Kalam is not a valid argument. I don't know why craig keeps using it. The fourth statement, "This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe", is an argument from ignorance that is impossible to prove OR disprove, which makes the argument not usable in formal logic. Same thing for "an actual infinite cannot exist". It is not provable nor disprovable, and we have no mean to know if it applies to the void of space.
@ThinkerResearcher I agree. Assuming that there IS a god, is it not possible that this god created the universe unintentionally? Of course, the theists will say no, because in their minds, God is perfect and cannot make mistakes. But then, the only basis they have for saying that God is perfect is the Bible.
This whole debate about the KCA just seems plain silly. It is all about arguing in the absurd. First of all, the singularity is based upon relativity physics which breaks down at the quantum level. Nevertheless, the present community of physicists do not claim the universe had a beginning, which is the teat that Craig and his groupies suckle (to the point of collapse). The Craigians assume far too many givens (including the concept of God) without following through. Intuitive but wrong.
You gotta love people claiming BGV proves there was a cause.
Yeah... No.
It proves the universe's EXPANSION had to occur at some point. It doesn't prove that all matter had to pop into being. It's completely compatible with Hawking.
If you have any evidence that the universe did not just come out of nothing. Be so kind as to tell it. But come with evidence, not just opinions or assumptions.
Using what evidence does Craig say that something cannot come from nothing. It has been shown by quantum mechanics that micro-particles DO pop into existence. For a macro-object to to pop into existence (much less an ordered macro-object like a horse) is extremely unlikely, but still possible. Craig is using his own intuition, but intuition means nothing in theoretical physics.
@HighCaliberLogic Please do your research. Virtual particles are created from the space-time continuum interacting with the energy-time uncertainty principle. In the absence of the space-time continuum or the energy-time uncertainty principle (and neither would exist in nothingness), virtual particles would not exist. They don't come into being "out of nothing."
A quantum vacuum is not the same thing as nothingness. Craig has addressed this elsewhere.
@peacerenity Perhaps I am wrong, as my knowledge on this subject is scant (although I suspect the opposite). Let's say that the universe could not have been created from nothing. Now prove god.
TBS then says that he is actually defending 'proposition 4' namely: "The universe had an a-causal beginning". But if you think about it, that is exactly what WLC was saying, if the universe had an 'a-causal' beginning then it indeed 'came into being without a material nor an efficient cause' right? So WLC's statement actually does deal with his 4th option.
...which is DIFFERENT then saying that it is "doubly absurd for something to come into existence CAUSED with neither a material nor an efficient cause" (which is what what option 3 would be about, but again that's not what WLC was talking about)
But TBS is himself attacking a strawman here since WLC never maintained that statement nor did he accused TBS of making such a statement, rather what WLC actually said was "For if coming into being without a material cause seems impossible, coming into being with neither a material nor an efficient cause is doubly absurd"
Notice also his misrepresentation of WLC (at 15:45 in his video /watch?v=4IGlgYExLOo), TBS responds to WLC's claim by giving '4 options' and he says that Craig's response only makes sense with his 3th option namely "The universe was caused to exist without an efficient cause or any material cause", a statement which indeed doesn't make sense.
In other words, the whole "absence of pre-existing material stuf" is irrelevant and his objection based on that idea fails. I also think he hasn't given plausible reasons to think that premise one is in fact false, he merely tries to refute the reasons given for premise one, and I would maintain those refutations are also flawed and that therefore premise one still stands.
As a theist, I agree that all of these arguments against the KCA are easily exposed, however, there is an objection to which I have yet to have heard or come up with a refutation and that is the argument proposed by Quentin Smith and a fellow youtube user theoreticalbullshit, both of whom propose that it is logically impossible for God to have created the universe, I would recommend everyone take a look at their reasoning, it seems their arguments are being ignored.
@philosophizer149 The problem with TBS's view is that in order for a cause to bring into being it's effect, it is in fact not necessary for there to be "pre-existing material stuf to be acted upon" (which is what TBS thinks is the reason that God couldn't have caused the universe, because there was nothing to be 'acted upon').
But he himself however admits that if the universe began to exist, it can't have such material cause (But!... he says it also can not have an efficient cause!) but then it follows on his view, that the universe began to exist without any cause at all. But then it seems that on his view, it is in fact not necessary for there to be "pre-existing material stuf to be acted upon", in order for something to begin to exist.
But if the universe can began to exist without "pre-existing material stuf to be acted upon" AND without a cause, then why think the universe could not have begun to exist without "pre-existing material stuf to be acted upon" but WITH a cause? Indeed, even if you think that the absence of 'pre-existing material stuf to be acted upon' is absurd, the latter option is still less absurd then the first.
The Old Lady’s TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for WAVE (energy), both are analog with MAGEN DAVID (Judaism). "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is the metaphor, and also similar with allegory of rituals Thawaf circling around the Ka'ba and Sa’i oscillating along “the sinus” Marwah-Shafa during the Hajj pilgrimage (Abraham). YIN-YANG: energy-particle . CROSS (Christian) and SWASTIKA (Buddhism) are symbols for “Balance of Nature.”
I've just finished writing my rebuttal to skydivephil's video and plan to have a video up soon. Although, I probably will have to split it into multiple parts.
Let us use incomplete theoretical models of the "creation" to argue / prove the existence of the "creator"? So where's the red noses and the custard pies? LMAO at this cosmological circus.
What you theists need is FAITH because reason is clearly not your thing.
8:44 Regarding the change in atomic state casuing the emission of a photon. What casued the atom to change state from high energy to low energy thereby emitting the photon? Aren't they just shifting the the cause argument back one step? The very thing athiests cannot, apparently, do with regards to what caused God?
That "stacking the deck" argument doesn't hold for a multitude of reasons. For instance, a large group of evolutionary proponents are atheists (or have lost belief in their particular faith's creation myth). Arguing that they're only evolutionists to prop up their disbelief doesn't hold because they can become non-believers in their particular faith due to learning about biology. Having a large portion of scientists who started believing due to cosmologic research would strenghten your argument.
Watched all of the first video. Totally based on straw men, and ironically, takes Vilenkin out of context more than anyone. I appreciate that the Theists have a sound refutation video already. My prayer though is that the Lord would raise up a theist on youtube that creates videos that are as appealing and engaging as the videos the atheists make. Though the atheist's arguments are false, the theists need someone whose videos are both accurate, and attractive, so the public will view them.
Would you agree that nothing is the absence of matter, energy, fields, spacetime, laws of physics (quantum and classical), laws of logic, and anything else conceivable? That is, the absence of anything imaginable? (Except God, I'll grant that.) If you grant this, then how can anyone say 'this cannot happen' or 'this must happen in this way'? There is nothing to stop that from happening. Things wouldn't have to make sense. Anything would be possible.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@skydivephil Well, in your response did you admit that you took Craig out of context? Do you admit that you were wrong about many of his points too? What about Guth and Vilenkin? Did you make any apologies them, too?
@skydivephil Hi skydivephil, thanks for your response to my response, I read it and still think its flawed, however I'll be going on vacation soon and probably won't be able to reply untill end of next month. But when I get back, I'll make a new response :)
@skydivephil ( I posted a comment before, but not sure what happened with it so I'll post it again) Hi skydivephil!:) I checked your 'discussion' on "rational skepticism debunking kalam". Thanks for your response to my response, I read it and think it's still multiply flawed. However I'll be going on vacation soon till end of next month. When I come back I'll make a new response to your response ( if it hasn't already been refuted by other theists online ).
I find it odd that athiest like to appeal to occams razor when it comes to the teleological argument. but when it comes to the Kalam argument (in my opinion, currently the best argument for theism). the atheist like to kill an ant with a slege hammer. ie break occam's razor. by going against the principle of suffiecent reason.
"ie break occam's razor. by going against the principle of suffiecent reason."
Occam's Razor easily applies to the Kalam cosmological argument. Why would there have to be a god that causes all this? Why not go for a natural explanation? At least you'll avoid introducing YET another layer (god) that you have to find an explanation for.
@MomoTheBellyDancer We meet again; maybe we can keep it civil this time, and argue the arguments. Without knowing what cosmological model fluctuates your particle, I will assume that the model presented in the other video is the one we are arguing over. By using imaginary time, the Hartle-Hawking model cuts out the singularity and instead posits expansion (big bang) occurring in a quantum realm which has always existed. This poses some questions:
Now to get around a model that doesn’t collapse, cosmologists created oscillating models, where the gravity pull of the universe itself would reverse expansion and start collapsing the universe. However that still raises more questions:
@MomoTheBellyDancer So as it stands, natural explanations are not really explanations, allowing god to still be the best explanation of the origins of the universe.
