If I had to think about a universe collapsing and expanding infinitely.... Well what makes a universe? Matter, space, time, and energy. If the Universe requires these things to continue its cycle, then those things had to be brought into existence to start the cycle. Thus, it's not infinite nor possible. In simple terms, this does it justify the exsitance of matter, space, time, or energy, those things need a cause for its existence.
Wow, I never thought about it like that man!! I had always had trouble with such a theory, but with this reasoning, I can be sure that an infinite amount of Universes does not justify its cause! I thought about it this way: If you have a constantly expanding Universe, then you have a moving Universe, a Universe that moves, not a static one. Now, if the Universe has collapsed and expanded infinitely, then what made it move in the first place? I can accept that there has been an infinite cycle of the Universe for billions of years now, but, there had to be a cause outside of this Universe to start the infinite cycle.
What if there doesn't *have* to be matter and energy, but if there is, it can never be destroyed? This would explain continual existence. Does it require a necessary foundation? (Not a rhetorical question btw) Related question: Can a fundamental particle be necessary, and yet still have the ability to change location?
Wow, Posting after such a long time, nice to see. While I agree that a necessary being or maybe multiple of them exist, your claim here seems confusing. Why can't a thing keep persisting in existence under the influence of other contingent things only, maybe infinite of them? This doesn't seem to refute the standard Hume-Edwards objection, as it is often called, to Cosmological argument. And Also have you read Philosopher Stephen Maitzen's work on this ? He offers very interesting argument in defense of infinite contingent regress theses. And btw, What is Angry video game nerd doing in your video? xD
Thanks! Maybe things "can" persist, but there is a probability problem that I draw out here: th-cam.com/video/_GyNcuI4p6c/w-d-xo.html. Maitzen is great! I address some of this ideas here: th-cam.com/video/tHsmnxK1fsw/w-d-xo.html. And you are right: the Hume-Edwards objection doesn't apply. BTW: nice to see you here!
Interesting video. I am with Spinoza (up to a point) - the necessary foundation is Nature. Nature cannot not be - things - perhaps even entire universes can come into and out of being but "Being itself" cannot not -exist. Spinoza identified this ground of being with God - but I do not - I call it Nature and it isn't an angry man in the sky so "God" would be a very bad (misleading and confusing) name for this fundamental foundation.
No one accepted an infinite regress, the video is about how even if the universe regressed infinitely then you still need God as an explanation or cause.
@lucashardy4481 yea he accepted that a regress is possible... you even admitted that in your own comment. What he said was that a necessary foundation (which could be a God) would coexist with that regress to ensure the causal chain. He never argued that it had to be a God. No inference like that was given.
@lucashardy4481 the reason why my original post is relevant is because for thousands of years theists have been trying to show that an infinite regress is impossible. Some of our best cosmological models include infinitism so this is a smart move for a theist to hedge their bets.
You are inserting this assumption to justify your beliefs that is actually not justified at all. You are assuming it is possible for something to go from existing, to not existing. SInce we have never witnessed ANY matter or energy being created or destroyed, only change, literally all the evidence indicates this is what has always happened. You are inserting this unjustified assumption that things can stop existing, unless your God (let’s be honest, that’s the point) keeps them existing.
Thanks Steve! Just to be clear: the video argues *against* the possibility of everything going from existing to not existing (leaving questions about the nature of a necessary foundation for further inquiry).
This is a very simple objection most atheists bring in defense against there even being a problem here. If all of contingent reality were a glass of water that froze, boiled, and condensated over regular periods, where did the glass come from? A physical explanation of the waters properties doesn't address the need for a metaphysical explanation of there being such things as discernable properties. There could just be chaos. But chaos cannot begat order alone; even if it did by 'chance' (which doesn't even apply to chaos) then why it hasn't fallen back into chaos, especially since It has now become self-aware in humans.
![ออกพรรษาน้ำตาหล่น - แอน อรดี [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PFZtOcY9ONA/mqdefault.jpg)
If I had to think about a universe collapsing and expanding infinitely.... Well what makes a universe? Matter, space, time, and energy. If the Universe requires these things to continue its cycle, then those things had to be brought into existence to start the cycle. Thus, it's not infinite nor possible. In simple terms, this does it justify the exsitance of matter, space, time, or energy, those things need a cause for its existence.
Wow, I never thought about it like that man!! I had always had trouble with such a theory, but with this reasoning, I can be sure that an infinite amount of Universes does not justify its cause!
