Craig's ideas about the characteristics of the first cause follow from the Kalam but are not strictly speak part of it. They should be understood as separate from the argument itself. The problem with your rebuttal of the first premise is that a "non-predetermined cause" is still a cause.
lol funny how dimwits like this inbred forget that scientists and atheists before the beginning of the 20thC thought that the universe was Eternal and that there was no need for a creator......... well a couple years later that myth was put to reat due to thermodynamics study when scientists found out that the universe had a beginning where the bigbang theory was formed lmao hahaha silly very silly lol
@6gunwalker Religion is the only "thing" that claims perfection in spite of all EVIDENCE to the contrary. Science is an evolving theing...as we learn it gets better. What is your issue with science? The fact that it seeks to improve or that it shows that various notions claimed by religion are in fact false or are both points actually the problem.
@6gunwalker Your comment suggests that there is something wrong with what is being presented. So, I ask what is wrong? The case presented appears to be pretty clear to me.
- the furthest we can extrapolate back to is the big bang
- there are many different possible explanations for the big bang singularity
- the Kalam cosmological argument relies on there being no other possibility other than it being created whereas in reality the cyclical model (infinite big-bang/big-crunch cycle) IS another possibility
And then even if all the premises were infact correct an unintelligent cause would be more likely (ref. occams razer)
@types10000 I have no disagreement with your points. I was addressing the tone of 6gunwalker. I had been assessing what he believed versus what he knew. It seems that he is just spewing propaganda, since, he does know there are problems inherent in his claims.
When you say that nothing begins to exist because it is all just basically different arrangements of matter, you ignore the fact that the matter must have been created, and therefore the car, baseball etc. Craig proves this with the Hilbert's Hotel paradox which you really should have at least mentioned if you wanted to sound like you know what your talking about.
That God must be immaterial, timeless, uncaused etc. Do not follow from the argument because the KCA does not prove the existence of god, only that the universe has a cause. If you ever listen to Craig speak, he never states the KCA and then says "therefore, god exists", he always uses a defferent argument, usually just deductive reasoning to show that the cause must have been god.
well, I'm at 1:28 at you just made a big mistake. First of all, Craig does not only use Intuition, but also the Hilbert's hotel paradox to show that an actually infinite set cannot exist and therefore time is finite. Second, Craig does not use the big bang cosmology to support his argument, he only points out that it is consistent with it.
wow, you got so many thing wrong in the first 60 seconds! First of all it's pronounced ka-larm not kal-am. Secondly, William Lane Craig never states the argument as you proposed. It's "1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause 2) The universe began to exist. 3) Therefore the universe has a cause." Yet again I find a shoddy video by an atheist, with loads of thumbs up. Seems to be that one should aim to get thumbs down on YouTube if you are to remain respectable.
The added premise of "It must be timeless" does fit into the premise, because a cause can't go back to negative infinity. If it did, it would have either happened infinite time, or never. The last point you make is flawed because all the other models of the universe disregard the second law of thermodynamics (entropy). And lastly, the first premise that you disregard does not break apart as you say. All those things that just "blink" into being did have a cause.
Really? Nothing begins to exist? Did you and I exist 3 million years ago? Does anyone here seriously wish to defend that point? But apparently virtual particle pairs do begin to exist, and somehow these are not reconfigurations of the vacuum energy? Quantum events really have no cause whatsoever? In what way do the natural events that govern them not constitute cause?
within the first minute you made a false statement. you said that Dr. Craig "everything that begins to exist has a creator" which is not true.. its actually "everything that begins has a cause" also the Kalam argument was started by Christians around 200 A.D stating the universe has a cause since it began to exist. It wasn't made into a connection to God until the Muslims made the connection.
@finalhaven36 I misspoke, but it was actually a more honest representation of Craig's position, since he doesn't accept natural causes. The cosmological argument was first introduced by Aristotle, the Kalam cosmological argument was named after the Kalām tradition of Islamic philosophy. Al-Ghazali wrote one of the first versions of the argument: "Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning."
@finalhaven36 He came up with the original cosmological argument. But Islamic thinkers changed it a litle and called it the kalam cosmological argument. It has it's origins with muslims. Moron.
@finalhaven36 you said the kalam version of the cosmological argument was started by christians around 200 ad. That's fucking false. Idiot, read the word. KALAM. That's an arabic word. Do you not have a shred of common sense? God fucking damn it. You're so dense.
@Drgamedood no i did not say that. What i said is the premises of the Kalam cosmological argument was started by early Christians in early 200AD the "everything which begins to exist has a cause" BUT it was later taken BY THE ISLAMIC GROUP and used to make a connection towards a creator. Do you get it? Im not giving all the credit to the Christians. It was like a group effort sort-of-speak.
@finalhaven36 Ok. Name the christian or christians that reformed the argument from "everything that exists has a cause" to "everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause". Go ahead. Name one.
@Drgamedood I never said they reformed it wow. That is what is stated in the argument. Its what BEGINS to exist not just plainly what exists. Its always like that but it gets misquoted so frequently that people believe it to be true wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument
I am looking at an atheist video and the ad to the right is one about Christian Mingle, the Christian online dating site. "Find God's match for you." ? I wonder how many end in divorce? -_-
The real reason why it fails is because the question is an empirical question and empirical questions cannot be answered by logic. They can only be answered by evidence.
Al-Ghazali denounced secular knowledge as devil's work and thus initiated the decline of Islam, transforming it from a leading centre of knowledge and technology into a cultural backwater, from which it has never recovered.
Unfortunately most atheists just seem to look this up on wikipedia and not realise the depth to which Craig has considered this argument. Many of the objections in the video would not be made if the full argument was understood.
I am an atheist. I don't believe the Kalam is valid. But I do believe that it should be accurately rendered if it is to be accurately rebutted.
I'd recommend the article "mapping the kalam" on commonsenseatheism as a place to start. I hope that helps.
This is a really pants video. Quoting Stenger does nothing to defeat premise 1. It's just asserting that it does, but no explanation why. Electrons might jump unpredictably, but if you didn't put the energy in it, they'll never gonna jump. You atheists have a big problem, because out of nothing, nothing comes. If it did, we should see this happening all the time. You are forced to accept that the universe popped into being out of nothing by nothing. Who is the one being irrational now?
@daftmedia1 Cosmology does not say the universe began to exist 13.7bya, that's a misrepresentation. There is no evidence about what happened at that time, two words: gravitational waves, still searching for evidence for the early universe. Is not like we know for fact that it's impossible to know prior to that and hence everything began there, no, we dont know that. Craig is BSing everyone. Science does not (at least yet) support a creation event.
@PinkProgram sorry i dont quite understand how would work? is it two different dimensions that are the same dimension that collide to make a smaller dimension that should be included in the dimension? cuz i dont think that is possible but please correct me if i am wrong
you said that it could begin with a natural cause but if i say this they say a natural cause is an effect cant be the beginging you did adress first cause or causality but id like to know what to say when it needs to be a unatural cause out of time what you say doesnt make much sense to me
@kewl6969 two branes in 11D collide to extrude a 10D bubble that forms the structure for the 4D universe. When you go back far enough on the 4D time-line you start going forward in the opposite temporal direction so you can only go back to the point where the branes collide before you end up on another temporal axis ^_^ does that make sense?
The kalaam cosmological argument doesnt start off with the premise of '' Anything that begins to exist must have a creator'', replace creator with 'cause', thats premise 1.
@TheKap1an It still fails on the first premise alone because nothing has ever been observed to "begin to exist". Everything that exists is just a rearrangement of the matter that already existed; to say that a tree or a star "began to exist" would be like balling your fingers up and claiming you caused a fist to begin to exist.
''Everything that exists is just a rearrangement of the matter that already existed''
No, Ive heard this many times and it demonstrates a big misunderstanding of causality. The basic definition of a cause is something that produces an effect. When I kick the ball, my foot is the cause for the ball moving. This claim isnt built on purely empiricism, a posteriori, its a balance between a priori and a posteriori, we have an innate concept of causality, so this refutation doesnt work
@TheKap1an I'm not arguing against causality, I know its the relationship behind matter rearranging into stars, trees, etc. What I'm challenging is the assumption that "things begin to exist".
The ''began to exist'' part is not for things popping into existence from nothing. Its for basic things which have a cause, e.g I hit the table and a loud bang happened, the bang began to exist, its that type of causality, and my hand hitting the table is the cause for the loud bang.
The premise is not built on the pure just 're arranging matter empirical view'.
@TheKap1an "The ''began to exist'' part is not for things popping into existence from nothing" Except that is what WLC specifically talks about in his explanation of the Kalam argument; he talks about how his first premise conforms with intuition because we don't see elephants popping into existence out of nothing.
Even if you want to argue that the "began to exist" part still holds true, there is also the simple fact that causality only exists in the presence of time, so talking about causation before time itself existed (ie before the universe existed) is meaningless.
When he says that,he says if you deny that, then why dont you see elephants popping etc, this first premise is rooted in the metaphysical idea that from non being you cannot get being, and from nothing nothing comes. And like I said, the 'begin to exist' part is for things like me hitting the table etc like I said earlier.
@TheKap1an Your "hitting the table" example isn't really making anything "begin to exist", its just transferring energy between things that already exist; the "bang" from hitting the table is just the matter in the air being vibrated from the force of you hitting the table, its not actually creating anything.
Once again, your misunderstanding the premise, looking at it from the 100% empirical view, the premise is rooted in the metaphysical idea that being cannot come from non being, from nothing, from nothing, nothing comes.
@TheKap1an "being cannot come from non being" And yet the situation portrayed by WLC has god creating the universe out of nothing. Or are you saying that the matter god used to create the universe already existed?
About God creating , that has nothing to do with the kalaam argument, the definition of the cause is upon conceptual analysis. At the conclusion of the kalaam it establishes that the universe has a cause, which is perfectly rationally justified. Saying the cause is God and how it can be God etc is seperate.
Also, no, the matter cannot have existed before the universe existed because then thats saying the universe existed and didnt exist at the same time which is contradictory.
@TheKap1an Again though, the Kalam argument is talking about a cause which occurred before time itself existed. Causation requires time to function, so without time, talking about causation is entirely meaningless.
"the matter cannot have existed before the universe existed" So, you're saying being can't come from non-being except in the case of the universe which can pop into existence from nothing.
''Again though, the Kalam argument is talking about a cause which occurred before time itself existed.''
Not really, there is simultaneous causation, so no before or after, the cause that causes the universe happens at exactly the same time that time , energy etc come into existance, so simultaneous causation is the answer to that.
