The assumptions of this video is that everything that came into existence must have had a cause. The universe came into existence so there must have been a cause. God is the cause.
The assumptions it starts out with are false. If there was no beginning then there was not first cause. Immature minds cannot imagine a reality without beginning or end so they CREATE this concept to start with. But that assumptions is false and only a product of their undeveloped or limited minds.
...Because God is non-temporal. However, why couldn't you posit that the universe began with a non-temporal thing other than God, like a singularity, causing a Big Bang? The universe could be self explanatory, in that it was created by a non temporal, or "eternal" singularity.
4) You state that there are reasons for theism. I would very much like to hear these reasons! I myself am an atheist, but would like to think that I am always willing to change my views, if the evidence arises.
1. The premise was defended not by appealing to the conclusion, but by pointing out that the "particle idea" has no effect on the conclusion. The particle still has to have a cause, which is what the first premise holds.
2. Your idea of infinite is actually finite. To say that an infinite amount of time can be transversed or that an infinite # of characters can be written is to put a finishing point on the infinite. Your objection is a contradiction in terms.
Finally, I'd like to mention an objection that only recently came to mind.
5) The premise that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is normally understood to mean "Whatever begins in time has a cause", but the universe doesn't begin in time, because it's there at the beginning of time. There was no time before the universe existed, so it doesn't need an explanation for its existence. Because there is no time when the universe didn't exist, and so it didn't "come into existence" from nothing
If the premise isn't "whatever begins in time has a cause", then what is it exactly?
If it is "everything requires a cause", then does God require a cause?
The premise "Whatever begins in time has a cause" is supported by Aquinas' dictum "from nothing, nothing comes", meaning that if there is a time at which something doesn't exist, then it has to be brought into existence; but there wasn't a time at which the universe didn't exist, so it doesn't require a cause.
1) True, but if we are to assume that, before the Kalam cosmological argument, the evidence for God's existence is equally balanced, then assuming God to exist can give no weight to the proposition "God creates virtual particles ex nihilo.
2) I don't see why my suggestion is a contradiction in terms. If time is taken to be continuous, then an infinite amount of events can pass given a finite duration. However, terminology regarding infinities is problematic, so I'll leave it at that.
Suppose I make a machine that writes down the numbers on a number line with increasing speed, such that in one second, one number is written, in half a second, the next two numbers are written, in a quarter of a second, the next four numbers are written, and so on. An infinite number of characters would be written in less than three seconds.
3) You state that God doesn't require a cause, because God isn't eternal in the same way that the universe must be if God doesn't exist...
2) You argue that an infinite set of events cannot be actualized, because this would take an infinite amount of time, and an infinite amount of time cannot be traversed, because it can always be added to. But this seems to beg the question. Why can't we traverse an infinite amount of time, given an infinite amount of time? I would argue that supertasks show that an infinite set can be completed:
1) You argued that certain forms of evidence for a particle's coming into existence doesn't count as evidence against the first premise, because God is causing them to do this. But this is a form of begging the question; the assertion that something counts as evidence against a premise cannot be rejected by appealing to the conclusion.
God bless the monks and the nuns for their mortifications and prayers that are playing a major role with the prayers of the Saints and specially the prayers of our beloved and Holy Mother of God our Mother Mary , to ease Gods anger upon humanity , and delay His imminent day of judgement for us to have enoughtime to repent ! ... God bless
You would have to turn Roman Catholic Christian virtues that Mother Teresa and the Pope embody into vices , and vices into virtues in order to finally side against believing in Our God.
Or even worse have an indifference to what is truely good and a naiveness for what is evil and it s consequences , both immediate and eternal.
The assumptions of this video is that everything that came into existence must have had a cause. The universe came into existence so there must have been a cause. God is the cause.
The assumptions it starts out with are false. If there was no beginning then there was not first cause. Immature minds cannot imagine a reality without beginning or end so they CREATE this concept to start with. But that assumptions is false and only a product of their undeveloped or limited minds.
jfreedom2 1 year ago
...Because God is non-temporal. However, why couldn't you posit that the universe began with a non-temporal thing other than God, like a singularity, causing a Big Bang? The universe could be self explanatory, in that it was created by a non temporal, or "eternal" singularity.
