The reason this video have 1100 likes is because it is anti-theist, an attempt to put christian faith in a bad light, and that mentality pleases alot of mindless americans. The content have already been dealt with from an apologetic point of view and is worthless already.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper "...an attempt to put christian faith in a bad light" Not at all. WLC's argument being refuted doesn't put christianity, or even theism in general, in a bad light. All it really does is show the failure of WLC to prove what he claimed.
If you want to complain about putting faith in a 'bad light', check out 'Kissing Hank's Ass', which goes into far more detail about the insidious nature of faith.
"Either the first speaker has no idea of cosmology or the author of this video is misleading us."
More likely, both are trying to simplify the complex nature of the vacuum so that it can be more readily understood by a lay audience. To my mind, Craig's argument is completely destroyed by virtual particles, because they are a counter-example that falsifies his first premise.
Listen to 01:47 and then 03:02. First it says the universe came from literally nothing, "there was no time, no energy", later Craig explains that the vacuum is actually a sea of fluctuating energy.
Either the first speaker has no idea of cosmology or the author of this video is misleading us.
Your explanation still fails the "eternal past" problem. If this quantum vaccum is eternal and never had a beginning, it means it must possess an infinite or eternal past. But if that's the case, you can never reach the present with an eternal past. No refutation here.
@ubermechazillatron The concept of "eternal past" is predicated on the absolutism of time but we know from relativity that time & space are not absolute. So if the universe is in a state where matter/energy and time/space are compressed to a point there can be no "eternal past"---concepts of cause/effect and past/future become meaningless.
A renowned cosmologist said that our common sense thinking model of thinking cannot begin to appreciate the actual nature of the universe.
@sweetsweatyfeet Um, no. The very definition of an eternity is that time is irrelevant. Look up some definitions of eternity and you'll see how it's also sometimes described as timelessness. Unless matter/energy popped into existence from absolute nothing (which is ridiculous) they've existed eternally and the problem still stands.
@ubermechazillatron Eternity (like infinity) is a theoretical concept. Far from being irrelevant to time, the concept of eternity requires time as a framework to give it meaning. Your use of the term "eternal past" makes time a necessary precondition since "past" means---occurrence in another (earlier) time which in turn relies on the constancy of time. But we know in any discussion of cosmology that time is not a constant.
Most people make really weak responses about randomness to this argument yes, and fail to understand it, and fail to understand that randomness is whitenoise, and following the atheists "refutation", intelligent design can at no moment enter the atheist argument, and so the universe is a random series of numbers. A random series of numbers is whitenoise, not an ordered universe.
@nzjoel1234 "Therefore premise 1 still stands..." No it doesn't. Blindly asserting that something must have a cause is not the same as actually showing that it does.
WLC's argument relies upon imprecise language to fallaciously try using our knowledge and experience with creatio ex materia and applying it to creatio ex nihilo, about which we have neither. Also, trying to talk about causation which supposedly occurred before time itself existed is meaningless.
@nzjoel1234 "If it can be called a THING it must have a cause."
God is a thing. There, I did it. So now God needs a cause. Seriously, you're just breaking wind there. There is no a priori reason why aspects of nature can not simply exist and be eternal, and it's certainly not related to whether you call something a thing or not. You should also see it's easy to simply respond to you that quantum fluctuations are merely the act of creating or some such nonsense.
@nzjoel1234 "To those who say what is the cause of God, that is like saying what is the caused of the uncaused."
People who say that are merely pointing out that you have resorted to special pleading to produce a definition of a being that is unobserved. That's a really shaky foundation for an argument claiming to demonstrate that the same being exists. We can agree that causality is not a universal phenomenon, but your explanation for why is just BS.
I liked this video, but whence comes the "nothing"? This is an honest question, not a troll. It seems to me that Craig's argument is only refutable when we know the cause of the nothing.
So you believe the vacum is something and not nothing. Something can't come from nothing. What caused this vacum? I'm not sure how this video is a refutation of the Cosmological argument.
@FREDDIEL1981 The usual atheist response is that there is no evidence supporting proof of any God/Supreme being's existence. We do not have to deposit proof for a negative claim, because the burden of proof is not on the atheist. For example: If I told you I had a unicorn in my closet, would you believe me? If you're answer is no and then I say "Prove me wrong" you'd quickly see that that's silly, it is me who should prove to you that I have a unicorn in my closet. Same applies for God.
@strkszone I understand, the chances of a unicorn being in your closet are the same as God being real. but I can prove there is not a unicorn in your closet. If you let me video every inch of your closet I can prove there is no unicorn. Can you tell me how big the cosmos is? can you tell me the events before the Big Bang?
Ok, then how about if I claim that I have an invisible, immaterial Unicorn in a closet and that this unicorn talks only to me by telepathy and that it wants you to give me 1 million US Dollars and if you do so it will also talk to you ... if it feels like it.
You couldn't possibly disprove my claim but do you think that because of this you should believe my claim? If your answer is yes, please send me 1 million $ because I really do own such a Unicorn. Really! ;-)
@FREDDIEL1981 No you cannot. Disprove that there is a unicorn in my closet. All you'll be able to say is "There is no evidence leading me to suggest you have a unicorn in your closet, therefore I do not believe you're telling the truth." The same applies for God. "There is no evidence leading me to suggest that a divine supreme being created the universe, therefore I do not believe it." And no, I say you're just testing for it "like prayer" and my unicorn doesn't have to show himself, have faith
@FREDDIEL1981 The events before the Big Bang is as understood by quantum mechanics to have particles zapping in an out of existence constantly. These are known as quantum fluctuatioins. This particular time in our universe is still very hard to trace, so scientists are working on it. The best answer so far is "I don't know." Anyone who tells you different is making something up. You tell me, which is the more honest answer? Please don't use the God of the Gaps argument.
You are just playing with words. Nothing or nothingness. One has to ask: If the universe came from "nothingness", where did the "nothingness" come from? Is the "nothingness" or quantum field eternal then? And then what about the physical laws? And since you demand observable evidence, where is YOUR observable evidence to make such big claims?
Although I agree Dr. Craig's conclusion "I don't know, so therefore God" doesn't offer a truly satisfying basis of proof, I felt your counter argument "the quantum field" left me equally unsatisfied. I'm left asking myself, why do we not see Big Bangs all the time? Where did the quantum field come from? Is it timeless and immaterial? Just my two-cents. Thanks!
@seansalvador1 Come to think of it, no, and I'm sure no one can. I cannot think in one instance where something that didn't exist previously, began to exist. Because nothing can be created or destroyed, strictly speaking. When a human fetus develops, it isn't as if it is something that didn't exist before, but was a combination to develop. And when things die, they rot or are burned, which is in more terms of exchanges of energy.
I like the way you did this. As I am sure that you know there is also no way to show that the universe actually did begin to exist because all we can make inferences about is how the universe exists now. Before that, we are incapable of making any inferences. So currently, and based on our best understanding the universe goes back further than we can understand and therefore we cannot definitively state a beginning. But i bet you already knew that :-)!
Een if thr hypotheses are correct, we have literally no way of currently understanding what happens at < Planck length / time! That would be a theory of quantum gravity. Does Craig pretend to know? I think he does.
Let me know if I'm understanding this correctly. The vacuum of space is uncaused. Quantum fluctuations in this uncaused vacuum of space were the original cause of the Big Bang. Therefore, Kalam is false.
@Wic2idU "fluctuations in this uncaused vacuum of space were the original cause of the Big Bang"
No, vacuum fluctuation are uncaused and begin to exist, as does radioactive decay.
Craig claims these are merely a change in conditions of what already exists, but his first premise is "what begins to exist" not "what begins to exist absolutely" so he's moving the goalposts, and inn doing so he renders his argument null as there is not a single example of absolute beginnings of anything!
I REALLY wish Hitchens brought some of these points up in his debates with WLC. He always seemed to just avoid the cosmological argument all together. I don't know why that is, but I'm sure it caused many theists to just jump up and down with joy.
@ChairmanDrek757 I would assume that it's because Hitchens is uneducated in cosmology. I think that he would have shied away from something that he did not fully understand, you know him being an honest person and all.
There was no need to address it, that's why. Hitchens was in a debate, debates do not prove anything.
He said many times that his argument has already been fully addressed and refuted, which it has. Craig simply repeats what i'm sure he knows is a faulty argument.