So many words just to wind up with the god ole´ god of the gaps. If we don´t know something, insert goddidit, and we´re fine. In case you didn´t realize: God is not an explanation, it´s a placeholder for "We have no clue".
If, for the sake of argument, tomorrow any and all theories of cosmology collapsed and were disproven, how much credibility would that add to biblical myths? Exactly: Nothing.
@2hanscgn It is no more of a gap the any cosmological model. You are begging the question by saying that god is a place holder, instead of basing that assertion on refuting the Kalam, you are basing that assertion on who knows what? Even that I admit that I am a Christian, which holds no relevance to the topic at hand. I could go on to spear you over assuming that the Bible is false without showing why.
@exposedatheists Haha I see him EVERYWHERE! The funny thing is his name, 'ScienceFoundation'. I myself am very interested in Science and that douchebag knows nothing about science what so ever, and I can't understand why he is so crazy about arguments for God, I mean shouldn't he stickc to science, even if he knows nothing about it? He commented on my Introductionvideo to the Kalam Cosmological Argument by a random stupid objection that P2 is false because of the law of conservation, lmao.
@TheisticThinker our in house genius knows everything about theology, history, philosophy, science, etc, etc, dawkins style; whenever he gets spanked, he crawls under his rock and opens the god delusion for comfort hope his prophet will inspire him to live another day.
but seriously, he is a product of dawkins; dawkins sets up a caricature against Christians; fellows like our genius believes it only to get pwnd badly; i say, "power to dawkins"
would it be so hard for you to READ it? unless you have some cool graphics going on, why should I watch something which I can get equally well, but just listening.
second, if WLC is willing to "give up" radioactive decay to randomness, than I really can't see him deffanding premise 1:
can you give me an example of something (caused) that comes into existance by that cause?
after being refuted badly, he makes another bizarre claim: "you're finding a very small minority that seems to agree with you when the majority overwhelmingly disagrees with you” i challenged him to provide one HISTORIAN and his scholarly source that even suggests that Jesus didn't exist and he couldn't
but, it gets worse for him; even IF there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus, i challenged him to provide the criteria from the HISTORICAL METHOD that says that you cannot use non-contemporaneous evidence; he didn't provide it; ." yet he accuses us of "shifting the goalpost" and “confirmation bias”
i quoted Arthur Keith: "We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." so, according to his logic, evo is not a fact bcos scientists believe in it; even dawkins makes statements about belief in evo
he claimed there’s no contemporary evidence for Jesus and using the Bible is circular logic; i quoted atheist historians that pwned him; they use the NT bcos is has multiple sources and based on EYEWITNESSES
he claimed: "I'm sure you can find christian historians that want to believe jesus existed and died" as if Christian scholars cannot do history; and according to his logic, we should reject evo bcos only evos believe in evo; then i quoted some atheist historians that believed Jesus existed and died to refute him; he then makes the bizzare claim, "If they were facts, they wouldn't have to believe them." yet, the quotes i gave him say that Jesus DID exist
i asked him to provide a credible source that says "miracles" and "magic" are synonyms, he didn't.
he claimed: "It says you can see all of earth from a high mountain" LOL!!! who's "you"? the Bible says that Satan (a spirit being) showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world; satan could have used some sort of projection.
The "it(Bible) says Pi is 3" i refuted him with this article: Purplemath(.)com/modules/bibleval.htm
he claimed that God uses magic instead of performing miracles; he sites MW for the definition of magic, yet his own source refuted him; MW says that magic is SEEMLINGLY from a supernatural source; then he claimed: "There is no difference between miracles and magic, it's a distinction without difference." so according to him the meanings of "difference" and "distinction" mean the same. GRAZY!!!
"[IT]deals statistically with information, with the measurement of its content in terms of its distinguishing essential characteristics" according to him, this definition proves that information occurs naturally; i asked for a PAPER that applies this definition to show that information arises naturally, but he never gave one; he just kept on giving this definition but NO evidence that information arises naturally, let alone all the time.
and even more bizzare this article doesn't say anything about INFORMATION occurring naturally; the evo part deals with how complex structure arises, like a cell, which uses info already present; our genius rejected werner gitt but accepts wiki. crazy!!!! after being pwnd about emergence, he brings in infomation theory and uses MW for it's definition:
he then claimed that information occurs naturally through immergence; i found a paper on immergence by Peter Fleissner, Wolfgang Hofkirchner and it is about how organism acquire and process information and how they learn; he then provided a WIKI link; yes, our "scientist" provided a wiki link; what's really bad is that majority of this article doesn't have any references; the references that they do have are to definitions!!!
our genius kept on repeating that it’s just an antiquated use of the word; finally, i quoted two modern scientists who agree with pasteur that abio is impossible on earth: "There is no evidence that life has been or can be produced from non-life on this planet." Rhawn Joseph and Rudolf Schild
he claimed that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are completely different; yet, i quoted from princeton, Journal of Theoretical Biology, ISCID and a few biology dictionary that disagreed with him; abio and SG differ in time and frequency; both theories start with non-living parts and end with living things; also, abio does require SG at some point; i even quoted pasteur who concluded that no life can come from non-life;
after pwning him, he tried to backtrack his claim that it is evidence for abiogenesis; finally he complained, "Do you think they're going to microscopically monitor every square millimeter of every diffusion vent on earth?” so, he complains that they can’t find the evidence. CRAZY!!!
he claimed that the protocell was evidence for abiogenesis; i asked him to provide evidence for the protocell in NATURE by saying, "plz provide evidence for this protocell; the oldest fossil are of cyanobacteria"; notice, i mentioned the oldest fossil found; he then provided a lab experiment; so a lab experiment is evidence that it existed in nature
he claimed: "the idea of a such a wide population bottleneck as Noahs flood is completely rebutted by modern genetics" i quoted dawkins who said that there was a population bottleneck; after being refuted, he brought up a new argument and sites a non-scholar's YT video. CRAZY!!! Also, I gave him scientific reasoning, also referring to research, why “eve” and “adam” have a discrepancy in their timeline that's consist with the Bible.
he didn't create new life; but, the fool repeated his lie; finally, i quoted venter from an online video from guardiancouk; he says, "i replaced only the DNA "software" and in a short while all the characteristic of the first species was replaced by a new species...we didn't know how really dynamic a cell was until simply replacing the software"; any1 can view this video; plus this proved once and for all that DNA is code
then he claimed this about craig venter's experiment: "It was entirely from scratch, they used a blank cell, which is not a living system. They took completely non-living components and produced a living bacteria." his source is from a heading of an article; but, this article and ALL articles that relate to this topic refuted him; ALL the articles say that he replaced the DNA code; he is very clear in a CNN interview that…
he claimed "Energy can exist independent of both time and matter, matter is a state of energy and time is a measure of change of matter/energy. If there is no change but the state is homogenized, then there is no time" i asked him for a source that says this and ALL he provide was a source that doesn't say this.
so what is the evidence against the mind being separate?
he tells us why "The mind is not immaterial, all attempts thus far to usefully or empirically separate mind from brain have failed." so IF all the attempts failed thus far, he concludes that "The mind is not immaterial"? if they do separate them, then what should we make of his claim? using his logic, all attempts for creating life has failed thus far, hence creating life is not possible. CRAZY!!!
no evidence has ever been produced to show that abiogenesis is true; in order to reject something intellectually, there has to be good evidence against it; if there's no evidence for something now, u have no reason to suggest that is false, unless you have good evidence against it; who knows, maybe evidence will turn up in the future using a better technique; we can safely reject abio because not only is there no evidence, there's evidence against it
then he claims "Thought is the product of bio-electricity." how does he know that? it could be the other way around; scientists can look at ur brain activity but they can not find out what u r thinking about; and if everything is just chemicals, then there's not freewill. He thinks if science doesn't show evidence of something, it cannot be true, LOL!!! but he still BELIEVES in abiogenesis
In other words, the universe is all of existence, including the energy outside the universe; logical and physical laws are properties of the universe; but logical laws don’t apply outside the universe bcos logical laws are a property of the universe and the universe is all of existence; but, we can apply the law of identity outside the universe bcos, outside of the universe has energy and energy cannot be energy and not energy at the same time. GRAZY!!!!
he then claimed “If you say that energy could've been created in the past then you're saying physics fails, so causality would also fail” yet the 1st law is a physical law and was created after the BB; according to NASA, energy, matter and space-time were created at the BB; why would physical laws apply when there was no physical reality?
he also claimed, "the universe is all of existence, both real and postulated" and again, he claimed: "I'm saying energy existed indefinitely" so, according to him the universe is things inside the universe and things outside the universe, i.e., energy. CRAZY!!! also, again, he claimed, "Logic is a property of the universe", so, he refuted himself bcos since, energy existed b4 the BB, then, so did logical laws; also, that's NOT MW's definition of universe.