4) You state that there are reasons for theism. I would very much like to hear these reasons! I myself am an atheist, but would like to think that I am always willing to change my views, if the evidence arises.
logician360 4 years ago
Responses to your objections:
1. The premise was defended not by appealing to the conclusion, but by pointing out that the "particle idea" has no effect on the conclusion. The particle still has to have a cause, which is what the first premise holds.
2. Your idea of infinite is actually finite. To say that an infinite amount of time can be transversed or that an infinite # of characters can be written is to put a finishing point on the infinite. Your objection is a contradiction in terms.
franciscanfriars 4 years ago
3. To answer this objection I need to know what you mean by "singularity."
4. I admire your objective stance. To hear some of these reasons view "No Apologies" #21, 22, 23, 24, 32.
franciscanfriars 4 years ago
Finally, I'd like to mention an objection that only recently came to mind.
5) The premise that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is normally understood to mean "Whatever begins in time has a cause", but the universe doesn't begin in time, because it's there at the beginning of time. There was no time before the universe existed, so it doesn't need an explanation for its existence. Because there is no time when the universe didn't exist, and so it didn't "come into existence" from nothing
logician360 3 years ago
Response to objection #5
The premise is not at all restricted to "whatever begins in time has a cause."
Nothing can create itself. All of creation, including time, has to have a cause.
franciscanfriars 3 years ago
If the premise isn't "whatever begins in time has a cause", then what is it exactly?
If it is "everything requires a cause", then does God require a cause?
The premise "Whatever begins in time has a cause" is supported by Aquinas' dictum "from nothing, nothing comes", meaning that if there is a time at which something doesn't exist, then it has to be brought into existence; but there wasn't a time at which the universe didn't exist, so it doesn't require a cause.
logician360 3 years ago
The premise is "Whatever begins to exist requires a cause."
We've shown in the video that it is reasonable to believe in an eternal being, but not in an eternal universe.
franciscanfriars 3 years ago
1) True, but if we are to assume that, before the Kalam cosmological argument, the evidence for God's existence is equally balanced, then assuming God to exist can give no weight to the proposition "God creates virtual particles ex nihilo.
2) I don't see why my suggestion is a contradiction in terms. If time is taken to be continuous, then an infinite amount of events can pass given a finite duration. However, terminology regarding infinities is problematic, so I'll leave it at that.
logician360 3 years ago
Suppose I make a machine that writes down the numbers on a number line with increasing speed, such that in one second, one number is written, in half a second, the next two numbers are written, in a quarter of a second, the next four numbers are written, and so on. An infinite number of characters would be written in less than three seconds.
3) You state that God doesn't require a cause, because God isn't eternal in the same way that the universe must be if God doesn't exist...
logician360 4 years ago
2) You argue that an infinite set of events cannot be actualized, because this would take an infinite amount of time, and an infinite amount of time cannot be traversed, because it can always be added to. But this seems to beg the question. Why can't we traverse an infinite amount of time, given an infinite amount of time? I would argue that supertasks show that an infinite set can be completed:
logician360 4 years ago
A few points regarding your counter-objections:
1) You argued that certain forms of evidence for a particle's coming into existence doesn't count as evidence against the first premise, because God is causing them to do this. But this is a form of begging the question; the assertion that something counts as evidence against a premise cannot be rejected by appealing to the conclusion.
logician360 4 years ago
God bless the monks and the nuns for their mortifications and prayers that are playing a major role with the prayers of the Saints and specially the prayers of our beloved and Holy Mother of God our Mother Mary , to ease Gods anger upon humanity , and delay His imminent day of judgement for us to have enoughtime to repent ! ... God bless
comali2212 4 years ago 2
You would have to turn Roman Catholic Christian virtues that Mother Teresa and the Pope embody into vices , and vices into virtues in order to finally side against believing in Our God.
Or even worse have an indifference to what is truely good and a naiveness for what is evil and it s consequences , both immediate and eternal.
damiantvz 4 years ago
Great Video! and your absolutely right...
Doyler3 4 years ago 2
awesome series!
redheadfo847 4 years ago