Atheists will continue to deny the absolute beginning of the universe despite the overwhelming evidence for it, but the truth will remain that: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". May the Lord Jesus bless you Dr. Craig
Genesis 1:1 “When Elohim began to create the skies and the land…” The water was already there when Elohim began to create, according to the story. There is no absolute beginning there, either.
I talked with the people that made the video and they admitted that they made the as a polemic but tried to claim that WLC is "polemical" to their scientists. They did not seriously engaged with the scientists that agree with Craig. They instead tried to brand these people as "unscientific".
LOL @ 24:40 "Huh... our narrator has never met a cosmological model that she doesn't like - unless it involves a beginning." Great video series; I especially enjoyed this episode.
@@therick363 I used the word "popularising" deliberately since WLC recently called one of his detractors a "populariser"! What's good for the goose is good for the gander!
The very approach of using physics to refute causality is self defeating. Since the reasoning and arguments used to support these theories itself presupposes causality in the very structure of their logic .
Per usual, it seems that physicists flail about when it comes to philosophical interpretation. I think this speaks to the lack of synoptic vision that is encouraged by our specialized academic world.
Per usual, it seems that _-physicists-__ theists_ flail about when it comes to _-philosophical-__ scientific_ interpretation. I think this speaks to the lack of synoptic vision that is encouraged by _-our-__ the_ specialized _-academic-__ apologetic_ world. As Arif Ahmed said it at 29:41: _"If you're in the game of appealing to everyday observations_ [scientific interpretation] _and there's all kinds of things you can say, that would be unhelpful to the kalam argument._ _For instance we observe, that every event has been preceded by another event. But clearly the kalam argument can't allow for that._ _We observe, that everything, that comes into existence, has a material cause, if it has a cause at all. But again the kalam argument can't allow for that._ _We observe, that all agencies, for instance all intelligent agencies are material. Um but again the kalam argument can't allow for such things._ _So everyday experience furnishes all kinds of generalizations, that are inconsistent with the conclusion of the kalam argument and it's just arbitrary to choose the generalizations, that _*_you like_*_ from everyday experience and ignore the ones, that don't fit with _*_your conclusion."_* William Lane Craig at 30:20: _"I deny, that we observe, that every event is preceded by another event_ [Of course Craig would claim that, since Craig is a proponent and proclaimer of the A/tensed-theory of time. Duh.] _uh or that every intelligent cause is material. The principle, that everything, that comes into existence, has a material cause, if it has a cause at all,_ [Weird phrasing from Craig here, since according to him everything, that comes into existence, exists *only if* it has a cause at all. So "a cause for the existence" is already given in the case of coming into existence according to Craig. Really weird phrasing from Craig here.] _is indeed powerfully supported by inductive evidence. But it gets defeated by the evidence for the beginning of the universe, which cannot have a material cause."_ As you said yourself William Lane Craig at 9:46 _("I provide three arguments in support of the causal principle. To defeat it, the objector has the burden of proof showing, that there is proven counterexample to the principle.")_ you as the objector of the principle of material causation has the burden of proof showing, that *there is a proven counter-example to that principle of material causation.* So where is that proof or evidence, Craig or theists?!? Sidenote: There is also Alexander Pruss conveying Newtonian Mechanics to be false given, that it is incompatible with discontinuous functions, when it is supposed to be compatible with discontinuous functions according to him. Newtonian Mechanics is all about ordinary differential equations in time, which have of course only differentiable and therefore continuous/non-discontinuous solutions. So of course Newtonian Mechanics is incompatible with discontinuous functions. Duh. But then why again is Newtonian Mechanics supposed to be false?!? Check out Alexander Pruss's blogpost *"More on Newtonian velocity ".* And Alexander Pruss supposed to be partially also a proper mathematician?!? Really?!? I doubt that based upon such nonsensical and irrational propositions and suggestions presented by him.
@@zsoltnagy5654 "....you as the objector of the principle of material causation has the burden of proof showing that there is a proven counter example to that principle of material causation." Simple enough, in the literature on causation, agent causation is a type of causation that is mental and not material. The hard problem of consciousness shows that consciousness/mind is not reducible to matter. The agent causal account posits that there are no sufficient antecedent conditions that force the agent to do what they in fact do, this shows that mental agents are not at the whim of physical/material causal chains but have the ability to initiate novel causal chains. As such there is a clear counter example to your principle of material causation. In fact as a dual aspect Idealist I don't believe matter actually objectively exists apart from our observation but rather is at base non-material information that our minds make definite. As such I don't think there really is material causation as there is no "matter" as such.
@@PresbyterianPaladin Hahahahahah... So your "proof and evidence" of your claim is some other claim in some book?!? What's next? Is the bible true, because the bible says so?!? Hahahahahah.... How about Russia being at war with Ukraine? Are the Russians justified in their belief in that war, because of having some "proof and evidence" about the Ukrainians being Nazis _claiming that to be the case in their/Russian news papers?!?_ Hahahahaha....
@@PresbyterianPaladin If such "evidence" for your claims, as you have presented, is a sufficient "proof" for your claims, then in some book there is also the claim, that the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is correct, where an object might come into being without a cause. So there is by William Lane Craig requested "proven" counterexample of his principle of causation. There is not much else to say about this really. So there you have your "sufficient proof" against the claims of William Lane Craig and theists a like.
@@PresbyterianPaladin What is that counter example for the principle of material causation supposed to be? Given your "explanation" I'm only understanding "Bahnhof". (This is a German expression about not understanding much - frequently occuring also by asking for directions and understanding nothing but "rail station".) Let's start with _"The agent causal account posits that there are no sufficient antecedent conditions that force the agent to do what they in fact do..."_ What are those _"sufficient antecedent conditions"_ supposed to be and how have been obtained, that there aren't any such sufficient antecedent conditions? Just because one might not find any Swans to be Black from that doesn't follow, that there aren't any Black Swans.
7m12s - Vilenkin: "Many quantum processes don't require causes...so IF you HAVE a radioactive atom, you know it's going to decay..." Right, so where did you get the atom from in the first place?
