts and minds. Of former he gives the example of numbers and geometric shapes, asking rhetorically what caused "7" or "triangle".
If I was going to dispute Craig here, I would be more inclined to do so on the issue of whether or not "mind" exists as some sort of substance divorced from matter.
@CoryTheRaven Overall, this was a good video for bringing up the debates and ambiguities behind the information that Craig and others use to support Kalam, but is a long way from actuallly debunking that argument. You have an enviable appreciation for cosmological and astrophysical issues but very little appreciation for theological and philosophical ones, which leads to mischaracterizations of the latter which, in turn, weakens the whole idea that this is a thorough counterargument.
- Very pleased that you felt the urge to grace us with 9 posts.
Overall your posts did an average job of attempting to deal with what this video brings up... but, you didn't hit any targets and left the video unscathed.
EG, your " literal genesis " point was irrelevant, your " pre-existing stuff " point was non-existent, and on and on.
You simply regurgitate exactly the points that the video deals with.
@Roper122 "Very pleased that you felt the urge to grace us with 9 posts."
You're welcome!
"You simply regurgitate exactly the points that the video deals with."
I see that, depsite your pleasure, you didn't really understand what I wrote. What I was pointing out were elements of the Kalam that the video DOESN'T deal with at all, or which it presents in such passing as to practically Strawman it. If you don't see why that stuff I brought up was relevant, that's kind of the problem.
I don't think you do. For one you say that I only brought up stuff the video deals with, which is demonstrably false. All I wrote about were deficiencies in the argument here made. Secondly, you try to turn it around with an "am not, you are" about relevance. That is unfounded and untenable for the following reason...
" For one you say that I only brought up stuff the video deals with, which is demonstrably false "
- No... but if it makes you happy. I do note that you retreat from all the scientific arguments already, and as always try to hide in the philosophical argument.
Of course if you're happy to admit that the claims the Kalam makes fail scientifically, then that's a start.
@Roper122 "I do note that you retreat from all the scientific arguments already, and as always try to hide in the philosophical argument."
With all due respect, this statement makes no sense. It is not a "retreat from all scientific arguments" to acknowledge that a philosophical argument is philosophical and needs to be addressed philosophically to be effectively rebutted...
@Roper122 ...Kalam is ultimately a chain of logical thought leading to a particular philosophical inetrpretation of evidence, and this video excells in clarifying the evidence. The poverty with which it addresses the philosophical core of it ends up weakening the rebuttal. For example, a common question coming up through it is the supposed arbitrary choices Craig makes about what to accept and what to reject. These aren't arbitrary though. He has repeatedly given his philosophical reasons.
@Roper122 ...IF this video was aiming lower and declaring simply to correct astrophysical errors (or, as is more often the case, unwarranted certainty) on the part of Craig, then theological and philosophical matters WOULD be irrelevant. But it's claiming to debunk Kalam, which is a much bigger thing. Kalam is a PHILOSOPHICAL argument, not a SCIENTIFIC one. Therefore any counterargument that ONLY addresses the scientific side and NOT the philosophical side is only skirting Kalam's fundamentals
The examples you gave were both philosophical/theological, and I took that as a general statement on what you feel to be germane to the argument.
"undermines any certainty that Craig tries impose and throws the whole argument into question."
No, because by only looking at the scientific side you're missing the core and substance of the argument. Craig has philosophical arguments for his views that this video addresses poorly at best...
@Roper122 "so by generalizing you avoiding having to deal with them."
First of all, you began that line with "EG:" and finished it with "and on and on", so my generalizing was justified. Secondly, get over yourself: I told you why I made that leap, and do not have some nefarious, disingenuous purpose behind it...
@Roper122 ..."But you are effectively undermining any certainty, if the scientific argument weren't important Craig wouldn't put so much importance on it."
Thirdly, I'm going to put my money where my own mouth is and give you the benefit of the doubt that there isn't some disingenuous or nefarious purpose behind your mischaracterizing what I said here. It does tell us about your view of philosophy moreso than Craig, but I'd at least ask you to show where I said science wasn't important.
@CoryTheRaven " I'm going to put my money where my own mouth is and give you the benefit of the doubt that there isn't some disingenuous or nefarious purpose behind your mischaracterizing what I said here. "
- ???????
" I'd at least ask you to show where I said science wasn't important "
- Only if you show me where I implied that you'd said that at all.. even slightly : )
There's a huge difference between " not important " and " undermines the certainty of the argument "
@CoryTheRaven " After critcizing you for apparently thinking that I was being disingenuous "
- Like I said.. I missed that.. and never meant to imply it anyway.
" scientific argument weren't important Craig wouldn't put so much importance on it." I didn't say it was not important. "
- I won't quibble ( lest I be accused of being disingenuous ) but I meant to point out Craig dependence on it, sorry if you felt I was accusing you of completely dismissing it.
- Yeah... whatever makes you happy. 7 posts, being offended when cornered, off on tangents, unintelligible comments... time waster. Should've spotted it earlier.
Meanwhile... it seems people are lining to correct you.
No matter how much time you waste.
I'll be happy to join in, should you have a point...
I don't think there's much danger of that in the near future though.
@Roper122 "time waster. Should've spotted it earlier."
What on earth are you talking about? You were the one who initiated a conversation with me that so far has consisteted of little more than insults and catcalls from you. I can't say anything without you trying to twist it around into some example of what a horrible person I am. It's MY time that YOU'VE been wasting, and if you're feeling upset about me not responding the right way, perhaps you shouldn't have initiated this with me...
@Roper122 "Meanwhile... it seems people are lining to correct you."
Yes, the maker of the video and I have been having an actual conversation about the video, unlike your derailing this into a conversation about what kind of a person *I* am. By all means, please do stop wasting my time and let me focus on that conversation if this is making you so upset.
- Is correcting you... and he's not alone apparently : )
" please do stop wasting my time "
- Thank you for the laugh. I point out that you're a time waster, and lo and behold... all of a sudden I'm wasting your time ?? Funny, and demonstrative.
" if this is making you so upset "
- OK, no problem... but if the best you can do is argue that the second premise " might " be right, that certainly doesn't upset me.
@Roper122 "Is correcting you... and he's not alone apparently : )"
We're having a discussion, yes.
"I point out that you're a time waster, and lo and behold... all of a sudden I'm wasting your time"
You introduced the concept of someone wasting the other person's time, and of the two of us I pointed out that it's a more apt description of you. You were the one to initiate a conversation with me that has turned into a conversation about me...
You have got to be joking. This video misquotes the KCA, takes arguments and clips from debates utterly out of context, misquotes proper scientific theory, and then approaches it not only from a fallacious view, but comes to a contradictory conclusion. It states untested theory as fact, borrows fallacious arguments and STILL quotes them incorrectly.
Please, I beg of you, before declaring your victory over a philosophical argument, read at least one book in philosophy.