@ChairmanDrek757 There is not a single example of anything beginning to exist absolutely, so he is either claiming circularly that the universe is the only example and that for it to begin to exist there must be a cause (bare assertion), or it is a fallacy of composition in that examples are only a part of the whole and the inference cannot be met, or there are indeed examples of things beginning to exist uncaused. Either way, he is wrong.
@seansalvador1 Exactly, WLC uses imprecise language to confuse creatio ex materia with creatio ex nihilo so that he can erroneously apply examples of the former to try and prove his point about the latter.
@MrYusuf2310 So you are right that "everything that exists, has a beginning" is we know it based on the laws of the universe. However, you seem to ignore that "everything that begins to exist, has a cause" is as we know it based on the macro laws of the universe. So if a theist can try to make an argument for God based on only whats observable in the universe, then why can't I make an argument against God based on only whats observable in the universe? Check mate...
@MrYusuf2310 It's not up to me to give you lessons on Quantum Mechanics. If you do research, you will see that it's agreed upon that these events are uncaused due to their nature and the lack of net energy. You need net energy for a cause.
@theBartone9119 That is a good one isn't it? I came up with something similar that I posted (along with other refutative arguments) on the reasonable faith (Craig's own website)m under the username 'setemstraight'. I have found that sometimes the build-up and nomenclature seems to add gravitas to these types of arguments (at least in the tiny minds of Lame Craig groupies). I think we should name this argument. Any ideas?
@MrYusuf2310 Basically, if you measure properties between two related particles, the measured properties will agree some of the time and disagree some of the time. (The formal term for the degree of agreement is, of course, "correlation.") Bell showed (1964, I believe) that if there is an undiscovered clockwork mechanism of the universe (the usual term is "hidden local variables"), then various inequalities must hold. Experimentally, they don't. Therefore, hidden variables (causes) are out.
@MrYusuf2310 Quantum Mechanics is even used in computers...If the virtual particles were caused then the theory would not work, it only works because they are not caused and all evidence indicates they cannot be caused.
All you are doing is making blind assumptions that have no place in objective reality.
@theBartone9119 look, to say something comes from nothing is absurd. something coming from something is okay though. so to say that these particles come from nothing is impossible since there is no such thing as nothingness in the universe so then the particles must come from something. but just because you don't know what they come from does not mean that it did not have a cause. and i dont see how they study these "random" appearing particles then..
@MrYusuf2310 " to say something comes from nothing is absurd. "
Wrong. I already explained virtual particles come from nothing. Why do you hate science so much?
"just because you don't know what they come from does not mean that it did not have a cause"
Like I said, you know absolutely nothing about science or logic. Quantum Mechanics can have NO cause. It's impossible. You have lost the argument so many times you should feel embarrassed, you make absolutely non sense. Learn about things,please
f you measure properties between two related particles, the measured properties will agree some of the time and disagree some of the time. (The formal term for the degree of agreement is, of course,"correlation.") Bell showed (1964, I believe) that if there is an undiscovered clockwork mechanism of the universe (the usual term is "hidden local variables"), then various inequalities must hold. Experimentally they don't.Therefore, hidden variables (causes) are out.
@MrYusuf2310 "Uncaused just means you haven't found the cause"
is completely false, because virtual particles have been proven to have no cause. It's not like they just pop out and scientists said "oh we don't know what caused these, we'll just say they are uncaused"
That is the most moronic logic I have ever heard, read a book.
@theBartone9119 years and years ago people thought the earth was flat, then late ron they found out it wasnt. just like this,things can change. and for the last point i wrote it in th other reply.
Continued: So if you trace back all causes in the universe it would have to go back in time to the start of the universe. So if causes stop at the start of the universe, that must mean that the universe was uncaused. If it was caused that means that what caused it must also have a cause, because everything that begins to exist that has a cause, also has a cause. This would cause an infinite regress, meaning the universe must be uncaused logically.
First off, virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time uncaused
Secondly, if something begins to exist that has a cause, that cause must also have a cause. If a child begins to exist, it had a cause (sperm fertilizing egg) but that cause must also have a cause as well (2 people having sex). This means that every event that has a cause, must have a cause as well. So if God is uncaused that means he could not have created the universe.
You don't even have to go into the physics to refute the Kalam. You only have to look at the structure:
(1) Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause
For Craig, the only thing that does not begin to exist is God. He was very sneaky and deceptive with his wordplay by actually inserting his conclusion into the first premise. To argue against this is to concede that God is not necessarily the only thing that does not begin to exist. Kalam=Question begging!
Something that begins to exist has a cause? Says who? When I was a few multiplying cells, all my molecules came from dear ol' mom in the form of sustenance, food. We truly are what we eat. Where did those food molecules come from? And so on. What facts are observed to even support the statement "everything that's begins to exist has a cause"? EVERYTHING came into existence at the big bang... since then there has only been reorganizing of atoms. Is there a problem with my logic I'm not seeing?
@ryanwyshynski I totally agree. The first premise of the argument fails because we have NEVER observed somethinng causing something else to come into existence; how can we then say that everything that begins to exist has a cause? The only thing that has ever begun to exist is the universe, so the argument now looks like this:
The one thing that ever begun to exist (the universe) had a cause
@Sheri159 I personally like refuting the argument something like this:
1. Whatever begins to exist has an ex materia cause.
2. The universe began to exist ex nihilo.
3. Therefore....?????
See theoreticalbullshit for a much more comprehensive explanation of the ex materia/ex nihilo distinction.
Also, even if we granted the conclusion that the universe has a cause (whether ex materia or ex nihilo), it's absolutely ridiculous to jump from there to the god of the bible, or even theism.
@Sheri159 It's only logical to conclude that G-d caused the universe. You atheists are dancing around the logical conclusions. Let's say that the universe is the only thing we know to be caused, what caused the universe? Exactly, you are stumped and the illogical arguments you present are just there to reaffirm your own biases.
"It's only logical to conclude that G-d caused the universe."
Well, phrased differently the question becomes: "Why is there something instead of nothing?" Fair enough. So you claim that a god did it. Fine, but why then is there a GOD instead of nothing?
The thing is that you try to answer a question with something which raises the same question all over again. It's an intellectual dead-end.
@MomoTheBellyDancer it can be argued just because they don't have the tools necessary to be able to find a cause to the "random" appearing atoms, doesn't mean they don't have one.
"just because they don't have the tools necessary"
The universe is intrinsically non-dertiministic at the quantum level. If you had learned anything about quantum mechanics, you'd have known that. I'd advise you to withhold your opinion on the subject unless you have learned some more about it (which is pretty much the same advice I'd give to Craig).
@MomoTheBellyDancer im 15, so i dont no much abut it your right, so im just gonna debate with u based on what u say its about... "The universe is intrinsically non-dertiministic at the quantum level." can i ask how u know this? may seem like a stupid question but please answer anyway. we dont know ALL the laws of physics and the universe so then how is it that u conclude that these random appearing atoms or w/e dont have causes? if i've made a mistake or mixed somthing up please tell me.
@MrYusuf2310 Actually the Heidelberg Uncertainty Principle pretty much tells us the Virtual Particles are uncaused. Especially considering they are negative and positive pairs meaning no net energy is needed to make these happen, meaning no cause is needed.
@theBartone9119 like i said just because you do not know how these come into existence doesn't mean they don't have a cause,there is the possibility that finding out the cause of these virtual particles requires information that no one currently posses.i'm just trying to fit this in with cause and effect.
@MrYusuf2310 "like i said just because you do not know how these come into existence doesn't mean they don't have a cause"
You are basing your assumptions around something you are not educated on. Cause and effect does not exist as the sub-atomic level. Causes need energy, but the negative particle and positive particle balance out to 0 which means there is no energy for a cause to happen .If you knew anything about Quantum Mechanics you would know there is absolutely no cause for these things.
@MrYusuf2310 Your making an ignorant assumption that uncaused = not knowing the cause yet....This is not how Quantum Physics work and it just shows your lack of education on the subject.
@theBartone9119 im just saying, to say somthing comes from nothing is absurd. it obvi must come from somthing. which would mean it was caused since there is no such thing as nothingess in the unverse, so in effect its just a cause you dont have enough info on yet thats all im saying. they might disocver more info n this in the future but for now to say u kno for certain is ignorant. last comment.
@MrYusuf2310 "to say somthing comes from nothing is absurd"
Wrong. Virtual Particles come into existence uncausd from nothing. Like I said, your lack of education on science really shows your ignorance on the subject.