It's embarassing to see some physicists like Vilenkin and others in this video so confused and careless about philosophy, even about the philosophical implications of physical theories like quantum mechanics. Vilenkin (and others) clearly confuses determinism with causality, two distinct concepts. Quantum mechanics may be indeterministic (depending on which interpretation one favors), but certainly doesn't violate causality at all ! Causality is a prerequisite for doing physics. A truly acausal phenomenon could not be studied and we could not say anything about it, including about its probability of occuring ! The example of radioactive decay is often brought up, even though it is clearly a causal phenomenon. The fact that Vilenkin thinks it undermines causality shows that he doesn't understand the concept very well... The cause of a radioactive emission is obviously the instability of an atomic nucleus, itself caused by the energy state of the particules composing it, and the action of the weak or strong nuclear force or the EM force depending on the type of radioactive decay/atoms considered. Quantum mechanics allows us to calculate the probability of such an emission occuring (half-life of the substance). Without matter/atoms in the required energy state and the required weak/strong/EM forces operating (the cause), no radioactive decay (the effect). And that's why different kind of radioactive atoms will decay at different rates (have different half-lives) depending on their nature. We know how it works so we can harness it and manipulate it to make electricity, do medical imaging, etc... If it was truly acausal, nothing of the sort would be possible as radioactive emissions would happen anytime, all the time, anywhere and everywhere without any rhyme or reason. Causality is a very broad concept. Aristotle describes four types of causes namely material, efficient, formal and final. Obviously, no one has ever observed any acausal event occuring anywhere. It that were the case, it would be world shattering and be all over the news... And by the way, quantum mechanics is a set of mathematical tools allowing to predict the outcomes of (microscopic) physical events occuring in our physical reality. It is totally illegitimate to say (as Vilenkin and others seems to imply) that it can describe the appearance of physical reality itself from absolutely nothing because 1) nothing means nothing and that includes the absence of quantum mechanics, 2) quantum mechanics doesn't allow for the creation of anything ex nihilo (and that includes virtual particles which are often mentioned to confuse laymen) and 3) abstract mathematical rules like quantum mechanics don't have any causal power to bring about concrete physical objects/realities but rather describe the behaviour of existing ones.
“A truly acausal phenomenon could not be studied and we could not say anything about it, including about its probability of occuring !” I agree. That’s precisely why it makes no sense when theists ague that the probability of a universe coming into existence from nothing, truly uncaused, has a very low probability or is actually impossible. We have no experience with “nothing” and we have no way of studying “nothing”, so we can not say anything about the probability of something coming into existence from nothing. The philosophical argument from “common sense” that anytime we see something “come into existence”, it always has a cause is absurd because we never see anything “come into existence”. All of our observable experience is with matter and energy that already exist. Everything that we see “come into existence” is just a rearrangement of matter and energy that already exists.
@@justsomeguy859 "We have no experience with “nothing” and we have no way of studying “nothing”, so we can not say anything about the probability of something coming into existence from nothing." I'm afraid you're confused. The fact that nothing can come into existence from nothing is not just a matter of empirical inference but one of pure logic and conceptual analysis. Thinking that "something" could "come into existence" from "nothing" is simply a confusion about the definition of these terms. Think about it carefully. You can say that something can come into existence out of nothing if it pleases you, but that will remain unintelligible and therefore irrational, in short, magical thinking: "poof" it appears for no reason... Atheists who think like that are simply asserting this because it is the only possibility that their metaphysics allows (other than saying that something always existed for no reason, which is contradicted by big bang cosmology), even though it is obviously irrational and unintelligible... Unfortunately, this is another example among a long list of incoherences, irrationalities and self-refuting consequences of naturalism. The naturalism metaphysical project has been a complete failure for a long time now, although it still retains some of its dogmatic grip in many western academic circles, although it has started to show obvious cracks in recent decades. When you say: "we never see anything “come into existence”", you should add "out of nothing". When you say "All of our observable experience is with matter and energy that already exist", that's precisely the theist's point ! "Everything that we see “come into existence” is just a rearrangement of matter and energy that already exists." Again, precisely ! Unsurprisingly, physical reality confirms what logic dictates: from nothing, nothing comes... Physical objects always have an antecedent cause/state prior to their existence and that's why without a transcendant cause, physical reality becomes unintelligible...
I definitely never said that something can come from nothing. My point is that the assertion that “nothing can come from nothing” is not supported by evidence. To believe either claim, we would need to have some evidence, which we don’t have because we cannot study “nothing”. And thinking about it really hard is not evidence. This is something that theists always seem to confuse. Just because I point out that you don’t have evidence for your claim doesn’t mean I am affirming that the opposite is true. I need to have evidence for things before I believe them. Philosophy is not evidence. “When you say: "we never see anything "come into existence' you should add "out of nothing"” I think you missed my point. I said what I meant. We never see anything come into existence at all. All we see is matter and energy changing forms. We could never see anything come from “nothing” because we don’t have access to “nothing”. We live in a universe made up of matter and energy located in space and time. If a horse appeared in my living room out of thin air, that wouldn’t be something coming from nothing, because my living room is in the universe, which is something. I personally think the concept of “nothing” is incoherent, so no, I don’t think the universe poofed into existence from nothing. Big Bang cosmology doesn’t exclude the possibility that something has always existed. It doesn’t even claim that the universe began, just that it expanded from a hot, dense state. It doesn’t say that it came from nothing. Before a certain point the math and physics breaks down, so we don’t know what the conditions were before then. If we don’t know then we don’t know, and we don’t know. We may never know. And because of that, it makes a perfect little gap for theists to stuff their god into. I have never understood how anyone can say with a straight face that just because we don’t know something, that there must be a supernatural being that explains it. That’s not an explanation. It’s giving up on finding the explanation. Thankfully, a lot of people recognize that giving up and saying “god did it” gets you nowhere, and they keep searching for real answers. And, most importantly, admit it when we haven’t found the answer yet.
Bill’s complaints about the video producers presenting multiple theories that may contradict each other reminds me of the same objections he makes to arguments against the resurrection of Jesus. It seems that he misses the point completely in both cases. With both the beginning of the universe, and the supposed resurrection, the point is that we don’t have enough information to determine what actually happened, and perhaps we never will. There are multiple theories about the beginning of the universe, but the fact that the physicists that dedicate their entire lives to the study of the subject have not been able to agree on a single model demonstrates that at this time we do not have enough information to say with any certainty what caused the universe, if it had a cause at all, or if it has always existed is some form. With the supposed resurrection, it’s even worse. The details of what took place at the beginning of Christianity are forever lost to history. There are multiple plausible possibilities to explain it, but we will never know exactly how the religion started. There are gaps in our knowledge, and quite conveniently, Christians have discovered that their god fits just perfectly into those gaps. Need an explanation for something? Well obviously it must have been an all-powerful being that is by definition capable of anything. Yay! We explained it! Thankfully, actual scientists, even religious ones, don’t think this way. Otherwise we would still be living in the dark ages and believing that diseases are caused by demons and god makes the crops grow. Science has made amazing discoveries about the way the world works, but there are some things that we don’t know, and some things we may never know. But if you don’t know the answer, you keep searching, and until you find the answer, you have to be honest enough to admit that you don’t know. You don’t pretend that god is as explanation. That doesn’t accomplish anything.