Lawlessone777 14 hours ago
@Lawlessone777 Thats a lot of claims, lets start with one, which untested theory do we claim is a fact?
skydivephil 7 hours ago in playlist Uploaded videos
omg! marry me
infernoboi92 2 days ago
In order for the phrase 'Everything that begins to exist" to be meaningfully different than "Everything that exists has a cause" we need to have good evidence that there are things that don't begin to exist. Well what evidence is there? They assume god has this property because they've defined it that way, hence the distinction is simply wordplay.
skydivephil 3 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
What would you say to people who think that "Everything that exists has a cause" and "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" are not just "wordplay," as you put it, and completely different premises of completely different arguments?
TheBarkingAtheist 4 days ago
Excellent video, well thought, produced and sourced. I learned quite a bit about cosmology from this video.
loveofphysics 4 days ago
Yet does this clip bury the stupid superstitious argument? Hell no. Zombie-cultists and mudslimes and other cultists keep on spewing their nonsense, all the way to the grave.
Only way we can end this bullshit is by protecting children from indoctrination in to superstition. If religious people cant target defenceless children anymore, organised superstition dies in one generation. And this world would be so much happier and brighter for it.
bary1234 4 days ago
Very very well done. I still hold that Craig's primary problem is that, ultimately, he always ends up with some variation of "my holy book is better than yours."
bushonomics 4 days ago
Excellent video. Kalam Body Slam!(tm) Thanks for taking the time to make it. Is that lighted painting or an LCD screen behind you? thanks.
foneyop 4 days ago
@foneyop The picture behind is made from somthing called a "duratran", its basically a transparent photo (taken from Spitzer Space telescope) backlit with Led lights.
skydivephil 4 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Excellent vid. Thank you.
iaov 4 days ago
Part of the the case made by WLC in establishing Premise 2 of the KAlam is that infinities don't exist in reality , hence the past cannot be infinite and so premise 2 is true. So the Kalam as presented by WLC does say there is no infinity.
skydivephil 5 days ago
Kalam cosmological argument does not say there is no "infinity" hence I had to stop watching this video after the first few minutes to prevent brain damage. LULZ!
paralaks 5 days ago
heaven can be defined as the collective human memory.
pokies100 2 weeks ago
Hi skydivephil..just curious. What is your educational background?
kdonovan512 2 weeks ago
@TheJimmyBacon " Inept science " - ....and???? It's easy to declare something inept and run away, much harder to actually prove it. Now, that makes me laugh.
Roper122 2 weeks ago
@schluder23 " Obviously, my lack of cosmological expertise cannot dialogue with such logical and evidentially based arguments " - Obviously, but it doesn't stop you from trying to argue with the video... Good luck with your future YouTube comments, because, speaking as a 3rd party...you just got your backside handed to you.
Roper122 2 weeks ago
oh and google this too pls: "A tale of two big bangs — Einstein Online"
skydivephil 2 weeks ago
Alternatively type this into google:" before the big bang john barrow" read the article on plus.maths . This is written by a theistic cosmologists that WLC has quoted many times.
skydivephil 2 weeks ago
She fully admits that none of her refutations regarding quantum gravity have been confirmed by science. She provides no valid refutations regarding any of the premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The dismissive response regarding the physical number of "infinity" is astonishing to me. Also, her acceptance of the "Multiverse" without any evidence for another universe outside of our own is irresponsible. Her theological background is evidently lacking based upon her approach to theism.
schluder23 2 weeks ago
@schluder23 The point about quantum gravity is that we cant have a confident view of the Planck scale era until we have a well verified quantum gravity. Its not us that pretends to know what happens in the Planck era its WLC. So the point stands. Our point is not to show the points of the KAlam are false but to show that they are unproven. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. We dont claim the multiverse eixsts, we claim eternal inflation implies it. Thats not in dispute.
skydivephil 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Comment removed
schluder23 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@skydivephil WLC asserts that anything that begins to exist has a cause, which implies that something cannot pop into existance from nothing. That is consistent with all known scientific laws. While you claim it is "word play" concerning God being the creator and imply that "why can't the same be said concerning the universe?". The universe is scientifically proven to be finite while God would be in existance as a necessity of His own nature and would therefore be infinite as a creator.
schluder23 2 weeks ago
@schluder23 If you define "nothing" as a vacuum thins do pop into existence from nothing. If you say the vaccum is not nothing, what is you empirical basis to say "something cannot pop into existence out of nothing". You claim the universe has been proven to be finite are claiming spatially or temporally or both? what is this proof?
skydivephil 2 weeks ago
@skydivephil I don't define nothing as a vacuum. To say that things comes into being by vacuums from seemingly nothing provides no credibility to your argument that the universe could have established it's existance from nothing. Regarding the universe being finite, this has been scientifically well established and investigated by modern scholarship since Hubble discovered the first observational evidence of it. Given modern day science, the universe being infinite is highly implausible.
schluder23 2 weeks ago
@schluder23 "I don't define nothing as a vacuum." Thats fine, but you conveniently ignore the question we asked as a consequence of this. So lets ask it again. if the nothing isnt nothing ten on what empirical basis do you say somethinh cant come from nothing ?
skydivephil 2 weeks ago
@schluder23 Im going to guess you haven't studied much cosmology. Hubble din't discover any evidence that the universe is finite, he found evidence of expansion. But expansion itself tells cant tell between Hoyle's steady state model and the big bang. That was determined later by the CMB, galaxy evolution and light element abundances. Now it was thought that the big bang proved an ultimate beginning and WLC has pushed this for years, but watch the video and c why this is wrong.
skydivephil 2 weeks ago
@skydivephil Obviously, my lack of cosmological expertise cannot dialogue with such logical and evidentially based arguments proposing the Universe is uncaused and eternal. According to you, vacuums are randomly popping out universes and other random objects suggesting that our universe coming into being from nothing (uncaused) would be plausible. Good luck defending this argument, especially with the video you posted. I wish you the best in your studies
schluder23 2 weeks ago
@schluder23 This is straw man argument. We make no claims for the origin of the universe. We dont says its uncaused or eternal. Maybe it is, maybe it isnt We don't know the answer to these deep mysteries. The burden of proof is on those that make the claims not those that question them.
skydivephil 2 weeks ago
@schluder23 Sorry a few typos in a previous post , this should read better:
"I don't define nothing as a vacuum." Thats fine, but you conveniently ignore the question we asked as a consequence of this. So lets ask it again. if the vacuum isnt nothing then on what empirical basis do you say somethinh cant come from nothing ?
skydivephil 2 weeks ago
Does our universe require god-like power to create? If it does, then for the truth of science we would like a demonstration from that God. If your God won't oblige then it is proper to assert at the least agnosticism is civil and right.