And no I never said the universe can pop into existence from nothing, I simply said the cause cannot be matter, that's contradictory.
@TheKap1an If you accept the idea that the cause for something can occur at exactly the same time as the effect, then why couldn't the universe in effect cause itself to exist? Why is there a need to invent some outside agency to do the causing?
"I simply said the cause cannot be matter" I wasn't talking about the cause of the universe, I was talking about what was used to create the universe by the "first cause". If nothing existed before the universe, then matter did just pop into existence.
@TheKap1an "existed and did not exist at the same time" This just leads back to the meaninglessness of talking about causality before time itself existed. Without time, it is absolutely possible that something could, in effect, cause itself to exist.
"The nature of the first cause can be defined as" It "can be defined" as such only because your argument doesn't work without this exemption from its own rules.
@TheKap1an prove there is an eternal immaterial being. Current evidence shows that the current universe could have been created by the collision of 2 or more 11 dimensional branes and the universe you know is just a tiny sliver of a tiny bubble in a much larger metaverse. No will proven, no will required.
the 11 dimensional brane, or things like the multiverse theory still require a beginning. The reason why the cause is immaterial is because it brang about a material existence. To say that it was material, is to say that the universe existed and did not exist at the same time, which is an impossibility, and all your doing is expanding the boundaries of the universe, so it must have been immaterial.
@TheKap1an I exist but I'm not material in the conventional sense. What I said was the universe is a bubble extruded by the collision of objects in a higher dimension. Those branes have always existed in an 11 dimensional foam. When they bump into each other universes form like bubbles in soapy water. Its really a massive scale when you think about it. The entire universe you are aware of is just a tiny little bubble. Even if a god created this universe there are trillions more just like it
@TheKap1an no it actually isn't. Time is 4 dimensional. The universal bubble is 10 dimensional. The membranes that formed the 10 dimensional bubble are 11 dimensional. There is no evidence that the 11 dimensional branes are limited by 4 dimensional causality being beyond conventional time and space. It does not require will, it shuffles and bumps along without conscious direction. It is quite possible that the branes themselves are eternal since they are outside of time and space.
If you have an infinite number of universes, you wouldnt get to the first universe to begin with, hence there has to be a beginning. Its like me holding a gun, then asking someone permission to shoot it, and that person asks the next ad infinitum, I would never pull the trigger, hence even the bubble universe theory needs a beginning.
@TheKap1an who told you this was the first universe? I don't think you are grasping the physics here. The bubble universe doesn't really need a beginning, its just energy changing form. A god on the other hand would need a beginning unless such a complex thing just popped out of nothing. What will created the creator? Was god created by 2 or more branes colliding? Seriously think about what you are arguing >.<
No, the definition of God is uncaused, has no beginning, and who said God is complex? You can only make that analogy if God is made up of parts that we know but in a more complicated way, but we dont believe that, we believe God is transcendent and unlike anything we have seen, so you cant say God has to be 'complex'.
@TheKap1an then god is the 11 dimensional metaverse that I was talking about... at least the way you described it. 11D is transcendent to the 10D universe.
Everything in existance is limited, everything that is limited is dependant, and everything that is dependant is dependant upon something else. And because you cannot have an infinite number of dependant things, as infinite is not an actuality, and because when you get down to the tiniest level the physical reality cannot explain its own existance, a transcenden, ulimited cause beyond the universe is needed, and is rationally justified.
@TheKap1an So essentially "everything has a cause/is dependent except for one thing because my argument doesn't work without this one exemption". Perhaps you should reevaluate your argument if you have to make one thing that is magically exempt from the rules established within it in order for it to work.
''So essentially "everything has a cause/is dependent except for one thing because my argument doesn't work without this one exemption". ''
No, not an exemption, the uncaused cause by its very nature doesnt need a cause and to argue that the cause needs a cause, like I said,would be getting into an infinite regress, which is impossible.
A creative event and a Creator are two very different things. WLC and friends love to conflate the two. This is just one more of his cheap semantic tricks.
.
Of course there was an origin event. Changing its name to a creation event, then promoting the event to entity by capitalising the "C" is the the worst sort of William Lame Craigiest sleight of hand.
.
He's the master of the big lie; believable because you can't imagine that anyone so articulate would take such a steaming dump in public.
...God exists outside space/time, which, by the way, is exactly what Hawkings tells us about the energies that existed previous to the beginning of space/time. That is that this energy, singularity, etc, existed and created space/time. But, no, that can't be true because nothing exists outside space/time, another arguement of his EXCEPT...yes, you guessed it, his own specially plead God. WHY, oh WHY, does any serious logician EVER give this r-tard ANY creadence?
Howver, Craig goes on, of course. The second part of his argument attempts to tell us that the universe cannot have existed eternally as a singularity before the existence of time because an actual infinite cannot exist. Now, spot the problem? The problem is that Craig has already argued that an actual infinite exists since God had not creator, so, yet again, he must exempt that which he argues for from his own argument by stating that God is exempt from this rule because...
I know I've said it before, but, really, why is Craigs argument given ANY creadence by any academia? It is nothing more than special pleading. Craig immediately has to exempt that which he attempts to prove from his own argument...that is special pleading. That is, he has to exempt god from the idea that everything that begins to exist must have creator....
I still believe that our universe was created by an error in the LHC, breaking time and space and causing the universe to explode billion of years ago.
The best part about this is that we get to relive this same life for all eternity =D, reseting memories at each death. No gods, no problems! Except trying to prove this ._. Proving this may be what causes the cycle in the first place ._.
Why would u care whether PCW Davies or any other scientist asserts the universe exploded into being 13.7billion yrs ago caused or uncaused? Isnt astrology or aliens more interested topics than a universe that Dawkins et al claim has no purpose, no design. In a microcosmic amount of time, your meaningless life will be over. it will be as if u never existed. Shouldnt u be preparing for the final exam? We're told no sane person believes in fairies, unicorns or Santa isnt God just as unlikely 4u?
BTW superman, Bill Craig uses the word "cause" NOT creator in the kalam argument. and THEN argues to a creator as the most plausible explanation. Your loose and careless statement of the premise is typical of atheists' attempts to mislead & disceive. Since Dawkins argues that the universe has no ntelligence, meaning or purpose how can anything produced by or in it have determined it has no meaning ?
@Gericho49 Purpose and meaning suggest a goal, and therefore an intelligence.
But the fire still BOILS the water, without purpose or meaning, and without intelligence. So there are physical reactions that do not necessitate intelligence, meaning, or purpose right? So when water boils, IT IS AN UNINTELLIGENT CAUSE, without meaning or purpose...right? Think of the beginning of the universe like this.
@TooferMan Not really an apt analogy, me thinks. 1) Kalam just says that the effect must have a cause then argues to what that cause might be. 2) gravity is a mechanism like fire boiling water. It defines planetary motion according to abstract universal mathematical formulae. Theism claims WHY the universe is rationally intelligible because it is the creation of a rational being, it is also likely that God created it for a purpose-gifting us with a measure of rationality
Can i ask toofer, if u put your faith in mechanistic materialism that considers that all knowledge is scientifically based, 2) that science will eventually explain all reality 3)that matter & energy is all there is, 4) that 3 necessitates an infinite past of finite physical events 5) that a rationally intelligible universe is defined by universal immaterial unchanging laws 6) that the 4 constants fall within absurdly narrow lifepermitting values by chance>Its OK to say "I dont know"
cont'd If u do I would say i have every right to conclude say that the evidence for an immaterial intelligent creator is compelling and that militant atheism is illogical. In a theistic worldview, man has both a spiritual as well as a physical nature & can reason to a conclusion because the conclusions follow logically from the premises, not because the laws of chem& physics mandate that the physical particles in the brain move in prescribed pathways. I hope this helps
@dashan091 ...well, you may be right about an original creator...but I doubt it, and there's no evidence either. The creator is positively not one of the gods we worship on earth. The creator could have self destructed with the big bang. And if UR gonna say that you have a telepathic personal relationship with the son of the creator of the universe, you'd better have a LOT more evidence. Peace.
@dashan091 A) I dont have faith, AND, I dont limit all knowledge to science-based. 2)NO, probably not ever 3)No, 4)NO, 5)WHAT? 6)What 4 constants?, and the chance of life on this planet is 1:1 (100%)... are you trying to say that if 'things' (constants, etc) were different, then things would be different??? I agree, thats quite obvious. Humans would always be in a universe where life is possible, it couldnt happen any other way. feel free to pm me directly.
@TooferMan Isnt matter & energy the only game in town for the atheist? What realities exist that cant be known by science as atheist Pro Peter Atkins claims? Do think that because we exist we dont need to explain why we have a rationally intelligible universe or why the 4 major independent constants of physics all fit within absurdly narrow life-permitting values. I think u need to to some study to understand what a micro change of 1 part in 10to120power would mean to the cosmological constant.
@dashan091 Again, if things were different, even a little thing, by only a small amount...Then things in this universe would be different. I agree. And we might not be around to ask 'why are things the way they are.'
The pot hole is perfectly created for the puddle. - Doug Adams
@TooferMan You answer "No" to Q3 & 4. But surely if there's no creator, then matter& energy must have always existed since something that exists now cant come from nothing. But in Q4 an infinite past is of finite physical events is necessarily implied by Q3. Obviously u have never considered the implications & absurdity of an infinite regression of past physical events. Now is a good time to think about what atheism is going. Are u feeling lucky?
@TooferMan "the chance of life on this planet is 1:1 (100%)..."
I guess I must be wasting my time if this is what u believe. There are so many parameters that ALL must be perfectly tuned to a precision that defies our understanding. "Informed" atheists resort to infinite universes to explain the exquite design observed in ours. Even Dawkins admits "the greatest challenge facing modern science is to explain design." " but that raises the question who designed the designer?" Is he serious?
@dashan091 ...I disagree, its an apt analogy. In this universe we see all reactions (not on earth) due to unintelligent, purposeless, goalless PHYSICS and CHEMISTRY. Kalam (p1) incorrectly assumes that before this universe began, its own rules were in effect...IE: every effect must have a cause. Explain how you would prove this to be true. Cause and effect are intrinsic properties of THIS universe only, so far as we can tell. You cannot speak to the physics BEFORE the universe began.
@TooferMan u missed the point if I want to understand how the universe came into existence a finite time ago I lask scientists like Fr G.Maitre, Arno Penzias, George Smoot Edwin Hubble. If I ask WHY & for what purpose it was created or want to understand why the universe is rationally intelligilbe, why it is defined by abstract maths& immaterial laws I seek answers that are metaphysical.. The ground of all science is the mystical intuition that being is intelligible, that the world is knowable.