"which would mean it was caused"
Wrong. Everything that precedes a cause must also be a cause that was caused. So if the universe was caused by God, then what caused God? Infinite regress should be avoided, the only logical option is the universe was uncaused. Use logic for once
@MrYusuf2310 If you want to present a logical and scientific argument, then try to at least sound rational and educated because so far you have done nothing but spew out logical fallacies.
@MrYusuf2310 “Everything that begins to exist, has a cause”
This is not true (Virtual Particles begin to exist uncaused for example as I have outlined), either way there is one important step the theist is missing:
“Everything that exists, has a beginning”
So if the theory is God exists, but he had no beginning, then this stance is logically inconsistent based on the same logical standards the theist uses to try to push their argument in the first place.
@DrOman5596 Without any mention of the ways they have been addressed? What are you talking about? A clip of the way Craig addresses this objection is included in the video you are commenting on!
@antybu86 First, my apologies for the language and tone of my original comment, which I have removed. It was rude and indefensible. My frustration/posturing was directed at the argument you refereed me to that "the universe emerged from the nothingness that virtual particles come from" because Craig has addressed it extesnively in his written work.
@DrOman5596 I've read a lot of Craig's work, and I don't think he's ever addressed Vilenkin's quantum tunneling model. He's addressed smiler (but older) models, like Tryon's,,, but Vilenkin's is pretty much what I'm referring to here (see the paper "Creation of universes from nothing").
M theory says that the universe started when two hyperspace membranes collided and the universe is the shattered pieces moving through the higgs field in a macro 3 dimensions and micro 10 dimensions of time.............. simple.
Wouldn't a theist just respond to this with, "Okay, then, where did the quantum field come from? Nothing? Then it needs a cause." Seems like you're just pushing the question back a step.
@ThatGuyWithHippyHair maybe, but she'd then have to dispose of the use of Kalam, or provide reasons for believing that the quantum field not only exists but came into being. The "comes into being" clause is necessary; otherwise it can be regressed back from God as well.
I love everyone here bashing the video using the words 'something' and 'nothing'. Did we not just get a throat clearing of why our preconceived notions of these words are clumsy when applied to this subject? Pay attention people...
So um, what caused the quantum field? :))) Look, i am an atheist but when theists say "nothing" they mean fuckin NOTHING :))) The complete and utter absence of anything. Except of course, god, that's what they're aiming at.
@Anonymous247n "but when theists say "nothing" they mean fuckin NOTHING" Yes, but it doesn't matter what theists claim existed, only what the science shows existed; that's why its important to note that when the physicists say "nothing" existed, they didn't mean absolutely nothing.
The quantum vacuum surely is something. Where did that come from. Nice circular argument. I love it how atheists want to rebel that they will go to the extent to purposefully put out videos with mistakes in freshman logic.
Personally im agnostic, im open to all possibility and i respect others views, i think ignorant, arrogant religious people can be annoying and so can fundamentalist atheists. What strikes me is that the atheists claim to be open minded and scientific yet they seem to despise the very concept of a god and dont seem to be able to let somebody who is religious have a different view to them, their bias damages the integrity of their viewpoint.
Yes and it also follows logically that if your god exists, Dr. Craig, he had a cause as well, so what created your god? Or is that a case of special pleading? And if you define your god as being eternal by definition, why not just say that the universe is eternal by definition and end the conversation?
Indeed, he goes on to use a completely absurd term: "nothingness". If he'd given any thought at all to that word, he'd stop using it. "-ness" is a suffix that means "state, condition, or quality". If there was nothing, then there were no states, no conditions, and no qualities.
Start at 2:35, and you see why this video is dead in the water. The quantum vacuum is still something. And then at 3:26, the maker of this video begs the question; presuming that the Universe came from a quantum vacuum-style "nothing" (scare-quotes needed), rather than from actually nothing (no scare-quotes).
Wow so much for the "Aethist Intelligencia". I bet the person who made this video thought they were smart when they were showing everyone how much they don't know about the arguments at hand.
This video is a FAIL!!!....The vacum does contain a sea of fluctuating energy to which virtual particles come from. It is NOT nothing. The energy in the quantum field did not always exist, ie, infinite past.....The 2nd law of thermodynamics proves ebergy did NOT always exist. I thought atheists thhink that they are the foundation of knowledge and reason. LOL, clearly not.
@Rostos1978 If you think that virtual particles don't count as "something coming from nothing", then the first premise still fails because it claims that everything that "begins to exist" has a cause, yet we've never observed anything ever truly beginning to exist, so that premise has no foundation in reality. Also, we're talking about something which supposedly occurred before time itself existed, thereby making any discussion about causation complete nonsense.
The nothing Lane Craig describes is "less" than the "nothing" Physicists talk about.....The Quantum Vacum is still SOMETHING. Prior to the big bang, there was NOTHING, no quantum vacum, nothing...
If "there are no words to describe it" (the vacuum) then why should we assume it exists - at least in terms of it representing some kind of pre-existing state of the physical universe as we know it from the Big-Bang on? And why should not atheist proponents of an eternal universe, give the same credence to Theists who, though not able to "describe it" (G-d), none the less, posit His existence?
@lourak Something being indescribable using our current lexicon, especially when trying to describe it to laypeople, is not the same as there not being any evidence that it exists. Its like trying to describe color to a blind person; just because its difficult/impossible to convey what color is to someone that can't see it doesn't mean that color doesn't exist.
@ArcanaKnight Your comment seems reasonable enough - I don't have a problem with this. Now lets go a step further - you need to present something that at least looks like evidence for this "indescribable" phenomenon.
@lourak There is evidence, but it gets quite technical because its rather high-end physics, so most laypeople would find it to be practically indecipherable (and so essentially meaningless). Besides, the existence of the quantum vacuum and virtual particles aren't in contention; even WLC concedes their existence.
@ArcanaKnight "Besides, the existence of the quantum vacuum and virtual particles aren't in contention; even WLC concedes their existence."
Yes but he erroneously claims that they (and radioactive decay) do not begin to exist but merely a change of conditions of something that already exists. What then, i ask, DOES begin to exist?
I cannot think of a single example.
It's a shift of the goalposts for his first premise that only states "what begins to exist".
This does not pertain to Craig's argument, but if we are taking Heisenberg's principal of potentcy and actuality, then that opens the argument up to Aristotle's notion of the form of forms by moving from potency to actuality. After all, Heisenberg explicitly stated that Aristotle was the only one who ever understood indeterminacy.
Double slit, quantum tunnelling, weak nuclear force, magmatism and electricity, dissolution creep, refraction, time dilation, relativity, chemical reactions. Shit most of science doesn't make sense to our brain. Why?
Becasue as far as evolution is concerned all the physics we need is to make sure the spear hits the Mammoth. THE END!
Common sence should not be applied to uncommon things like the worlds of the very large, the very small, the very fast or the very old! leave it to science
OMG did the works of Bertrand Russell just cease to exist this is the first cause argument and Russell destroyed it like 60 years ago. you dont need to go to quantum mechanics cause Russell debunked this quite easily
@lovestospooge314 I think it's the "begins" part. If it's just "caused", then regress is a clear question. However "begins to exist" is a turn of phrase that I don't believe Russell referred to.
You don't even understand WLC's argument: "even quantum particles coming out of nothing -like universe coming out of nothing- come into existence by physical laws, which means, something is causing it". And there are over one thousand idiots like you as I can see..
Craig himself has admitted his god is of the supernatural. And supernatural is just another word for "magic." Therefore, why should the "magical circumstances behind his contention of an uncaused cause (the Christian god) be any more believable than the magical circumstances behind the universe simply popping into existence. Do supernatural occurrences really require an "intelligence" An even better question is: How would Craig know this?
How can someone presume to know that a) there is a supreme deity and it was was either caused or uncaused. We simply don't have that kind of information. If you think we do, then you're just wrong. We. Don't Know. ANYTHING. Like. That. Not even close.
Just to clarify, I was referring to your statement that the "nothingness" from which virtual particles appear is the same as the "nothingness" from which the big bang singularity appears.
Like I said before, "empty space" is different from "no space."
This is just flat out wrong. The quantum vacuum is empty space. Before the universe began (beginning of space and time), there was no space, because space didn't exist yet. Empty space and no space are not the same thing.
You can try to make the case that the universe was born from the empty space/quantum vacuum of a larger multiverse, but that's a different argument.