I urge you to reconsider who has a right to be astonished. No truth that you are arguing for is yet to be established as a crisis in mainstream of science.
MrSharewndws 2 weeks ago
@MrSharewndws Its interesting that in the bible Moses is given evidence of god with a burning bush, so why is everyones else expected to simply have faith?
skydivephil 6 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This vid made me laugh! Thanks.
Definitive takedown? Hardly.
Inept science followed by shoddy philosophy?
Yep.
TheJimmyBacon 2 weeks ago
Well validating ideas with evidence is what I am talking about. The question is why should you not have to validate your ideas with evidence. and labelling it "philosophy" and saying its different doest cut it. Please answer my question properly, why does a murder trial need evidence but cosmology does not?
skydivephil 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@skydivephil JEREMY LIN IS THE REAL DEAL! GO KNICKS GO!
breenhill 2 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven ...Cool, in that case the last word will be ...this video totally undermines any scientific truth value in the second premise, thus leaving the kalam debunked. That makes me happy. But your inability to cope with that fact makes me happier.
Roper122 2 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven .... Yeah...sure. Actually, you've avoided the point again and again. Read you last post...no actual answer, just bluster and insistence that you're right. Sorry, but regardless of how many posts you use, or how much time you waste - the point still stands. This video completely undermines the truth value of the second premise...regardless of philosophy, atheism, rationalism or anything else. Whether you like it or not. Job done.
Roper122 2 weeks ago
@Roper122 "just bluster and insistence that you're right"
LoL, how ironic.
Okay okay, you get to have the last word if it makes you happy.
CoryTheRaven 2 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...Oh? Sorry...what was that? 4 posts in a row without actually dealing with the point? " The video completely undermines any scientific proof of the kalam, making it impossible to claim the second premise is true ". Still, 4 posts...good time wasting. I bet that was rude too : )
Roper122 3 weeks ago
@Roper122 Once again you are appealing to the tactic of hiding accountability for your behaviour behind claims that I just can't deal with the actual subject. In case you missed it, I already stated that you overestimate how damaging and insightful your (few, brief) comments have been. I already answered everything you brought up. To repeat, and I'll make it as simple for you as I can: no, the video did not accomplish that mission.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
Oh, and did Hawking say that "Science will win because it works"? - what a philosophical statement! I thought he thinks philosophy is dead? He seems to use it quite a lot himself...I guess philosophy is something like a zombie, then. :o)
Let side his poor definition of the basis of religion (the basis for these arguments isn't "authority", but philosophy...)
mawa89g 3 weeks ago
The point about us having no experience with "really" nothing was good
Still - before the universe, you have neither time nor space (a vacuum has both).
How can something come into existence uncaused without time in which it comes into existence and without space it can be in? And for me, a balance of energy also just isn't nothing - it's a quite remarkable something, isn't it?
I think you're also kind of selective about when you quote Craig - he gives quite some reason why it should be God
mawa89g 3 weeks ago
@mawa89g We dont claim to have answers to the profound mysteries of our utlimate origin, if there is such a thing. All we claim is that the supposed evidence presented by WLC does not stand up.
skydivephil 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@mawa89g
"How can something come into existence uncaused without time in which it comes into existence and without space it can be in?"
How can God exist without a space to be in and without time within which he acts?
xknowledgeisfreex 5 days ago
@xknowledgeisfreex I think the phrase outside of space and time is a phrase thats very convenient for theists but n reality is simply gibberish, know one really has any clue what it really means.
skydivephil 4 days ago
"All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.", Alexander Vilenkin January 2012.
31Uriel 3 weeks ago
@31Uriel Yes Vilenkin says the universe had a beginning , he also says the universe does not need a cause. So if you are going to appeal to his authority for the Kalam then you are going to gain premise 2 but lose premise 1. Furthermore many other well renonwned professional cosmologists disgree with him. Sean Carroll, Roger Penrose, Abhay Ashketar to name but a few. When we have disagreements like this we need data to decide the issue. But at the moment the data we have cant do that, sorry.
skydivephil 3 weeks ago
@skydivephil
I notice this seem to be quote jumping.Where you don't finish the whole quote and then you go to another quote without getting the whole point out.
You can scroll down from what you were quoting at 15:13 and you would see he adds to what you were arguing and you completely ignored it and went to the next quote which ruined the point he made. She is in fact quote mining an argument.I wonder does she realize that this comes off as very unorganized and misleading when you do this.
ninetailschris 3 weeks ago
@ninetailschris " You can scroll down from what you were quoting at 15:13 and you would see he adds to what you were arguing and you completely ignored it and went to the next quote which ruined the point he made "
- Did you read the entire thing?
He added yes... but he didn't change his position.
Sorry, that's not quote mining.
Ironically you come off as very disorganized and misleading.
Roper122 3 weeks ago
I just started watching, but I was struck by how your "proofreader" on astrophysics said there were no errors on that front but I'm assuming you didn't have a "proofreader" on theology. Your video is introduced with the assumption of a literal reading of Genesis and that philosophical arguments like Kalam are trying to somehow cohere with that literal reading. That is a pretty massive theological error right out of the gate.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven I also notice that, in summarizing Kalam you skip a pretty major part, which is the step between "the universe needed a cause" and "that cause is God". Craig has expounded at length, repeatedly, on the chain of philosophical proofs that lead to the conclusion that God is the cause.
You also don't seem to make a distinction that Craig does between actual and potential infinities.
Refuting an argument does sort of require fully understanding and responding to the whole thing.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven Going along here... Good call on some selective arguments made by Craig, but you in turn seem rather selective about his arguments. I've seen him address the argument that the universe does not have a beginning because it is made of pre-existing stuff, using the analogy of a person having a beginning even though they were also formed of pre-existing stuff. Your comment on multiverses inadvertantly suggests that Craig's argument is sound insofar as THIS universe having a beginning.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven In fact, it would seem that you're already acknowledging the first three points of Kalam: that everything that begins to exist has a cause; that the universe (by which we can safely assume THIS universe) began to exist; therefore the universe has a cause. Your dispute seems to be more over WHAT the cause is. You're proposing loop quantum activity on pre-existing universes as the cause.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven Hello Cory, sorry if dont respond to all of your 9 posts, far too busy for that as Im writing my dissertation as well. If you to focus on one topic i will try and respond. But I thought id pick one for you. We do not in fact propose LQC as a pre existing cause, we simply say its one out fo several possibilities. We do not know what the cause of the big bang is, its WLC that claims that and the evidence does not support what he's saying.
skydivephil 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@skydivephil ", far too busy for that as Im writing my dissertation as well."
No worries! Thank you for taking the time and good luck on the dissertation.
"We do not in fact propose LQC as a pre existing cause, we simply say its one out fo several possibilities."