@dashan091 Its called "the god of the gaps" fallacy. You can always insert a god into areas where man's understanding isn't complete or where data isn't known.
Why and what purpose you ask? God created everything because he loves us and so we can give him glory. Your quest for understanding is now over, my friend.
@TooferMan " we see all reactions (not on earth) due to unintelligent, purposeless, goalless PHYSICS and CHEMISTRY." but the point is, we can explain planetary motion by gravity but that doesnt explain why it exist or where it came from. Mechanism & agency are different reality. The author creates the novel but he’s not found in the novel, similarly the architect is not part of the building. The bible says that God is distinct from the world but intimately connected to it as a necessary1st cause
@dashan091 I think the issue is more that you are attributting actions to a being that you have failed to prove actually exists. You didnt comment on my previous statement: "Do YOU have a telepathic personal relationship with the son of the creator of the universe"?
@TooferMan Religion is 100% about a religionship. Just as the Bible is about man's reflection on the God experience. God is not a being among many. If u cant experience God as the essence of being no amount of science or compelling philosophical argument will convince a closed mind. The fact that u cant live without the God question taunting u, is paradoxically all the evidence u need. Do u consider astrology or alien worship challenging or is God the only answer to life's ultimate questions?
@TooferMan Man lights a fire to boil the water for MANY different purposes.Everything that happens has a purpose even earthquakes tsunami such as in the nutrient cycle. The moon has an important purpose in maintaining our weather. Nature evaporates water to replenish the land. 'Dawkins: The greatest challenge facing science is to account for design in the universe" ABSOLUTELY! Even greater is the challenge to account for intelligence when matter & energy is the only game in town. Well?
@dashan091 "Everything that happens has a purpose..." - You are conflating function with purpose. Something may function to effect change but that does not make it purposeful. Purpose implies a conscious intent and the moon has no intent with regards ocean tides and weather.
.
"Nature evaporates water to replenish the land." - Now you are anthropomorphising. Lifeless planets may have rain cycles too. That's a function of liquids and heat, not of the desires of some supernatural being.
@Noisegator What?? the T model Ford has many functional (mindless) parts all designed by an intelligent mind for a purpose-our benefit. But u wont find the agent (Henry Ford) by an anaylsis of your Ford Mondeo. Atheism claims theres no God & the universe has no purpose. Since the universe can be shown to be exquisitely designed with man its ultimate purpose then God exists. Such a conclusion is not just my opinion but that of numerous Nobel prize & award winning scientists. Want a list?
@dashan091 "the T model Ford has many functional (mindless) parts all designed by an intelligent mind for a purpose-our benefit. But u wont find the agent (Henry Ford) by an anaylsis of your Ford Mondeo."
.
Yes you will - it's in the name! FORD. And we have direct proof of his hand, and records of all the other hands involved in it's design and manufacture - and an entire written history of automobile "evolution". You can't compare that directly to what you see in nature. Apples and oranges!
@Noisegator Yes u will - it's in the name! FORD" u totally missed the point- cause/effect & agent/mechanism are different realities like author& his book, a building & its architect. Being able to nominate the law of gravity as a mechanism for planetary motion explains nothing about its existence, nature or origin. How do laws cause anything? BTW the language of DNA contained in the human cell fills an entire library. But cells just came about by a gigantic cosmic lottery. ru that lucky?
@dashan091 "But cells just came about by a gigantic cosmic lottery. ru that lucky?" - And jehovah came about by... what exactly? R U that lucky? You can't have it both ways.
.
Of course natural laws don't compel, they describe. I never said elsewise. And you are the one who introduced the confusion between the book and the author, not me. And you are still doing it with your DNA = language analogy. DNA is not the language that fills human libraries. Directly comparing the two is specious.
@dashan091 And while you won't find the agent, Henry Ford, physically incorporated in his automobiles, you DO find clear and unequivocal evidence of his existence both within and without his creation. There is no such plain evidence for an intelligent agent in nature. In fact if there was a designer it has gone to great lengths to disguise it's presence by making everything look as though it happens entirely without supernatural intervention.
@dashan091 "Such a conclusion is not just my opinion but that of numerous Nobel prize & award winning scientists." - Oh really? Please name a few.
.
The universe appears to be designed, because we are designers ourselves. That doesn't mean it was designed or that there was a designer. That is wishful thinking on your part. The universe has no purpose you can define or demonstrate. To say it is designed for humans is pure hubris and egotism. There are more galaxies that grains of sand on earth!!!
If you don't agree with the KCA, then you are left with 2 options. 1.) Matter and the universe have always existed. I would ask you for evidence, but I don't think you could provide any. Science also disagrees with that view. 2.) The universe popped into existence out of nothing. Vacuum fluctuations are not nothing. If you believe this, why is this 'nothing' with no potentiality (that is true nothing) bias towards creating only universes?
Option 1) There are several scientific theories which do not disagree with this assumption.
Option 2) The "nothing" does not need to bias toward creating only universes, it just needs to have created a universe once. The likelihood of a universe being created could be very low (just like the likelihood of any one genetic combination from your parents genes) however the fact that the universe (and you) exists shows that the event happened at least once.
@azsuperman01 - My revised thoughts. 1.) You think mainstream science has it wrong and one of these less supported alternatives is correct. Ok. Possible. Then you are left with matter being eternal, but a First Cause (which is necessarily timeless) can't be. 2.) I think true nothingness has zero potentiality and can't create anything. If you think true nothingness has potentiality (although logically inconsistent), then you have to concede anything could be created an infinite amount of times.
@jpschmitt1980 My comments on your revised thoughts: 1) Please don't tell me what I think. As I said before, I am showing that other views exist, not taking a position on any of them. I'll leave the question of origins to physicists and cosmologists who study the early universe for a living. 2) The universe doesn't care what you think it can and can't do. The only thing I need to concede is that a universe was created at least once. (If other universes were created later, how would we know?)
@azsuperman01 - That is not a response. You have 2 options: 1.) Matter and the universe are eternal, or 2.) It popped into existence out of nothing. That is it. Those are your choices. You HAVE to think one of them. The KCA is valid. It offers an explanation through logical inference. You have to throw your hands up and say we just don't know yet, but there must be a scientific explanation. 1.) or 2.) Which is it you view?
@azsuperman01 - Just to make sure you understand my argument for 2.), you are saying true nothingness has potentiality (logically inconsistent and not really nothing), but very limited potentiality. If you think it actually has potentiality, then you have to concede that this potentiality is unlimited (how could it be limited?). And unlimited potentiality could create anything, anytime, anywhere, an infinite number of times. You are basically making a claim for limited potentiality.
@azsuperman01 - Also, if you are a determinist, then the likelihood of any one genetic combination from your parents genes is 100%. There was no chance it could have turned out any differently. The uncertainty principle can't save you because it says that a particle's position and momentum can't be both known since observation of one throws off the other. It doesn't mean a certain particle doesn't have a single position and momentum, just that it can't be measured.
@jpschmitt1980 From a determinist view, yes - all the events leading up to your conception will determine which genes eventually combine to make your DNA. My point was that there ARE other possible combinations. Just as it would be impossible with our current technology to take into consideration every variable and determine exactly which genes will be passed on, the potentiality for a universe to be created my be equally difficult to determine due to unknown &(currently) incalculable factors,
@azsuperman01 - You miss the fact that there is a 100% probability that you would be born the way you were. There may be other possibilities of what genes you could have, but they had a 0% chance of coming to fruition. There is a 100% chance you would be born the way you were under a deterministic view. You can't discard that. It is totally different from a nothingness void that you think has bias potentiality.
Well done, sir. But personally, I hate this argument (both sides). It really doesn't 'prove' the christian god, or any other god, actually exists. It doesn't support a personal god being. And IT IS CERTAINLY NOT the reason that believers believe in a god.
@TooferMan Proof or compelling evidence? The choices r stark for the atheist1) matter & energy are eternal 2) universe popped into existence uncaused or by material cause that exists outside of the universe.3) u are forced to explain the existence of a rationally intelligible universe defined by universal, immaterial, life permitting laws&constants. WLC argues to design by a creator as more logical than chance or necessity. Infinitely more so if u r genuinely mind to the evidence. Good luck.
@Gericho49 Define "More Logical Than Chance" please.
BTW, the rules in this universe are "cause and effect". Im sure you agree, and this can be demonstrated. But if we are speaking of BEFORE this universe, how do you know that these rules apply??? Please demonstrate this. Of all your responses to this video I ask " HOW DO YOU KNOW?"...Well, You dont, so stop pretending that you know and that you can support it. Because you got nutthin.
@TooferMan YOU seem "to pretend you know" somethings like there isn't a 1st cause or creator. " HOW DO YOU KNOW?"...I ask & wonder if u know that physics & chem mandate that the physical particles in the brain move in prescribed pathways? If the universe is unintelligent without meaning or purpose how did u ever come to know that it was so?
Materialist accounts of reasoning typically presuppose the existence of the very thing that they are trying to explain.
Starting your video off with 'there aren't many reasons to believe in God'... so immediately you're assuming those who believe in God are wrong right? Right or wrong? Which ever way you look at it, you could be wrong yourself. Someone is right & someone is wrong, which are you?
Even if you say you're right you could be wrong & God does exist & created everything.
How about leaving it at we have our own beliefs & one of us is wrong while the other will find out eventually.
@Immortalsouls ..'find out eventually"??? I've already found out. I don't believe in gods..because there is no evidence that they exist. I don't believe in leprechauns either, for the same reason. Maybe you will find out eventually that leprechauns dont exist, but if you really thought seriously about it, without presuppositions, you could find out TODAY that leprechauns dont exist.
@TooferMan u create strawman after strawman and just knock em down. What about fairies santa Claus or flying teacups? Funnily I never heard of anyone who claims to have launched one or has converted to your strawman in adulthood. God's gifts of reason, conscience morality are written on our hearts & deep. u say u don’t believe in God maybe He doesn’t believe in atheism so atheists don’t exist either.
@Immortalsouls Sir, the atheist is perfectly right in his claims about religion being a delusion if only God doesnt exist. Sadly for him, science & philosophy give us compelling reasons why a creator is more logical than its negation. Why should we be surprised to see him prove what he's already assumed to be true.
"suffer the fool in his folly lest he seem wise in his own deceit"
@ScientificMethodist really? Hawking /penrose proposed that time had a beginning in their singularity theorem. Maybe u can explain an infinite past of finite physical events or maybe u dont like the idea of an absolute beginning because it doesnt fit with your worldview?