The noun god explains precisely nothing. Real explanations actually explain, nouns do not. god did what how exactly? How exactly can an explanation that actually explains precisely nothing be the best explanation of anything? The whole notion is logically explanatory incoherent. It is pitiful that Christians have to assert a non explanation is an explanation of anything, and all to justify a childish belief that is fuelled by fear of death.
who are the scientists to agree with Craig? It does not seem rational to me not to believe in the non-deterministic interpretation of quantum physics just because it is incompatible with Kalam
Thank you do much for this wonderful video. So happy that Dr.Craig explains these things in this logical and consistent way! What I noticed, it looks like when people shows the multiverse like a sort of space where multiple universe pop up like bubbles in time. They miss the fact that time and space exists only inside of our universe. So even if there were a parallel universe, it would exist without any spacial and time relation with ours. You couldn't draw it like a bubble simultaneously existing somewhere next to ours. Same mistake they do when they try to imply the physical effects like quantum physics which exists inside of our universe, in its time and space, as if they could happen outside of the universe to create it. Like as if "nothing" where or universe become to exist is a sort of physical realm with those physics processes. When in fact all physical process can have place only inside of the universe. There can't be physical processes which made universe to become to exist because you need an universe in order to have those physical processes. It really looks like many of those people kind not see that point.
You just demonstrated one of the fundamental flaws of Kalam premise 1. “Everything that begins to exist has a cause…” (actually many complex interacting causes) but those causes for things within our universe are also within our universe. By that reasoning, the cause for the universe would be within the universe. If that last sentence doesn’t make sense, it is a deal-killer for Kalam. If it does make sense, then Kalam has nothing to do with a god: it is the universe that is self-causing, not a god.
If an uncaused something COULD come pop into being from "nothing", would it be likely to see something pop into being from "something" when that something is let's say a square cubic meter of air filled with the atoms and molecules and particulates we find in normal everyday air? It would seem that with more to build with, the likelihood of something popping into being would be more likely WITH something than WITHOUT something. And of course, I would prefer to see something that I can actually see readily (like a stuffed toy tiger). Would a stuffed tiger be more or less likely to pop into existence than an entire universe? Inquiring minds want to know this answer!
Every "scientist" who wants to refute the universe's beginning re-defines "nothing" as "a sea of fluctuating quantum energy". You will not even get them to admit that quantum physics cannot have existed past-eternal.
@@friedrichrubinstein I find it truly amazing that atheist scientists dismiss the entire Creator argument as preposterous and then strain logic and credulity coming up with something like the multiverse which they know is more imagined than they purport God could ever be.
@@MiklRngr Indeed. And I think they are aware of it. There is a reason why Dawkins repeatedly refused to debate William Lane Craig. Atheist scientists prove only one thing: Paul was right when he wrote in Romans 1: *"Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles."*
@Martin N Yes, _it must make sense!_ And if it doesn't make sense then it is still true! As perfectly illustrated by the atheist evolutionist Richard Lewontin, who claimed to speak for many when he confessed: _"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."_
Thankyou for all that you are doing. I find the material being produced very useful in my ministry, I can say with confidence it is reasonable to believe that God exists and given Jesus' resurrection, that he is the Father that Jesus revealed. I would love to see some more on the reasonableness of miracles. I will search your site for materials. It seems to me if people move to theism we still need to answer Hume's objections to miracles to be able to sit down and read the New Testament without it simply being dismissed as myth or legend.
This responses are incredibly disappointing and the points are always avoided in bad faith (or curious misunderstandings), but, most of all, the last comment is particularly ridiculous when you know that there are many people who reject the Kalam and are theists (Aquinas, Akin, etc), and that the last thing he criticize as "a desperate attempt to avoid the conclusion of the argument", the circular causation and the most famous version of the close timelike curve model is by theorized by a theist. This is just a series of rhetorical flourishes that would only satisfy the followers that don't really engage or try to understand what is really being said here.
I am very happy to see how few people think WLC is still relevant. Watching the response videos, which I did illustrates the despair. WLC avoid many of the questions asked and ridiculously brings up unfounded claims. For example according to him the interviewers present a strawman for the Kalam. This is not only an unfounded lie it's more ridiculous since he doesn't provide evidence for this claim. Than he continues to avoid adressing the real issues, claim after claim presented with no substantiation, cherry picking amongst scientific theories, and the most ridiculous thing he does is misrepresent the people talking in the documentary. It's therefore good to see how he is struggling with a failed argument that was rejected by people like Swinburne and Aquinas who could be called real thinkers and intellectual honest. Craig keeps pushing his books over and over in those videos which are completely unreadable if you understand a bit about relativity which he single handedly tries to pretend.that it is the universe it's way of fooling us and he knows this from armchair philosophy and the people that have done the hard labwork are completely wrong and suffering fringe a deseas he calls scientism, while in fact he suffers from Christianism which is the view that nothing can be right.if.it doesn't support Christianity.
7m10s: Many quantum effects don't require a cause...an atom will decay...there's no cause. Yes, but these are all already in the universe, then they start to change their state.
Note that the argument doesn't have anything to do with events (such as radioactive decay), but rather with the existence of things. So, even if there were such things as uncaused events (which is dubious), this would do nothing to undermine the premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause. - RF Admin
Divine causation??? Special pleading if ever I saw it just to escape the so called properties of causation in this universe (always a feature of the physical world he inductively appeals too) and he claims is necessary for the universe to exist on the very argument he’s trying to defend. It’s just this kind of comment that totally discredits craig and shows him for the desperate charlatan he really is.
welp this is it, I saw all 4 parts, now I can say it: kalam debunked, no actual answers offered. To claim that something is "metaphisically impossible" just because is NOT an answer to the issue that infinity isn't in any way contradictory. To claim that "doesn't matter if singularity isn't a beginning, the universe still had a beginning" it's flat out dishonest given that the ONLY evidence ever presented of the universe having a beginning was said singularity. To argue "but I have defended MY theory of time" when it's just the only one out there, you don't have any definitive argument for it AND science doesn't support it is not really different from "but believe me!". The empityness of the defenses offered is astounding, I can't believe so many people are acting as if these were good answers.
