The First Law of Thermodynamics vs The Cosmological Argument

[MajSmJz]

That's strange. Here WLC says there is no problem with conservation of matter and energy for BB, but on other occasions he says it's strange that something should come out of nothing. I wonder where my flaw of understanding lies.

[wullz16]

@MajSmJz "He says it's strange that something should come out of nothing", he has ever made that claim. If you want a distinction between the quantum vacuum, and nothing -> watch?v=Clr8uL3M7Ow

[theRevolutionof2012]

Can infinite be closed?

[31Uriel]

Universe= energy, space, time. So: The time can exist timelessly. Not really.

[spiritring]

Read Isiah 45 in NIT version. It says, It is me God who STRETCHES the heavens and created all the millions and millions of stars. There is no way in the Bible that supports 6 days special creationism, and NEVER geocentrism

[csdr0]

@moreslaw, Are you suggesting then that the "single point universe" existed in the infinite past? If that is the case then I wonder why did it only start to expand 13.72 billion years ago instead at some unimaginably infinite time in the past?

[csdr0]

Dr. Craig is right. The Big Bang created the laws of physics including the laws of thermodynamics. If it had an infinite past then we would have long since reach a state of maxumum entropy sometime in the infinite past.

[KEEETARO]

There is only one things I can only say...

My god is true and yours is false!!!

You would say pretty the same do you? :P

[drcraigvideos]

@KEEETARO Uhm, no, I guess I should say "well, lookee here! you're right!" What do you think I should say? I mean duh!

[markpaghi]

@moreslaw you cant say "its likely that whatever the explanation it has nothing to do with the bible" How much more biased can you get? You say I dont Know, but then reject the explanation of Gods Creation - that is more plausible then your explanation - I.E. "I DONT KNOW" I mean seriously - be reasonable man regardless of your beliefs - Truth doesnt change to suit your beliefs - There is NO reason to reject the belief that GOD created the world except for pure biased reasons, emotionally, etc.

[markpaghi]

@moreslaw You said "Its not the theory of the origin of the universe - its the theory of what happened as soon as it started to exist" That is the exact same thing - Big Bang theory is referring to how the universe HAS a beginning - thats the whole point. The absence of the big bang theory in the bible doesnt mean the bible isnt accurate or trustworthy - that is a Biased View. For you to say "We dont know" then discredit the bible is nonsense - God is the most plausible explanation.

[123HailMe]

What if time is tenseless? If it is, like all physicists believe, the universe can exist timelessly and yet have finite temporal extension in the "earlier than" and "later than" directions.

[drcraigvideos]

@moreslaw Well, your thinking is as comparable as Dawkins' thinking of philosophy (this is meant to be a bad thing by the way). And you dodged my rebuttal like a game of dodge ball.

[JohnGolbunny]

@drcraigvideos "And the Big Bang is compatible with Genesis"

LOL

good one...

[drcraigvideos]

@moreslaw "...but since the bible never talked about the big bang, then the bible can hardly be a reliable source of information." That's an argument from silence. And the Big Bang is compatible with Genesis: watch?v=bTzgOw5VRks

[MrMk1G]

Is this a straw man?

I have never seen an atheist argument that they KNOW that the universe is eternal, therefore...

If they do say that, the vast majority of atheists will join you to argue against them.

An atheist could say 'might be eternal'...

And I have also seen the argument that

"we have never observed things starting to exist", which WLC dismisses as silly

However, WLC completely mis-represents the argument.

See 'Mereology is a harsh mistress' by SisyphusRedeemed for an explanation

[drcraigvideos]

@MrMk1G You never heard an atheist argue that the universe is eternal? If you haven't then you don't know too many atheists at all. And you haven't even begun to reply to this video. You merely skipped it to unload a strawman about Dr. Craig.

[MrMk1G]

@drcraigvideos

I am an atheist, and I think:

1. This is a dumb argument that I would hate to have to defend, and

2. I've never heard it stated by an atheist (which doesn't mean it hasn't been).

So - if this was in response to a particular atheist, then tell me.

If it's a general theme, then it's new to me, and I'm on your side!

Then I suggested the closest args that I have heard atheists making,

in case you were answering one of them. It seems you weren't.

Not a straw man. Just off topic.

[drcraigvideos]

@MrMk1G Very off topic. And you suggested that Craig was making a strawman when he didn't. The majority of jack ass atheists in the yotube world who have been responding to Dr. Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument cited the First Law of Thermodynamics as a "refutation." Obviously these children have no real knowledge of science.

[MrMk1G]

@drcraigvideos

OK - you & I have seen v. different debates.

I have seen people try to use 1st law thermo to refute Big Bang

but I have never seen atheists trying to use it against KCA

I don't listen to the 'jack-ass atheist' community, perhaps that's why?

I listen to the rational, logical, well educated atheist community which has come up with excellent arguments refuting KCA. Including one I sited, but which was "very off topic".

I believe the latter have more to add to the debate.