@leviMichealathan 'so, according to him the universe is things inside the universe and things outside the universe, i.e., energy. '
No, there can be nothing outside the universe, never did I make such a ridiculous claim. It's apparent that you have to strawman my position to even attempt to make an argument.
@scientific LOL!!! u said "energy existed indefinitely", fool, liar! and u created ur own definition of universe; i challenge u to provide the merriam webster definition that says, "the universe is all of existence"
@JessieNix LOL! So, you think the numbers didn't existe before the universe? Number and the laws of logic are abstract and invariable and necessary. There are many things that exist apart from the universe.
also, he claimed "I'm saying energy existed indefinitely", so, again according to his logic, energy can be energy and not energy at the same time bcos the laws of logic doesn't apply b4 the BB.
i asked him to account for the laws of logic if they were created at the BB, he didn't respond.
BUT, it gets worse, he claimed, "Webster is the most accurate revisionist dictionary" remember this claim, we will get back to it.
@scientific "I didn't say they were created at the big bang. You seem to forget that laws of logic are descriptive not prescriptive" LOL!!! this doesn't answer the question of how can you account for logic? how did you account for describing the law of identity? where did it start? you can't account for it because you need LOGIC to use LOGIC.
he claimed "Logic is a property of the universe, i.e. if A didn't exist then A couldn't be A while not being not A" then he claimed "The big bang was not an ex nihilo event" so according to his logic, whatever there was b4 the BB (x) can be x and not x at the same time bcos the law of identity doesn't apply.
the law of identity also apply if there’s NOTHING!!! nothing cannot be nothing and something at the same time.
but, the laws of logic transcends the human mind; they are universal; they are not subjective; people think differently; we don't discover the laws of logic by observation but by THOUGHT; in nature we do not see something that is both itself and not itself at the same time; we have to think about it; we can only observe things that exist; we cannot observe the properties of a non-existent thing...
where in nature do we observe that something cannot bring itself into existence if it does not already exist? you cannot make an observation about how something does not occur if it does not exist; you would be, in essence, observing nothing at all, and how can any laws of logic be applied to, or derived from, observing nothing at all? (taken from CARM) so, again, how do u account for the laws of logic? u can't bcos u need logic to use logic.
"I never said identity can apply if there's nothing." what are u on about??? yes, i know, genius; i was the onw who CLAIMED that bcos you claimed that the laws of logic are a property of the universe and they can't exist apart from the universe; but i refuted u bcos i showed u that the law of identity can still be applied if there's nothing (i.e. no physical reality): nothing cannot be something and nothing at the same time.
"'the law of identity also apply if there’s NOTHING'
The only ones saying there are nothing are theists, and this is entirely unfounded." LOL!!! fool, Christians have been telling ur kind for centuries that the universe had a beginning based of philosophical grounds; Christians have ALWAYS believed that God is eternal; it is ur kind who believed that the universe was created from nothing...
recently, ur kind has pushed the problem back a level by claiming that there was sumthing b4 the BB; where did this sumthing come from??? either way, u go back to nothing.
plus, again, you pwn urself; u claimed that the laws of logic are properties of the universe and then u claimed that energy existed indefinitely; and then u claimed that the universe is all of existence; so, the laws of logic existed indefinitely.
(not to mention the fact that according to ur logic, the universe is things inside it and things outside of it)
even if u didn't claim that energy existed indefinitely, you still get pwnd because u claimed there was sumthing b4 the BB; bcos there was sumthing b4 the BB, law logical laws existed b4 the universe began.
even if u claimed that the universe was created from nothing, u still get pwnd bcos i showed u, logical laws still apply even if there's nothing, i.e
i.e, no space,no time, no energy, no matter bcos logic laws transcends the universe.
the reason why you have this crazy notion that logical laws are only a property of the universe is because u thought that u could do away with cause and effect. LOL!!! pwnd.
man, you are obessessed with God; u spend so much talking talking about Him; hating Him; hating His Word. LOL.
if I truly believed that there's no God and there's no evidence for Him, I wouldn't spend my life wasting time talking about Him; u r such a tool of dawkins. LOL!!!
i will continue to post all ur claims where ever u post comments on Christian videos. till next time...
"The universe is defined as all of existence, so anything that exists technically constitutes the universe, in this case energy. If it didn't exist, that means it would had to have been created, meaning physics doesn't apply, meaning you can't arbitrarily apply causality just because it suits you." you have already been refuted by just about every1.
"Your syllogism is entirely circular logic, it's saying that an infinite series of events couldn't occur because infinite couldn't exist. You never give any actual substantiation to the claim that infinite can't exist." No!!! all u have are straw man augments; infinite events cannot exist because we would not get to this point
"I was pointing out that the second law only applies to the energy *within* an isolated system, not to the system itself. " LOL!!!! here's the definition of heat death from MW, ur own source: "an ultimate state of thermal equilibrium implying conditions of maximum entropy and zero available energy that according to the laws of thermodynamics THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE IS APPARENTLY APPROACHING" -emp; did you see that? "material universe" pwnd, again!!!!
he used dawkins argument against the ontological argument only to find out that WLC refuted it; he also LOVES to redefine words; i'm going to now post SOME of the claims from our genius; it's long but it's worth it; I will start with the claims he made on this thread first.
when dealing with TheScienceFoundation, you will notice his only arguments are "you don't understand this" or you're a retard; also, you will notice that sources are few and far between and that when a source is giving, it actual refutes him; also, when he is refuted, he brings up a new argument; it's obvious that dawkins is his prophet
Stephen Hawking "In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature."
The KCA doesn't require half an hour to refute, it can be done in the given 500 character comment section
If physics applies, then conservation laws invalidate the KCA because energy has existed indefinitely.
If you claim physics has broken down when regressing towards the singularity, then you can't turn around and try to apply causality without committing egregious fallacy.
@TheScienceFoundation "If physics applies, then conservation laws invalidate the KCA because energy has existed indefinitely." No the conservation laws dont apply because the moment the universe began to exist was the moment the conservation law began to exist therefore you cant use the conservation law to refute the KCA. Basically the law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed BUT you must create a universe BEFORE this law can even be take effect.
@RaytownSoClassof2010 The universe is defined as all of existence, so anything that exists technically constitutes the universe, in this case energy. If it didn't exist, that means it would had to have been created, meaning physics doesn't apply, meaning you can't arbitrarily apply causality just because it suits you.
Um, no, that's not the UNIVERSE. You are presenting a false-dilemma. "If I say, “X creates Y,” this presupposes the existence of X in the first place in order to bring Y into existence. If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent."
So the universe began to exist and the universe cannot be the cause of it's own existence.
Yes, either something exists forever or something brought itself into existence: agreed. The physical universe, however, has been thoroughly proven to not have existed eternally. This is perhaps ...the simplest, most well-attested facet of Big Bang cosmology: the universe began to exist at some finite point in the past.
Now you're strawmanning, I never said the universe created itself, I said that by empirical physics the universe likely had no beginning. So just the opposite.
I'm not strawmanning you don't understand common sense. I'll say it again "If I say, “X creates Y,” this presupposes the existence of X in the first place in order to bring Y into existence. If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent."
an eternal universe is a logical impossibility in the 1st place. And even if it weren't, it would require an infinite energy source
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics shows it's running down and thus cannot exist eternally (without experiencing heat death) without an infinite source of new energy. This refutes your claim
"The second law only applies to the energy within an isolated system, the system itself is subject to resetting IE cyclicity."
You do understand cosmic backround radiation right? entropy? If what your saying is true then we should have no idea how old the universe is.......WTF Are you on right now? I'm not talking about evolution I'm talking about the universe.
This is why I need patience to deal with YT atheists...
@TimelessApologist Apparently I'm the only one that *does* understand we were talking about entropy. I was pointing out that the second law only applies to the energy *within* an isolated system, not to the system itself. Which part did you get lost at?
You don't need patience, you need at least a high school understanding of physics
"The KCA doesn't require half an hour to refute, it can be done in the given 500 character comment section"
ummm no, you don't understand the argument.......you say energy has existed indefinitely....well no shit, Dr. Craig is aware of that, hence his critique on universes creating themselves naturally.....that's the same as us saying God existed indefinitely.....you need to reread premise 1
@TimelessApologist Yes, that is the universe. If energy exists then the universe by definition exists.
1: No, it teaches us that the expansion of current space-time began expanding around 13.7ba
2: This is a non-sequitur based on a complete disconnect from reality. That's literally saying 'We couldn't have reached a configuration of mass and energy because of indefinite configurations of mass and energy'
The fact that the universe is contingent and not necessary. Consider that every single atom in our universe doesn't HAVE to exist. And if that's true for any single atom, then it's true for all atoms. And if it's true for all atoms (which comprise all matter) then it's true of the entire universe. If it's even POSSIBLE for each atom in the universe not to exist, then it's POSSIBLE for ALL atoms in the universe not to exist.