Something can come from literally nothing? Of course it can. You just need a big imagination and really really really hate the God hypothesis. The intellectual price tag of atheism is higher than the US national debt! 😁. Great responses Dr. Craig.
You lied. Atheists do not claim that the universe came from nothing, unless you count the claim of vilenkin, which is a legitimate scientific theory that has not been either refuted or discredited. Atheism does not attempt to disprove god. Do you seriously think that scientist are the slightest bit interested in the god hypothesis??? So dishonest and stupid.
In all of these so called refutations Craig is refuting and correcting his own arguments. The source video is very clear in that they are assessing Craig’s claims as they were presented by Craig in there raw form either as he has written or spoken them. Moreover Craig, even if we concede all of the claims, he provides zero empirical evidence for god possessing a single one of the attributes or qualities he would need to have, other than what is claimed in the bible. That fact itself should be a big warning sign that this is no more than reasoning to a preferred conclusion. And craig has never been able to claim that these models carry no empirical backing, when his own models claims have zero supporting evidence. The double standard could not be more obvious? The conclusions of this video is thus vastly overeaching the claims that Craig wishes to conclude about his god, what he thinks it is, the attributes he thinks that it has, etc.
It seems, Mr. Craig that, number one, you are the type of person who came by your degree, because you are able to read one line in a research paper, and bullshit your way through an entire assignment paper (it doesn't mean you learned anything). This is irrespective of your degree being in a "relevant" subject or legitimate, in the end. Number two, neither these physicists nor Matt Dillahunty need to make a fool of you, you do well enough on your own. I've heard you speak. You use more distractions, double-speak, and lies to self-aggrandize than to make a cogent point, as it is...
@@michaelkiprovski3001 - Maybe you should review the ad hominem definition. Ad hominem is a fallacy that implies that his argument is incorrect BECAUSE he's a shithead/moron/asshat, etc. I merely made an observation that was exclusive of the argument, but a measure of methods in general. If one presents himself or his credentials, dishonestly, or has poor reasoning or research methodologies, ridicule should be mandatory.
@@robdumond2634 since you’ve provided no actual argument except baseless accusations and insults against the person of WLC, your delusional attempts at trying to explain away what is clearly an ad hominem won’t work. An ad hominem is simply an argument that attacks the persons character instead of his arguments. Which is clearly what you’re doing.
@@JungleJargon to put it simply, all we see and have found are natural causes. Why should I accept someone saying that there can’t be a natural explanation or cause for things, or itself? Who says that nature hasn’t always existed in some form?
@@JungleJargon says who? You? You said a natural cause is nonsensical….yet haven’t offered an alternative explanation note shown that it can’t be a possible explanation other than it doesn’t make sense to you.
Why not just cut the crap and demonstrate your God isn't just an imaginary character? It's suppose to be a sentient being. There are people all over the internet claiming this god character from a book talks to them and interacts physically. Should be easy to demonstrate. You think this god is real and not just existing as an imaginary character, prove it.
@@JungleJargon how do you know it can’t “direct itself”? Who or what is directing the energy? You seem to know what it can’t do…yet don’t offer an explanation of what can…..
@@therick363 NOT that there's anything wrong with that but it reminds me if when I was little and my cousin and I would make up stories after watching star trek.
Wlc is just redefine causality to make his argument sound. If god make a universe from “nothing” its not causation. It is similar to causation but its a unknown mechanism.
@@yodafluffy5035 No it seems to me as if you’re limiting the definition of causation. If you look up the definition of causation it means the action of causing something.
@@yodafluffy5035 Your argument amounts to the demand that every physical or natural event must have a physical or natural cause. Since in your reality all causes are always and only physical. It's kinda like circular reasoning in a way. I've seen this tactic employed by TH-cam atheist Tom Jump or Tjump. He has similar thinking only he uses words like reality or real vs. imaginary. To understand Tjump you must replace real with physical and imaginary with immaterial or non-physical. To Tom everything is physical thus every explanation must also be physical. I reject this flat out.
These videos are great where Dr. Craig refutes his objectors and clarifies as well as gives us further insight on his thought process! Thank You!
Atheists will continue to deny the absolute beginning of the universe despite the overwhelming evidence for it, but the truth will remain that: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". May the Lord Jesus bless you Dr. Craig
Genesis 1:1 “When Elohim began to create the skies and the land…”
The water was already there when Elohim began to create, according to the story. There is no absolute beginning there, either.
17:20
You are spot on Craig! The notion of putting probabilistic conditions on non-being is totally absurd.
But philosophical non being is not what’s being discussed here.
Quantum vacuum isn't non-being
@@FrancisMetal Non being is an incoherent notion that has no analogue in reality.
For something to be coherent it doesn’t need to have an analogue in reality
I talked with the people that made the video and they admitted that they made the as a polemic but tried to claim that WLC is "polemical" to their scientists. They did not seriously engaged with the scientists that agree with Craig. They instead tried to brand these people as "unscientific".
19:40 - did I just hear what I think I heard? Did Craig just spell out "L-O-L?" XD
Amazing work! That last quote from Dr. Craig was awesome!
LOL @ 24:40
"Huh... our narrator has never met a cosmological model that she doesn't like - unless it involves a beginning."
Great video series; I especially enjoyed this episode.
narrator: the kalam is unsound
WLC: Oh, pul-ease! 31:33
The world has WLC to thank for popularising the Kalam Cosmological Argument!
Perhaps for popularizing it, but that doesn’t equal it works.
@@therick363 I used the word "popularising" deliberately since WLC recently called one of his detractors a "populariser"! What's good for the goose is good for the gander!
Well done. Thanks for taking the time to do this
The very approach of using physics to refute causality is self defeating. Since the reasoning and arguments used to support these theories itself presupposes causality in the very structure of their logic .
@19:40 did our good doctor just say L O L or did I mishear?