[drcraigvideos]

@MrMk1G You're very slow, you know that? BTW that's a rhetorical question. A premise of the KCA is that the universe began to exist. The Big Bang is often used to prove that point. Then you have no-brain atheists using the 1st Law of Thermodynamics to refute the Big Bang. And you said you never heard atheists use the 1st Law of Thermodynamics? Please, stop lying.

[richaldeano]

@drcraigvideos the Big Bang began to exist out of the singularity. And we can only account for 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang. There is no correlation between the first event and the beginning of time. Another reason the Kalam is weak. The Kalam is based on faulty assumptions of what the BIg Bang was. The Big Bang posits no God nor provides evidence for one. And nothing in our understanding of big bang cosmology, dark matter or dark energy supports an existence in a creator.

[Addy4473]

@richaldeano Well, the standard big-bang model points to an initial cosmological singularity, at which point before-hand there was literally nothing. We may not know the processes that occurred within the first 10 seconds, but we do know that the universe had an absolute beginning. Anyways..... the kalam cosmological argument agrees with mainstream science, it doesn't contradict it in any sense. :) God bless you!

[richaldeano]

@Addy4473 I understand that you understand the big-bang model. However, the fact reamins that we don't know the processes in the beginning of the big bang. That is a very critical point in our understanding of the universe (or lack thereof) and is one reason the kalam is a flawed argument. An even worse flaw in the kalam is that even if all the premises were true, the argument would still not posit a god. It would only posit a first cause. Further evidence would still be required.

[Addy4473]

@richaldeano First of all, thank you for being polite. Not too many people on youtube are, Christian or atheist or agnostic of w/e. But you are, so thank you. I really appreciate it. :) Secondly, again I do have to say that even though we don't know what happened during the first 10 seconds (and I agree, this is probably crucial information we can obtain in order to further expand our knowledge on the big bang) we do know it's origin: mainly, it's coming into being. We just don't know the next

[Addy4473]

@richaldeano 10 seconds or so. And as for the argument, I do agree that it doesn't necessarily come to follow that God exists based on that argument's conclusion. However, I think what Mr. Craig is trying to say is that the conclusion shows that the universe was caused, and that it isn't eternal like many people tend to argue. Then he goes into further reasoning by giving alternates of that cause, and giving good reasons why to think those don't work, and then to the best alternative (in his and

[Addy4473]

@richaldeano my own judgment) God. I think the KCA is meant to show us mainly that the universe had a cause, and didn't just pop into being uncaused out of nothing, or that it was eternal.

Anyways, thanks again for being polite.

[richaldeano]

@Addy4473 I render the same thanks. It's all too often that people are not civil. People will disagree. It's inevitable. So, why make things worse by being rude. Totally agree with you on that point. Very interesting point of view. I will definitely consider it. Good talking to you.

[VvDOPAMEANvV]

@MrMk1G i think you're right. they are making a characiture.

if you'll notice, drcraigvideos began misrepresenting you immediately, even though you preempted his argument. you clearly grasp the concepts presented. you will find motivation for this within his bio. good luck!

BTW, i'm sending a copy of this to your account just in case he censors my post since he could censor just about any criticism based on his criterion for doing so.

[neoclassicism1]

@MrMk1G Just to say, as an aside, that Bertrand Russell in the famous 1948 BBC radio debate with F.C Copleston, placed much of his argument on the idea that the universe did not have a beginning. It was fairly standard practice in the first half of the 20th Century; Fred Hoyle spent several years trying to find an alternative to Big Bang theory because of its cosmological implications.

[drcraigvideos]

@CartesianTheist Definitely youtube atheists have used the First Law of Thermodynamics to refute the cosmological argument. And it's just so sad and embarrassingly laughable how they think it's a smoking gun argument.

[jedah76]

@drcraigvideos Talking snake, seven headed dragon, and a man living inside the belly of a whale for 3 days. Now that's laughable.

[drcraigvideos]

@jedah76 I'd rather believe in talking snakes, and people living in whales than to believe what atheists tell me: that it makes rational sense that nothing can bring forth something, that the laws of logic came from non-laws, that life came from non-life, etc. I can go on and on.

[JCG1231000]

@jedah76

First the talking snake represents Satan, a 4 year old can answer that. The seven headed dragon is prophectic and not literal. A man inside a whale's belly for 3 days ummm, well why does Jonah 2:6 talk about mountains on the ocean floor thousands of years before they were known to be there?

[JCG1231000]

@jedah76

Plus do you believe stuff can come out of thin, that not even nothing and it doesn't happen. Yet you believe th whole universe, you and me and everything came from literally nothing, now that immoral and laughableuff can come out of thin, that not even nothing and it doesn't happen. Yet you believe th whole universe, you and me and everything came from literally nothing, now that immoral and laughable

[Howie47]

I think the Universe is not a closed system as materialist suggest. It is open too new information, which comes from the creator. This information maintains and restores the Unversed. I used to think energy also came into the U. Now I'm not so sure that info. isn't some how converted into energy.

[kockgunner]

This is very interesting.

[Lonewolf3000X]

Comment removed?

[drcraigvideos]

@Lonewolf3000X Huh? You're commenting now. There was a comment I removed where the user put in cuss-laden comments, and decided to skip everything the video said. Typical crap I get from lame-brains.