@TimelessApologist 'The fact that the universe is contingent and not necessary'
No, that's the premise that theists are having a seemingly impossible time proving.
'Consider that every single atom in our universe doesn't HAVE to exist'
Based on what?
You're assuming it's true to assert it's true, completely circular reasoning. You haven't moved out of the wheel of power to actually support your claim.
Dude you have no idea WTF your talking about LOL Do you understand the universe is going to have a heat death, how the heck does that not make it isolate you fuckin moron
You are stupid, you can't keep up Theists who aren't fundamentalists, go play with the fundamentalists, because you are waaaay behind. You need to learn philosophy also
@TheScienceFoundation The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that the maximum entropy of a closed system of fixed volume is constant. This is what you are failing to grasp, because atheists have problems open their minds
1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2. A beginningless temporal series of events is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, a beginningless temporal series of events cannot exist.
It is so blatantly obvious, you need philosophy lessons in logic
@TimelessApologist No, it says that the maximum value of an *isolated* system is equilibrium.
Your syllogism is entirely circular logic, it's saying that an infinite series of events couldn't occur because infinite couldn't exist. You never give any actual substantiation to the claim that infinite can't exist.
Also, I do imagine you would try to exempt god from 'an actual infinite cannot exist'
@TimelessApologist No, your ignorance of the fact that the second law doesn't apply to the system but only to the energy does not constitute circular logic on my part.
There is no outside the big bang, that's a ridiculous postulation. The singularity contained all space-time in an infinitely dense point.
"The singularity contained all space-time in an infinitely dense point."
You absolutely no sense, matter had to come from SOMEWHERE
Every contingent thing needs a cause for it's existence. Otherwise why doesn't just anything and everything pop into existence, uncaused, out nothing? Why is it just universes? And WE DO KNOW with some certainty from all modern cosmology that the universe had a beginning
Do you realize you just rebutted your own argument, and now you lose all credibility.
See this is why "what's true for you, but not me" can only work so far. Your bullshit and lack of philosophy only works for fundamentalists
So Take it like a man, and get the fuck out of this comment section and go pray to your imaginary multiverses....perhaps there is a possible universe where unicorns exist and you are riding on top of one into the sunset
Actually all I've done thus far is point out your egregious misunderstandings in the most basic fields physics. I mean you've failed to grasp the ridiculously simple energy/system distinction.
You lost the argument bro, everyone here saw it. Leave with some dignity, because not only do you lack scientific knowledge in physics, but you don't understand philosophy.
If you claim the universe always existed, and that the universe is existence, but entropy only applies to the universe then you are refuting your own argument and not making any sense.
@Templarforever No, I've been exposing the ignorance of the theists here for about an hour now. It's been made clear that I'm the only one that does have an understanding of physics.
'If you claim the universe always existed, and that the universe is existence, but entropy only applies to the universe'
Try reading any of the fifteen or so times I've pointed out that the second law only applies to the energy *within* a system and not to the system itself. It could save you some embarrassment.
Kalam is not a valid argument. I don't know why craig keeps using it. The fourth statement, "This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe", is an argument from ignorance that is impossible to prove OR disprove, which makes the argument not usable in formal logic. Same thing for "an actual infinite cannot exist". It is not provable nor disprovable, and we have no mean to know if it applies to the void of space.
ThinkerResearcher 1 month ago
@ThinkerResearcher I agree. Assuming that there IS a god, is it not possible that this god created the universe unintentionally? Of course, the theists will say no, because in their minds, God is perfect and cannot make mistakes. But then, the only basis they have for saying that God is perfect is the Bible.
RestrictThis5 1 week ago
This whole debate about the KCA just seems plain silly. It is all about arguing in the absurd. First of all, the singularity is based upon relativity physics which breaks down at the quantum level. Nevertheless, the present community of physicists do not claim the universe had a beginning, which is the teat that Craig and his groupies suckle (to the point of collapse). The Craigians assume far too many givens (including the concept of God) without following through. Intuitive but wrong.
brucegrenehan1 2 months ago
You gotta love people claiming BGV proves there was a cause.
Yeah... No.
It proves the universe's EXPANSION had to occur at some point. It doesn't prove that all matter had to pop into being. It's completely compatible with Hawking.
Stairc 2 months ago
as a mathematician I have no problem with so called Hilbert's Hotel Paradox. Aleph_0 + Aleph_0 = Aleph_0. All you need is to understand infinite sets.
But there are more complex things like uncountably infinite sets and their measures.
Thus, Hilbert's Hotel properties are nothing compared to Cantor Set Properties, for instance.
mcfunthomas 2 months ago
I love the silly comments atheist make. Stupid and arrogant simultaneously.
LittleSn00py 3 months ago
@LittleSn00py I would rather say that you are stuffed up and overly smug.
Gotta love ad hominem attacks.
Sweddude 2 months ago
@Sweddude And I would rather say, sirrah, that your are of an impoverished mind and a bore.
LittleSn00py 2 months ago
@LittleSn00py And i would say that i know over 25 people who would say otherwise.
Sweddude 2 months ago
@Sweddude And I would say that those 25 people are pathological liars.
LittleSn00py 2 months ago
@LittleSn00py Then i would say that you have no evidence to suport that.
Sweddude 2 months ago
@Sweddude Then I would say that I do.
LittleSn00py 2 months ago
@LittleSn00py Then show it, i have evidence on the contrary.
Sweddude 2 months ago
@Sweddude Ask your mom; I gave it to her.
LittleSn00py 2 months ago
@LittleSn00py .... bravo.
Sweddude 2 months ago
@Sweddude Thank you.
LittleSn00py 2 months ago
Why does anything that begings to exist need a cause.
Is life not good enough for the religious. must there be a reason?
Religious people must be very arrogant.
MrMaika77 3 months ago
@MrMaika77 Because saying that the reason why the universe exists is that "it just does, for no reason whatsoever" is a huge intellectual copout.
peacerenity 3 months ago
@peacerenity Why is that?
If you have any evidence that the universe did not just come out of nothing. Be so kind as to tell it. But come with evidence, not just opinions or assumptions.
MrMaika77 3 months ago
Using what evidence does Craig say that something cannot come from nothing. It has been shown by quantum mechanics that micro-particles DO pop into existence. For a macro-object to to pop into existence (much less an ordered macro-object like a horse) is extremely unlikely, but still possible. Craig is using his own intuition, but intuition means nothing in theoretical physics.
HighCaliberLogic 4 months ago
@HighCaliberLogic Please do your research. Virtual particles are created from the space-time continuum interacting with the energy-time uncertainty principle. In the absence of the space-time continuum or the energy-time uncertainty principle (and neither would exist in nothingness), virtual particles would not exist. They don't come into being "out of nothing."
A quantum vacuum is not the same thing as nothingness. Craig has addressed this elsewhere.
peacerenity 3 months ago
@peacerenity Perhaps I am wrong, as my knowledge on this subject is scant (although I suspect the opposite). Let's say that the universe could not have been created from nothing. Now prove god.
HighCaliberLogic 3 months ago
Video ridiculous. Says nothing.
StephenDeMille 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
TBS then says that he is actually defending 'proposition 4' namely: "The universe had an a-causal beginning". But if you think about it, that is exactly what WLC was saying, if the universe had an 'a-causal' beginning then it indeed 'came into being without a material nor an efficient cause' right? So WLC's statement actually does deal with his 4th option.
GGDFan777 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...which is DIFFERENT then saying that it is "doubly absurd for something to come into existence CAUSED with neither a material nor an efficient cause" (which is what what option 3 would be about, but again that's not what WLC was talking about)
GGDFan777 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
But TBS is himself attacking a strawman here since WLC never maintained that statement nor did he accused TBS of making such a statement, rather what WLC actually said was "For if coming into being without a material cause seems impossible, coming into being with neither a material nor an efficient cause is doubly absurd"
GGDFan777 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Notice also his misrepresentation of WLC (at 15:45 in his video /watch?v=4IGlgYExLOo), TBS responds to WLC's claim by giving '4 options' and he says that Craig's response only makes sense with his 3th option namely "The universe was caused to exist without an efficient cause or any material cause", a statement which indeed doesn't make sense.
GGDFan777 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In other words, the whole "absence of pre-existing material stuf" is irrelevant and his objection based on that idea fails. I also think he hasn't given plausible reasons to think that premise one is in fact false, he merely tries to refute the reasons given for premise one, and I would maintain those refutations are also flawed and that therefore premise one still stands.