I thought about it this way: If you have a constantly expanding Universe, then you have a moving Universe, a Universe that moves, not a static one.
Now, if the Universe has collapsed and expanded infinitely, then what made it move in the first place?
I can accept that there has been an infinite cycle of the Universe for billions of years now, but, there had to be a cause outside of this Universe to start the infinite cycle.
@@nasasjanitor994 Yes. We call that cause outside of the Universe God.
Hope to see more from you more often Josh!
What if there doesn't *have* to be matter and energy, but if there is, it can never be destroyed? This would explain continual existence. Does it require a necessary foundation? (Not a rhetorical question btw)
Related question: Can a fundamental particle be necessary, and yet still have the ability to change location?
Why is persistence of universe or infinite regress mysterious that warrants an explanation?
Because infinite regress of actual causes or events is impossible in reality. Search it up, it's been proven as a logical fallacy.
@@ashley_brown6106 No such thing has ever been proved. It is merely asserted by religious apologists by capitalising on semantic confusions.
Wow, Posting after such a long time, nice to see.
While I agree that a necessary being or maybe multiple of them exist, your claim here seems confusing. Why can't a thing keep persisting in existence under the influence of other contingent things only, maybe infinite of them?
This doesn't seem to refute the standard Hume-Edwards objection, as it is often called, to Cosmological argument. And Also have you read Philosopher Stephen Maitzen's work on this ? He offers very interesting argument in defense of infinite contingent regress theses.
And btw, What is Angry video game nerd doing in your video? xD
Thanks! Maybe things "can" persist, but there is a probability problem that I draw out here: th-cam.com/video/_GyNcuI4p6c/w-d-xo.html. Maitzen is great! I address some of this ideas here: th-cam.com/video/tHsmnxK1fsw/w-d-xo.html. And you are right: the Hume-Edwards objection doesn't apply. BTW: nice to see you here!
Interesting video.
I am with Spinoza (up to a point) - the necessary foundation is Nature. Nature cannot not be - things - perhaps even entire universes can come into and out of being but "Being itself" cannot not -exist.
Spinoza identified this ground of being with God - but I do not - I call it Nature and it isn't an angry man in the sky so "God" would be a very bad (misleading and confusing) name for this fundamental foundation.
I have no idea what you mean about needing a "foundation for the world." That makes no sense to me.
Is the world in your head? Then why get out of bed? Is the world out there? Then how did we get here?
LOL, sounds a lot like God to me.
Theists finally accepting an infinite regress?! The two thousand year cope has come to an end!
No one accepted an infinite regress, the video is about how even if the universe regressed infinitely then you still need God as an explanation or cause.
@lucashardy4481 yea no inference was given. Just assumptions about how the world must be.
@@Swifter315 what?
@lucashardy4481 yea he accepted that a regress is possible... you even admitted that in your own comment.
What he said was that a necessary foundation (which could be a God) would coexist with that regress to ensure the causal chain. He never argued that it had to be a God. No inference like that was given.
@lucashardy4481 the reason why my original post is relevant is because for thousands of years theists have been trying to show that an infinite regress is impossible. Some of our best cosmological models include infinitism so this is a smart move for a theist to hedge their bets.
the keep going law is example of reification fallacy😂😂
wot
infinite existace is an example of appeal of ignorace fallacy😂
You are inserting this assumption to justify your beliefs that is actually not justified at all. You are assuming it is possible for something to go from existing, to not existing.
SInce we have never witnessed ANY matter or energy being created or destroyed, only change, literally all the evidence indicates this is what has always happened.
You are inserting this unjustified assumption that things can stop existing, unless your God (let’s be honest, that’s the point) keeps them existing.
Thanks Steve! Just to be clear: the video argues *against* the possibility of everything going from existing to not existing (leaving questions about the nature of a necessary foundation for further inquiry).
You didn't understand anything
This is a very simple objection most atheists bring in defense against there even being a problem here. If all of contingent reality were a glass of water that froze, boiled, and condensated over regular periods, where did the glass come from? A physical explanation of the waters properties doesn't address the need for a metaphysical explanation of there being such things as discernable properties. There could just be chaos. But chaos cannot begat order alone; even if it did by 'chance' (which doesn't even apply to chaos) then why it hasn't fallen back into chaos, especially since It has now become self-aware in humans.
How can you be this confused?