The interesting thing about the argument is that even if you accept the premises and the conclusion, it really doesn't get you to any sort of creator - let alone the omni-properties Deity of traditional theism. The universe is caused... so what?
@kelskye Amen this is what I have said all along, even if we agree on the conclusion that the universe has an uncaused creator it does not tell us a thing about said creator. To say that such a creator is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving is pure speculation. To say that the creator is responsible for the messages in certain religious texts written by humans is even more dubious speculations. All we would know is that the universe is caused, and like you said so what?
@kelskye actually i don't see how you can extend the principle of causation to a timeless realm. let's say everything in this universe needs a cause (and that is an unsubstantiated claim). how do you conclude that the universe itself had to have one? or that it has to do with an intelligent 'creator'?
@topperheartramada I don't follow you. My comment was about the gap between the argument and what it is used to justify. I was pointing out that acceptance of the argument doesn't mean acceptance of a creator; that's not saying that the universe must have had a cause. If someone puts forward an argument: all men are intelligent, Bob is a man. Therefore Bob is intelligent. The argument is valid, but it doesn't mean that we must accept all men are intelligent. It's seeing where the argument goes.
Yes, but that applies to things WITHIN THE UNIVERSE. He then treats the universe on the same level as its contents - fallacy of composition.
And then there's the rigmarole of getting from "the universe had a cause" to "the cause was an all-powerful, all-knowing intelligent being" and then "that being continues to interact with the universe" and, finally, "and it's the god of the Bible"...
... and then "it's the god of MY interpretation of the Bible."
Can a quantum field exist without time and space? Is there an existence quantum particles can jump in and out without time and space? Is a quantum field really nothing? Or is it, well, a quantum field? ;-)
@xchampx well betting can be seen as similar as faith since its not based on evidence. when you say "i bet antybu86 is wrong" i like saying i have faith that he is wrong and therefore Craig boy is right.
so God created virtual particals, which then went on to create the universe. this does not go against the kalam argument. what he fails to mention is exactly how these virtual particals are able to come in to existence. even the energy in these particals has a cause. physics has still a long way to go, just look at the recent discovery of neutrino's possibly being faster than the speed of light
The KCA only works by confusing creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia. The first premise relies upon our experience with creatio ex materia, but it then tries to use that experience and apply it to creatio ex nihilo (something which we have no experience with). It also makes the mistake of talking about causation before time itself existed, ignoring the fact that without time, causation becomes meaningless.
@ArcanaKnight exactly. he confuses the universe with something outside the universe, and then tries to apply common sense assumptions (not even proven in this universe) to some transcendental realm.
@ArcanaKnight I am sure you have a high school diploma but not so sure beyond that: there is no such a thing as confusing "creation from nothing" and "creation from existing material" in KCA. KCA simply puts this forward: things are not totally random, things happen because somethings cause things to happen. What the hell is this causation becomes meaningless without time? You talk about the fallacy of unexperienced and in the next sentence you do what you have criticized!
@paralaks "there is no such a thing..." Yes there is. Craig's support for the first premise is that its based on our knowledge and experience, but we don't have any experience with ex nihilo creation, so there he's referring to ex materia creation, but the argument is supposed to be about the origin of everything (creatio ex nihilo), so our knowledge and experience with ex materia has no bearing on ex nihilo creation.
CONT "...you do what you have criticized" No I don't, I'm not relying on previous experience, I'm referring to the requirements for causation. For causation to work, an effect needs to follow a cause, this means that one moment needs to follow another (aka time). Without time, one moment doesn't follow another, making discussions about causation meaningless. Since time itself didn't exist during the period being discussed, any discussion about a "first cause" is nonsense at best.
@paralaks " Science is all about what we can observe..." True, but the KCA isn't a scientific argument, its a philosophical one, just as WLC is a philosopher and not a scientist. You cla
God has a new name its called War. Im glad to be an Atheist cos I can see the plans
Mee551able 1 day ago
This is the best refutation of William Lane Craig's deceptive argument for biblical creation that I have ever seen. Good work.
brucegrenehan1 2 days ago
The reason this video have 1100 likes is because it is anti-theist, an attempt to put christian faith in a bad light, and that mentality pleases alot of mindless americans. The content have already been dealt with from an apologetic point of view and is worthless already.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MoonwalkerWorshiper "...an attempt to put christian faith in a bad light" Not at all. WLC's argument being refuted doesn't put christianity, or even theism in general, in a bad light. All it really does is show the failure of WLC to prove what he claimed.
ArcanaKnight 3 days ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Actually this is a nice bit of logical philosophy.
If you want to complain about putting faith in a 'bad light', check out 'Kissing Hank's Ass', which goes into far more detail about the insidious nature of faith.
Rozmic 2 days ago
@Rozmic I siverely doubt that anything that has the word "ass" in it have any form of serious sophisticated intellectual engagement. :)
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 days ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Then you would be completely wrong.
Rozmic 2 days ago
@Rozmic Or you are.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 days ago
"Either the first speaker has no idea of cosmology or the author of this video is misleading us."
More likely, both are trying to simplify the complex nature of the vacuum so that it can be more readily understood by a lay audience. To my mind, Craig's argument is completely destroyed by virtual particles, because they are a counter-example that falsifies his first premise.
mandolinic 3 days ago
Listen to 01:47 and then 03:02. First it says the universe came from literally nothing, "there was no time, no energy", later Craig explains that the vacuum is actually a sea of fluctuating energy.
Either the first speaker has no idea of cosmology or the author of this video is misleading us.
maxavail 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is one very "substantial" video. =p
nickolascook718 4 days ago
Your explanation still fails the "eternal past" problem. If this quantum vaccum is eternal and never had a beginning, it means it must possess an infinite or eternal past. But if that's the case, you can never reach the present with an eternal past. No refutation here.
ubermechazillatron 1 week ago
@ubermechazillatron The concept of "eternal past" is predicated on the absolutism of time but we know from relativity that time & space are not absolute. So if the universe is in a state where matter/energy and time/space are compressed to a point there can be no "eternal past"---concepts of cause/effect and past/future become meaningless.
A renowned cosmologist said that our common sense thinking model of thinking cannot begin to appreciate the actual nature of the universe.
sweetsweatyfeet 6 days ago
@sweetsweatyfeet Um, no. The very definition of an eternity is that time is irrelevant. Look up some definitions of eternity and you'll see how it's also sometimes described as timelessness. Unless matter/energy popped into existence from absolute nothing (which is ridiculous) they've existed eternally and the problem still stands.
ubermechazillatron 6 days ago
@ubermechazillatron Eternity (like infinity) is a theoretical concept. Far from being irrelevant to time, the concept of eternity requires time as a framework to give it meaning. Your use of the term "eternal past" makes time a necessary precondition since "past" means---occurrence in another (earlier) time which in turn relies on the constancy of time. But we know in any discussion of cosmology that time is not a constant.
sweetsweatyfeet 6 days ago
Most people make really weak responses about randomness to this argument yes, and fail to understand it, and fail to understand that randomness is whitenoise, and following the atheists "refutation", intelligent design can at no moment enter the atheist argument, and so the universe is a random series of numbers. A random series of numbers is whitenoise, not an ordered universe.
ParadoxEternal 1 week ago
The argument means any THING must have a cause.
If it can be called a THING it must have a cause.
The sea of quantum nothingness is a THING, it exists, so it has a cause.
It does not matter what the first THING is but it must have a cause.
Therefore premise 1 still stands and so does premise 2 so does his conclusion.
God is not a Thing. God is Yahweh or "I am" or the act of being itself.
To those who say what is the cause of God, that is like saying what is the caused of the uncaused.
nzjoel1234 1 week ago
@nzjoel1234 "Therefore premise 1 still stands..." No it doesn't. Blindly asserting that something must have a cause is not the same as actually showing that it does.
WLC's argument relies upon imprecise language to fallaciously try using our knowledge and experience with creatio ex materia and applying it to creatio ex nihilo, about which we have neither. Also, trying to talk about causation which supposedly occurred before time itself existed is meaningless.
ArcanaKnight 1 week ago
@nzjoel1234 "If it can be called a THING it must have a cause."
God is a thing. There, I did it. So now God needs a cause. Seriously, you're just breaking wind there. There is no a priori reason why aspects of nature can not simply exist and be eternal, and it's certainly not related to whether you call something a thing or not. You should also see it's easy to simply respond to you that quantum fluctuations are merely the act of creating or some such nonsense.