GGDFan777 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MegaTerminator786 Maybe you should actually watch HER video before making accusations and your link is broken, you fucking moron. lol
urantivirus 5 months ago
He has also been debunked here: youtube.com/watch?v=805-1LD74i0
I think its clear that Phil is a liar who uses names such as WLC and Adam Deen to make a name for himself.
MegaTerminator786 5 months ago
@MegaTerminator786 Maybe you should actually watch HER video before you start making accusations. Also your link is broken, you fucking moron. lol
urantivirus 5 months ago
@MegaTerminator786 Maybe you should actually watch HER video before you start making accusations. Also your link is broken, you fucking moron. lol
urantivirus 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MegaTerminator786 Maybe you should actually watch HER video before making accusations and your link is broken, you fucking moron. lol
urantivirus 5 months ago
As a theist, I agree that all of these arguments against the KCA are easily exposed, however, there is an objection to which I have yet to have heard or come up with a refutation and that is the argument proposed by Quentin Smith and a fellow youtube user theoreticalbullshit, both of whom propose that it is logically impossible for God to have created the universe, I would recommend everyone take a look at their reasoning, it seems their arguments are being ignored.
philosophizer149 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@philosophizer149 The problem with TBS's view is that in order for a cause to bring into being it's effect, it is in fact not necessary for there to be "pre-existing material stuf to be acted upon" (which is what TBS thinks is the reason that God couldn't have caused the universe, because there was nothing to be 'acted upon').
GGDFan777 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
But he himself however admits that if the universe began to exist, it can't have such material cause (But!... he says it also can not have an efficient cause!) but then it follows on his view, that the universe began to exist without any cause at all. But then it seems that on his view, it is in fact not necessary for there to be "pre-existing material stuf to be acted upon", in order for something to begin to exist.
GGDFan777 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
But if the universe can began to exist without "pre-existing material stuf to be acted upon" AND without a cause, then why think the universe could not have begun to exist without "pre-existing material stuf to be acted upon" but WITH a cause? Indeed, even if you think that the absence of 'pre-existing material stuf to be acted upon' is absurd, the latter option is still less absurd then the first.
GGDFan777 5 months ago
Great video, man. Well done.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD - Philosophia Perennis and Science.
The Old Lady’s TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for WAVE (energy), both are analog with MAGEN DAVID (Judaism). "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is the metaphor, and also similar with allegory of rituals Thawaf circling around the Ka'ba and Sa’i oscillating along “the sinus” Marwah-Shafa during the Hajj pilgrimage (Abraham). YIN-YANG: energy-particle . CROSS (Christian) and SWASTIKA (Buddhism) are symbols for “Balance of Nature.”
TatoSugiarto 6 months ago
theists (like you) continue to overestimate the Kalam Cosmological argument over and over again.
travlr3000x 6 months ago 8
@travlr3000x We're very scared of your empty assertions.
LittleSn00py 1 month ago
I've just finished writing my rebuttal to skydivephil's video and plan to have a video up soon. Although, I probably will have to split it into multiple parts.
Randomicity912 6 months ago
Thank you so much for taking your time to do this vid... and I thank GGDFan777 as well...
Willbattle88 6 months ago
Let us use incomplete theoretical models of the "creation" to argue / prove the existence of the "creator"? So where's the red noses and the custard pies? LMAO at this cosmological circus.
What you theists need is FAITH because reason is clearly not your thing.
You will love my channel though. That's for sure.
;)
ar2de2em2 6 months ago
The problem with stupid people is they don't know they are stupid people.
day2knight 6 months ago
gotta love all the armchair physicists in here
blarghblarghblargh 6 months ago
8:44 Regarding the change in atomic state casuing the emission of a photon. What casued the atom to change state from high energy to low energy thereby emitting the photon? Aren't they just shifting the the cause argument back one step? The very thing athiests cannot, apparently, do with regards to what caused God?
davidsfriend01 6 months ago
That "stacking the deck" argument doesn't hold for a multitude of reasons. For instance, a large group of evolutionary proponents are atheists (or have lost belief in their particular faith's creation myth). Arguing that they're only evolutionists to prop up their disbelief doesn't hold because they can become non-believers in their particular faith due to learning about biology. Having a large portion of scientists who started believing due to cosmologic research would strenghten your argument.
evilmiera 7 months ago
Thank you very much for defending my favourite argument for the existence of God!
31Uriel 7 months ago
Watched all of the first video. Totally based on straw men, and ironically, takes Vilenkin out of context more than anyone. I appreciate that the Theists have a sound refutation video already. My prayer though is that the Lord would raise up a theist on youtube that creates videos that are as appealing and engaging as the videos the atheists make. Though the atheist's arguments are false, the theists need someone whose videos are both accurate, and attractive, so the public will view them.
devintarr 7 months ago
Would you agree that nothing is the absence of matter, energy, fields, spacetime, laws of physics (quantum and classical), laws of logic, and anything else conceivable? That is, the absence of anything imaginable? (Except God, I'll grant that.) If you grant this, then how can anyone say 'this cannot happen' or 'this must happen in this way'? There is nothing to stop that from happening. Things wouldn't have to make sense. Anything would be possible.
kfk4life 7 months ago
I have posted a response . If you want to continue the discussion google "rational skepticism debunking kalam" thanks
skydivephil 7 months ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@skydivephil Well, in your response did you admit that you took Craig out of context? Do you admit that you were wrong about many of his points too? What about Guth and Vilenkin? Did you make any apologies them, too?
exposedatheists 7 months ago
@skydivephil Hi skydivephil, thanks for your response to my response, I read it and still think its flawed, however I'll be going on vacation soon and probably won't be able to reply untill end of next month. But when I get back, I'll make a new response :)
GGDFan777 7 months ago
@skydivephil ( I posted a comment before, but not sure what happened with it so I'll post it again) Hi skydivephil!:) I checked your 'discussion' on "rational skepticism debunking kalam". Thanks for your response to my response, I read it and think it's still multiply flawed. However I'll be going on vacation soon till end of next month. When I come back I'll make a new response to your response ( if it hasn't already been refuted by other theists online ).
GGDFan777 7 months ago
I find it odd that athiest like to appeal to occams razor when it comes to the teleological argument. but when it comes to the Kalam argument (in my opinion, currently the best argument for theism). the atheist like to kill an ant with a slege hammer. ie break occam's razor. by going against the principle of suffiecent reason.
lilrat489 7 months ago
@lilrat489
"ie break occam's razor. by going against the principle of suffiecent reason."
Occam's Razor easily applies to the Kalam cosmological argument. Why would there have to be a god that causes all this? Why not go for a natural explanation? At least you'll avoid introducing YET another layer (god) that you have to find an explanation for.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer We meet again; maybe we can keep it civil this time, and argue the arguments. Without knowing what cosmological model fluctuates your particle, I will assume that the model presented in the other video is the one we are arguing over. By using imaginary time, the Hartle-Hawking model cuts out the singularity and instead posits expansion (big bang) occurring in a quantum realm which has always existed. This poses some questions:
SPR4GOD 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
1). why use imaginary time to cut out the singularity?
2). in a model that doesn’t collapse, an infinite old vacuum would pose an infinite old universe of maximum entropy.
SPR4GOD 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Now to get around a model that doesn’t collapse, cosmologists created oscillating models, where the gravity pull of the universe itself would reverse expansion and start collapsing the universe. However that still raises more questions:
SPR4GOD 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
1). an infinite old universe oscillating would need an infinite amount of cosmic tunings to even begin, if a single one misfired, no more universe.
2). there isn’t any know physics principle that would produce another expansion out of a collapse.
3). another problem is, instead of slowing down, expansion is actually speeding up. This goes directly against an oscillating model.
SPR4GOD 7 months ago
@SPR4GOD Have you read Roger Penrose's book "Cycles of Time", or possibly watched his related lecture?
kfk4life 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer So as it stands, natural explanations are not really explanations, allowing god to still be the best explanation of the origins of the universe.
SPR4GOD 7 months ago
@SPR4GOD
So many words just to wind up with the god ole´ god of the gaps. If we don´t know something, insert goddidit, and we´re fine. In case you didn´t realize: God is not an explanation, it´s a placeholder for "We have no clue".
If, for the sake of argument, tomorrow any and all theories of cosmology collapsed and were disproven, how much credibility would that add to biblical myths? Exactly: Nothing.
2hanscgn 7 months ago
@2hanscgn It is no more of a gap the any cosmological model. You are begging the question by saying that god is a place holder, instead of basing that assertion on refuting the Kalam, you are basing that assertion on who knows what? Even that I admit that I am a Christian, which holds no relevance to the topic at hand. I could go on to spear you over assuming that the Bible is false without showing why.
