Answering Irrational Youtube Users on The Cosmological Argument

http://www.reasonablefaith.org - Practically EVERY single argument raised by youtube atheists against the Kalam Cosmological argument is answered here. But have you ever watched a youtube video by an atheist that claimed the first premise of the kalam cosmological argument (that whatever begins to exist has a cause) is false because nothing ever begins to exist because everything that is made of matter and energy has and will last for infinity because the first laws of thermodynamics says so (for instance, they'll say the matter that makes up your shoes, or the matter in a tree, or the matter in a toaster, or the matter in your hand, etc. have lasted forever)? Yes? Well, you just watched a video by an impressionable youtube atheist who is not familiar with current cosmology or philosophy. Nowadays, it's hard to find anything useful by some youtube atheists. Anyway, Dr. William Lane Craig proves these youtubers wrong.

This is part of the "Defending the Cosmological Argument" series. Table of Contents: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=916E17EE70E98A68

You can find the transcript of this video here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6515

More on impressionable youtube atheists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnpa_kQaCgA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYqb1P4yym8

Category:

Education

Tags:

• William
• Lane
• Craig
• is
• not
• Kalam
• Cosmological
• Argument
• God
• First
• Law
• Thermodynamics
• Conservation
• Energy
• Matter
• Nothing
• Atheism
• Atheist
• Infinity
• Eternity
• Youtube

[Christianjr4]

Hawking should definitely get this voice. His current voice over is way to robotic and monotone sounding. Great video!!

[drcraigvideos]

@Christianjr4 Hawking once joked that some people couldn't tell whether he was British or not due to his robotic voice box. I would say that Hawking is a Brit with an American voice!

[bravesirrobin8]

Question for Dr. Craig... If you believe that the god of the bible always existed (assuming), that means he never could have created the universe. Eternity has no limit backwards or forward, so you go backwards in time infinitely before the "creation". It says that there was a "beginning", but you can't have a "beginning" with an eternal being. There would also never have been a first day. There would always be nothingness because there would be infinite time before the "creation".

[drcraigvideos]

@bravesirrobin8 There's no contradiction for an eternal being making a temporal effect: watch?v=NMgX4a4r8gY. The cause of the universe must transcend time: watch?v=vD6Ci0KK9DQ. BTW I'm not Dr. Craig.

[Chaowdur]

is that stephen hawking talking

[drcraigvideos]

@Chaowdur Actually, Hawking's voice is more robotic than the one you hear here.

[okuma0kuma]

@gabinja no problem ,i will certainly look into his material to try understand his philosophical concept thanks for for referral ^

[gabinja]

@okuma0kuma ok, but I'm not questioning the nature of mass according to our perceptions and measures, but saying that it interesting to know in wich way you could question what is motion itself. I'm reading The end of Time by Barbour and he has very interesting objections to what is motion actually. I think they would interest you as well.

[okuma0kuma]

@gabinja i wasnt being theoretical i was being factual , the atom is officially observable which is why the world spent about £2.6 billion on a lunar hydrogen collider project along the border of switzerland ..... which will unlock and answer new questions about the existence of mass of the universe

[gabinja]

@okuma0kuma nevertheless an physicist like Julian Barbour would have objections to your statement, that is at least at the same theoretical level as Barbour's ideas.

[okuma0kuma]

@gabinja Yes.

long simple answer

every individual atom is identified by formation of nucleons at specific wavelengths ,each element cluster together some particles disappear and reappear in existence yet neither in sync to make the masses of the universe ,linear motion may not be infinite but it does exist ,which is why the human brain stores memory as with out motion before and after would have no division and no sense

through the odds of chaos im the universe and so are you

[DarkwingScooter]

@gabinja The one thing we know for certain is that our physics and cosmology as it is currently formulated is not and cannot by definition ever be complete. Given that, it is pretty irrelevant if god intervenes or not, there is literally no way that we could tell the difference from inside the system.

I am a panentheist, I believe that god literally IS the laws of physics and the universe, plus whatever is required to "complete" the system.

I certainly don't think god can be bribed.

[gabinja]

@DarkwingScooter 100% agree

[gabinja]

@DarkwingScooter I find original the assumption of a god for aesthetical reasons. I respect that. I'mwondering how to answer to the question: "is a god essential or necessary in the universe?". It is of course an entelechy and I think that in any case it's a matter of choice. But in the end this is the question, isn't it? When I think in the possibility of a god, I can‘t avoid to think about it as non-interventional: maybe the creator, but in any case not busy taking care about our human issues.

[DarkwingScooter]

@gabinja What I find interesting is that if you look at the history of Christian thought, that my concept of god is far more pervasive and influential than you may think.

I personally believe that there is little or nothing resembling "Christianity" in the vast majority of modern churches, most Christians wouldn't recognize Christianity if they had to pick it out of a line-up.

But that is a different issue...

[DarkwingScooter]

@gabinja No, I don't believe anything particular about god or the afterlife. It has nothing to do with morals or bribing the universe to secure a happy afterlife.

It is just simply a case of the universe being more aesthetically pleasing ("prettier") to me with a god in it. It would still be even if I had no prior concept of "god".

My god is more like Plato's ideal than an old guy sitting on a chair. I tend to think that that idealistic concept is a fundamental one in human thought.