Fair enough, but my point was more that a concession was already made to the universe needing a cause. The debate is just over what that cause is. That's basically accepting 3/5ths of Kalam right there.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven If the LQC is correct then there is a cause to the big bang, true. But the big bang is not the beginning so its irrelevant.
skydivephil 3 weeks ago
@skydivephil As I noted in my previous posts, you don't fully address the agrument that the universe had a beginning as proposed by Craig. He has already addressed this objection, in particular using the analogy of a person. According to your own video, the clear implication is that THIS universe had a beginning in the expansion phase. The question is whether it is an absolute or an effective beginning. The question of causation is the same.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven The problem is if the big bang is simply a phase in a bigger narrative then it cannot support the Kalam and the so called evidence for premise 2 falls over.
skydivephil 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@skydivephil Actually it doesn't collapse Kalam, on two grounds that Craig has already addressed. The first was the one I keep referring to, which is that the Big Bang is still the EFFECTIVE beginning of THIS universe. Craig uses the analogy of a person, which has a distinct beginning that cannot be reduced to "simply a phase" of an egg or a sperm...
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@skydivephil ...The second is that even if we are simply in one phase of the universe, then you STILL have the problem: did the universe have a beginning and if so what was its cause? All you've done is set up the Big Bang as that point of the universe's history beyond which science so-far cannot know. That then leaves the field open to philosophical inquiry like whether an infinite universe or an infinite regress is possible, etc...
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@skydivephil ...The only time you sort of get close to actually debunking any part of Kalam is with the argument that something with a beginning does not need a cause. Even then you raise a question: does that matter that pops into existence from nothing totally spontaneously, or is it doing so according to a pre-existing, literally super-natural, quantum law? If the former it begs "why?" If the latter, that puts those laws in the same position as God in the argument (a position you mocked).
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven The Kalam is supposed to be proving god exists. So if our universe had a beginning via the collapse of a previous universe, how does that show god exists? It doesn't. This is the key point you seem to miss. The Kalam needs an ultimate beginning , not some local beginning. WLC since 1979 has been going around claiming the big bang provides such a global beginning. Weve argued in this video thats wrong, do you accept that or not?
skydivephil 3 weeks ago
@skydivephil IF this universe formed from the collapse of a previous universe, then you have only regressed the question of where it came from, not eliminated it. Kalam comes out largely intact from this. It's only the specifics of when exactly the whole chain of universes began.
What your video ignored is that Craig has various philosophical arguments for why he interprets the science the way he does. He has his reasons and your rebuttal is weakened by not addressing them.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven Where do we claim to have eliiminated the problem of where the universe came from? WlC is the one claiming to have solved the the problem of where the universe came from and hes been misleading his audience for decades. His philisophical arguments don't count as evidence. You can make an amazingly convincing case for the existence of the HIggs ,yet no one claims this as evidence it exists. .Cosmology is a science and you need evidence to back your claims.
skydivephil 3 weeks ago
@skydivephil Until you have answered or eliminated the question, you have not debunked Kalam. You rightly say that his philosophical arguments don't count as evidence, but Kalam is a philosophical argument itself. As I've been saying, until you address the philosophy, you're not really debunking Kalam. You're just clarifying what is being said in the scientific literature. It sheds no real light on why Craig is saying what he is saying.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven You cant simply label the argument a "Philosophical argument" and then exempt from yourself from evidence. MAybe in your world you can, but not in mine. If there's insufficient evidence that the premises are true then the argument doesn't work. WLC has made a a lot noise claiming to revive Kalam based upon the big bang. Do you agree or not agree that hes been doing this and that its wrong?
skydivephil 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@skydivephil That is not what I've done. What I've said is that Kalam is a philosophical argument. It is not strictly scientific: it is a philosophical interpretation of scientific evidence, yes, but not a strict scientific argument. You have done a good job of clarifying the science being talked about, but you haven't at all addressed the philosophy. Nested in that philosophy is WHY Craig makes the arguments and prefers the explanations he does. To debunk Kalam you MUST tackle this...
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven Its his philosophical biases that get him in such a muddle. He wants to believe there's an ultimate beginning and so jumps on the big bang = ultimate beginning bandwagon. If he left his philosophical baggage at home maybe he would make such a glaring error. Its not just the big bang either.
skydivephil 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@skydivephil I see no particular reason not to take him at his word that, for him, the evidence came first and the philosophical muddle came as a product of it.He has spoken quite frequently, even repetitively, about it. I've even read atheist critiques which observe that there is no excuse for not addressing the full compliment of his views because he basically repeats them verbatim in every debate.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven Take his claim that we know from our experience that somehting cant come from nothing. Yet at the same time he claims that the even a vacuum doesn't count as nothing. Well if thats true how can we know from our experience that something cant come from nothing? Where would be observe such a nothing?
skydivephil 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@skydivephil You would have to ask him (and I'm pretty sure you can, via his website). Based on what I've seen of his debates, his observation that "something cannot come from nothing" has more to do with the lack of observation of any uncaused event. I've seen him use the example of no one at his debates being worried about a horse spontaneously appearing in their living rooms while they're away...
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven You are still dodgin my question, do you accept that the bIg Bang does not prove an ultimate beginning as claimed by WLC or not?
skydivephil 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@skydivephil You're asking me to give a certain answer when one of the central propositions of your video is that the Big Bang offers no certainty. It MIGHT offer that ultimate beginning, it MIGHT not, and neither proposition really affects the validity of Kalam one way or the other.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven Well Im glad we are agreed that WLC got it wrong then when he said :
"This cosmological singularity, from which the universe sprang, marked the beginning, not only of all matter and energy in the universe, but of physical space and time themselves. The Big Bang model thus dramatically and unexpectedly supported the biblical doctrine of creatio ex nihilo."
skydivephil 3 weeks ago
@skydivephil Your video didn't say that Craig got it wrong. Your video said that Craig MIGHT have gotten it wrong.
You can't really have it both ways of saying that modern cosmology undermines Craig's certainty because it undermines ALL certainty and then following that up with saying that Craig is probably wrong because these people who believe different things than him believe different things than him. If science does not offer us the certainty then its up to convincing argumentation.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven
The whole point of this video is this: WLC claims certainty, or at least he makes it appear as if he has good reason to be certain. This video shows otherwise. Therefore WLCs claim is unjustified.
If science offers no certainty, then maybe there is none, for now at least, and it doesn´t hurt to admit it. Unless you want to throw in the god of the gaps (which you seem to prefer).
Apart from that: KCA can be critizised and attacked on a number of other issues and points.
2hanscgn 3 weeks ago
@2hanscgn "If science offers no certainty, then maybe there is none, for now at least"
That conclusion doesn't follow at all from the premise. You would have to argue that science has epistemological primacy in order to impart upon it the status as aribter of certainty (which is also counter-intuitive since one of the prime characteristics of science is the tentative nature of its conclusions). You're implying that reason, aesthetics, personal revelation, etc. offer no more certainty...