Per usual, it seems that physicists flail about when it comes to philosophical interpretation. I think this speaks to the lack of synoptic vision that is encouraged by our specialized academic world.
Per usual, it seems that _-physicists-__ theists_ flail about when it comes to _-philosophical-__ scientific_ interpretation. I think this speaks to the lack of synoptic vision that is encouraged by _-our-__ the_ specialized _-academic-__ apologetic_ world.
As Arif Ahmed said it at 29:41:
_"If you're in the game of appealing to everyday observations_ [scientific interpretation] _and there's all kinds of things you can say, that would be unhelpful to the kalam argument._
_For instance we observe, that every event has been preceded by another event. But clearly the kalam argument can't allow for that._
_We observe, that everything, that comes into existence, has a material cause, if it has a cause at all. But again the kalam argument can't allow for that._
_We observe, that all agencies, for instance all intelligent agencies are material. Um but again the kalam argument can't allow for such things._
_So everyday experience furnishes all kinds of generalizations, that are inconsistent with the conclusion of the kalam argument and it's just arbitrary to choose the generalizations, that _*_you like_*_ from everyday experience and ignore the ones, that don't fit with _*_your conclusion."_*
William Lane Craig at 30:20:
_"I deny, that we observe, that every event is preceded by another event_ [Of course Craig would claim that, since Craig is a proponent and proclaimer of the A/tensed-theory of time. Duh.]
_uh or that every intelligent cause is material. The principle, that everything, that comes into existence, has a material cause, if it has a cause at all,_ [Weird phrasing from Craig here, since according to him everything, that comes into existence, exists *only if* it has a cause at all. So "a cause for the existence" is already given in the case of coming into existence according to Craig. Really weird phrasing from Craig here.] _is indeed powerfully supported by inductive evidence. But it gets defeated by the evidence for the beginning of the universe, which cannot have a material cause."_
As you said yourself William Lane Craig at 9:46 _("I provide three arguments in support of the causal principle. To defeat it, the objector has the burden of proof showing, that there is proven counterexample to the principle.")_ you as the objector of the principle of material causation has the burden of proof showing, that *there is a proven counter-example to that principle of material causation.*
So where is that proof or evidence, Craig or theists?!?
Sidenote: There is also Alexander Pruss conveying Newtonian Mechanics to be false given, that it is incompatible with discontinuous functions, when it is supposed to be compatible with discontinuous functions according to him.
Newtonian Mechanics is all about ordinary differential equations in time, which have of course only differentiable and therefore continuous/non-discontinuous solutions.
So of course Newtonian Mechanics is incompatible with discontinuous functions. Duh.
But then why again is Newtonian Mechanics supposed to be false?!?
Check out Alexander Pruss's blogpost *"More on Newtonian velocity ".*
And Alexander Pruss supposed to be partially also a proper mathematician?!? Really?!?
I doubt that based upon such nonsensical and irrational propositions and suggestions presented by him.
@@zsoltnagy5654 "....you as the objector of the principle of material causation has the burden of proof showing that there is a proven counter example to that principle of material causation."
Simple enough, in the literature on causation, agent causation is a type of causation that is mental and not material. The hard problem of consciousness shows that consciousness/mind is not reducible to matter. The agent causal account posits that there are no sufficient antecedent conditions that force the agent to do what they in fact do, this shows that mental agents are not at the whim of physical/material causal chains but have the ability to initiate novel causal chains. As such there is a clear counter example to your principle of material causation.
In fact as a dual aspect Idealist I don't believe matter actually objectively exists apart from our observation but rather is at base non-material information that our minds make definite. As such I don't think there really is material causation as there is no "matter" as such.
@@PresbyterianPaladin Hahahahahah...
So your "proof and evidence" of your claim is some other claim in some book?!?
What's next? Is the bible true, because the bible says so?!?
Hahahahahah....
How about Russia being at war with Ukraine? Are the Russians justified in their belief in that war, because of having some "proof and evidence" about the Ukrainians being Nazis _claiming that to be the case in their/Russian news papers?!?_
Hahahahaha....
@@PresbyterianPaladin If such "evidence" for your claims, as you have presented, is a sufficient "proof" for your claims, then in some book there is also the claim, that the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is correct, where an object might come into being without a cause.
So there is by William Lane Craig requested "proven" counterexample of his principle of causation.
There is not much else to say about this really. So there you have your "sufficient proof" against the claims of William Lane Craig and theists a like.
@@PresbyterianPaladin What is that counter example for the principle of material causation supposed to be?
Given your "explanation" I'm only understanding "Bahnhof". (This is a German expression about not understanding much - frequently occuring also by asking for directions and understanding nothing but "rail station".)
Let's start with _"The agent causal account posits that there are no sufficient antecedent conditions that force the agent to do what they in fact do..."_
What are those _"sufficient antecedent conditions"_ supposed to be and how have been obtained, that there aren't any such sufficient antecedent conditions?
Just because one might not find any Swans to be Black from that doesn't follow, that there aren't any Black Swans.
7m12s - Vilenkin: "Many quantum processes don't require causes...so IF you HAVE a radioactive atom, you know it's going to decay..."
Right, so where did you get the atom from in the first place?
It's embarassing to see some physicists like Vilenkin and others in this video so confused and careless about philosophy, even about the philosophical implications of physical theories like quantum mechanics. Vilenkin (and others) clearly confuses determinism with causality, two distinct concepts. Quantum mechanics may be indeterministic (depending on which interpretation one favors), but certainly doesn't violate causality at all ! Causality is a prerequisite for doing physics. A truly acausal phenomenon could not be studied and we could not say anything about it, including about its probability of occuring !
The example of radioactive decay is often brought up, even though it is clearly a causal phenomenon. The fact that Vilenkin thinks it undermines causality shows that he doesn't understand the concept very well... The cause of a radioactive emission is obviously the instability of an atomic nucleus, itself caused by the energy state of the particules composing it, and the action of the weak or strong nuclear force or the EM force depending on the type of radioactive decay/atoms considered. Quantum mechanics allows us to calculate the probability of such an emission occuring (half-life of the substance). Without matter/atoms in the required energy state and the required weak/strong/EM forces operating (the cause), no radioactive decay (the effect). And that's why different kind of radioactive atoms will decay at different rates (have different half-lives) depending on their nature. We know how it works so we can harness it and manipulate it to make electricity, do medical imaging, etc... If it was truly acausal, nothing of the sort would be possible as radioactive emissions would happen anytime, all the time, anywhere and everywhere without any rhyme or reason.
