You're pretty obsessive, aren't you. There is no real point debating with you because you are wedded to a pedantic, pre-20th century undestanding of physics.
Another fail at 3:00, notice that no example has been given here of some 'thing' or some particle that 'begins to exist' without a cause. Her tornado example fails cause it is actually admitted that it is not un-caused, thereby confirming the truth of premise 1.
He further concludes: "Quantum phenomena is thus not devoid of causation--that is demonstrably impossible. Otherwise, the number of observed particles and their properties would be effectively infinite and they would form at all scales, and they would randomly persist or vanish, instead of consistently vanish, or persist when specifically caused to do so by local conditions (e.g. Hawking radiation).” So again, it’s simply false that particles begin to exist uncaused in QM.
As atheist philosopher R. Carrier writes: "I suspect Craig himself would answer that QM events have a cause, even if it is indeterminate as to effect,e.g. though virtual particles randomly appear and disappear in any given region of space-time,Craig might argue it is the quantum nature of space-time that causes that to happen (such that if you took away that property of space-time, it would cease to randomly generate virtual particles).And I would be inclined to agree with Craig on that point."
@GGDFan777 See the previous video in this series and learn the difference between synthetic and analytic statements. It's meaningless to talk about taking away the quantum nature of spacetime if that nature is inherent to spacetime. It's like talking about the existence attribute of God, the fallacy on which St. Anselm's argument rests. Anyway, WLC is not a theoretical physicist. I trust someone like Victor Stenger over Craig when it comes to quantum physics.
@deathray32 So can you give me an example of something that beginst to exist without a cause? I still haven't heard any plausible counter example to the causal premise. I'm not talking about events, but about things / objects / particles that begin to exist. WLC has debated Victor Stenger twice (see: /watch?v=EjOs62PJciI ) where dr. Craig responds to Dr. Stenger's most recent criticisms in his books, especially his argument that there is insufficient evidence of God's existence.
As for the ontological argument, I'd suggest you look into more recent defenses and formulations of that argument, for example professor Robert E. Maydole's version "The Modal Perfection Argument For The Existence Of A Supreme Being".
This video fails. At 2:31 it is mentioned that at the quantum level the concept of cause and effect break down. But this fails to show that 'whatever begins to exist has a cause' is false. See also WLC's response: /watch?v=g6kMWSo-Jz0
@GGDFan777 Interesting that WLC forbids comments on his channel! Re tornado: you miss the point. The system at a given time is its own cause for later times, so you can't identify an external cause and work backwards to a god. Also the system is chaotic so it is very sensitive to initial conditions. A tiny change in "cause" leads to a totally different "effect". To the extent that the idea of cause and effect applies, it is very different from the theological idea of cause and effect.
@deathray32 First of all, it's not WLC himself that owns that channel. Second, you are still admitting that the tornado is not uncaused, thereby it fails as a counter example to the first premise. The tornado does not suddenly begin to exist without any cause, if that were possible we would have tornado's at random everywhere and and any time in the universe, for no cause is needed, there is nothing to constrain such things from beginning to exist.
@deathray32 You say "A tiny change in "cause" leads to a totally different "effect"." again, how does this in any way refute the first premise of the argument? At best it shows that we're not sure what kind of cause the universe has, but it doesn't undercut the argument in thinking that there is a cause. Off course I'd maintain that the cause has to be some immaterial personal cause, but before defending this, I need to know whether you accept that the universe had a cause in the first place.
You're pretty obsessive, aren't you. There is no real point debating with you because you are wedded to a pedantic, pre-20th century undestanding of physics.
deathray32 2 months ago
Another fail at 3:00, notice that no example has been given here of some 'thing' or some particle that 'begins to exist' without a cause. Her tornado example fails cause it is actually admitted that it is not un-caused, thereby confirming the truth of premise 1.
GGDFan777 2 months ago
He further concludes: "Quantum phenomena is thus not devoid of causation--that is demonstrably impossible. Otherwise, the number of observed particles and their properties would be effectively infinite and they would form at all scales, and they would randomly persist or vanish, instead of consistently vanish, or persist when specifically caused to do so by local conditions (e.g. Hawking radiation).” So again, it’s simply false that particles begin to exist uncaused in QM.
GGDFan777 2 months ago
As atheist philosopher R. Carrier writes: "I suspect Craig himself would answer that QM events have a cause, even if it is indeterminate as to effect,e.g. though virtual particles randomly appear and disappear in any given region of space-time,Craig might argue it is the quantum nature of space-time that causes that to happen (such that if you took away that property of space-time, it would cease to randomly generate virtual particles).And I would be inclined to agree with Craig on that point."
GGDFan777 2 months ago
@GGDFan777 See the previous video in this series and learn the difference between synthetic and analytic statements. It's meaningless to talk about taking away the quantum nature of spacetime if that nature is inherent to spacetime. It's like talking about the existence attribute of God, the fallacy on which St. Anselm's argument rests. Anyway, WLC is not a theoretical physicist. I trust someone like Victor Stenger over Craig when it comes to quantum physics.
deathray32 2 months ago
@deathray32 So can you give me an example of something that beginst to exist without a cause? I still haven't heard any plausible counter example to the causal premise. I'm not talking about events, but about things / objects / particles that begin to exist. WLC has debated Victor Stenger twice (see: /watch?v=EjOs62PJciI ) where dr. Craig responds to Dr. Stenger's most recent criticisms in his books, especially his argument that there is insufficient evidence of God's existence.
GGDFan777 2 months ago
As for the ontological argument, I'd suggest you look into more recent defenses and formulations of that argument, for example professor Robert E. Maydole's version "The Modal Perfection Argument For The Existence Of A Supreme Being".
GGDFan777 2 months ago
This video fails. At 2:31 it is mentioned that at the quantum level the concept of cause and effect break down. But this fails to show that 'whatever begins to exist has a cause' is false. See also WLC's response: /watch?v=g6kMWSo-Jz0
GGDFan777 2 months ago
@GGDFan777 Interesting that WLC forbids comments on his channel! Re tornado: you miss the point. The system at a given time is its own cause for later times, so you can't identify an external cause and work backwards to a god. Also the system is chaotic so it is very sensitive to initial conditions. A tiny change in "cause" leads to a totally different "effect". To the extent that the idea of cause and effect applies, it is very different from the theological idea of cause and effect.
deathray32 2 months ago
@deathray32 First of all, it's not WLC himself that owns that channel. Second, you are still admitting that the tornado is not uncaused, thereby it fails as a counter example to the first premise. The tornado does not suddenly begin to exist without any cause, if that were possible we would have tornado's at random everywhere and and any time in the universe, for no cause is needed, there is nothing to constrain such things from beginning to exist.
GGDFan777 2 months ago
@deathray32 You say "A tiny change in "cause" leads to a totally different "effect"." again, how does this in any way refute the first premise of the argument? At best it shows that we're not sure what kind of cause the universe has, but it doesn't undercut the argument in thinking that there is a cause. Off course I'd maintain that the cause has to be some immaterial personal cause, but before defending this, I need to know whether you accept that the universe had a cause in the first place.
GGDFan777 2 months ago
He never got her any coffee!
2manyc00ks 2 months ago