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven
Wow, quite the gish gallop...
Which conclusion? I have no problem saying "I don´t know", which is what this video is about. I do have a problem with others claiming certainty based upon reasons that do not withstand scrutiny. Personal revelation doesn´t offer any certainty, sorry. Aesthetics - huh?! Explain! Reason - well, it can be reasonable to withhold claims about certainty, which is what scientists like to do.
2hanscgn 3 weeks ago
@2hanscgn "Wow, quite the gish gallop..."
Thought-terminating cliche. If you want me to unpack my "torrents of error" you only have to ask. This is not a formal debate with a time limit.
"I do have a problem with others claiming certainty based upon reasons that do not withstand scrutiny."
The thing is, this video didn't actually scrutinize Craig's reasoning because his reasoning is philosophical as well as scientific, which has been the whole point of my critique...
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2hanscgn "Personal revelation doesn´t offer any certainty, sorry."
Okay, technically personal revelation does require an act of faith. But with everything I know about my girlfriend and all the experiences we have shared, I think that believing her she she says she loves me is a justifiable degree of certainty.
"Aesthetics - huh?! Explain!"
"Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste, and with the creation and appreciation of beauty."
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@2hanscgn "Reason - well, it can be reasonable to withhold claims about certainty, which is what scientists like to do"
I wasn't referring to what was abstractly "reasonable." I was refering to Reason, as in our faculty for Rational thought as separate from empiricism.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@2hanscgn "Unless you want to throw in the god of the gaps (which you seem to prefer)."
Craig has stated repeatedly and at length that his conclusions are based on what he feels is justifiably known, not what is unknown. You're saying that his certainty is unjustified from a purely scientific point of view, but he's not making a purely scientific argument. He's making a philosophical argument that interprets the scientific evidence a certain way...
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven
He´s making certain points from a misrepresentation of scientific findings. If he ventures into modern cosmology, then he must square it off with cosmologists. If a scientific premise he uses does not support his philosophical conclusion, then that part of the argument collapses.
2hanscgn 3 weeks ago
@2hanscgn This video never once demonstrated that the science DOES NOT support his philosophical conclusions. In fact, it verified that his philosophical conclusions MIGHT be right. What it did is clarify what is going on in cosmology beyond what Craig presents as support for his arguments. That is good and necessary, but it didn't aspire to as lofty a goal as actually debunking Kalam. For that you would have to actually tackle his philosophy.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@2hanscgn ...The ironic inverse of the accusation of a "god of the gaps" is an "scientism of the gaps": the conviction that someday all those blank spots in the map of reality currently being occupied by theism and spirituality and aesthetics and relationships and anything not-science will get filled in by empirical science. Promisory note in hand, it is then argued that God is not necessary and probably non-existant. This is usually followed by emotional guilting theists for their "arrogance".
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven
I never said what you just implied I did. Read my words carefully! You said this: "If science does not offer us the certainty then its up to convincing argumentation". That to me has the bytaste of the god of the gaps.
I used the words "maybe" and "at least for now". Rejecting a position doesn´t mean having to adopt the opposite position.
2hanscgn 3 weeks ago
@2hanscgn "That to me has the bytaste of the god of the gaps."
No more so than aesthetics occupying the "gap" of science not weighing in on the question of beauty. If we are outside of science's raison d'etre, then we are justified in appealing to other ways of knowing.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@2hanscgn "Apart from that: KCA can be critizised and attacked on a number of other issues and points."
I would genuinely be interested in hearing them. Please share, if you're willing.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven
All premises, and the conclusion, for starters. They´re far from being evident. The whole argument is question begging, plus it ventures into an area about which no reasonable statement can be made. It uses supposedly "intuitively" obvious statements to construct an allegedly existing being in a realm which is outside of any humanly possible intuition and understanding, only to attach very human-like traits to it in the end.
God has yet to be "spoken" into existence...
2hanscgn 3 weeks ago
@2hanscgn Okay, so you disagree that things with beginnings need causes and that the universe had a beginning. I'd like to hear more about how it is question begging. I'm not sure about "venturing into an area about which no reasonable statement can be made" because Kalam is a rational, deductive philosophical argument. The objection to "human-like traits" is irrelevant because if the deductive reasoning takes to that place, then so be it.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven Maybe you have misunderstood exactly what WLC has got wrong and who has the burden of evidence here.
Watch the video at 2:12 note WLC claims the big bang shows an absolute beginning, hes made this claim elsewhere of course. The big bang does not show this and thats what he's got wrong. We don't claim that the premise 2 is false only that the evidence presented for it doesn't hold. We don't need to show its false, the burden or proof is on the one making the claim.
skydivephil 3 weeks ago
@skydivephil A good analogy here is the case Sally Clark, convicted of murder when an expert cited in her trial that the chances of both her children dying of SIDS was 1 in 73 mio. She won on appeal as it was shown the original evidence was false. Death from SIDS are not independent probabilities so the 1 in 73 mio nuber was debunked. The defense didnt have to prove Clark did not kill her children, only that the original evidence was shoddy. This is what we have done with WLC big bang claims.
skydivephil 3 weeks ago
@skydivephil If you're going to claim to debunk Kalam, then yes you do need to show it is false. What I took away from your video is that Craig might be right. The Big Bang might be the absolute beginning of the universe. Furthermore, science so far cannot tell us with any certainty, which means the question falls to other forms of argument. If I was going to present this to Craig, I guess all I would say is that he should clarify his justifications for thinking that the Big Bang is the begining
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven" If you're going to claim to debunk Kalam, then yes you do need to show it is false." No we don't , we only have to show that the evidence provided doesn't stand up. Does a defendant need to prove they are innocent? No they only have to show the evidence against them is not good enough. The one making the claim has the burden of proof. The Kalam makes a number of claims and the proof is not there, thats all thats needed .
skydivephil 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@skydivephil The "burden of proof" gets a lot of mileage, but in this case you set yourself up for it by how you titled your video. In claiming to debunk Kalam, it is not satisfactory to simply say that the evidence might not as fully support Craig as he interprets it to. The careful viewer might notice that your case for uncertainty never actually proved him wrong. You actually do have to demonstrate where Craig is wrong to consider the philosophical argument debunked.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven The burden of proof get a lot of mileage because its essential. If I accused you of murder and said I had your finger prints on the murder weapon I might have a case against you. But if you then showed the finger prints were not a proper match you would have debunked the claim against you. You don't need to prove you didn't commit the murder. Its the same here, we don't need to prove WLC is wrong, we only need to prove he hasn't demonstrated what he claims to have
skydivephil 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@skydivephil If this were a murder case and not a philosophical argument then you would have a point. Philosophical arguments adhere to different sets of rules.