Causality is a very broad concept. Aristotle describes four types of causes namely material, efficient, formal and final. Obviously, no one has ever observed any acausal event occuring anywhere. It that were the case, it would be world shattering and be all over the news... And by the way, quantum mechanics is a set of mathematical tools allowing to predict the outcomes of (microscopic) physical events occuring in our physical reality. It is totally illegitimate to say (as Vilenkin and others seems to imply) that it can describe the appearance of physical reality itself from absolutely nothing because 1) nothing means nothing and that includes the absence of quantum mechanics, 2) quantum mechanics doesn't allow for the creation of anything ex nihilo (and that includes virtual particles which are often mentioned to confuse laymen) and 3) abstract mathematical rules like quantum mechanics don't have any causal power to bring about concrete physical objects/realities but rather describe the behaviour of existing ones.
And just because we may not know the cause of radioactive decay doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
“A truly acausal phenomenon could not be studied and we could not say anything about it, including about its probability of occuring !”
I agree. That’s precisely why it makes no sense when theists ague that the probability of a universe coming into existence from nothing, truly uncaused, has a very low probability or is actually impossible. We have no experience with “nothing” and we have no way of studying “nothing”, so we can not say anything about the probability of something coming into existence from nothing. The philosophical argument from “common sense” that anytime we see something “come into existence”, it always has a cause is absurd because we never see anything “come into existence”. All of our observable experience is with matter and energy that already exist. Everything that we see “come into existence” is just a rearrangement of matter and energy that already exists.
@@justsomeguy859 "We have no experience with “nothing” and we have no way of studying “nothing”, so we can not say anything about the probability of something coming into existence from nothing."
I'm afraid you're confused. The fact that nothing can come into existence from nothing is not just a matter of empirical inference but one of pure logic and conceptual analysis. Thinking that "something" could "come into existence" from "nothing" is simply a confusion about the definition of these terms. Think about it carefully. You can say that something can come into existence out of nothing if it pleases you, but that will remain unintelligible and therefore irrational, in short, magical thinking: "poof" it appears for no reason... Atheists who think like that are simply asserting this because it is the only possibility that their metaphysics allows (other than saying that something always existed for no reason, which is contradicted by big bang cosmology), even though it is obviously irrational and unintelligible...
Unfortunately, this is another example among a long list of incoherences, irrationalities and self-refuting consequences of naturalism. The naturalism metaphysical project has been a complete failure for a long time now, although it still retains some of its dogmatic grip in many western academic circles, although it has started to show obvious cracks in recent decades.
When you say: "we never see anything “come into existence”", you should add "out of nothing".
When you say "All of our observable experience is with matter and energy that already exist", that's precisely the theist's point !
"Everything that we see “come into existence” is just a rearrangement of matter and energy that already exists."
Again, precisely ! Unsurprisingly, physical reality confirms what logic dictates: from nothing, nothing comes... Physical objects always have an antecedent cause/state prior to their existence and that's why without a transcendant cause, physical reality becomes unintelligible...
I definitely never said that something can come from nothing. My point is that the assertion that “nothing can come from nothing” is not supported by evidence. To believe either claim, we would need to have some evidence, which we don’t have because we cannot study “nothing”. And thinking about it really hard is not evidence. This is something that theists always seem to confuse. Just because I point out that you don’t have evidence for your claim doesn’t mean I am affirming that the opposite is true. I need to have evidence for things before I believe them. Philosophy is not evidence.
“When you say: "we never see anything "come into existence' you should add "out of nothing"”
I think you missed my point. I said what I meant. We never see anything come into existence at all. All we see is matter and energy changing forms. We could never see anything come from “nothing” because we don’t have access to “nothing”. We live in a universe made up of matter and energy located in space and time. If a horse appeared in my living room out of thin air, that wouldn’t be something coming from nothing, because my living room is in the universe, which is something. I personally think the concept of “nothing” is incoherent, so no, I don’t think the universe poofed into existence from nothing. Big Bang cosmology doesn’t exclude the possibility that something has always existed. It doesn’t even claim that the universe began, just that it expanded from a hot, dense state. It doesn’t say that it came from nothing. Before a certain point the math and physics breaks down, so we don’t know what the conditions were before then. If we don’t know then we don’t know, and we don’t know. We may never know. And because of that, it makes a perfect little gap for theists to stuff their god into. I have never understood how anyone can say with a straight face that just because we don’t know something, that there must be a supernatural being that explains it. That’s not an explanation. It’s giving up on finding the explanation. Thankfully, a lot of people recognize that giving up and saying “god did it” gets you nowhere, and they keep searching for real answers. And, most importantly, admit it when we haven’t found the answer yet.
Any proposal will do-- except the one that suggests a Transcendent Mind/ God. God forbid, not that one!
I'm being sarcastic of course.
Multiple scientists' take-on WLC come across as pathetic.
Bill’s complaints about the video producers presenting multiple theories that may contradict each other reminds me of the same objections he makes to arguments against the resurrection of Jesus. It seems that he misses the point completely in both cases. With both the beginning of the universe, and the supposed resurrection, the point is that we don’t have enough information to determine what actually happened, and perhaps we never will. There are multiple theories about the beginning of the universe, but the fact that the physicists that dedicate their entire lives to the study of the subject have not been able to agree on a single model demonstrates that at this time we do not have enough information to say with any certainty what caused the universe, if it had a cause at all, or if it has always existed is some form. With the supposed resurrection, it’s even worse. The details of what took place at the beginning of Christianity are forever lost to history. There are multiple plausible possibilities to explain it, but we will never know exactly how the religion started.
There are gaps in our knowledge, and quite conveniently, Christians have discovered that their god fits just perfectly into those gaps. Need an explanation for something? Well obviously it must have been an all-powerful being that is by definition capable of anything. Yay! We explained it!
Thankfully, actual scientists, even religious ones, don’t think this way. Otherwise we would still be living in the dark ages and believing that diseases are caused by demons and god makes the crops grow.
Science has made amazing discoveries about the way the world works, but there are some things that we don’t know, and some things we may never know. But if you don’t know the answer, you keep searching, and until you find the answer, you have to be honest enough to admit that you don’t know. You don’t pretend that god is as explanation. That doesn’t accomplish anything.