I hear there's a cosmic tape-recorder which has recorded all past history. When u have found it press the REWIND button. Let me know when u reach the end of the tape.
according to you i never began to exist. i was roaming around with the dinosaurs in prehistoric ages... hahaha lol this video FAILS. nice try though, i give you 1 star * :)
I really don't want to argue since I think youtube is the wrong forum for it. But just something to point out...Craig's premise and conclusions are "everything that begins to exist has a cause" "the universe began to exist" C: "therefore the universe has a cause". I think Craig usually goes on to argue separately that this cause must be God for any number of reasons...like I said, don't want to argue just want to correct you on some typos.
@Prolific85 This is philosophical argument 1st and foremost. As i said this video cleverly substitutes creator for 'cause' which is meant to deceive. Craig goes on to discuss the likelihood of what best explains the nature of that cause. U have to destroy the premises by providing evidence to the contrary. WLC also discusses possible objections which no skeptic has challenged here.
5:15 - Plus are you aware that most astronomers/ cosmologists don't even support the idea that the universe didn't begin to exist. Most of them will support the Big Bang, the singularity, the point where there's not even a void or gravity!
The Kalam cosmological argument is laws of logic. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Regardless weather or not something at all begins to exist it'll be correct via laws of logic. 2ndly, you didn't explain why you actually existed before you are conceptualized. You cannot say that your consciousness DID NOT begin to exist just because the atoms(which isn't actually mass individually) already exist! That's just a failure!
And the laws of physics weren't chance mechanisms. By accepting chance as a plausible scenario which it is NOTHING, you've rejected the laws of physics and any other laws such as Mathematics. It just wasn't possible for chance create anything via laws. It also did not explain why virtual particles appear out of nothing. We have quantum mechanics - physical laws depends on other laws and Einsteins unfinished 11 dimensions. These alone possesses properties of supernatural(higher laws of physics).
The opposite truthful logical law is true - Anything that did NOT begin to exist has no cause eg God. This will always already be true regardless or not something did not begin to exist.
Also the other theories you've presented weren't as well corroborated as the Big Bang . Virtual particles doesn't prove spontaneous creation let alone the hard core anthropic principle well corroborated theory.
I would just like to tell for the first question that things do pop in to existence (proof that they don't need a creator) we can observe this phenomena in microscopic world where atoms pop in and out of existence all the time.
@MeetYourMeaker "proof they don't need a creator" that's not a proof let alone attempt to disprove such existentialism which is higher laws of physics. Virtual particles/ atoms did not pop out of existence. There's already void(space/time) which is a feature of force named gravity. And even atoms were made up of smaller and smaller existence (subatomic) until the immaterial causes effects material. Materalism had always been a poor and shitload of logical fallacies.
@MeetYourMeaker You are saying that the jet engine is following mathematical laws, therefore it can't be created by frank quitle? Another thing is that laws exist why, because of the Law Giver. Scientists had thought about this based on many arguments:
watch?v=_Wzol00G2MM
you have to dig deep more before arguing between philosophy and philosophy. THEN you can say what science support in teleological arguments
No i never mentioned a jet enginge.Also mathematical laws have nothing to do with reality,but if you are thinking about physical laws the argument fails because they came into existence with big bang,the evidence for this is that physicists bitch about how they can't go past a certain time in past(some small fraction of a second after the big bang).
PS Before arguing about maths and physics read a freaking text book because some of us actually have majors in those subjects.
@MeetYourMeaker what nerdy red herring. My main point is not ontological. I said teleological. You know what that is in main stream science. FINE TUNING of the initial conditions, Fred Hoyle, just right universe, ross, kalam craig, resonance carbon. Yes math laws has nothing to do with the fine tuning since it is initially SET it's values in beginning. However, physical laws = mathematics. How about P2 = A3 of christian Kepler.
This whole video reeks of deception and strawman. Not even once in the entire video did you actually address any of the core issues.
Never mind your asinine idea that the past is infinite? What? So actual infinites exist? Take your head out of the sand and talk to some people who actually do this stuff for a career. The overwhelming consensus is this. There are no actual infinites in nature, there is no REASON to assume to the past is infinite. Infinity itself is a paradox. Mind blowing idiocy.
Of coarse they didn't "poof" into existance. All matter would have to had come from God Himself. God would have to be the very essence of all energy and energy can become matter.
Also the Universe is not billions of years old and the matter we have on this world didn't come from a star. According to God's word the Bible, creation was in the year 11,013 B.C. which was 13,022 years ago. We have never wittnessed any planet form from a star, is just educated guesses, your foundation is flawed
Your arguement is flawed because of the meer fact that there is order and intelligent design in the Universe in which random variations cannot account for. The only logical conclusion is that there is in fact a intelligent designer, namely God.
Ghazali argued that the first cause must be personal because only personal agents can initiate spontaneous causality and there could be no antecedent cause forcing the first cause to create the universe lest you enter into an infinite regress. You don't understand the kalam's use of the law of causality (which states that all affects have causes [ie. premise 1 of the argument]). All those models are refuted in Craig's book. How can you embarrass yourself by publicly displaying this nonsense?
You mispronounce "Kalam", misquoted Craig's formulation of the argument, didn't address Ghazali argument for the finitude of time (not to mention your ignorance of big bang cosmology which implies the finitude of time). The cosmological argument was in fact developed by Christian thought then met it's full force with the Muslim Ghazali much later and the first premise of the argument is "everything that begins to exist has a cause" God did not begin to exist, therefore He doesn't need a cause.
The law of causality states that all affects have causes. God by definition isn't an affect therefore God doesn't need a cause (asking what caused God is like asking why circles are so circular). He exist necessarily (the cause of time must exist eternally by necessity). Let me remind you that this is exactly what atheism has traditionally held about the universe- that it is eternal and therefore doesn't need an antecedent cause. The problem is that the universe did come into existence.
@52blades We don't know if the universe existed in some form before the Big Bang (there are theories that say it did). The idea of the universe being eternal has one big advantage over eternal god(s) -- we know the universe exists.
You can point to a circle and explain what it means to be circular. If you can point to a god we can both discuss the it's traits and debate what fits. Otherwise, it doesn't matter how you define it because you can't simply define something into existence.
The "big bang" is not a fact either, it is meerly a educated guess. As infinite as the Universe is, its much more likely all matter can into existance from many points or "singularities" not one point in space time. Also the Universe itself would have to had come into existance as well and that neither could have come from a single singularity.
@azsuperman01 : "it doesn't matter how you define it because you can't simply define something into existence."
Really? Then words do not exist. Nor do laws or anything which requires them. We define things into existence on a regular basis. All of culture works that way.
New things arise and in the experience we define what it is to be or know that thing. You must choose your logic. Either things exist or they don't.
@azsuperman01 Obviously if something exist now and God didnt create it into existence then something must have always existed. But an infinite regression of past finite physical events is scientifically and philosophically abhorrent. Do u really believe that matter & energy is all there is and ever has been?
There are some questions that cant be answered by google. Then again, u could always invoke a "science of the gaps'. Better still admit that God is more plausible than "scientism"
Craig's ideas about the characteristics of the first cause follow from the Kalam but are not strictly speak part of it. They should be understood as separate from the argument itself. The problem with your rebuttal of the first premise is that a "non-predetermined cause" is still a cause.
mattschol 1 day ago
not convincing kid
creeman007 3 weeks ago
How can you make a video trying to rebut an argument and then you don't even know the argument at all. Fail :)
FruKaos 1 month ago
@FruKaos I concur. Now creationists will use this guy to claim that atheists have no idea what they're talking about. . .
Zeuts85 1 week ago
lol funny how dimwits like this inbred forget that scientists and atheists before the beginning of the 20thC thought that the universe was Eternal and that there was no need for a creator......... well a couple years later that myth was put to reat due to thermodynamics study when scientists found out that the universe had a beginning where the bigbang theory was formed lmao hahaha silly very silly lol
6gunwalker 1 month ago
@6gunwalker Religion is the only "thing" that claims perfection in spite of all EVIDENCE to the contrary. Science is an evolving theing...as we learn it gets better. What is your issue with science? The fact that it seeks to improve or that it shows that various notions claimed by religion are in fact false or are both points actually the problem.
MyContext 1 month ago
@6gunwalker Your comment suggests that there is something wrong with what is being presented. So, I ask what is wrong? The case presented appears to be pretty clear to me.
MyContext 1 month ago
@MyContext
Well for starters
- the furthest we can extrapolate back to is the big bang
- there are many different possible explanations for the big bang singularity
- the Kalam cosmological argument relies on there being no other possibility other than it being created whereas in reality the cyclical model (infinite big-bang/big-crunch cycle) IS another possibility
And then even if all the premises were infact correct an unintelligent cause would be more likely (ref. occams razer)
types10000 3 weeks ago
@types10000 I have no disagreement with your points. I was addressing the tone of 6gunwalker. I had been assessing what he believed versus what he knew. It seems that he is just spewing propaganda, since, he does know there are problems inherent in his claims.
MyContext 3 weeks ago
@MyContext
oh sorry, lol
types10000 3 weeks ago
1. Everything that exists, has a beginning
2. God has no beginning
3. God does not exist
Giving the cosmological argument a taste of it's own medicine ;)
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 2 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 2 months ago
The difference between an atheist and a theist is this.
A theist uses arguments to defend what they have chosen to believe.
An atheist uses arguments to decide what to believe.
TheSmackerlacker 3 months ago
Craig does adress the other models for the models for the creation (or eternality) of the universe.
However, you would only know that if you read up on any of his work.
MegaExelo 4 months ago
When you say that nothing begins to exist because it is all just basically different arrangements of matter, you ignore the fact that the matter must have been created, and therefore the car, baseball etc. Craig proves this with the Hilbert's Hotel paradox which you really should have at least mentioned if you wanted to sound like you know what your talking about.
david52875 4 months ago
That God must be immaterial, timeless, uncaused etc. Do not follow from the argument because the KCA does not prove the existence of god, only that the universe has a cause. If you ever listen to Craig speak, he never states the KCA and then says "therefore, god exists", he always uses a defferent argument, usually just deductive reasoning to show that the cause must have been god.
david52875 4 months ago
well, I'm at 1:28 at you just made a big mistake. First of all, Craig does not only use Intuition, but also the Hilbert's hotel paradox to show that an actually infinite set cannot exist and therefore time is finite. Second, Craig does not use the big bang cosmology to support his argument, he only points out that it is consistent with it.
david52875 4 months ago
wow, you got so many thing wrong in the first 60 seconds! First of all it's pronounced ka-larm not kal-am. Secondly, William Lane Craig never states the argument as you proposed. It's "1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause 2) The universe began to exist. 3) Therefore the universe has a cause." Yet again I find a shoddy video by an atheist, with loads of thumbs up. Seems to be that one should aim to get thumbs down on YouTube if you are to remain respectable.