I would also argue that, in theism/atheism debates, "burden of proof" gets the most mileage because it's a convenient way of not having to justify one's point of view. There's a lot of currency in projecting one's own position as a properly basic belief that is true until proven otherwise.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven I find it interesting that you seem to agree that in a murder trial you need evidence to back up claims. Yet you seem to be saying you dont need that here. Why they should be treated differently you dont say. So perhaps you could enlighten us. Why should we drop the bar of evidence down simply because you label it philosophy?
skydivephil 3 weeks ago
@skydivephil Philosophical arguments are not decided on the basis of evidence alone, but also on the basis of sound reasoning. At this point you're not arguing with Craig as a theist so much as you are arguing with Craig as an example of a philosopher. The question of whether or not reliable knowledge can be deduced from reason apart from evidence is the major divide between rationalism and empiricism. In philosophy, an argument needs a sound counter-argument to be considered debunked...
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven You haven't remotely answered the question. Why do you feel its appropriate to sue evidence in a murder trial , but not for cosmology? Fortunately in science we do require evidence, very high bars are set for what is accepted. That how we make progress.
skydivephil 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@skydivephil That is how you make progress IN SCIENCE. But we're not talking about science. We're talking about a philosophical argument that interprets science in a certain way. And as I keep saying, until you face the philosophical argument you haven't come close to debunking Kalam. You've only articulated the ambiguities of the scientific debate...
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@skydivephil ...As for why I wouldn't apply the same rules to a philosophical argument that I would apply to a murder trial, the answer is simple: it's not a murder trial. There are lots of systems that apply to one subject that I would not apply to a different subject that require a different system.
One of the most self-evidently foolish claims of New Atheism is that everything falls under the umbrella of rationalism and empiricism, and anything that doesn't isn't a valid subject.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven So you wouldn't apply the rules of evidence because its not a murder trial? Well thats true, but whether the Earth rotates around the sun or the age of the Earth aren't either. Yet we ask for evidence. The reason is they are question that have an objective answer. Sure for subjective questions such as which is the most beautiful painting , we cant answer in the same way. But you've given no reason other than to label it "philosophy" to be exempted for the need for evidence.
skydivephil 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@skydivephil ...In the case of atheism, there is no reason to assume that it is any kind of properly basic belief which is true until proven otherwise. In fact, different types of atheism makes appeals to different positive philosophical claims. Communism rests on Marx's historical dialectic. Samkhya Hinduism rests on the Vedas. New Atheism rests on the epistemological primacy of rationalism and empiricism. All of these are positive claims that must be demonstrated through sound argumentation.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven Atheism is not a claim , its a rejection of a claim. The starting point fo all science testing is to start with the null hypothesis, surely you are familiar with this concept.
skydivephil 3 weeks ago
@skydivephil "Atheism is not a claim , its a rejection of a claim."
That is not true, for exactly the reasons I gave. The various different forms of atheism are sets of contingent beliefs that rely on other beliefs to argue their validity, such as the epistemological primacy of rationalism and empiricism (New Atheism), the historical dialectic of Marx (Communism), the Vedas (Samkhya Hinduism), the teachings of Buddha (atheism Buddhism), the philosophy of Ayn Rand (Objectivism), etc...
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@skydivephil ...Your appeal to science doesn't help your case because science DOES NOT start with a null hypothesis. Science DOES start with a set of validating philosophical assumptions about the nature of the universe: that is it comprehensible, regular, and so on.
If one is not accustomed to looking at the philosophical basis of their own discipline, then it's not surprising that they should not even be cognizant of the philosophical basis of their beliefs (or that it even is a belief).
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven "Science DOES start with a set of validating philosophical assumptions ... that is it comprehensible, regular, and so on." It seem this is right out of a philosophy of science textbook. But if you follow how science is really done you find that even these basic assumptions are happily challenged in science. For example scientists are currently challenging the constancy of the laws of nature, how? by collecting evidence as always. Google "varying alpha Barrow"
skydivephil 2 weeks ago
@skydivephil On the contrary, others would point to such science in action as a validation of its philosophical premeses. The comprehensibility of the universe allows such variations to be understood, the constancy of mathematics allows it to be calculated, the reliability of human senses allows for the collection of supporting evidence, and so on. Implicit to your argument for evidence is the philosophical assumption that the universe is real and the mind reliable.
CoryTheRaven 2 weeks ago
@skydivephil I'll even go you one further: the debate between theism and atheism is NOT actually a debate about the existence of God. The debate over the existence of God is secondary. What it is actually a debate about, at its very core, is that same age-old debate between Rationalism and Romanticism. It is a debate between competing epistemological philosophies, and has more far-reaching implications than whether or not God exists.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven If the BIg bang doesnt affect the Kalam then why does WLC sped so much time on it? It is in fact important because the origin of the universe is a question of cosmology. You can think up any numbers of models that might so logical but that doesnt mean they are right. We need observational evidence. WLC thought he had found that evidence and many cosmologists probably agreed. Unfortunately the field hasmoved on from that view, too bad for WLC.
skydivephil 3 weeks ago
@skydivephil If the Big Bang IS the begining of the universe, then it means that Kalam's second proposition is right. If the Big Bang is NOT the beginning of the universe, then it has only regressed the issue back beyond it. The only way you're really going to defeat Kalam's second proposition is to prove that the universe did not have a beginning. For why Craig prefers the view that the universe did have a beginning, he has given his philosophical reasons many times.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven Sorry that was phrased badly, let me rephrase. WLC has claimed for years that the big bang proves an ultimate beginning, do you agree or not?
skydivephil 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@skydivephil Yes, Craig has said that. According to you, he MAY be right.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@skydivephil ...That is also why I asked for clarification on particles seemingly appearing out of nothing. If they actually appear causelessly, then you've actually undermined the principle that "everything with a beginning needs a cause." If they are caused by quantum laws, then you haven't, and consequently demonstrated that it is possible for a literally super-natural force that is beginningless, causeless, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and immensely powerful to exist.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven Virtual particles appear out of a vacuum, whether they do so with cause or without cause is irrelevant in this case. Why? Because Craig claim the vacuum is not nothing but he also claims that our observation verify something cant come from nothing. But this is a contradiction. If the vacuum doesnt count as nothing, then no observation can verify the claim "something cant come from nothing". If the vacuum is nothing then the statement is wrong, either way WLC loses.
skydivephil 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@skydivephil Ah... when you put it that way, the experiment in virtual particles is totally irrelevant. Like the creation of amino acids in a prehistoric earth simulator, it is impossible to prove from a designed experiment that the product could arise without design...
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven " it is impossible to prove from a designed experiment that the product could arise without design." that is probably one of the least intelligent things you have said. If true it would put an end to most science, Fortunately scientists know better. If I design an experiment where I keep dropping apples from trees, I can make some conclusion about what happens in nature when apples fall by themselves.
skydivephil 3 weeks ago
@skydivephil "that is probably one of the least intelligent things you have said."
