Interesting answer. But, isn't arguing that the laws of thermodynamics were, at some point in time, not "in place", just a simple and direct violation the laws of thermodynamics? Isn't it just "deleting" such laws in order to make room for the kalam, to then "undelete" them?
@drcraigvideos i was just wondering drcraigvideos, but isnt thermodynamics what TheoreticalBullshit's argument against the kalam is entirely based on thermodynamics?
@Falcondick69 I believe TBS thinks that the First Law argues for an infinite regress of past existence. Of course this is false because that would refute the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
@drcraigvideos ah, well i heard he refuted the kalam so iw atched one o fhis videos and it wa shard to understand, he seemed like he wa sjust ranting about how craig is strawmanning his arguement and that craig is a liar, while talking about seemingly nothing important for 20+ minutes
1:37 simply false, i apoligize. Matter and energy in the universe before the big bang occured did exist. The big bang doesn't propose random energy systhesis, it proposes an expansion of infinitely dense matter and energy after the degredation of nuclear forces holding it together. Energy isn't created during the big bang, simply dispersed. If you want it exaplained to you in a way fit for a fourth grader you can go and watch an episode of the Universe on the history channel.
The temporary decline of theology had involved the neglect of philosophy and all fine thinking, and Bernard Shaw had to find shaky justifications in Schopenhauer for the sons of God shouting for joy. He called it the Will to Live -- a phrase invented by Prussian professors who would like to exist but can't.
It's not equivocation to point out that the conservation of energy invalidates the KCA, that's just a refutation based on empirical physics. Energy exists and can't be created, the only possible conclusion is that it has existed indefinitely.
@EatingWithCannibals Your first premise is implying that the energy within the universe always existed and what WLC is pointing out is, if that’s the case it is in conflict with big bang cosmology. I think we all agree, that within the universe itself, energy cannot be created or destroyed. surely that’s not to hard to figure out, no need to bash creationists on that one.
@ATOMICGLUE The big bang was not an ex nihilo creation event, but a rapid expansion of extant space-time. If creationists are going to ignore the conservation of energy in their supposed quest for an answer of universal origins while erroneously focusing on causality, that's what's known as confirmation bias.
@ChrosHonson@ChrosHonson 1) I’m sure you are the only one free of all bias. When you emphatically proclaim that the universe came from an expansion of extant space-time, you are making a statement of faith. It may be very possible the first law of thermal dynamics collapse with the collapse of space, and time, we don’t know, well maybe you do.
@ChrosHonson 2)Even if you want to postulate that we are just one of many universes popping into existence from fluctuating energy in a vacuum it would be interesting to see how you would prove the laws of physics operate the same in all these universes, particularly the first law of thermal dynamics.
@ChrosHonson I don't believe that the conservation of energy or any law of physics is ignored. Instead, ho how they came to be is also being proposed. At the time that the universe was created, all matter, energy, time and space and all the laws of physics that govern them came into being as part of that creation.
Interesting answer. But, isn't arguing that the laws of thermodynamics were, at some point in time, not "in place", just a simple and direct violation the laws of thermodynamics? Isn't it just "deleting" such laws in order to make room for the kalam, to then "undelete" them?
oscaringoliling0 1 month ago
Comment removed
oscaringoliling0 1 month ago
@drcraigvideos i was just wondering drcraigvideos, but isnt thermodynamics what TheoreticalBullshit's argument against the kalam is entirely based on thermodynamics?
Falcondick69 1 month ago
@Falcondick69 I believe TBS thinks that the First Law argues for an infinite regress of past existence. Of course this is false because that would refute the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
drcraigvideos 1 month ago
@drcraigvideos ah, well i heard he refuted the kalam so iw atched one o fhis videos and it wa shard to understand, he seemed like he wa sjust ranting about how craig is strawmanning his arguement and that craig is a liar, while talking about seemingly nothing important for 20+ minutes
Falcondick69 1 month ago
Comment removed
agustinbs 3 weeks ago
1:37 simply false, i apoligize. Matter and energy in the universe before the big bang occured did exist. The big bang doesn't propose random energy systhesis, it proposes an expansion of infinitely dense matter and energy after the degredation of nuclear forces holding it together. Energy isn't created during the big bang, simply dispersed. If you want it exaplained to you in a way fit for a fourth grader you can go and watch an episode of the Universe on the history channel.
TouAnjhad 9 months ago
The temporary decline of theology had involved the neglect of philosophy and all fine thinking, and Bernard Shaw had to find shaky justifications in Schopenhauer for the sons of God shouting for joy. He called it the Will to Live -- a phrase invented by Prussian professors who would like to exist but can't.
-G.K. Chesterton
jcmartin66 10 months ago
@jcmartin66 That's one of the most beast quotes I've ever heard lol
M3PanoS 9 months ago
Craig has an amazing voice.
jerryteps 10 months ago
It's not equivocation to point out that the conservation of energy invalidates the KCA, that's just a refutation based on empirical physics. Energy exists and can't be created, the only possible conclusion is that it has existed indefinitely.
JessieNix 10 months ago
@JessieNix Did you even bother listening to the video?
jameslillis 10 months ago
@EatingWithCannibals Your first premise is implying that the energy within the universe always existed and what WLC is pointing out is, if that’s the case it is in conflict with big bang cosmology. I think we all agree, that within the universe itself, energy cannot be created or destroyed. surely that’s not to hard to figure out, no need to bash creationists on that one.
ATOMICGLUE 10 months ago
@ATOMICGLUE The big bang was not an ex nihilo creation event, but a rapid expansion of extant space-time. If creationists are going to ignore the conservation of energy in their supposed quest for an answer of universal origins while erroneously focusing on causality, that's what's known as confirmation bias.
ChrosHonson 10 months ago
@ChrosHonson @ChrosHonson 1) I’m sure you are the only one free of all bias. When you emphatically proclaim that the universe came from an expansion of extant space-time, you are making a statement of faith. It may be very possible the first law of thermal dynamics collapse with the collapse of space, and time, we don’t know, well maybe you do.
ATOMICGLUE 10 months ago
@ChrosHonson 2)Even if you want to postulate that we are just one of many universes popping into existence from fluctuating energy in a vacuum it would be interesting to see how you would prove the laws of physics operate the same in all these universes, particularly the first law of thermal dynamics.
ATOMICGLUE 10 months ago
@ChrosHonson I don't believe that the conservation of energy or any law of physics is ignored. Instead, ho how they came to be is also being proposed. At the time that the universe was created, all matter, energy, time and space and all the laws of physics that govern them came into being as part of that creation.
imkluu 10 months ago
Good stuff -- thumbs up and favorited -- thanks for uploading!
1GodOnlyOne 10 months ago