The noun god explains precisely nothing. Real explanations actually explain, nouns do not. god did what how exactly? How exactly can an explanation that actually explains precisely nothing be the best explanation of anything? The whole notion is logically explanatory incoherent. It is pitiful that Christians have to assert a non explanation is an explanation of anything, and all to justify a childish belief that is fuelled by fear of death.
who are the scientists to agree with Craig?
It does not seem rational to me not to believe in the non-deterministic interpretation of quantum physics just because it is incompatible with Kalam
Thank you do much for this wonderful video. So happy that Dr.Craig explains these things in this logical and consistent way!
What I noticed, it looks like when people shows the multiverse like a sort of space where multiple universe pop up like bubbles in time. They miss the fact that time and space exists only inside of our universe. So even if there were a parallel universe, it would exist without any spacial and time relation with ours. You couldn't draw it like a bubble simultaneously existing somewhere next to ours.
Same mistake they do when they try to imply the physical effects like quantum physics which exists inside of our universe, in its time and space, as if they could happen outside of the universe to create it. Like as if "nothing" where or universe become to exist is a sort of physical realm with those physics processes. When in fact all physical process can have place only inside of the universe.
There can't be physical processes which made universe to become to exist because you need an universe in order to have those physical processes.
It really looks like many of those people kind not see that point.
You just demonstrated one of the fundamental flaws of Kalam premise 1. “Everything that begins to exist has a cause…” (actually many complex interacting causes) but those causes for things within our universe are also within our universe. By that reasoning, the cause for the universe would be within the universe. If that last sentence doesn’t make sense, it is a deal-killer for Kalam. If it does make sense, then Kalam has nothing to do with a god: it is the universe that is self-causing, not a god.
If an uncaused something COULD come pop into being from "nothing", would it be likely to see something pop into being from "something" when that something is let's say a square cubic meter of air filled with the atoms and molecules and particulates we find in normal everyday air?
It would seem that with more to build with, the likelihood of something popping into being would be more likely WITH something than WITHOUT something. And of course, I would prefer to see something that I can actually see readily (like a stuffed toy tiger). Would a stuffed tiger be more or less likely to pop into existence than an entire universe?
Inquiring minds want to know this answer!
Every "scientist" who wants to refute the universe's beginning re-defines "nothing" as "a sea of fluctuating quantum energy". You will not even get them to admit that quantum physics cannot have existed past-eternal.
@@friedrichrubinstein I find it truly amazing that atheist scientists dismiss the entire Creator argument as preposterous and then strain logic and credulity coming up with something like the multiverse which they know is more imagined than they purport God could ever be.
@@MiklRngr Indeed. And I think they are aware of it. There is a reason why Dawkins repeatedly refused to debate William Lane Craig.
Atheist scientists prove only one thing: Paul was right when he wrote in Romans 1: *"Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles."*
@Martin N Yes, _it must make sense!_
And if it doesn't make sense then it is still true! As perfectly illustrated by the atheist evolutionist Richard Lewontin, who claimed to speak for many when he confessed:
_"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."_
Few people realize that WLC has a twin brother who goes by the stage name David Lee Roth. He's not as smart though.
It was Just Amazing!
I had Heard lots of critiques against the Kalam and I was losing Faith in this argument but this has turned me back into a Kalam fan!
Thankyou for all that you are doing. I find the material being produced very useful in my ministry, I can say with confidence it is reasonable to believe that God exists and given Jesus' resurrection, that he is the Father that Jesus revealed. I would love to see some more on the reasonableness of miracles. I will search your site for materials. It seems to me if people move to theism we still need to answer Hume's objections to miracles to be able to sit down and read the New Testament without it simply being dismissed as myth or legend.
Great series!
Response to this series with SkyDive Phil the documentary maker is up on my channel
23:00 so craig's answer to the issue here is mere assertion that metaphysics, not physics tells us what causation is. Not impressed.
This responses are incredibly disappointing and the points are always avoided in bad faith (or curious misunderstandings), but, most of all, the last comment is particularly ridiculous when you know that there are many people who reject the Kalam and are theists (Aquinas, Akin, etc), and that the last thing he criticize as "a desperate attempt to avoid the conclusion of the argument", the circular causation and the most famous version of the close timelike curve model is by theorized by a theist.
This is just a series of rhetorical flourishes that would only satisfy the followers that don't really engage or try to understand what is really being said here.
WLC = pro
I am very happy to see how few people think WLC is still relevant. Watching the response videos, which I did illustrates the despair.
WLC avoid many of the questions asked and ridiculously brings up unfounded claims. For example according to him the interviewers present a strawman for the Kalam. This is not only an unfounded lie it's more ridiculous since he doesn't provide evidence for this claim. Than he continues to avoid adressing the real issues, claim after claim presented with no substantiation, cherry picking amongst scientific theories, and the most ridiculous thing he does is misrepresent the people talking in the documentary.
It's therefore good to see how he is struggling with a failed argument that was rejected by people like Swinburne and Aquinas who could be called real thinkers and intellectual honest.
Craig keeps pushing his books over and over in those videos which are completely unreadable if you understand a bit about relativity which he single handedly tries to pretend.that it is the universe it's way of fooling us and he knows this from armchair philosophy and the people that have done the hard labwork are completely wrong and suffering fringe a deseas he calls scientism, while in fact he suffers from Christianism which is the view that nothing can be right.if.it doesn't support Christianity.
You okay buddy?
@@joshua2707 Allways
7m10s: Many quantum effects don't require a cause...an atom will decay...there's no cause.
Yes, but these are all already in the universe, then they start to change their state.
Note that the argument doesn't have anything to do with events (such as radioactive decay), but rather with the existence of things. So, even if there were such things as uncaused events (which is dubious), this would do nothing to undermine the premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause. - RF Admin
Divine causation??? Special pleading if ever I saw it just to escape the so called properties of causation in this universe (always a feature of the physical world he inductively appeals too) and he claims is necessary for the universe to exist on the very argument he’s trying to defend. It’s just this kind of comment that totally discredits craig and shows him for the desperate charlatan he really is.
welp this is it, I saw all 4 parts, now I can say it: kalam debunked, no actual answers offered. To claim that something is "metaphisically impossible" just because is NOT an answer to the issue that infinity isn't in any way contradictory. To claim that "doesn't matter if singularity isn't a beginning, the universe still had a beginning" it's flat out dishonest given that the ONLY evidence ever presented of the universe having a beginning was said singularity. To argue "but I have defended MY theory of time" when it's just the only one out there, you don't have any definitive argument for it AND science doesn't support it is not really different from "but believe me!". The empityness of the defenses offered is astounding, I can't believe so many people are acting as if these were good answers.