And here I thought it was just supposed to be those mean nasty faithheads who replied to everything with insults.
Allow me to clarify: it is impossible to prove from a designed experiment that the philosophical premise that the universe was designed is false. The very act of designing an experiment philosophically demonstrates the opposite. In other words, the scientist is acting in the place of God.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven" it is impossible to prove from a designed experiment that the philosophical premise that the universe was designed is false." If you claim it was designed you have to provide the evidence. The first thing you learn in a cosmology course is that you can't really do experiments. But you can make models , see what predictions the model makes for the next set of data and see if they match. If you want to claim the universe is designed you cant opt out of the same burden of evidence.
skydivephil 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@skydivephil Red Herring. Whether or not empirical evidence for design can be found (and, I should mention, we do not have to limit the proofs to empirical evidence), that matter has nothing to do with the problem that you cannot disprove the necessity of a designer from an experiment that was itself designed. Such a claim is self-contradictory and in practice only validates the philosophical claims of theists.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven Let me ask you, do you accept the multiverse as a fact?
skydivephil 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@skydivephil I neither accept it nor not accept it. Mostly I'm amused by the way it gets held out as a hoepful replacement for God that actually doesn't answer any of the questions surrounding the issue (which is an entirely separate issue from whether or not there is a multiverse). Kalam, for example, would still be a valid argument whether you used a singular or a plural of "universe".
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@skydivephil ... see both your point and his. A vacum is not absolute nothing because it still occupies space and time. But how can we know that someing cannot arise from nothing until we find absolute nothing and observe nothing arising from it? Scientifically it's a conundrum because it means an eternally tentative question given that a negative cannot be proved (though Craig disagrees with that), but this is where it seems to me that Craig is appealling to philosophy. You should ask him.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@skydivephil ...For his part, Craig actually HAS addressed many of the points brought up in this video, which I've kept referring you to. He gives quite detailed philosophical arguments for why he feels justified in preferencing certain explanations, interpretations and so on.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven I'm impressed that you were actually smirking while talking about the first point of Kalam and special pleading God's case, but you don't actually refute it. The argument here is that time necessitates causality and therefore anything that exists outside of time exists outside of causality. It is uncaused because the idea of causing something with no beginning, or end, or middle, etc. has no meaning...
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven ...So far I see you arguing that things with beginnings don't need causes, but I haven't seen you argue that things that do not have beginnings DO need causes, which is the argument you need to make to say that God needs a cause.
Furthermore, it is not a case of special pelading for God because it's not being argued that God has a special status. This goes back to that whole chain of philosophical proofs you avoided in summarizing Kalam...
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven ...It doesn't say that God doesn't need a cause because He's God. It's saying that the cause of the universe must itself be uncaused, must exist outside of conditions of space and time, must be immensely powerful and must be creative (in order to innovate something that did not exist before). You are welcome to call this uncaused cause whatever you want, but it matches most traditional descriptions of the attributes of God.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven On the idea that things that do not have beginnings DO need causes, you avoided Craig's argument on things that exist without beginnings: logical/mathematical abstracts and minds. Of former he gives the example of numbers and geometric shapes, asking rhetorically what caused "7" or "triangle".
If I was going to dispute Craig here, I would be more inclined to do so on the issue of whether or not "mind" exists as some sort of substance divorced from matter.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven Overall, this was a good video for bringing up the debates and ambiguities behind the information that Craig and others use to support Kalam, but is a long way from actuallly debunking that argument. You have an enviable appreciation for cosmological and astrophysical issues but very little appreciation for theological and philosophical ones, which leads to mischaracterizations of the latter which, in turn, weakens the whole idea that this is a thorough counterargument.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven " Overall, this was a good video "
- Very pleased that you felt the urge to grace us with 9 posts.
Overall your posts did an average job of attempting to deal with what this video brings up... but, you didn't hit any targets and left the video unscathed.
EG, your " literal genesis " point was irrelevant, your " pre-existing stuff " point was non-existent, and on and on.
You simply regurgitate exactly the points that the video deals with.
Perhaps next time, one post will do.
Roper122 3 weeks ago
@Roper122 "Very pleased that you felt the urge to grace us with 9 posts."
You're welcome!
"You simply regurgitate exactly the points that the video deals with."
I see that, depsite your pleasure, you didn't really understand what I wrote. What I was pointing out were elements of the Kalam that the video DOESN'T deal with at all, or which it presents in such passing as to practically Strawman it. If you don't see why that stuff I brought up was relevant, that's kind of the problem.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven " you didn't really understand what I wrote "
- Unfortunately, I do
" If you don't see why that stuff I brought up was relevant, that's kind of the problem. "
- Or to put it another way...
If you don't see why those points aren't relevant.. that's kinda the problem.
Nice try though.
Oh and 3/5ths of Kalam ( which wasn't admitted to ) is only 3/5ths...
It's 5/5ths or nothing I'm afraid.
LQC has to do with inflation, you are polite though, you get points for that.
Roper122 3 weeks ago
@Roper122 "Unfortunately, I do"
I don't think you do. For one you say that I only brought up stuff the video deals with, which is demonstrably false. All I wrote about were deficiencies in the argument here made. Secondly, you try to turn it around with an "am not, you are" about relevance. That is unfounded and untenable for the following reason...
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven " I don't think you do "
- Well, that's unfortunate for you.
" For one you say that I only brought up stuff the video deals with, which is demonstrably false "
- No... but if it makes you happy. I do note that you retreat from all the scientific arguments already, and as always try to hide in the philosophical argument.
Of course if you're happy to admit that the claims the Kalam makes fail scientifically, then that's a start.
Roper122 3 weeks ago
@Roper122 "I do note that you retreat from all the scientific arguments already, and as always try to hide in the philosophical argument."
With all due respect, this statement makes no sense. It is not a "retreat from all scientific arguments" to acknowledge that a philosophical argument is philosophical and needs to be addressed philosophically to be effectively rebutted...
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@Roper122 ...Kalam is ultimately a chain of logical thought leading to a particular philosophical inetrpretation of evidence, and this video excells in clarifying the evidence. The poverty with which it addresses the philosophical core of it ends up weakening the rebuttal. For example, a common question coming up through it is the supposed arbitrary choices Craig makes about what to accept and what to reject. These aren't arbitrary though. He has repeatedly given his philosophical reasons.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@Roper122 ...IF this video was aiming lower and declaring simply to correct astrophysical errors (or, as is more often the case, unwarranted certainty) on the part of Craig, then theological and philosophical matters WOULD be irrelevant. But it's claiming to debunk Kalam, which is a much bigger thing. Kalam is a PHILOSOPHICAL argument, not a SCIENTIFIC one. Therefore any counterargument that ONLY addresses the scientific side and NOT the philosophical side is only skirting Kalam's fundamentals
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven " then theological and philosophical matters WOULD be irrelevant "
- No, I was referring to specific arguments.. you know that, let's not waste time.