SPR4GOD 7 months ago
@lilrat489
Do you really think Occam's Razor in any way helps claims of a specific god, especially the biblical god?
TheTexanCanadian 7 months ago
2nd law only applies if the universe has been expanding forever.
not to mention in such a vacuum it is very unstable.
josephchoi 7 months ago
@exposedatheists Haha I see him EVERYWHERE! The funny thing is his name, 'ScienceFoundation'. I myself am very interested in Science and that douchebag knows nothing about science what so ever, and I can't understand why he is so crazy about arguments for God, I mean shouldn't he stickc to science, even if he knows nothing about it? He commented on my Introductionvideo to the Kalam Cosmological Argument by a random stupid objection that P2 is false because of the law of conservation, lmao.
TheisticThinker 7 months ago
@TheisticThinker our in house genius knows everything about theology, history, philosophy, science, etc, etc, dawkins style; whenever he gets spanked, he crawls under his rock and opens the god delusion for comfort hope his prophet will inspire him to live another day.
but seriously, he is a product of dawkins; dawkins sets up a caricature against Christians; fellows like our genius believes it only to get pwnd badly; i say, "power to dawkins"
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
would it be so hard for you to READ it? unless you have some cool graphics going on, why should I watch something which I can get equally well, but just listening.
second, if WLC is willing to "give up" radioactive decay to randomness, than I really can't see him deffanding premise 1:
can you give me an example of something (caused) that comes into existance by that cause?
eyallev 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation history PART4
after being refuted badly, he makes another bizarre claim: "you're finding a very small minority that seems to agree with you when the majority overwhelmingly disagrees with you” i challenged him to provide one HISTORIAN and his scholarly source that even suggests that Jesus didn't exist and he couldn't
END.
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation history PART3
but, it gets worse for him; even IF there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus, i challenged him to provide the criteria from the HISTORICAL METHOD that says that you cannot use non-contemporaneous evidence; he didn't provide it; ." yet he accuses us of "shifting the goalpost" and “confirmation bias”
cont..
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation history PART2
i quoted Arthur Keith: "We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." so, according to his logic, evo is not a fact bcos scientists believe in it; even dawkins makes statements about belief in evo
he claimed there’s no contemporary evidence for Jesus and using the Bible is circular logic; i quoted atheist historians that pwned him; they use the NT bcos is has multiple sources and based on EYEWITNESSES
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation history PART1
he claimed: "I'm sure you can find christian historians that want to believe jesus existed and died" as if Christian scholars cannot do history; and according to his logic, we should reject evo bcos only evos believe in evo; then i quoted some atheist historians that believed Jesus existed and died to refute him; he then makes the bizzare claim, "If they were facts, they wouldn't have to believe them." yet, the quotes i gave him say that Jesus DID exist
cont..
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation theology PART2
i asked him to provide a credible source that says "miracles" and "magic" are synonyms, he didn't.
he claimed: "It says you can see all of earth from a high mountain" LOL!!! who's "you"? the Bible says that Satan (a spirit being) showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world; satan could have used some sort of projection.
The "it(Bible) says Pi is 3" i refuted him with this article: Purplemath(.)com/modules/bibleval.htm
Cont..
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation theology PART1
he claimed that God uses magic instead of performing miracles; he sites MW for the definition of magic, yet his own source refuted him; MW says that magic is SEEMLINGLY from a supernatural source; then he claimed: "There is no difference between miracles and magic, it's a distinction without difference." so according to him the meanings of "difference" and "distinction" mean the same. GRAZY!!!
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation science PART11 (information)
"[IT]deals statistically with information, with the measurement of its content in terms of its distinguishing essential characteristics" according to him, this definition proves that information occurs naturally; i asked for a PAPER that applies this definition to show that information arises naturally, but he never gave one; he just kept on giving this definition but NO evidence that information arises naturally, let alone all the time.
Cont…
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation science PART10 (information)
and even more bizzare this article doesn't say anything about INFORMATION occurring naturally; the evo part deals with how complex structure arises, like a cell, which uses info already present; our genius rejected werner gitt but accepts wiki. crazy!!!! after being pwnd about emergence, he brings in infomation theory and uses MW for it's definition:
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation science PART9 (information)
he then claimed that information occurs naturally through immergence; i found a paper on immergence by Peter Fleissner, Wolfgang Hofkirchner and it is about how organism acquire and process information and how they learn; he then provided a WIKI link; yes, our "scientist" provided a wiki link; what's really bad is that majority of this article doesn't have any references; the references that they do have are to definitions!!!
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation science PART8 (abiogenesis)
our genius kept on repeating that it’s just an antiquated use of the word; finally, i quoted two modern scientists who agree with pasteur that abio is impossible on earth: "There is no evidence that life has been or can be produced from non-life on this planet." Rhawn Joseph and Rudolf Schild
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation science PART7 (abiogenesis)
he claimed that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are completely different; yet, i quoted from princeton, Journal of Theoretical Biology, ISCID and a few biology dictionary that disagreed with him; abio and SG differ in time and frequency; both theories start with non-living parts and end with living things; also, abio does require SG at some point; i even quoted pasteur who concluded that no life can come from non-life;
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation science PART6 (abiogenesis)
after pwning him, he tried to backtrack his claim that it is evidence for abiogenesis; finally he complained, "Do you think they're going to microscopically monitor every square millimeter of every diffusion vent on earth?” so, he complains that they can’t find the evidence. CRAZY!!!
Cont…
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation science PART5 (abiogenesis)
he claimed that the protocell was evidence for abiogenesis; i asked him to provide evidence for the protocell in NATURE by saying, "plz provide evidence for this protocell; the oldest fossil are of cyanobacteria"; notice, i mentioned the oldest fossil found; he then provided a lab experiment; so a lab experiment is evidence that it existed in nature
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation science PART4 (human bottleneck)
he claimed: "the idea of a such a wide population bottleneck as Noahs flood is completely rebutted by modern genetics" i quoted dawkins who said that there was a population bottleneck; after being refuted, he brought up a new argument and sites a non-scholar's YT video. CRAZY!!! Also, I gave him scientific reasoning, also referring to research, why “eve” and “adam” have a discrepancy in their timeline that's consist with the Bible.
Cont…
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation science PART3 (venter's experiment)
he didn't create new life; but, the fool repeated his lie; finally, i quoted venter from an online video from guardiancouk; he says, "i replaced only the DNA "software" and in a short while all the characteristic of the first species was replaced by a new species...we didn't know how really dynamic a cell was until simply replacing the software"; any1 can view this video; plus this proved once and for all that DNA is code
cont..
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation science PART2 (venter's experiment)
then he claimed this about craig venter's experiment: "It was entirely from scratch, they used a blank cell, which is not a living system. They took completely non-living components and produced a living bacteria." his source is from a heading of an article; but, this article and ALL articles that relate to this topic refuted him; ALL the articles say that he replaced the DNA code; he is very clear in a CNN interview that…
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation science PART1
he claimed "Energy can exist independent of both time and matter, matter is a state of energy and time is a measure of change of matter/energy. If there is no change but the state is homogenized, then there is no time" i asked him for a source that says this and ALL he provide was a source that doesn't say this.
Cont…
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation LOGIC PART8
so what is the evidence against the mind being separate?
he tells us why "The mind is not immaterial, all attempts thus far to usefully or empirically separate mind from brain have failed." so IF all the attempts failed thus far, he concludes that "The mind is not immaterial"? if they do separate them, then what should we make of his claim? using his logic, all attempts for creating life has failed thus far, hence creating life is not possible. CRAZY!!!
Cont…
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation LOGIC PART7
no evidence has ever been produced to show that abiogenesis is true; in order to reject something intellectually, there has to be good evidence against it; if there's no evidence for something now, u have no reason to suggest that is false, unless you have good evidence against it; who knows, maybe evidence will turn up in the future using a better technique; we can safely reject abio because not only is there no evidence, there's evidence against it
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation LOGIC PART6
then he claims "Thought is the product of bio-electricity." how does he know that? it could be the other way around; scientists can look at ur brain activity but they can not find out what u r thinking about; and if everything is just chemicals, then there's not freewill. He thinks if science doesn't show evidence of something, it cannot be true, LOL!!! but he still BELIEVES in abiogenesis
cont…
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation LOGIC PART5
In other words, the universe is all of existence, including the energy outside the universe; logical and physical laws are properties of the universe; but logical laws don’t apply outside the universe bcos logical laws are a property of the universe and the universe is all of existence; but, we can apply the law of identity outside the universe bcos, outside of the universe has energy and energy cannot be energy and not energy at the same time. GRAZY!!!!
cont..