Gnomefro 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nzjoel1234 "To those who say what is the cause of God, that is like saying what is the caused of the uncaused."
People who say that are merely pointing out that you have resorted to special pleading to produce a definition of a being that is unobserved. That's a really shaky foundation for an argument claiming to demonstrate that the same being exists. We can agree that causality is not a universal phenomenon, but your explanation for why is just BS.
Gnomefro 1 week ago
@nzjoel1234 "To those who say what is the cause of God, that is like saying what is the caused of the uncaused."
Like asking what is the cause the Universe?
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 week ago in playlist Liked videos
I liked this video, but whence comes the "nothing"? This is an honest question, not a troll. It seems to me that Craig's argument is only refutable when we know the cause of the nothing.
LiberalIntervention 1 week ago
To disprove the Cosmological argument you would have to prove that vacums are uncaused. If there is proof of this, I do not see it in this video.
SuperMimicKing 2 weeks ago
So you believe the vacum is something and not nothing. Something can't come from nothing. What caused this vacum? I'm not sure how this video is a refutation of the Cosmological argument.
SuperMimicKing 2 weeks ago
(antybu86) what leads you to be in no God or supreme being?
FREDDIEL1981 2 weeks ago
@FREDDIEL1981 The usual atheist response is that there is no evidence supporting proof of any God/Supreme being's existence. We do not have to deposit proof for a negative claim, because the burden of proof is not on the atheist. For example: If I told you I had a unicorn in my closet, would you believe me? If you're answer is no and then I say "Prove me wrong" you'd quickly see that that's silly, it is me who should prove to you that I have a unicorn in my closet. Same applies for God.
strkszone 2 weeks ago
@strkszone I understand, the chances of a unicorn being in your closet are the same as God being real. but I can prove there is not a unicorn in your closet. If you let me video every inch of your closet I can prove there is no unicorn. Can you tell me how big the cosmos is? can you tell me the events before the Big Bang?
FREDDIEL1981 2 weeks ago
@FREDDIEL1981
Ok, then how about if I claim that I have an invisible, immaterial Unicorn in a closet and that this unicorn talks only to me by telepathy and that it wants you to give me 1 million US Dollars and if you do so it will also talk to you ... if it feels like it.
You couldn't possibly disprove my claim but do you think that because of this you should believe my claim? If your answer is yes, please send me 1 million $ because I really do own such a Unicorn. Really! ;-)
Rawlsrocks 2 weeks ago
@FREDDIEL1981 No you cannot. Disprove that there is a unicorn in my closet. All you'll be able to say is "There is no evidence leading me to suggest you have a unicorn in your closet, therefore I do not believe you're telling the truth." The same applies for God. "There is no evidence leading me to suggest that a divine supreme being created the universe, therefore I do not believe it." And no, I say you're just testing for it "like prayer" and my unicorn doesn't have to show himself, have faith
strkszone 2 weeks ago
@FREDDIEL1981 The events before the Big Bang is as understood by quantum mechanics to have particles zapping in an out of existence constantly. These are known as quantum fluctuatioins. This particular time in our universe is still very hard to trace, so scientists are working on it. The best answer so far is "I don't know." Anyone who tells you different is making something up. You tell me, which is the more honest answer? Please don't use the God of the Gaps argument.
strkszone 2 weeks ago
One simply cannot make common sense arguments about science. Common sense sometimes makes you look really dumb.
MrOttopants 2 weeks ago
You are just playing with words. Nothing or nothingness. One has to ask: If the universe came from "nothingness", where did the "nothingness" come from? Is the "nothingness" or quantum field eternal then? And then what about the physical laws? And since you demand observable evidence, where is YOUR observable evidence to make such big claims?
MindTheHeart 2 weeks ago
Although I agree Dr. Craig's conclusion "I don't know, so therefore God" doesn't offer a truly satisfying basis of proof, I felt your counter argument "the quantum field" left me equally unsatisfied. I'm left asking myself, why do we not see Big Bangs all the time? Where did the quantum field come from? Is it timeless and immaterial? Just my two-cents. Thanks!
randytate 2 weeks ago
William Lane Craig is a professor of being Smarmy Gitt, and that's it.
123backinyerface 2 weeks ago
@seansalvador1 Come to think of it, no, and I'm sure no one can. I cannot think in one instance where something that didn't exist previously, began to exist. Because nothing can be created or destroyed, strictly speaking. When a human fetus develops, it isn't as if it is something that didn't exist before, but was a combination to develop. And when things die, they rot or are burned, which is in more terms of exchanges of energy.
pat5168 2 weeks ago
You claim that quantum vacuum is eternal?
sototajeri 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"everything that begins to exist, has a cause"
Can anyone give me a single example?
seansalvador1 3 weeks ago
I like the way you did this. As I am sure that you know there is also no way to show that the universe actually did begin to exist because all we can make inferences about is how the universe exists now. Before that, we are incapable of making any inferences. So currently, and based on our best understanding the universe goes back further than we can understand and therefore we cannot definitively state a beginning. But i bet you already knew that :-)!
Hsinats 4 weeks ago
@Hsinats
Een if thr hypotheses are correct, we have literally no way of currently understanding what happens at < Planck length / time! That would be a theory of quantum gravity. Does Craig pretend to know? I think he does.
seansalvador1 3 weeks ago
*Even if these hypotheses are correct
seansalvador1 3 weeks ago
@seansalvador1 Touché!
Hsinats 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheIdleEarth 4 weeks ago
@TheIdleEarth Is that supposed to be a joke, or are you really being serious?
ArcanaKnight 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your vid is popular on Bujumbura
claudecarson616 4 weeks ago
Let me know if I'm understanding this correctly. The vacuum of space is uncaused. Quantum fluctuations in this uncaused vacuum of space were the original cause of the Big Bang. Therefore, Kalam is false.
Wic2idU 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Wic2idU "fluctuations in this uncaused vacuum of space were the original cause of the Big Bang"
No, vacuum fluctuation are uncaused and begin to exist, as does radioactive decay.
Craig claims these are merely a change in conditions of what already exists, but his first premise is "what begins to exist" not "what begins to exist absolutely" so he's moving the goalposts, and inn doing so he renders his argument null as there is not a single example of absolute beginnings of anything!
seansalvador1 3 weeks ago
who ever did this is smart
paladin267 1 month ago
I REALLY wish Hitchens brought some of these points up in his debates with WLC. He always seemed to just avoid the cosmological argument all together. I don't know why that is, but I'm sure it caused many theists to just jump up and down with joy.
ChairmanDrek757 1 month ago
@ChairmanDrek757 would have brought*
ChairmanDrek757 1 month ago
@ChairmanDrek757 I would assume that it's because Hitchens is uneducated in cosmology. I think that he would have shied away from something that he did not fully understand, you know him being an honest person and all.
Hsinats 4 weeks ago
@ChairmanDrek757
There was no need to address it, that's why. Hitchens was in a debate, debates do not prove anything.
He said many times that his argument has already been fully addressed and refuted, which it has. Craig simply repeats what i'm sure he knows is a faulty argument.
Cont...
seansalvador1 3 weeks ago
@ChairmanDrek757 The first premise is simply wrong, unless you can give me an example of something that begins to exist?
I can. Radioactive decay, vacuum fluctuations etc.
If you claim that these do not begin to exist absolutely then tell me, what does?
Cont...
seansalvador1 3 weeks ago
@ChairmanDrek757 There is not a single example of anything beginning to exist absolutely, so he is either claiming circularly that the universe is the only example and that for it to begin to exist there must be a cause (bare assertion), or it is a fallacy of composition in that examples are only a part of the whole and the inference cannot be met, or there are indeed examples of things beginning to exist uncaused. Either way, he is wrong.
seansalvador1 3 weeks ago
@seansalvador1 Exactly, WLC uses imprecise language to confuse creatio ex materia with creatio ex nihilo so that he can erroneously apply examples of the former to try and prove his point about the latter.
ArcanaKnight 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrYusuf2310 So you are right that "everything that exists, has a beginning" is we know it based on the laws of the universe. However, you seem to ignore that "everything that begins to exist, has a cause" is as we know it based on the macro laws of the universe. So if a theist can try to make an argument for God based on only whats observable in the universe, then why can't I make an argument against God based on only whats observable in the universe? Check mate...
theBartone9119 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theBartone9119 "So you are right that "everything that exists, has a beginning" is we know it based on the laws of the universe"
But this is a bare assertion.
How do you know this, logically?