" any counterargument that ONLY addresses the scientific side "
- undermines any certainty that Craig tries impose and throws the whole argument into question. ( just finishing the sentence for you )
Nothing was admitted to in this video, and as for inserting characteristics, that is exactly the trick Craig is trying.
Roper122 3 weeks ago
@Roper122 "I was referring to specific arguments"
The examples you gave were both philosophical/theological, and I took that as a general statement on what you feel to be germane to the argument.
"undermines any certainty that Craig tries impose and throws the whole argument into question."
No, because by only looking at the scientific side you're missing the core and substance of the argument. Craig has philosophical arguments for his views that this video addresses poorly at best...
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven " The examples you gave were both philosophical/theological "
- That were both irrelevant, so by generalizing you avoiding having to deal with them.
" No, because by only looking at the scientific side you're missing the core and substance of the argument "
- But you are effectively undermining any certainty, if the scientific argument weren't important Craig wouldn't put so much importance on it.
The whole point of the Kalam to Craig is the myth that science backs it up.
Roper122 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Roper122 "so by generalizing you avoiding having to deal with them."
First of all, you began that line with "EG:" and finished it with "and on and on", so my generalizing was justified. Secondly, get over yourself: I told you why I made that leap, and do not have some nefarious, disingenuous purpose behind it...
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven " you began that line with "EG:" and finished it with "and on and on", so my generalizing was justified."
- Sorry missed this someone spammed it. Ummm no, you weren't justified, I listed specifics.
" Secondly, get over yourself "
- Once again, the thin veil drops. : )
" I told you why I made that leap, and do not have some nefarious, disingenuous purpose behind it... "
- Not disingenuous... simply expedient.
Roper122 3 weeks ago
@Roper122 ..."But you are effectively undermining any certainty, if the scientific argument weren't important Craig wouldn't put so much importance on it."
Thirdly, I'm going to put my money where my own mouth is and give you the benefit of the doubt that there isn't some disingenuous or nefarious purpose behind your mischaracterizing what I said here. It does tell us about your view of philosophy moreso than Craig, but I'd at least ask you to show where I said science wasn't important.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CoryTheRaven " I'm going to put my money where my own mouth is and give you the benefit of the doubt that there isn't some disingenuous or nefarious purpose behind your mischaracterizing what I said here. "
- ???????
" I'd at least ask you to show where I said science wasn't important "
- Only if you show me where I implied that you'd said that at all.. even slightly : )
There's a huge difference between " not important " and " undermines the certainty of the argument "
Roper122 3 weeks ago
@Roper122 "???????"
After critcizing you for apparently thinking that I was being disingenuous, I said I was not going to to do the same to you.
"Only if you show me where I implied that you'd said that at all.. even slightly : )"
"...if the scientific argument weren't important Craig wouldn't put so much importance on it."
I didn't say it was not important.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven " After critcizing you for apparently thinking that I was being disingenuous "
- Like I said.. I missed that.. and never meant to imply it anyway.
" scientific argument weren't important Craig wouldn't put so much importance on it." I didn't say it was not important. "
- I won't quibble ( lest I be accused of being disingenuous ) but I meant to point out Craig dependence on it, sorry if you felt I was accusing you of completely dismissing it.
Meanwhile it has been debunked
Roper122 3 weeks ago
@Roper122 "like I said.. I missed that.. and never meant to imply it anyway."
"...so by generalizing you avoiding having to deal with them."
You implied it in spades.
"sorry if you felt I was accusing you of completely dismissing it."
That's okay. If I want to apologise for how I feel about something, I can apologise on my own behalf.
"Meanwhile it has been debunked"
What has been debunked?
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CoryTheRaven " You implied it in spades "
- Yeah, like I'm suddenly terribly rude to you as well.
Let me know when the tangents are over.
" If I want to apologise for how I feel about something, I can apologise on my own behalf. "
- Again..????? I'm starting to wonder about your reading comprehension.
That makes zero sense.
" What has been debunked? "
- OK, I get it now... time waster... fair enough.
Roper122 3 weeks ago
@Roper122 "Yeah, like I'm suddenly terribly rude to you as well."
Nothing sudden about it.
"Let me know when the tangents are over."
You were the one who decided to complain at me about this and that from the outset, including my "facade" and my comment volume.
"OK, I get it now... time waster... fair enough."
Troll got trolled? You have made comments but have yet to actually debunk anything.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven " Troll got trolled? "
- Yeah... whatever makes you happy. 7 posts, being offended when cornered, off on tangents, unintelligible comments... time waster. Should've spotted it earlier.
Meanwhile... it seems people are lining to correct you.
No matter how much time you waste.
I'll be happy to join in, should you have a point...
I don't think there's much danger of that in the near future though.
Roper122 3 weeks ago
@Roper122 "time waster. Should've spotted it earlier."
What on earth are you talking about? You were the one who initiated a conversation with me that so far has consisteted of little more than insults and catcalls from you. I can't say anything without you trying to twist it around into some example of what a horrible person I am. It's MY time that YOU'VE been wasting, and if you're feeling upset about me not responding the right way, perhaps you shouldn't have initiated this with me...
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@Roper122 "Meanwhile... it seems people are lining to correct you."
Yes, the maker of the video and I have been having an actual conversation about the video, unlike your derailing this into a conversation about what kind of a person *I* am. By all means, please do stop wasting my time and let me focus on that conversation if this is making you so upset.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven " Yes, the maker of the video "
- Is correcting you... and he's not alone apparently : )
" please do stop wasting my time "
- Thank you for the laugh. I point out that you're a time waster, and lo and behold... all of a sudden I'm wasting your time ?? Funny, and demonstrative.
" if this is making you so upset "
- OK, no problem... but if the best you can do is argue that the second premise " might " be right, that certainly doesn't upset me.
Roper122 3 weeks ago
@Roper122 "Is correcting you... and he's not alone apparently : )"
We're having a discussion, yes.
"I point out that you're a time waster, and lo and behold... all of a sudden I'm wasting your time"
You introduced the concept of someone wasting the other person's time, and of the two of us I pointed out that it's a more apt description of you. You were the one to initiate a conversation with me that has turned into a conversation about me...
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven " We're having a discussion, yes. '
- And as I said.. he's not the only one.. you have your hands full.
" You introduced the concept of someone wasting the other person's time, and of the two of us I pointed out that it's a more apt description of you "
- Yes, made me laugh out loud.
Stunningly predictable.
I'd better not introduce any other concepts, or you'll use that brilliant tactic again.
Far too cunning for me.
Must be a Craig tactic.
Meanwhile.. the video stands
Roper122 3 weeks ago