TheHonestTheist 5 months ago
just to make sure, you aren't saying that just because an argument is old then it must be a bad argument right?
philosophizer149 5 months ago
The added premise of "It must be timeless" does fit into the premise, because a cause can't go back to negative infinity. If it did, it would have either happened infinite time, or never. The last point you make is flawed because all the other models of the universe disregard the second law of thermodynamics (entropy). And lastly, the first premise that you disregard does not break apart as you say. All those things that just "blink" into being did have a cause.
Reepecheep 5 months ago
Really? Nothing begins to exist? Did you and I exist 3 million years ago? Does anyone here seriously wish to defend that point? But apparently virtual particle pairs do begin to exist, and somehow these are not reconfigurations of the vacuum energy? Quantum events really have no cause whatsoever? In what way do the natural events that govern them not constitute cause?
JWHurwitz 5 months ago
within the first minute you made a false statement. you said that Dr. Craig "everything that begins to exist has a creator" which is not true.. its actually "everything that begins has a cause" also the Kalam argument was started by Christians around 200 A.D stating the universe has a cause since it began to exist. It wasn't made into a connection to God until the Muslims made the connection.
finalhaven36 6 months ago
@finalhaven36 I misspoke, but it was actually a more honest representation of Craig's position, since he doesn't accept natural causes. The cosmological argument was first introduced by Aristotle, the Kalam cosmological argument was named after the Kalām tradition of Islamic philosophy. Al-Ghazali wrote one of the first versions of the argument: "Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning."
azsuperman01 6 months ago
@finalhaven36 The Kalam was invented by Islamic thinkers, you fucking idiot.
Drgamedood 6 months ago
@Drgamedood was aristotle an islamic thinker? no.
finalhaven36 6 months ago
@finalhaven36 He came up with the original cosmological argument. But Islamic thinkers changed it a litle and called it the kalam cosmological argument. It has it's origins with muslims. Moron.
Drgamedood 6 months ago
@Drgamedood if you read my original statement you just re-affirmed what i said... why are you telling me this?
finalhaven36 6 months ago
@finalhaven36 you said the kalam version of the cosmological argument was started by christians around 200 ad. That's fucking false. Idiot, read the word. KALAM. That's an arabic word. Do you not have a shred of common sense? God fucking damn it. You're so dense.
Drgamedood 6 months ago
@Drgamedood no i did not say that. What i said is the premises of the Kalam cosmological argument was started by early Christians in early 200AD the "everything which begins to exist has a cause" BUT it was later taken BY THE ISLAMIC GROUP and used to make a connection towards a creator. Do you get it? Im not giving all the credit to the Christians. It was like a group effort sort-of-speak.
finalhaven36 6 months ago
@finalhaven36 Ok. Name the christian or christians that reformed the argument from "everything that exists has a cause" to "everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause". Go ahead. Name one.
Drgamedood 6 months ago
@Drgamedood I never said they reformed it wow. That is what is stated in the argument. Its what BEGINS to exist not just plainly what exists. Its always like that but it gets misquoted so frequently that people believe it to be true wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument
finalhaven36 6 months ago
I am looking at an atheist video and the ad to the right is one about Christian Mingle, the Christian online dating site. "Find God's match for you." ? I wonder how many end in divorce? -_-
MunkyDrag0n 6 months ago
I suppose this is meant to be a logical argument to point this out?
daftmedia1 7 months ago
The real reason why it fails is because the question is an empirical question and empirical questions cannot be answered by logic. They can only be answered by evidence.
stevehayes13 7 months ago
Al-Ghazali denounced secular knowledge as devil's work and thus initiated the decline of Islam, transforming it from a leading centre of knowledge and technology into a cultural backwater, from which it has never recovered.
stevehayes13 7 months ago
Ohhh wow! First learn how to pronounce kalam before you start to criticize it. Thanks for the good laugh though.
mgundy 7 months ago 2
Unfortunately most atheists just seem to look this up on wikipedia and not realise the depth to which Craig has considered this argument. Many of the objections in the video would not be made if the full argument was understood.
I am an atheist. I don't believe the Kalam is valid. But I do believe that it should be accurately rendered if it is to be accurately rebutted.
I'd recommend the article "mapping the kalam" on commonsenseatheism as a place to start. I hope that helps.
narco73 7 months ago
This is a really pants video. Quoting Stenger does nothing to defeat premise 1. It's just asserting that it does, but no explanation why. Electrons might jump unpredictably, but if you didn't put the energy in it, they'll never gonna jump. You atheists have a big problem, because out of nothing, nothing comes. If it did, we should see this happening all the time. You are forced to accept that the universe popped into being out of nothing by nothing. Who is the one being irrational now?
daftmedia1 7 months ago
@daftmedia1 Cosmology does not say the universe began to exist 13.7bya, that's a misrepresentation. There is no evidence about what happened at that time, two words: gravitational waves, still searching for evidence for the early universe. Is not like we know for fact that it's impossible to know prior to that and hence everything began there, no, we dont know that. Craig is BSing everyone. Science does not (at least yet) support a creation event.
sirdelrio 7 months ago
@PinkProgram sorry i dont quite understand how would work? is it two different dimensions that are the same dimension that collide to make a smaller dimension that should be included in the dimension? cuz i dont think that is possible but please correct me if i am wrong
kewl6969 8 months ago
you said that it could begin with a natural cause but if i say this they say a natural cause is an effect cant be the beginging you did adress first cause or causality but id like to know what to say when it needs to be a unatural cause out of time what you say doesnt make much sense to me
kewl6969 9 months ago
@kewl6969 two branes in 11D collide to extrude a 10D bubble that forms the structure for the 4D universe. When you go back far enough on the 4D time-line you start going forward in the opposite temporal direction so you can only go back to the point where the branes collide before you end up on another temporal axis ^_^ does that make sense?
PinkProgram 8 months ago
The kalaam cosmological argument doesnt start off with the premise of '' Anything that begins to exist must have a creator'', replace creator with 'cause', thats premise 1.
TheKap1an 9 months ago
@TheKap1an It still fails on the first premise alone because nothing has ever been observed to "begin to exist". Everything that exists is just a rearrangement of the matter that already existed; to say that a tree or a star "began to exist" would be like balling your fingers up and claiming you caused a fist to begin to exist.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
@ArcanaKnight
''Everything that exists is just a rearrangement of the matter that already existed''
No, Ive heard this many times and it demonstrates a big misunderstanding of causality. The basic definition of a cause is something that produces an effect. When I kick the ball, my foot is the cause for the ball moving. This claim isnt built on purely empiricism, a posteriori, its a balance between a priori and a posteriori, we have an innate concept of causality, so this refutation doesnt work
TheKap1an 9 months ago
@TheKap1an I'm not arguing against causality, I know its the relationship behind matter rearranging into stars, trees, etc. What I'm challenging is the assumption that "things begin to exist".
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
@ArcanaKnight
The ''began to exist'' part is not for things popping into existence from nothing. Its for basic things which have a cause, e.g I hit the table and a loud bang happened, the bang began to exist, its that type of causality, and my hand hitting the table is the cause for the loud bang.
The premise is not built on the pure just 're arranging matter empirical view'.
TheKap1an 9 months ago
@TheKap1an "The ''began to exist'' part is not for things popping into existence from nothing" Except that is what WLC specifically talks about in his explanation of the Kalam argument; he talks about how his first premise conforms with intuition because we don't see elephants popping into existence out of nothing.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
Even if you want to argue that the "began to exist" part still holds true, there is also the simple fact that causality only exists in the presence of time, so talking about causation before time itself existed (ie before the universe existed) is meaningless.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
@ArcanaKnight
When he says that,he says if you deny that, then why dont you see elephants popping etc, this first premise is rooted in the metaphysical idea that from non being you cannot get being, and from nothing nothing comes. And like I said, the 'begin to exist' part is for things like me hitting the table etc like I said earlier.
TheKap1an 9 months ago
@TheKap1an Your "hitting the table" example isn't really making anything "begin to exist", its just transferring energy between things that already exist; the "bang" from hitting the table is just the matter in the air being vibrated from the force of you hitting the table, its not actually creating anything.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
@ArcanaKnight
Once again, your misunderstanding the premise, looking at it from the 100% empirical view, the premise is rooted in the metaphysical idea that being cannot come from non being, from nothing, from nothing, nothing comes.
TheKap1an 9 months ago
@TheKap1an "being cannot come from non being" And yet the situation portrayed by WLC has god creating the universe out of nothing. Or are you saying that the matter god used to create the universe already existed?
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
@ArcanaKnight
About God creating , that has nothing to do with the kalaam argument, the definition of the cause is upon conceptual analysis. At the conclusion of the kalaam it establishes that the universe has a cause, which is perfectly rationally justified. Saying the cause is God and how it can be God etc is seperate.
Also, no, the matter cannot have existed before the universe existed because then thats saying the universe existed and didnt exist at the same time which is contradictory.
TheKap1an 9 months ago
@TheKap1an Again though, the Kalam argument is talking about a cause which occurred before time itself existed. Causation requires time to function, so without time, talking about causation is entirely meaningless.
"the matter cannot have existed before the universe existed" So, you're saying being can't come from non-being except in the case of the universe which can pop into existence from nothing.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
@ArcanaKnight
''Again though, the Kalam argument is talking about a cause which occurred before time itself existed.''
Not really, there is simultaneous causation, so no before or after, the cause that causes the universe happens at exactly the same time that time , energy etc come into existance, so simultaneous causation is the answer to that.
And no I never said the universe can pop into existence from nothing, I simply said the cause cannot be matter, that's contradictory.
TheKap1an 9 months ago
@TheKap1an If you accept the idea that the cause for something can occur at exactly the same time as the effect, then why couldn't the universe in effect cause itself to exist? Why is there a need to invent some outside agency to do the causing?
"I simply said the cause cannot be matter" I wasn't talking about the cause of the universe, I was talking about what was used to create the universe by the "first cause". If nothing existed before the universe, then matter did just pop into existence.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
@ArcanaKnight
''then why couldn't the universe in effect cause itself to exist?''
Because then your basically saying the universe existed and did not exist at the same time, which brings more impossibilities.