"everything that begins to exist, has a cause"
Give me a single example.
seansalvador1 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@MrYusuf2310 I already told you, it's not up to be to be your Quantum Physics teacher, if you want to learn more then study it.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 avoiding it, u write soo much in the other rpely's yet u cant answer a simple question like that?
MrYusuf2310 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrYusuf2310 It's not up to me to give you lessons on Quantum Mechanics. If you do research, you will see that it's agreed upon that these events are uncaused due to their nature and the lack of net energy. You need net energy for a cause.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 i just asked u how they determine these facts on a random appearing particle.
MrYusuf2310 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrYusuf2310 "I just asked u how they determine these facts on a random appearing particles."
Tests in a lab using two plates and measuring the effects the particles have.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@MrYusuf2310 And cause and effect doesn't apply at the sub-atomic level, so "everything that begins to exist, has a cause" isn't even factual.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@MrYusuf2310 I'm just giving the cosmological argument a taste of it's own medicine.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrYusuf2310 1 month ago
1. Everything that exists, has a beginning
2. God has no beginning
3. God does not exist
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 That is a good one isn't it? I came up with something similar that I posted (along with other refutative arguments) on the reasonable faith (Craig's own website)m under the username 'setemstraight'. I have found that sometimes the build-up and nomenclature seems to add gravitas to these types of arguments (at least in the tiny minds of Lame Craig groupies). I think we should name this argument. Any ideas?
agentssith 1 month ago
@MrYusuf2310 Basically, if you measure properties between two related particles, the measured properties will agree some of the time and disagree some of the time. (The formal term for the degree of agreement is, of course, "correlation.") Bell showed (1964, I believe) that if there is an undiscovered clockwork mechanism of the universe (the usual term is "hidden local variables"), then various inequalities must hold. Experimentally, they don't. Therefore, hidden variables (causes) are out.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@MrYusuf2310 Quantum Mechanics is even used in computers...If the virtual particles were caused then the theory would not work, it only works because they are not caused and all evidence indicates they cannot be caused.
All you are doing is making blind assumptions that have no place in objective reality.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 look, to say something comes from nothing is absurd. something coming from something is okay though. so to say that these particles come from nothing is impossible since there is no such thing as nothingness in the universe so then the particles must come from something. but just because you don't know what they come from does not mean that it did not have a cause. and i dont see how they study these "random" appearing particles then..
MrYusuf2310 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrYusuf2310 " to say something comes from nothing is absurd. "
Wrong. I already explained virtual particles come from nothing. Why do you hate science so much?
"just because you don't know what they come from does not mean that it did not have a cause"
Like I said, you know absolutely nothing about science or logic. Quantum Mechanics can have NO cause. It's impossible. You have lost the argument so many times you should feel embarrassed, you make absolutely non sense. Learn about things,please
theBartone9119 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrYusuf2310 I'll say it again:
f you measure properties between two related particles, the measured properties will agree some of the time and disagree some of the time. (The formal term for the degree of agreement is, of course,"correlation.") Bell showed (1964, I believe) that if there is an undiscovered clockwork mechanism of the universe (the usual term is "hidden local variables"), then various inequalities must hold. Experimentally they don't.Therefore, hidden variables (causes) are out.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@MrYusuf2310 Whats outrages is the idea the universe was caused by something that did not have a beginning. Everything that exists, has a beginning.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 only to the laws of the universe.
MrYusuf2310 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrYusuf2310 "only to the laws of the universe"
Well the whole argument of "everything that begins to exist, has a cause" is only based off the laws of the universe.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@MrYusuf2310 "Uncaused just means you haven't found the cause"
is completely false, because virtual particles have been proven to have no cause. It's not like they just pop out and scientists said "oh we don't know what caused these, we'll just say they are uncaused"
That is the most moronic logic I have ever heard, read a book.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 years and years ago people thought the earth was flat, then late ron they found out it wasnt. just like this,things can change. and for the last point i wrote it in th other reply.
MrYusuf2310 1 month ago
@MrYusuf2310 "years and years ago people thought the earth was flat"
And years and years and years ago they thought God could be the only explanation, it's funny how time changes things huh?
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Continued: So if you trace back all causes in the universe it would have to go back in time to the start of the universe. So if causes stop at the start of the universe, that must mean that the universe was uncaused. If it was caused that means that what caused it must also have a cause, because everything that begins to exist that has a cause, also has a cause. This would cause an infinite regress, meaning the universe must be uncaused logically.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
"Whatever begins to exist has a cause"
First off, virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time uncaused
Secondly, if something begins to exist that has a cause, that cause must also have a cause. If a child begins to exist, it had a cause (sperm fertilizing egg) but that cause must also have a cause as well (2 people having sex). This means that every event that has a cause, must have a cause as well. So if God is uncaused that means he could not have created the universe.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Reminder: When you comment on bulshit it will reappear and reappear and reappear!! #epicfail
paralaks 1 month ago
lrn2KCA....P2 is known a priori. Craig needn't appeal to a posteriori arguments.
CzarDB 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
You don't even have to go into the physics to refute the Kalam. You only have to look at the structure:
(1) Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause
For Craig, the only thing that does not begin to exist is God. He was very sneaky and deceptive with his wordplay by actually inserting his conclusion into the first premise. To argue against this is to concede that God is not necessarily the only thing that does not begin to exist. Kalam=Question begging!
cbl2988 1 month ago
@antybu86 So are you saying that the nothingness which caused the virtual particles was uncaused?
height76 1 month ago
Something that begins to exist has a cause? Says who? When I was a few multiplying cells, all my molecules came from dear ol' mom in the form of sustenance, food. We truly are what we eat. Where did those food molecules come from? And so on. What facts are observed to even support the statement "everything that's begins to exist has a cause"? EVERYTHING came into existence at the big bang... since then there has only been reorganizing of atoms. Is there a problem with my logic I'm not seeing?
ryanwyshynski 1 month ago
@ryanwyshynski I totally agree. The first premise of the argument fails because we have NEVER observed somethinng causing something else to come into existence; how can we then say that everything that begins to exist has a cause? The only thing that has ever begun to exist is the universe, so the argument now looks like this:
The one thing that ever begun to exist (the universe) had a cause
The universe begun to exist
Therefore the universe had a cause
Hmm..
Sheri159 1 month ago
@Sheri159 I personally like refuting the argument something like this:
1. Whatever begins to exist has an ex materia cause.
2. The universe began to exist ex nihilo.
3. Therefore....?????
See theoreticalbullshit for a much more comprehensive explanation of the ex materia/ex nihilo distinction.
Also, even if we granted the conclusion that the universe has a cause (whether ex materia or ex nihilo), it's absolutely ridiculous to jump from there to the god of the bible, or even theism.
dobsonthe3rd 1 month ago
@Sheri159 It's only logical to conclude that G-d caused the universe. You atheists are dancing around the logical conclusions. Let's say that the universe is the only thing we know to be caused, what caused the universe? Exactly, you are stumped and the illogical arguments you present are just there to reaffirm your own biases.
stinnetbennet 1 month ago
@stinnetbennet
"It's only logical to conclude that G-d caused the universe."
Well, phrased differently the question becomes: "Why is there something instead of nothing?" Fair enough. So you claim that a god did it. Fine, but why then is there a GOD instead of nothing?
The thing is that you try to answer a question with something which raises the same question all over again. It's an intellectual dead-end.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 month ago
@ryanwyshynski Cause and effect is an axiomatic truth.
MrYusuf2310 1 month ago
@MrYusuf2310
"Cause and effect is an axiomatic truth."
Try telling that to quantum physicists.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 month ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer it can be argued just because they don't have the tools necessary to be able to find a cause to the "random" appearing atoms, doesn't mean they don't have one.
MrYusuf2310 1 month ago
@MrYusuf2310
"just because they don't have the tools necessary"
The universe is intrinsically non-dertiministic at the quantum level. If you had learned anything about quantum mechanics, you'd have known that. I'd advise you to withhold your opinion on the subject unless you have learned some more about it (which is pretty much the same advice I'd give to Craig).
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer im 15, so i dont no much abut it your right, so im just gonna debate with u based on what u say its about... "The universe is intrinsically non-dertiministic at the quantum level." can i ask how u know this? may seem like a stupid question but please answer anyway. we dont know ALL the laws of physics and the universe so then how is it that u conclude that these random appearing atoms or w/e dont have causes? if i've made a mistake or mixed somthing up please tell me.
