Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

Tooltime, Kalam, and Leibniz OH MY!

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
552 views
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Feb 1, 2009

I provide a 2 part video series responding to Tooltime's criticisms of the Kalam Cosmological argument and the Leibnizian cosmological argument. I will also post a breif synopsis which also contains a couple points I did not articulate in this video which I feel are worth making

Hopefully Tooltime, if he responds, will not be so hostile or mean-spirited. If he manages this, we might be able to get a serious dialogue going between the two of us

Basically, Tooltime's main argument against the Kalam is that the phrase "beginning to exist" implies 2 states of affairs, one in which the universe does exist, and one which implies that the universe does not exist. Tooltime argues that all ways of distinguishing between these 2 states of affairs, aside from temporal chronological distinctions, are incoherent. I think this argument commits an appeal to ignorance. Furthermore, I have to say that there was, at some time in the ontological past, a state of affairs in which the universe did not exist. I say this because the only possible alternative to this statement would be that there was never a state of affairs in which teh universe did not exist. But if this were true, then the temporal past would be infinite. But we know with mathematical certainty that the temporal past is NOT infinite. It therefore follows through deduction that there was a state of affairs in which the universe did not exist. To say that we have, as of yet, no way to distinguish between these states of affairs, and that this somehow undercuts the idea that the universe must have a cause, is metaphysically absurd. Furthermore, I think it should be emphasized that Tooltime is careful never to assert that there was never a state of affairs in which the universe did not exist

Category:

Education

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 20 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Uploader Comments (migkillertwo)

  • You don't know what spacetime is do you?

  • something tells me you woulden't know either.

  • good to see you delete any kind of negative comment.. it emphasizes how few positive comments there actually are.

  • I never deleted any comments on this video. retract this vile slur.

Top Comments

  • Hey migkiller. I can't buy the cosmo aurguement. It looks like an arguement from ignorance to me. "We don't know where the universe came from, therefore God". I'm sure you've heard this before. What are your thoughts on it?

Video Responses

This video is a response to Why Cosmological Arguments Fail (Part 2)
see all

All Comments (12)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • yeah migkillertwo is right, sometimes comments disapper by themselves. its a really annoying glitch

  • One of the best of the best.

  • Good job migkillertwo. Now I am very unsure if there is a God or not. After arguing with people about the Aquinas argument from causality there seems to be a non argument from ignorance case that a God could exist. I just don't know what reasonable God could exist that is simpler and not so much of a leap of faith then just saying I don't know.

  • In b4 trampoline/bowling ball.

  • In the space of a youtube comment... GO!

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more