The nature of the first cause can be defined as 1. One 2. Uncaused 3. Immaterial 4. Had a will.
TheKap1an 9 months ago
@TheKap1an "existed and did not exist at the same time" This just leads back to the meaninglessness of talking about causality before time itself existed. Without time, it is absolutely possible that something could, in effect, cause itself to exist.
"The nature of the first cause can be defined as" It "can be defined" as such only because your argument doesn't work without this exemption from its own rules.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
@TheKap1an why does it need will? A fire does not need will to create smoke ^_^
PinkProgram 8 months ago
@PinkProgram
Because for an eternal, immaterial being to bring about a finite material existance, it mus have chosen to do so, and choice indicates a will.
TheKap1an 8 months ago
@TheKap1an prove there is an eternal immaterial being. Current evidence shows that the current universe could have been created by the collision of 2 or more 11 dimensional branes and the universe you know is just a tiny sliver of a tiny bubble in a much larger metaverse. No will proven, no will required.
PinkProgram 8 months ago
Comment removed
TheKap1an 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PinkProgram
the 11 dimensional brane, or things like the multiverse theory still require a beginning. The reason why the cause is immaterial is because it brang about a material existence. To say that it was material, is to say that the universe existed and did not exist at the same time, which is an impossibility, and all your doing is expanding the boundaries of the universe, so it must have been immaterial.
TheKap1an 8 months ago
@TheKap1an I exist but I'm not material in the conventional sense. What I said was the universe is a bubble extruded by the collision of objects in a higher dimension. Those branes have always existed in an 11 dimensional foam. When they bump into each other universes form like bubbles in soapy water. Its really a massive scale when you think about it. The entire universe you are aware of is just a tiny little bubble. Even if a god created this universe there are trillions more just like it
PinkProgram 8 months ago
@PinkProgram
ok,one universe or a gazillion, its sort of irrelevant to what Im actually saying.
TheKap1an 8 months ago
@TheKap1an no it actually isn't. Time is 4 dimensional. The universal bubble is 10 dimensional. The membranes that formed the 10 dimensional bubble are 11 dimensional. There is no evidence that the 11 dimensional branes are limited by 4 dimensional causality being beyond conventional time and space. It does not require will, it shuffles and bumps along without conscious direction. It is quite possible that the branes themselves are eternal since they are outside of time and space.
PinkProgram 8 months ago
@PinkProgram
If you have an infinite number of universes, you wouldnt get to the first universe to begin with, hence there has to be a beginning. Its like me holding a gun, then asking someone permission to shoot it, and that person asks the next ad infinitum, I would never pull the trigger, hence even the bubble universe theory needs a beginning.
TheKap1an 8 months ago
@TheKap1an who told you this was the first universe? I don't think you are grasping the physics here. The bubble universe doesn't really need a beginning, its just energy changing form. A god on the other hand would need a beginning unless such a complex thing just popped out of nothing. What will created the creator? Was god created by 2 or more branes colliding? Seriously think about what you are arguing >.<
PinkProgram 8 months ago
@PinkProgram
No, the definition of God is uncaused, has no beginning, and who said God is complex? You can only make that analogy if God is made up of parts that we know but in a more complicated way, but we dont believe that, we believe God is transcendent and unlike anything we have seen, so you cant say God has to be 'complex'.
TheKap1an 8 months ago
@TheKap1an then god is the 11 dimensional metaverse that I was talking about... at least the way you described it. 11D is transcendent to the 10D universe.
PinkProgram 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight
Everything in existance is limited, everything that is limited is dependant, and everything that is dependant is dependant upon something else. And because you cannot have an infinite number of dependant things, as infinite is not an actuality, and because when you get down to the tiniest level the physical reality cannot explain its own existance, a transcenden, ulimited cause beyond the universe is needed, and is rationally justified.
TheKap1an 9 months ago
@TheKap1an So essentially "everything has a cause/is dependent except for one thing because my argument doesn't work without this one exemption". Perhaps you should reevaluate your argument if you have to make one thing that is magically exempt from the rules established within it in order for it to work.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArcanaKnight
''So essentially "everything has a cause/is dependent except for one thing because my argument doesn't work without this one exemption". ''
No, not an exemption, the uncaused cause by its very nature doesnt need a cause and to argue that the cause needs a cause, like I said,would be getting into an infinite regress, which is impossible.
TheKap1an 9 months ago
azsuperman01
What sort of degrees do you have in science or whatnot?
Jmonkey515 9 months ago
A creative event and a Creator are two very different things. WLC and friends love to conflate the two. This is just one more of his cheap semantic tricks.
.
Of course there was an origin event. Changing its name to a creation event, then promoting the event to entity by capitalising the "C" is the the worst sort of William Lame Craigiest sleight of hand.
.
He's the master of the big lie; believable because you can't imagine that anyone so articulate would take such a steaming dump in public.
Noisegator 1 year ago
...God exists outside space/time, which, by the way, is exactly what Hawkings tells us about the energies that existed previous to the beginning of space/time. That is that this energy, singularity, etc, existed and created space/time. But, no, that can't be true because nothing exists outside space/time, another arguement of his EXCEPT...yes, you guessed it, his own specially plead God. WHY, oh WHY, does any serious logician EVER give this r-tard ANY creadence?
MrWonkoSane 1 year ago
Howver, Craig goes on, of course. The second part of his argument attempts to tell us that the universe cannot have existed eternally as a singularity before the existence of time because an actual infinite cannot exist. Now, spot the problem? The problem is that Craig has already argued that an actual infinite exists since God had not creator, so, yet again, he must exempt that which he argues for from his own argument by stating that God is exempt from this rule because...
MrWonkoSane 1 year ago 2
I know I've said it before, but, really, why is Craigs argument given ANY creadence by any academia? It is nothing more than special pleading. Craig immediately has to exempt that which he attempts to prove from his own argument...that is special pleading. That is, he has to exempt god from the idea that everything that begins to exist must have creator....
MrWonkoSane 1 year ago
Never watched verificationism DEMICE:
watch?v=_Wzol00G2MM
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
I still believe that our universe was created by an error in the LHC, breaking time and space and causing the universe to explode billion of years ago.
The best part about this is that we get to relive this same life for all eternity =D, reseting memories at each death. No gods, no problems! Except trying to prove this ._. Proving this may be what causes the cycle in the first place ._.
Flem1337 1 year ago
Comment removed
Flem1337 1 year ago
Why would u care whether PCW Davies or any other scientist asserts the universe exploded into being 13.7billion yrs ago caused or uncaused? Isnt astrology or aliens more interested topics than a universe that Dawkins et al claim has no purpose, no design. In a microcosmic amount of time, your meaningless life will be over. it will be as if u never existed. Shouldnt u be preparing for the final exam? We're told no sane person believes in fairies, unicorns or Santa isnt God just as unlikely 4u?
Gericho49 1 year ago
BTW superman, Bill Craig uses the word "cause" NOT creator in the kalam argument. and THEN argues to a creator as the most plausible explanation. Your loose and careless statement of the premise is typical of atheists' attempts to mislead & disceive. Since Dawkins argues that the universe has no ntelligence, meaning or purpose how can anything produced by or in it have determined it has no meaning ?
Gericho49 1 year ago
@Gericho49 Purpose and meaning suggest a goal, and therefore an intelligence.
But the fire still BOILS the water, without purpose or meaning, and without intelligence. So there are physical reactions that do not necessitate intelligence, meaning, or purpose right? So when water boils, IT IS AN UNINTELLIGENT CAUSE, without meaning or purpose...right? Think of the beginning of the universe like this.
TooferMan 1 year ago
@TooferMan Not really an apt analogy, me thinks. 1) Kalam just says that the effect must have a cause then argues to what that cause might be. 2) gravity is a mechanism like fire boiling water. It defines planetary motion according to abstract universal mathematical formulae. Theism claims WHY the universe is rationally intelligible because it is the creation of a rational being, it is also likely that God created it for a purpose-gifting us with a measure of rationality
dashan091 1 year ago
Can i ask toofer, if u put your faith in mechanistic materialism that considers that all knowledge is scientifically based, 2) that science will eventually explain all reality 3)that matter & energy is all there is, 4) that 3 necessitates an infinite past of finite physical events 5) that a rationally intelligible universe is defined by universal immaterial unchanging laws 6) that the 4 constants fall within absurdly narrow lifepermitting values by chance>Its OK to say "I dont know"
dashan091 1 year ago
cont'd If u do I would say i have every right to conclude say that the evidence for an immaterial intelligent creator is compelling and that militant atheism is illogical. In a theistic worldview, man has both a spiritual as well as a physical nature & can reason to a conclusion because the conclusions follow logically from the premises, not because the laws of chem& physics mandate that the physical particles in the brain move in prescribed pathways. I hope this helps
pax vobiscum.
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 ...well, you may be right about an original creator...but I doubt it, and there's no evidence either. The creator is positively not one of the gods we worship on earth. The creator could have self destructed with the big bang. And if UR gonna say that you have a telepathic personal relationship with the son of the creator of the universe, you'd better have a LOT more evidence. Peace.
TooferMan 1 year ago
@dashan091 A) I dont have faith, AND, I dont limit all knowledge to science-based. 2)NO, probably not ever 3)No, 4)NO, 5)WHAT? 6)What 4 constants?, and the chance of life on this planet is 1:1 (100%)... are you trying to say that if 'things' (constants, etc) were different, then things would be different??? I agree, thats quite obvious. Humans would always be in a universe where life is possible, it couldnt happen any other way. feel free to pm me directly.
TooferMan 1 year ago
@TooferMan Isnt matter & energy the only game in town for the atheist? What realities exist that cant be known by science as atheist Pro Peter Atkins claims? Do think that because we exist we dont need to explain why we have a rationally intelligible universe or why the 4 major independent constants of physics all fit within absurdly narrow life-permitting values. I think u need to to some study to understand what a micro change of 1 part in 10to120power would mean to the cosmological constant.
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 Again, if things were different, even a little thing, by only a small amount...Then things in this universe would be different. I agree. And we might not be around to ask 'why are things the way they are.'
The pot hole is perfectly created for the puddle. - Doug Adams
TooferMan 1 year ago
@TooferMan You answer "No" to Q3 & 4. But surely if there's no creator, then matter& energy must have always existed since something that exists now cant come from nothing. But in Q4 an infinite past is of finite physical events is necessarily implied by Q3. Obviously u have never considered the implications & absurdity of an infinite regression of past physical events. Now is a good time to think about what atheism is going. Are u feeling lucky?
dashan091 1 year ago
@TooferMan "the chance of life on this planet is 1:1 (100%)..."