MrYusuf2310 1 month ago
@MrYusuf2310 Actually the Heidelberg Uncertainty Principle pretty much tells us the Virtual Particles are uncaused. Especially considering they are negative and positive pairs meaning no net energy is needed to make these happen, meaning no cause is needed.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 like i said just because you do not know how these come into existence doesn't mean they don't have a cause,there is the possibility that finding out the cause of these virtual particles requires information that no one currently posses.i'm just trying to fit this in with cause and effect.
MrYusuf2310 1 month ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrYusuf2310 "like i said just because you do not know how these come into existence doesn't mean they don't have a cause"
You are basing your assumptions around something you are not educated on. Cause and effect does not exist as the sub-atomic level. Causes need energy, but the negative particle and positive particle balance out to 0 which means there is no energy for a cause to happen .If you knew anything about Quantum Mechanics you would know there is absolutely no cause for these things.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@MrYusuf2310 Your making an ignorant assumption that uncaused = not knowing the cause yet....This is not how Quantum Physics work and it just shows your lack of education on the subject.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 you're doing the same in reverse.
MrYusuf2310 1 month ago
@MrYusuf2310 No I'm basing my beliefs on evidence not faith, you should do the same.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 im just saying, to say somthing comes from nothing is absurd. it obvi must come from somthing. which would mean it was caused since there is no such thing as nothingess in the unverse, so in effect its just a cause you dont have enough info on yet thats all im saying. they might disocver more info n this in the future but for now to say u kno for certain is ignorant. last comment.
MrYusuf2310 1 month ago
@MrYusuf2310 "to say somthing comes from nothing is absurd"
Wrong. Virtual Particles come into existence uncausd from nothing. Like I said, your lack of education on science really shows your ignorance on the subject.
"which would mean it was caused"
Wrong. Everything that precedes a cause must also be a cause that was caused. So if the universe was caused by God, then what caused God? Infinite regress should be avoided, the only logical option is the universe was uncaused. Use logic for once
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@MrYusuf2310 If you want to present a logical and scientific argument, then try to at least sound rational and educated because so far you have done nothing but spew out logical fallacies.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrYusuf2310 “Everything that begins to exist, has a cause”
This is not true (Virtual Particles begin to exist uncaused for example as I have outlined), either way there is one important step the theist is missing:
“Everything that exists, has a beginning”
So if the theory is God exists, but he had no beginning, then this stance is logically inconsistent based on the same logical standards the theist uses to try to push their argument in the first place.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
you can't know what nothing is because the universe itself is something so no one will ever see 'nothing'
Kep0v 1 month ago
Comment removed
DrOman5596 1 month ago
@DrOman5596 Without any mention of the ways they have been addressed? What are you talking about? A clip of the way Craig addresses this objection is included in the video you are commenting on!
antybu86 1 month ago
@antybu86 First, my apologies for the language and tone of my original comment, which I have removed. It was rude and indefensible. My frustration/posturing was directed at the argument you refereed me to that "the universe emerged from the nothingness that virtual particles come from" because Craig has addressed it extesnively in his written work.
DrOman5596 1 month ago
@DrOman5596 I've read a lot of Craig's work, and I don't think he's ever addressed Vilenkin's quantum tunneling model. He's addressed smiler (but older) models, like Tryon's,,, but Vilenkin's is pretty much what I'm referring to here (see the paper "Creation of universes from nothing").
antybu86 1 month ago
M theory says that the universe started when two hyperspace membranes collided and the universe is the shattered pieces moving through the higgs field in a macro 3 dimensions and micro 10 dimensions of time.............. simple.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
Wouldn't a theist just respond to this with, "Okay, then, where did the quantum field come from? Nothing? Then it needs a cause." Seems like you're just pushing the question back a step.
ThatGuyWithHippyHair 1 month ago
@ThatGuyWithHippyHair maybe, but she'd then have to dispose of the use of Kalam, or provide reasons for believing that the quantum field not only exists but came into being. The "comes into being" clause is necessary; otherwise it can be regressed back from God as well.
matthiaswasser 1 month ago
I love everyone here bashing the video using the words 'something' and 'nothing'. Did we not just get a throat clearing of why our preconceived notions of these words are clumsy when applied to this subject? Pay attention people...
adknerr 1 month ago
So um, what caused the quantum field? :))) Look, i am an atheist but when theists say "nothing" they mean fuckin NOTHING :))) The complete and utter absence of anything. Except of course, god, that's what they're aiming at.
Anonymous247n 1 month ago
@Anonymous247n "but when theists say "nothing" they mean fuckin NOTHING" Yes, but it doesn't matter what theists claim existed, only what the science shows existed; that's why its important to note that when the physicists say "nothing" existed, they didn't mean absolutely nothing.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
The quantum vacuum surely is something. Where did that come from. Nice circular argument. I love it how atheists want to rebel that they will go to the extent to purposefully put out videos with mistakes in freshman logic.
TheTrueConservative 1 month ago
@TheTrueConservative
Personally im agnostic, im open to all possibility and i respect others views, i think ignorant, arrogant religious people can be annoying and so can fundamentalist atheists. What strikes me is that the atheists claim to be open minded and scientific yet they seem to despise the very concept of a god and dont seem to be able to let somebody who is religious have a different view to them, their bias damages the integrity of their viewpoint.
postmasterw00t 1 month ago
This video debunks nothing. You're making yourself look like an ass by putting out garbage like this.
TheTrueConservative 1 month ago
Yes and it also follows logically that if your god exists, Dr. Craig, he had a cause as well, so what created your god? Or is that a case of special pleading? And if you define your god as being eternal by definition, why not just say that the universe is eternal by definition and end the conversation?
1n354a 1 month ago
Indeed, he goes on to use a completely absurd term: "nothingness". If he'd given any thought at all to that word, he'd stop using it. "-ness" is a suffix that means "state, condition, or quality". If there was nothing, then there were no states, no conditions, and no qualities.
Mentat1231 1 month ago
Start at 2:35, and you see why this video is dead in the water. The quantum vacuum is still something. And then at 3:26, the maker of this video begs the question; presuming that the Universe came from a quantum vacuum-style "nothing" (scare-quotes needed), rather than from actually nothing (no scare-quotes).
Mentat1231 1 month ago
The Kalamitous Cosmological Non-Argument!
TheAikenHead 1 month ago
Wow so much for the "Aethist Intelligencia". I bet the person who made this video thought they were smart when they were showing everyone how much they don't know about the arguments at hand.
YeshuaisShekinah 1 month ago
This video is a FAIL!!!....The vacum does contain a sea of fluctuating energy to which virtual particles come from. It is NOT nothing. The energy in the quantum field did not always exist, ie, infinite past.....The 2nd law of thermodynamics proves ebergy did NOT always exist. I thought atheists thhink that they are the foundation of knowledge and reason. LOL, clearly not.
Rostos1978 1 month ago
@Rostos1978 If you think that virtual particles don't count as "something coming from nothing", then the first premise still fails because it claims that everything that "begins to exist" has a cause, yet we've never observed anything ever truly beginning to exist, so that premise has no foundation in reality. Also, we're talking about something which supposedly occurred before time itself existed, thereby making any discussion about causation complete nonsense.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
The nothing Lane Craig describes is "less" than the "nothing" Physicists talk about.....The Quantum Vacum is still SOMETHING. Prior to the big bang, there was NOTHING, no quantum vacum, nothing...
Rostos1978 1 month ago
The first premise is wrong... so how could the argument be right.
jonisaok 1 month ago
If "there are no words to describe it" (the vacuum) then why should we assume it exists - at least in terms of it representing some kind of pre-existing state of the physical universe as we know it from the Big-Bang on? And why should not atheist proponents of an eternal universe, give the same credence to Theists who, though not able to "describe it" (G-d), none the less, posit His existence?
lourak 1 month ago
@lourak Something being indescribable using our current lexicon, especially when trying to describe it to laypeople, is not the same as there not being any evidence that it exists. Its like trying to describe color to a blind person; just because its difficult/impossible to convey what color is to someone that can't see it doesn't mean that color doesn't exist.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight Your comment seems reasonable enough - I don't have a problem with this. Now lets go a step further - you need to present something that at least looks like evidence for this "indescribable" phenomenon.
lourak 4 weeks ago
@lourak There is evidence, but it gets quite technical because its rather high-end physics, so most laypeople would find it to be practically indecipherable (and so essentially meaningless). Besides, the existence of the quantum vacuum and virtual particles aren't in contention; even WLC concedes their existence.