30:52
💀
👏🏼
lol 19:40
Something can come from literally nothing? Of course it can. You just need a big imagination and really really really hate the God hypothesis.
The intellectual price tag of atheism is higher than the US national debt!
😁.
Great responses Dr. Craig.
You lied. Atheists do not claim that the universe came from nothing, unless you count the claim of vilenkin, which is a legitimate scientific theory that has not been either refuted or discredited.
Atheism does not attempt to disprove god. Do you seriously think that scientist are the slightest bit interested in the god hypothesis???
So dishonest and stupid.
Divine causation??? Classic special pleading. Pitiful.
Cry a river
@@PhilosophyUnraveled Sadly, and rather obviously yiu have no idea how Craig’s claims fail. Craig lies and misrepresents.
In all of these so called refutations Craig is refuting and correcting his own arguments. The source video is very clear in that they are assessing Craig’s claims as they were presented by Craig in there raw form either as he has written or spoken them.
Moreover Craig, even if we concede all of the claims, he provides zero empirical evidence for god possessing a single one of the attributes or qualities he would need to have, other than what is claimed in the bible. That fact itself should be a big warning sign that this is no more than reasoning to a preferred conclusion. And craig has never been able to claim that these models carry no empirical backing, when his own models claims have zero supporting evidence. The double standard could not be more obvious?
The conclusions of this video is thus vastly overeaching the claims that Craig wishes to conclude about his god, what he thinks it is, the attributes he thinks that it has, etc.
If you don’t have time and distance that is the result of the existence of matter that has mass and gravity, you can’t have an "event”!
Craig did not solve or ans any of the problem or question with evidence. The scientist atleast did much better regardless of the uncertainty
It seems, Mr. Craig that, number one, you are the type of person who came by your degree, because you are able to read one line in a research paper, and bullshit your way through an entire assignment paper (it doesn't mean you learned anything). This is irrespective of your degree being in a "relevant" subject or legitimate, in the end. Number two, neither these physicists nor Matt Dillahunty need to make a fool of you, you do well enough on your own. I've heard you speak. You use more distractions, double-speak, and lies to self-aggrandize than to make a cogent point, as it is...
Nice ad hominem
@@michaelkiprovski3001 - Maybe you should review the ad hominem definition. Ad hominem is a fallacy that implies that his argument is incorrect BECAUSE he's a shithead/moron/asshat, etc. I merely made an observation that was exclusive of the argument, but a measure of methods in general. If one presents himself or his credentials, dishonestly, or has poor reasoning or research methodologies, ridicule should be mandatory.
@@michaelkiprovski3001 - I'm accusing him of academic and intellectual dishonesty. It has nothing to do with this argument, in and of itself.
@@robdumond2634 That’s called an ad hominem
@@robdumond2634 since you’ve provided no actual argument except baseless accusations and insults against the person of WLC, your delusional attempts at trying to explain away what is clearly an ad hominem won’t work.
An ad hominem is simply an argument that attacks the persons character instead of his arguments. Which is clearly what you’re doing.
Virtual fluctuations require time and distance that is the result of the formation of matter with mass and gravity.
A ping pong universe requires energy that cannot make or order itself.
(A natural cause for nature is nonsensical.)
To you it’s nonsensical, not to everyone.
@@therick363 Explain yourself.
@@JungleJargon to put it simply, all we see and have found are natural causes. Why should I accept someone saying that there can’t be a natural explanation or cause for things, or itself? Who says that nature hasn’t always existed in some form?
@@therick363 Nature takes energy to make and energy cannot make or direct itself.
@@JungleJargon says who? You?
You said a natural cause is nonsensical….yet haven’t offered an alternative explanation note shown that it can’t be a possible explanation other than it doesn’t make sense to you.
The stability of atoms has a cause.
All possible in atheism but not god😂😂😂😂
Why not just cut the crap and demonstrate your God isn't just an imaginary character? It's suppose to be a sentient being. There are people all over the internet claiming this god character from a book talks to them and interacts physically. Should be easy to demonstrate. You think this god is real and not just existing as an imaginary character, prove it.
Lol
Sheesh apologetics are trash
Matter and energy cannot make or order themselves. End of story. “Perhaps” isn’t science.
Matter is formed by atoms coming together…via the natural forces.
God did it is not a confirmed answer/explanation.
@@therick363 It takes energy to make matter and energy cannot make or direct itself. Answer that….!
@@JungleJargon how do you know it can’t “direct itself”? Who or what is directing the energy? You seem to know what it can’t do…yet don’t offer an explanation of what can…..
@@therick363 Prove it and you have $10,000,000.00 dollars. 💵
@@JungleJargon So you’re going to ignore the question I asked?
These quantum guys are so lost
How so?
@@therick363 it's all fiction
@@therick363 NOT that there's anything wrong with that but it reminds me if when I was little and my cousin and I would make up stories after watching star trek.
@@pdworld3421 what is all fiction??
@@therick363 all these ideas about the universe. If one of them is right then the others are wrong so it's not a leap to believe they're all wrong.
Wlc is just redefine causality to make his argument sound. If god make a universe from “nothing” its not causation. It is similar to causation but its a unknown mechanism.
How is God making a universe from nothing not causation?
@@MarkNOTW Causation means change of energy/matter that already exists in a specific way (entropy).
@@yodafluffy5035 No it seems to me as if you’re limiting the definition of causation. If you look up the definition of causation it means the action of causing something.
@@yodafluffy5035 That's a ridiculously narrow definition of causation.
@@yodafluffy5035 Your argument amounts to the demand that every physical or natural event must have a physical or natural cause. Since in your reality all causes are always and only physical. It's kinda like circular reasoning in a way. I've seen this tactic employed by TH-cam atheist Tom Jump or Tjump. He has similar thinking only he uses words like reality or real vs. imaginary. To understand Tjump you must replace real with physical and imaginary with immaterial or non-physical. To Tom everything is physical thus every explanation must also be physical. I reject this flat out.