I guess I must be wasting my time if this is what u believe. There are so many parameters that ALL must be perfectly tuned to a precision that defies our understanding. "Informed" atheists resort to infinite universes to explain the exquite design observed in ours. Even Dawkins admits "the greatest challenge facing modern science is to explain design." " but that raises the question who designed the designer?" Is he serious?
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 ...I disagree, its an apt analogy. In this universe we see all reactions (not on earth) due to unintelligent, purposeless, goalless PHYSICS and CHEMISTRY. Kalam (p1) incorrectly assumes that before this universe began, its own rules were in effect...IE: every effect must have a cause. Explain how you would prove this to be true. Cause and effect are intrinsic properties of THIS universe only, so far as we can tell. You cannot speak to the physics BEFORE the universe began.
TooferMan 1 year ago
@TooferMan u missed the point if I want to understand how the universe came into existence a finite time ago I lask scientists like Fr G.Maitre, Arno Penzias, George Smoot Edwin Hubble. If I ask WHY & for what purpose it was created or want to understand why the universe is rationally intelligilbe, why it is defined by abstract maths& immaterial laws I seek answers that are metaphysical.. The ground of all science is the mystical intuition that being is intelligible, that the world is knowable.
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 Its called "the god of the gaps" fallacy. You can always insert a god into areas where man's understanding isn't complete or where data isn't known.
Why and what purpose you ask? God created everything because he loves us and so we can give him glory. Your quest for understanding is now over, my friend.
TooferMan 1 year ago
@TooferMan " we see all reactions (not on earth) due to unintelligent, purposeless, goalless PHYSICS and CHEMISTRY." but the point is, we can explain planetary motion by gravity but that doesnt explain why it exist or where it came from. Mechanism & agency are different reality. The author creates the novel but he’s not found in the novel, similarly the architect is not part of the building. The bible says that God is distinct from the world but intimately connected to it as a necessary1st cause
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 I think the issue is more that you are attributting actions to a being that you have failed to prove actually exists. You didnt comment on my previous statement: "Do YOU have a telepathic personal relationship with the son of the creator of the universe"?
TooferMan 1 year ago
@TooferMan Religion is 100% about a religionship. Just as the Bible is about man's reflection on the God experience. God is not a being among many. If u cant experience God as the essence of being no amount of science or compelling philosophical argument will convince a closed mind. The fact that u cant live without the God question taunting u, is paradoxically all the evidence u need. Do u consider astrology or alien worship challenging or is God the only answer to life's ultimate questions?
dashan091 1 year ago
@TooferMan Man lights a fire to boil the water for MANY different purposes.Everything that happens has a purpose even earthquakes tsunami such as in the nutrient cycle. The moon has an important purpose in maintaining our weather. Nature evaporates water to replenish the land. 'Dawkins: The greatest challenge facing science is to account for design in the universe" ABSOLUTELY! Even greater is the challenge to account for intelligence when matter & energy is the only game in town. Well?
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 "Everything that happens has a purpose..." - You are conflating function with purpose. Something may function to effect change but that does not make it purposeful. Purpose implies a conscious intent and the moon has no intent with regards ocean tides and weather.
.
"Nature evaporates water to replenish the land." - Now you are anthropomorphising. Lifeless planets may have rain cycles too. That's a function of liquids and heat, not of the desires of some supernatural being.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator What?? the T model Ford has many functional (mindless) parts all designed by an intelligent mind for a purpose-our benefit. But u wont find the agent (Henry Ford) by an anaylsis of your Ford Mondeo. Atheism claims theres no God & the universe has no purpose. Since the universe can be shown to be exquisitely designed with man its ultimate purpose then God exists. Such a conclusion is not just my opinion but that of numerous Nobel prize & award winning scientists. Want a list?
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 "the T model Ford has many functional (mindless) parts all designed by an intelligent mind for a purpose-our benefit. But u wont find the agent (Henry Ford) by an anaylsis of your Ford Mondeo."
.
Yes you will - it's in the name! FORD. And we have direct proof of his hand, and records of all the other hands involved in it's design and manufacture - and an entire written history of automobile "evolution". You can't compare that directly to what you see in nature. Apples and oranges!
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator Yes u will - it's in the name! FORD" u totally missed the point- cause/effect & agent/mechanism are different realities like author& his book, a building & its architect. Being able to nominate the law of gravity as a mechanism for planetary motion explains nothing about its existence, nature or origin. How do laws cause anything? BTW the language of DNA contained in the human cell fills an entire library. But cells just came about by a gigantic cosmic lottery. ru that lucky?
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 "But cells just came about by a gigantic cosmic lottery. ru that lucky?" - And jehovah came about by... what exactly? R U that lucky? You can't have it both ways.
.
Of course natural laws don't compel, they describe. I never said elsewise. And you are the one who introduced the confusion between the book and the author, not me. And you are still doing it with your DNA = language analogy. DNA is not the language that fills human libraries. Directly comparing the two is specious.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@dashan091 And while you won't find the agent, Henry Ford, physically incorporated in his automobiles, you DO find clear and unequivocal evidence of his existence both within and without his creation. There is no such plain evidence for an intelligent agent in nature. In fact if there was a designer it has gone to great lengths to disguise it's presence by making everything look as though it happens entirely without supernatural intervention.
.
Such a devious god...
Noisegator 1 year ago
@dashan091 "Such a conclusion is not just my opinion but that of numerous Nobel prize & award winning scientists." - Oh really? Please name a few.
.
The universe appears to be designed, because we are designers ourselves. That doesn't mean it was designed or that there was a designer. That is wishful thinking on your part. The universe has no purpose you can define or demonstrate. To say it is designed for humans is pure hubris and egotism. There are more galaxies that grains of sand on earth!!!
Noisegator 1 year ago
If you don't agree with the KCA, then you are left with 2 options. 1.) Matter and the universe have always existed. I would ask you for evidence, but I don't think you could provide any. Science also disagrees with that view. 2.) The universe popped into existence out of nothing. Vacuum fluctuations are not nothing. If you believe this, why is this 'nothing' with no potentiality (that is true nothing) bias towards creating only universes?
jpschmitt1980 1 year ago
@jpschmitt1980
Option 1) There are several scientific theories which do not disagree with this assumption.
Option 2) The "nothing" does not need to bias toward creating only universes, it just needs to have created a universe once. The likelihood of a universe being created could be very low (just like the likelihood of any one genetic combination from your parents genes) however the fact that the universe (and you) exists shows that the event happened at least once.
azsuperman01 1 year ago
Comment removed
jpschmitt1980 1 year ago
@azsuperman01 - My revised thoughts. 1.) You think mainstream science has it wrong and one of these less supported alternatives is correct. Ok. Possible. Then you are left with matter being eternal, but a First Cause (which is necessarily timeless) can't be. 2.) I think true nothingness has zero potentiality and can't create anything. If you think true nothingness has potentiality (although logically inconsistent), then you have to concede anything could be created an infinite amount of times.
jpschmitt1980 1 year ago
@jpschmitt1980 My comments on your revised thoughts: 1) Please don't tell me what I think. As I said before, I am showing that other views exist, not taking a position on any of them. I'll leave the question of origins to physicists and cosmologists who study the early universe for a living. 2) The universe doesn't care what you think it can and can't do. The only thing I need to concede is that a universe was created at least once. (If other universes were created later, how would we know?)
azsuperman01 1 year ago
@azsuperman01 - That is not a response. You have 2 options: 1.) Matter and the universe are eternal, or 2.) It popped into existence out of nothing. That is it. Those are your choices. You HAVE to think one of them. The KCA is valid. It offers an explanation through logical inference. You have to throw your hands up and say we just don't know yet, but there must be a scientific explanation. 1.) or 2.) Which is it you view?
jpschmitt1980 1 year ago
@azsuperman01 - Just to make sure you understand my argument for 2.), you are saying true nothingness has potentiality (logically inconsistent and not really nothing), but very limited potentiality. If you think it actually has potentiality, then you have to concede that this potentiality is unlimited (how could it be limited?). And unlimited potentiality could create anything, anytime, anywhere, an infinite number of times. You are basically making a claim for limited potentiality.
jpschmitt1980 1 year ago
@azsuperman01 - Also, if you are a determinist, then the likelihood of any one genetic combination from your parents genes is 100%. There was no chance it could have turned out any differently. The uncertainty principle can't save you because it says that a particle's position and momentum can't be both known since observation of one throws off the other. It doesn't mean a certain particle doesn't have a single position and momentum, just that it can't be measured.
jpschmitt1980 1 year ago
@jpschmitt1980 From a determinist view, yes - all the events leading up to your conception will determine which genes eventually combine to make your DNA. My point was that there ARE other possible combinations. Just as it would be impossible with our current technology to take into consideration every variable and determine exactly which genes will be passed on, the potentiality for a universe to be created my be equally difficult to determine due to unknown &(currently) incalculable factors,
azsuperman01 1 year ago
@azsuperman01 - You miss the fact that there is a 100% probability that you would be born the way you were. There may be other possibilities of what genes you could have, but they had a 0% chance of coming to fruition. There is a 100% chance you would be born the way you were under a deterministic view. You can't discard that. It is totally different from a nothingness void that you think has bias potentiality.
jpschmitt1980 1 year ago
Well done, sir. But personally, I hate this argument (both sides). It really doesn't 'prove' the christian god, or any other god, actually exists. It doesn't support a personal god being. And IT IS CERTAINLY NOT the reason that believers believe in a god.
TooferMan 1 year ago
@TooferMan Proof or compelling evidence? The choices r stark for the atheist1) matter & energy are eternal 2) universe popped into existence uncaused or by material cause that exists outside of the universe.3) u are forced to explain the existence of a rationally intelligible universe defined by universal, immaterial, life permitting laws&constants. WLC argues to design by a creator as more logical than chance or necessity. Infinitely more so if u r genuinely mind to the evidence. Good luck.
Gericho49 1 year ago
@Gericho49 Define "More Logical Than Chance" please.
BTW, the rules in this universe are "cause and effect". Im sure you agree, and this can be demonstrated. But if we are speaking of BEFORE this universe, how do you know that these rules apply??? Please demonstrate this. Of all your responses to this video I ask " HOW DO YOU KNOW?"...Well, You dont, so stop pretending that you know and that you can support it. Because you got nutthin.
TooferMan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TooferMan YOU seem "to pretend you know" somethings like there isn't a 1st cause or creator. " HOW DO YOU KNOW?"...I ask & wonder if u know that physics & chem mandate that the physical particles in the brain move in prescribed pathways? If the universe is unintelligent without meaning or purpose how did u ever come to know that it was so?