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation LOGIC PART4
he then claimed “If you say that energy could've been created in the past then you're saying physics fails, so causality would also fail” yet the 1st law is a physical law and was created after the BB; according to NASA, energy, matter and space-time were created at the BB; why would physical laws apply when there was no physical reality?
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation LOGIC PART3
he also claimed, "the universe is all of existence, both real and postulated" and again, he claimed: "I'm saying energy existed indefinitely" so, according to him the universe is things inside the universe and things outside the universe, i.e., energy. CRAZY!!! also, again, he claimed, "Logic is a property of the universe", so, he refuted himself bcos since, energy existed b4 the BB, then, so did logical laws; also, that's NOT MW's definition of universe.
cont..
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@leviMichealathan 'so, according to him the universe is things inside the universe and things outside the universe, i.e., energy. '
No, there can be nothing outside the universe, never did I make such a ridiculous claim. It's apparent that you have to strawman my position to even attempt to make an argument.
scientific 7 months ago
@scientific LOL!!! u said "energy existed indefinitely", fool, liar! and u created ur own definition of universe; i challenge u to provide the merriam webster definition that says, "the universe is all of existence"
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leviMichealathan 'i challenge u to provide the merriam webster definition that says, "the universe is all of existence"'
the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated
merriam-webster(.)com/dictionary/universe
That means everything that exists or is even claimed to exist necessarily exists as part of the universe.
JessieNix 7 months ago
@scientific ur definition of universe pwns you bcos u claimed energy and the 1st law existed before the universe. pwnd!!!
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@leviMichealathan Nothing can exist before the universe, genius. If anything exists, then by definition, the universe exists.
JessieNix 7 months ago
@JessieNix LOL! So, you think the numbers didn't existe before the universe? Number and the laws of logic are abstract and invariable and necessary. There are many things that exist apart from the universe.
exposedatheists 7 months ago
@exposedatheists Utterly wrong. Nothing can exist apart from the universe as the universe is defined as all that exists both real and postulated.
JessieNix 7 months ago
@JessieNix You didn't even deal with anything I said, except to say, "Uhm, no." Gee, that helps.
exposedatheists 7 months ago
@exposedatheists Actually I pointed out that nothing can exist outside of something defined as 'the totality of existence'
JessieNix 7 months ago
@exposedatheists I pointed out that by the very definition of universe that you're wrong.
JessieNix 4 months ago
@ScienceFoundation LOGIC PART2
also, he claimed "I'm saying energy existed indefinitely", so, again according to his logic, energy can be energy and not energy at the same time bcos the laws of logic doesn't apply b4 the BB.
i asked him to account for the laws of logic if they were created at the BB, he didn't respond.
BUT, it gets worse, he claimed, "Webster is the most accurate revisionist dictionary" remember this claim, we will get back to it.
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leviMichealathan 'i asked him to account for the laws of logic if they were created at the BB, he didn't respond.'
I didn't say they were created at the big bang. You seem to forget that laws of logic are descriptive not prescriptive
scientific 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@scientific "I didn't say they were created at the big bang. You seem to forget that laws of logic are descriptive not prescriptive" LOL!!! this doesn't answer the question of how can you account for logic? how did you account for describing the law of identity? where did it start? you can't account for it because you need LOGIC to use LOGIC.
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@leviMichealathan 'LOL!!! this doesn't answer the question of how can you account for logic'
Who said logic needed to be accounted for? Logic is our description of how nature functions.
Again you keep confusing ignorance for an argument.
JessieNix 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation LOGIC PART1:
he claimed "Logic is a property of the universe, i.e. if A didn't exist then A couldn't be A while not being not A" then he claimed "The big bang was not an ex nihilo event" so according to his logic, whatever there was b4 the BB (x) can be x and not x at the same time bcos the law of identity doesn't apply.
the law of identity also apply if there’s NOTHING!!! nothing cannot be nothing and something at the same time.
CONT..
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@leviMichealathan 'the law of identity also apply if there’s NOTHING'
The only ones saying there are nothing are theists, and this is entirely unfounded.
scientific 7 months ago
Comment removed
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@leviMichealathan 'nothing is nothing'
Now you're reduced to worse then ignorance, you've been forced to resort to outright fabrication. I never said identity can apply if there's nothing.
JessieNix 7 months ago
@JessieNix part 5:
but, the laws of logic transcends the human mind; they are universal; they are not subjective; people think differently; we don't discover the laws of logic by observation but by THOUGHT; in nature we do not see something that is both itself and not itself at the same time; we have to think about it; we can only observe things that exist; we cannot observe the properties of a non-existent thing...
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@JessieNix part 6:
where in nature do we observe that something cannot bring itself into existence if it does not already exist? you cannot make an observation about how something does not occur if it does not exist; you would be, in essence, observing nothing at all, and how can any laws of logic be applied to, or derived from, observing nothing at all? (taken from CARM) so, again, how do u account for the laws of logic? u can't bcos u need logic to use logic.
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@JessieNix part 7:
"I never said identity can apply if there's nothing." what are u on about??? yes, i know, genius; i was the onw who CLAIMED that bcos you claimed that the laws of logic are a property of the universe and they can't exist apart from the universe; but i refuted u bcos i showed u that the law of identity can still be applied if there's nothing (i.e. no physical reality): nothing cannot be something and nothing at the same time.
atheism is for dummies invented by dummies.
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@scientific part a:
"'the law of identity also apply if there’s NOTHING'
The only ones saying there are nothing are theists, and this is entirely unfounded." LOL!!! fool, Christians have been telling ur kind for centuries that the universe had a beginning based of philosophical grounds; Christians have ALWAYS believed that God is eternal; it is ur kind who believed that the universe was created from nothing...
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@scientific part b:
recently, ur kind has pushed the problem back a level by claiming that there was sumthing b4 the BB; where did this sumthing come from??? either way, u go back to nothing.
plus, again, you pwn urself; u claimed that the laws of logic are properties of the universe and then u claimed that energy existed indefinitely; and then u claimed that the universe is all of existence; so, the laws of logic existed indefinitely.
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@scientific part c:
(not to mention the fact that according to ur logic, the universe is things inside it and things outside of it)
even if u didn't claim that energy existed indefinitely, you still get pwnd because u claimed there was sumthing b4 the BB; bcos there was sumthing b4 the BB, law logical laws existed b4 the universe began.
even if u claimed that the universe was created from nothing, u still get pwnd bcos i showed u, logical laws still apply even if there's nothing, i.e
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@scientific part d:
i.e, no space,no time, no energy, no matter bcos logic laws transcends the universe.
the reason why you have this crazy notion that logical laws are only a property of the universe is because u thought that u could do away with cause and effect. LOL!!! pwnd.
man, you are obessessed with God; u spend so much talking talking about Him; hating Him; hating His Word. LOL.
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@scientific part e:
if I truly believed that there's no God and there's no evidence for Him, I wouldn't spend my life wasting time talking about Him; u r such a tool of dawkins. LOL!!!
i will continue to post all ur claims where ever u post comments on Christian videos. till next time...
bye!
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation new claims PART3
"The universe is defined as all of existence, so anything that exists technically constitutes the universe, in this case energy. If it didn't exist, that means it would had to have been created, meaning physics doesn't apply, meaning you can't arbitrarily apply causality just because it suits you." you have already been refuted by just about every1.
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation new claims PART2
"Your syllogism is entirely circular logic, it's saying that an infinite series of events couldn't occur because infinite couldn't exist. You never give any actual substantiation to the claim that infinite can't exist." No!!! all u have are straw man augments; infinite events cannot exist because we would not get to this point
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation new claims PART1
"I was pointing out that the second law only applies to the energy *within* an isolated system, not to the system itself. " LOL!!!! here's the definition of heat death from MW, ur own source: "an ultimate state of thermal equilibrium implying conditions of maximum entropy and zero available energy that according to the laws of thermodynamics THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE IS APPARENTLY APPROACHING" -emp; did you see that? "material universe" pwnd, again!!!!
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation, @Templarforever, @Angelsword135, @TimelessApologist
INTRODUCTION 2:
he used dawkins argument against the ontological argument only to find out that WLC refuted it; he also LOVES to redefine words; i'm going to now post SOME of the claims from our genius; it's long but it's worth it; I will start with the claims he made on this thread first.
Cont..
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ScienceFoundation, @Templarforever, @Angelsword135, @TimelessApologist
INTRODUCTION 1:
when dealing with TheScienceFoundation, you will notice his only arguments are "you don't understand this" or you're a retard; also, you will notice that sources are few and far between and that when a source is giving, it actual refutes him; also, when he is refuted, he brings up a new argument; it's obvious that dawkins is his prophet
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
Everything that begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore
the universe has a cause; and that cause is ...
toppledgod 7 months ago
Just to let you know, TheScienceFoundation has probably a billion other users in youtube. The guy has no life and thrives on pop science.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@drcraigvideos What an asshole.
exposedatheists 7 months ago
@exposedatheists Yup.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
Stephen Hawking "In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature."