ArcanaKnight 4 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight "Besides, the existence of the quantum vacuum and virtual particles aren't in contention; even WLC concedes their existence."
Yes but he erroneously claims that they (and radioactive decay) do not begin to exist but merely a change of conditions of something that already exists. What then, i ask, DOES begin to exist?
I cannot think of a single example.
It's a shift of the goalposts for his first premise that only states "what begins to exist".
seansalvador1 3 weeks ago
This does not pertain to Craig's argument, but if we are taking Heisenberg's principal of potentcy and actuality, then that opens the argument up to Aristotle's notion of the form of forms by moving from potency to actuality. After all, Heisenberg explicitly stated that Aristotle was the only one who ever understood indeterminacy.
insidetrip101 1 month ago
Double slit, quantum tunnelling, weak nuclear force, magmatism and electricity, dissolution creep, refraction, time dilation, relativity, chemical reactions. Shit most of science doesn't make sense to our brain. Why?
Becasue as far as evolution is concerned all the physics we need is to make sure the spear hits the Mammoth. THE END!
Common sence should not be applied to uncommon things like the worlds of the very large, the very small, the very fast or the very old! leave it to science
TheFluffyDuck 1 month ago
i totally agree with you my friend.
the ancient man would never have believed that earth was spherical.
vacum is more than vacume in physics. i totally agree with you, my friend.
zulfitareen 1 month ago
OMG did the works of Bertrand Russell just cease to exist this is the first cause argument and Russell destroyed it like 60 years ago. you dont need to go to quantum mechanics cause Russell debunked this quite easily
lovestospooge314 1 month ago
@lovestospooge314 I think it's the "begins" part. If it's just "caused", then regress is a clear question. However "begins to exist" is a turn of phrase that I don't believe Russell referred to.
basmithtx 1 month ago
You don't even understand WLC's argument: "even quantum particles coming out of nothing -like universe coming out of nothing- come into existence by physical laws, which means, something is causing it". And there are over one thousand idiots like you as I can see..
paralaks 2 months ago
Comment removed
cpytube000 2 months ago
Craig himself has admitted his god is of the supernatural. And supernatural is just another word for "magic." Therefore, why should the "magical circumstances behind his contention of an uncaused cause (the Christian god) be any more believable than the magical circumstances behind the universe simply popping into existence. Do supernatural occurrences really require an "intelligence" An even better question is: How would Craig know this?
TryTheRedPill 2 months ago
How can someone presume to know that a) there is a supreme deity and it was was either caused or uncaused. We simply don't have that kind of information. If you think we do, then you're just wrong. We. Don't Know. ANYTHING. Like. That. Not even close.
mouthyweasel 2 months ago
Just to clarify, I was referring to your statement that the "nothingness" from which virtual particles appear is the same as the "nothingness" from which the big bang singularity appears.
Like I said before, "empty space" is different from "no space."
peacerenity 2 months ago
This is just flat out wrong. The quantum vacuum is empty space. Before the universe began (beginning of space and time), there was no space, because space didn't exist yet. Empty space and no space are not the same thing.
You can try to make the case that the universe was born from the empty space/quantum vacuum of a larger multiverse, but that's a different argument.
peacerenity 2 months ago
premise 1: we have not proved that everything that exists has a cause.
premise 2: we don't know enough about the big bang or the nature of 'existence' to make the claim that the universe 'began to exist'.
premise 3: who gives a fuck wht conclusion you draw from your faulty premises.
topperheartramada 2 months ago
MY MIND HAS BEEN FUCKED NOTHING IS NOT NOTHINGNESS
Abbadon380 2 months ago
The interesting thing about the argument is that even if you accept the premises and the conclusion, it really doesn't get you to any sort of creator - let alone the omni-properties Deity of traditional theism. The universe is caused... so what?
kelskye 2 months ago
@kelskye Amen this is what I have said all along, even if we agree on the conclusion that the universe has an uncaused creator it does not tell us a thing about said creator. To say that such a creator is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving is pure speculation. To say that the creator is responsible for the messages in certain religious texts written by humans is even more dubious speculations. All we would know is that the universe is caused, and like you said so what?
spammyadvertising 2 months ago
@kelskye actually i don't see how you can extend the principle of causation to a timeless realm. let's say everything in this universe needs a cause (and that is an unsubstantiated claim). how do you conclude that the universe itself had to have one? or that it has to do with an intelligent 'creator'?
topperheartramada 2 months ago
@topperheartramada I don't follow you. My comment was about the gap between the argument and what it is used to justify. I was pointing out that acceptance of the argument doesn't mean acceptance of a creator; that's not saying that the universe must have had a cause. If someone puts forward an argument: all men are intelligent, Bob is a man. Therefore Bob is intelligent. The argument is valid, but it doesn't mean that we must accept all men are intelligent. It's seeing where the argument goes.
kelskye 2 months ago
"Whatever begins to exist has a cause."
Yes, but that applies to things WITHIN THE UNIVERSE. He then treats the universe on the same level as its contents - fallacy of composition.
And then there's the rigmarole of getting from "the universe had a cause" to "the cause was an all-powerful, all-knowing intelligent being" and then "that being continues to interact with the universe" and, finally, "and it's the god of the Bible"...
... and then "it's the god of MY interpretation of the Bible."
JMUDoc 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their [own] craftiness";.....1 Corinthians 3:19
graftedin1996 2 months ago
The only thing Dr Craig would have ANY credibility in lecturing about would be "HOW TO BE A GOOD DEBATER"
GodTheHypothesis 2 months ago
Can a quantum field exist without time and space? Is there an existence quantum particles can jump in and out without time and space? Is a quantum field really nothing? Or is it, well, a quantum field? ;-)
mawa89g 2 months ago
I'm sure Antybu will never read this, but if you do, where did you get your physics degree? I'm assuming you have one.
jbourg333 2 months ago
How does Craig know Allah is not the creator?
gregrutz 2 months ago
4:00 I bet antybu86 has no idea what he is even talking about here. I bet he offers really neither, EITHER. :)
xchampx 2 months ago
@xchampx well betting can be seen as similar as faith since its not based on evidence. when you say "i bet antybu86 is wrong" i like saying i have faith that he is wrong and therefore Craig boy is right.
ZZzzzzzWhat 2 months ago
so God created virtual particals, which then went on to create the universe. this does not go against the kalam argument. what he fails to mention is exactly how these virtual particals are able to come in to existence. even the energy in these particals has a cause. physics has still a long way to go, just look at the recent discovery of neutrino's possibly being faster than the speed of light
SquareFan786 2 months ago
The KCA only works by confusing creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia. The first premise relies upon our experience with creatio ex materia, but it then tries to use that experience and apply it to creatio ex nihilo (something which we have no experience with). It also makes the mistake of talking about causation before time itself existed, ignoring the fact that without time, causation becomes meaningless.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago 5
@ArcanaKnight exactly. he confuses the universe with something outside the universe, and then tries to apply common sense assumptions (not even proven in this universe) to some transcendental realm.
topperheartramada 2 months ago
@ArcanaKnight I am sure you have a high school diploma but not so sure beyond that: there is no such a thing as confusing "creation from nothing" and "creation from existing material" in KCA. KCA simply puts this forward: things are not totally random, things happen because somethings cause things to happen. What the hell is this causation becomes meaningless without time? You talk about the fallacy of unexperienced and in the next sentence you do what you have criticized!
paralaks 2 months ago
@paralaks "there is no such a thing..." Yes there is. Craig's support for the first premise is that its based on our knowledge and experience, but we don't have any experience with ex nihilo creation, so there he's referring to ex materia creation, but the argument is supposed to be about the origin of everything (creatio ex nihilo), so our knowledge and experience with ex materia has no bearing on ex nihilo creation.
CONT
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
CONT "...you do what you have criticized" No I don't, I'm not relying on previous experience, I'm referring to the requirements for causation. For causation to work, an effect needs to follow a cause, this means that one moment needs to follow another (aka time). Without time, one moment doesn't follow another, making discussions about causation meaningless. Since time itself didn't exist during the period being discussed, any discussion about a "first cause" is nonsense at best.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
Comment removed
paralaks 2 months ago
@paralaks " Science is all about what we can observe..." True, but the KCA isn't a scientific argument, its a philosophical one, just as WLC is a philosopher and not a scientist. You cla