Materialist accounts of reasoning typically presuppose the existence of the very thing that they are trying to explain.
pax vobiscum
dashan091 1 year ago
Starting your video off with 'there aren't many reasons to believe in God'... so immediately you're assuming those who believe in God are wrong right? Right or wrong? Which ever way you look at it, you could be wrong yourself. Someone is right & someone is wrong, which are you?
Even if you say you're right you could be wrong & God does exist & created everything.
How about leaving it at we have our own beliefs & one of us is wrong while the other will find out eventually.
Immortalsouls 1 year ago
@Immortalsouls ..'find out eventually"??? I've already found out. I don't believe in gods..because there is no evidence that they exist. I don't believe in leprechauns either, for the same reason. Maybe you will find out eventually that leprechauns dont exist, but if you really thought seriously about it, without presuppositions, you could find out TODAY that leprechauns dont exist.
TooferMan 1 year ago
@TooferMan leprechauns? What the hell are you talking about.
If you thought seriously about it... you should keep off the drugs if you were to have a serious discussion.
Immortalsouls 1 year ago
@TooferMan u create strawman after strawman and just knock em down. What about fairies santa Claus or flying teacups? Funnily I never heard of anyone who claims to have launched one or has converted to your strawman in adulthood. God's gifts of reason, conscience morality are written on our hearts & deep. u say u don’t believe in God maybe He doesn’t believe in atheism so atheists don’t exist either.
dashan091 1 year ago
@Immortalsouls Sir, the atheist is perfectly right in his claims about religion being a delusion if only God doesnt exist. Sadly for him, science & philosophy give us compelling reasons why a creator is more logical than its negation. Why should we be surprised to see him prove what he's already assumed to be true.
"suffer the fool in his folly lest he seem wise in his own deceit"
Gericho49 1 year ago
The Kalam presupposes an A-theory of time. virtually no physicist on this planet still believes that the A-theory of time is true. This is old news.
ScientificMethodist 1 year ago
@ScientificMethodist really? Hawking /penrose proposed that time had a beginning in their singularity theorem. Maybe u can explain an infinite past of finite physical events or maybe u dont like the idea of an absolute beginning because it doesnt fit with your worldview?
I hear there's a cosmic tape-recorder which has recorded all past history. When u have found it press the REWIND button. Let me know when u reach the end of the tape.
dashan091 1 year ago
Can I ask what sources you used in your research of Kalam?
ResurrectedThinker 1 year ago
according to you i never began to exist. i was roaming around with the dinosaurs in prehistoric ages... hahaha lol this video FAILS. nice try though, i give you 1 star * :)
gerinja 1 year ago
I really don't want to argue since I think youtube is the wrong forum for it. But just something to point out...Craig's premise and conclusions are "everything that begins to exist has a cause" "the universe began to exist" C: "therefore the universe has a cause". I think Craig usually goes on to argue separately that this cause must be God for any number of reasons...like I said, don't want to argue just want to correct you on some typos.
Prolific85 1 year ago
@Prolific85 This is philosophical argument 1st and foremost. As i said this video cleverly substitutes creator for 'cause' which is meant to deceive. Craig goes on to discuss the likelihood of what best explains the nature of that cause. U have to destroy the premises by providing evidence to the contrary. WLC also discusses possible objections which no skeptic has challenged here.
Gericho49 1 year ago
@Gericho49 I said I don't want to argue and you guys go again...
Prolific85 1 year ago
5:15 - Plus are you aware that most astronomers/ cosmologists don't even support the idea that the universe didn't begin to exist. Most of them will support the Big Bang, the singularity, the point where there's not even a void or gravity!
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
The Kalam cosmological argument is laws of logic. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Regardless weather or not something at all begins to exist it'll be correct via laws of logic. 2ndly, you didn't explain why you actually existed before you are conceptualized. You cannot say that your consciousness DID NOT begin to exist just because the atoms(which isn't actually mass individually) already exist! That's just a failure!
CONTINUED!
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
And the laws of physics weren't chance mechanisms. By accepting chance as a plausible scenario which it is NOTHING, you've rejected the laws of physics and any other laws such as Mathematics. It just wasn't possible for chance create anything via laws. It also did not explain why virtual particles appear out of nothing. We have quantum mechanics - physical laws depends on other laws and Einsteins unfinished 11 dimensions. These alone possesses properties of supernatural(higher laws of physics).
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
Continued!!!
The opposite truthful logical law is true - Anything that did NOT begin to exist has no cause eg God. This will always already be true regardless or not something did not begin to exist.
Also the other theories you've presented weren't as well corroborated as the Big Bang . Virtual particles doesn't prove spontaneous creation let alone the hard core anthropic principle well corroborated theory.
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
Comment removed
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
honestly, that was reaching a bit. bringing sub-atomic particles into this? seriously?
hesbatting1000 1 year ago
I would just like to tell for the first question that things do pop in to existence (proof that they don't need a creator) we can observe this phenomena in microscopic world where atoms pop in and out of existence all the time.
MeetYourMeaker 1 year ago
@MeetYourMeaker "proof they don't need a creator" that's not a proof let alone attempt to disprove such existentialism which is higher laws of physics. Virtual particles/ atoms did not pop out of existence. There's already void(space/time) which is a feature of force named gravity. And even atoms were made up of smaller and smaller existence (subatomic) until the immaterial causes effects material. Materalism had always been a poor and shitload of logical fallacies.
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
@CHECKrayrobionson
Uhh yeah it is unless your God likes to play with gamma particles.And on your second point:No...read a physics book.
MeetYourMeaker 1 year ago
Comment removed
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
@MeetYourMeaker You are saying that the jet engine is following mathematical laws, therefore it can't be created by frank quitle? Another thing is that laws exist why, because of the Law Giver. Scientists had thought about this based on many arguments:
watch?v=_Wzol00G2MM
you have to dig deep more before arguing between philosophy and philosophy. THEN you can say what science support in teleological arguments
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
@CHECKrayrobionson
No i never mentioned a jet enginge.Also mathematical laws have nothing to do with reality,but if you are thinking about physical laws the argument fails because they came into existence with big bang,the evidence for this is that physicists bitch about how they can't go past a certain time in past(some small fraction of a second after the big bang).
PS Before arguing about maths and physics read a freaking text book because some of us actually have majors in those subjects.
MeetYourMeaker 1 year ago
@MeetYourMeaker what nerdy red herring. My main point is not ontological. I said teleological. You know what that is in main stream science. FINE TUNING of the initial conditions, Fred Hoyle, just right universe, ross, kalam craig, resonance carbon. Yes math laws has nothing to do with the fine tuning since it is initially SET it's values in beginning. However, physical laws = mathematics. How about P2 = A3 of christian Kepler.
CHECKrayrobionson 1 year ago
Comment removed
MorpheusOmikron 1 year ago
This whole video reeks of deception and strawman. Not even once in the entire video did you actually address any of the core issues.
Never mind your asinine idea that the past is infinite? What? So actual infinites exist? Take your head out of the sand and talk to some people who actually do this stuff for a career. The overwhelming consensus is this. There are no actual infinites in nature, there is no REASON to assume to the past is infinite. Infinity itself is a paradox. Mind blowing idiocy.
MorpheusOmikron 1 year ago
Of coarse they didn't "poof" into existance. All matter would have to had come from God Himself. God would have to be the very essence of all energy and energy can become matter.
Also the Universe is not billions of years old and the matter we have on this world didn't come from a star. According to God's word the Bible, creation was in the year 11,013 B.C. which was 13,022 years ago. We have never wittnessed any planet form from a star, is just educated guesses, your foundation is flawed
Uaz31 1 year ago
Your arguement is flawed because of the meer fact that there is order and intelligent design in the Universe in which random variations cannot account for. The only logical conclusion is that there is in fact a intelligent designer, namely God.
Uaz31 1 year ago
Ghazali argued that the first cause must be personal because only personal agents can initiate spontaneous causality and there could be no antecedent cause forcing the first cause to create the universe lest you enter into an infinite regress. You don't understand the kalam's use of the law of causality (which states that all affects have causes [ie. premise 1 of the argument]). All those models are refuted in Craig's book. How can you embarrass yourself by publicly displaying this nonsense?
52blades 1 year ago
You mispronounce "Kalam", misquoted Craig's formulation of the argument, didn't address Ghazali argument for the finitude of time (not to mention your ignorance of big bang cosmology which implies the finitude of time). The cosmological argument was in fact developed by Christian thought then met it's full force with the Muslim Ghazali much later and the first premise of the argument is "everything that begins to exist has a cause" God did not begin to exist, therefore He doesn't need a cause.
52blades 1 year ago
@52blades Prove that God did not begin to exist.
azsuperman01 1 year ago
The law of causality states that all affects have causes. God by definition isn't an affect therefore God doesn't need a cause (asking what caused God is like asking why circles are so circular). He exist necessarily (the cause of time must exist eternally by necessity). Let me remind you that this is exactly what atheism has traditionally held about the universe- that it is eternal and therefore doesn't need an antecedent cause. The problem is that the universe did come into existence.
52blades 1 year ago
@52blades We don't know if the universe existed in some form before the Big Bang (there are theories that say it did). The idea of the universe being eternal has one big advantage over eternal god(s) -- we know the universe exists.
You can point to a circle and explain what it means to be circular. If you can point to a god we can both discuss the it's traits and debate what fits. Otherwise, it doesn't matter how you define it because you can't simply define something into existence.
azsuperman01 1 year ago
@azsuperman01
The "big bang" is not a fact either, it is meerly a educated guess. As infinite as the Universe is, its much more likely all matter can into existance from many points or "singularities" not one point in space time. Also the Universe itself would have to had come into existance as well and that neither could have come from a single singularity.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@azsuperman01 : "it doesn't matter how you define it because you can't simply define something into existence."
Really? Then words do not exist. Nor do laws or anything which requires them. We define things into existence on a regular basis. All of culture works that way.
New things arise and in the experience we define what it is to be or know that thing. You must choose your logic. Either things exist or they don't.
Prove the meaning of anything. :)
Twicebakedtaters 1 year ago
@azsuperman01 Obviously if something exist now and God didnt create it into existence then something must have always existed. But an infinite regression of past finite physical events is scientifically and philosophically abhorrent. Do u really believe that matter & energy is all there is and ever has been?
There are some questions that cant be answered by google. Then again, u could always invoke a "science of the gaps'. Better still admit that God is more plausible than "scientism"
dashan091 1 year ago