TimelessApologist 7 months ago
The KCA doesn't require half an hour to refute, it can be done in the given 500 character comment section
If physics applies, then conservation laws invalidate the KCA because energy has existed indefinitely.
If you claim physics has broken down when regressing towards the singularity, then you can't turn around and try to apply causality without committing egregious fallacy.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation "If physics applies, then conservation laws invalidate the KCA because energy has existed indefinitely." No the conservation laws dont apply because the moment the universe began to exist was the moment the conservation law began to exist therefore you cant use the conservation law to refute the KCA. Basically the law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed BUT you must create a universe BEFORE this law can even be take effect.
RaytownSoClassof2010 7 months ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 The universe is defined as all of existence, so anything that exists technically constitutes the universe, in this case energy. If it didn't exist, that means it would had to have been created, meaning physics doesn't apply, meaning you can't arbitrarily apply causality just because it suits you.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
"The universe is defined as all of existence"
Um, no, that's not the UNIVERSE. You are presenting a false-dilemma. "If I say, “X creates Y,” this presupposes the existence of X in the first place in order to bring Y into existence. If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent."
TimelessApologist 7 months ago
@TimelessApologist
So the universe began to exist and the universe cannot be the cause of it's own existence.
Yes, either something exists forever or something brought itself into existence: agreed. The physical universe, however, has been thoroughly proven to not have existed eternally. This is perhaps ...the simplest, most well-attested facet of Big Bang cosmology: the universe began to exist at some finite point in the past.
it is what it is....
TimelessApologist 7 months ago
@TimelessApologist 'So the universe began to exist' Not demonstrated
'and the universe cannot be the cause of it's own existence.'
If the universe ever didn't exist then physics has failed, meaning there's no basis to say that nothing couldn't become something.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TimelessApologist Yes, that's the universe. 'All of existence'
Now you're strawmanning, I never said the universe created itself, I said that by empirical physics the universe likely had no beginning. So just the opposite.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation
I'm not strawmanning you don't understand common sense. I'll say it again "If I say, “X creates Y,” this presupposes the existence of X in the first place in order to bring Y into existence. If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent."
TimelessApologist 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
an eternal universe is a logical impossibility in the 1st place. And even if it weren't, it would require an infinite energy source
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics shows it's running down and thus cannot exist eternally (without experiencing heat death) without an infinite source of new energy. This refutes your claim
TimelessApologist 7 months ago
@TimelessApologist The second law only applies to the energy within an isolated system, the system itself is subject to resetting IE cyclicity.
Again you're trying to apply physics when it suits you.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
"The second law only applies to the energy within an isolated system, the system itself is subject to resetting IE cyclicity."
You do understand cosmic backround radiation right? entropy? If what your saying is true then we should have no idea how old the universe is.......WTF Are you on right now? I'm not talking about evolution I'm talking about the universe.
This is why I need patience to deal with YT atheists...
TimelessApologist 7 months ago
@TimelessApologist Apparently I'm the only one that *does* understand we were talking about entropy. I was pointing out that the second law only applies to the energy *within* an isolated system, not to the system itself. Which part did you get lost at?
You don't need patience, you need at least a high school understanding of physics
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
"The KCA doesn't require half an hour to refute, it can be done in the given 500 character comment section"
ummm no, you don't understand the argument.......you say energy has existed indefinitely....well no shit, Dr. Craig is aware of that, hence his critique on universes creating themselves naturally.....that's the same as us saying God existed indefinitely.....you need to reread premise 1
TimelessApologist 7 months ago
@TimelessApologist If energy has existed indefinitely then it couldn't have been created. They're mutually exclusive.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
No, that's not the universe though. It's not even close to being mutually exclusive
And we know for several reasons why the universe is not eternally existent.
1. Respectable Big bang cosmology teaches us that time, matter and space came into existence in the finite past.
2. It is impossible for an actually infinite number of events to elapse.
TimelessApologist 7 months ago
@TimelessApologist Yes, that is the universe. If energy exists then the universe by definition exists.
1: No, it teaches us that the expansion of current space-time began expanding around 13.7ba
2: This is a non-sequitur based on a complete disconnect from reality. That's literally saying 'We couldn't have reached a configuration of mass and energy because of indefinite configurations of mass and energy'
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
The fact that the universe is contingent and not necessary. Consider that every single atom in our universe doesn't HAVE to exist. And if that's true for any single atom, then it's true for all atoms. And if it's true for all atoms (which comprise all matter) then it's true of the entire universe. If it's even POSSIBLE for each atom in the universe not to exist, then it's POSSIBLE for ALL atoms in the universe not to exist.
TimelessApologist 7 months ago
@TimelessApologist 'The fact that the universe is contingent and not necessary'
No, that's the premise that theists are having a seemingly impossible time proving.
'Consider that every single atom in our universe doesn't HAVE to exist'
Based on what?
You're assuming it's true to assert it's true, completely circular reasoning. You haven't moved out of the wheel of power to actually support your claim.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Dude you have no idea WTF your talking about LOL Do you understand the universe is going to have a heat death, how the heck does that not make it isolate you fuckin moron
You are stupid, you can't keep up Theists who aren't fundamentalists, go play with the fundamentalists, because you are waaaay behind. You need to learn philosophy also
TimelessApologist 7 months ago
@TimelessApologist Once again I'm apparently the only one in this conversation that does understand entropy.
Entropy only applies to the energy within an isolated system, not the system itself.
Which part of that are you failing to grasp?
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that the maximum entropy of a closed system of fixed volume is constant. This is what you are failing to grasp, because atheists have problems open their minds
1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2. A beginningless temporal series of events is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, a beginningless temporal series of events cannot exist.
It is so blatantly obvious, you need philosophy lessons in logic
TimelessApologist 7 months ago
@TimelessApologist No, it says that the maximum value of an *isolated* system is equilibrium.
Your syllogism is entirely circular logic, it's saying that an infinite series of events couldn't occur because infinite couldn't exist. You never give any actual substantiation to the claim that infinite can't exist.
Also, I do imagine you would try to exempt god from 'an actual infinite cannot exist'
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
The only circular logic is your denial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and it's impact on entropy. You seem to give it your own special definition.
What you are stating is matter would need to exist outside of the Big bang. Wouldn’t you agree that this seems implausible?
TimelessApologist 7 months ago
@TimelessApologist No, your ignorance of the fact that the second law doesn't apply to the system but only to the energy does not constitute circular logic on my part.
There is no outside the big bang, that's a ridiculous postulation. The singularity contained all space-time in an infinitely dense point.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
"The singularity contained all space-time in an infinitely dense point."
You absolutely no sense, matter had to come from SOMEWHERE
Every contingent thing needs a cause for it's existence. Otherwise why doesn't just anything and everything pop into existence, uncaused, out nothing? Why is it just universes? And WE DO KNOW with some certainty from all modern cosmology that the universe had a beginning
TimelessApologist 7 months ago
@TimelessApologist 'Every contingent thing needs a cause for it's existence'
You keep asserting that the universe was contingent as if the mere assertion makes it so.
'And WE DO KNOW with some certainty from all modern cosmology that the universe had a beginning'
No, we don't.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Do you realize you just rebutted your own argument, and now you lose all credibility.
See this is why "what's true for you, but not me" can only work so far. Your bullshit and lack of philosophy only works for fundamentalists
So Take it like a man, and get the fuck out of this comment section and go pray to your imaginary multiverses....perhaps there is a possible universe where unicorns exist and you are riding on top of one into the sunset
TimelessApologist 7 months ago
@TimelessApologist 'Do you realize you just rebutted your own argument'
Actually all I've done thus far is point out your egregious misunderstandings in the most basic fields physics. I mean you've failed to grasp the ridiculously simple energy/system distinction.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
You lost the argument bro, everyone here saw it. Leave with some dignity, because not only do you lack scientific knowledge in physics, but you don't understand philosophy.
If you claim the universe always existed, and that the universe is existence, but entropy only applies to the universe then you are refuting your own argument and not making any sense.
Go run along now, stupid atheist
Templarforever 7 months ago
@Templarforever No, I've been exposing the ignorance of the theists here for about an hour now. It's been made clear that I'm the only one that does have an understanding of physics.
'If you claim the universe always existed, and that the universe is existence, but entropy only applies to the universe'
Try reading any of the fifteen or so times I've pointed out that the second law only applies to the energy *within* a system and not to the system itself. It could save you some embarrassment.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago