The Cosmological Argument (Argument for the Existence of God)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มิ.ย. 2024
- Join George and John as they discuss different philosophical theories. In this video they will be debating the Cosmological Argument - an attempt to prove the existence of God through causation, change, motion and the contingency of our universe.
Does God Exist a Philosophical Inquiry:
This books offers an in-depth analysis of The Problem of Evil and the Three main arguments for the existence of God. The Ontological Argument, The Teleological Argument and The Cosmological Argument. Available Worldwide on Amazon…
Paperback:
US - www.amazon.com/dp/B088BH5HTL
UK - www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B076GRHTQ2
Canada - www.amazon.ca/dp/B088BH5HTL
eBook...
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B076GRHTQ2
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B076GRHTQ2
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B076GRHTQ2
India: www.amazon.in/dp/B076GRHTQ2
Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B076GRHTQ2
Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B076GRHTQ2
The script to this video part of the Philosophy Vibe - "Philosophy of Religion Part I" eBook, available worldwide on Amazon:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B088QM8QXC
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088QM8QXC
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B088QM8QXC
India: www.amazon.in/dp/B088QM8QXC
Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B088QM8QXC
Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B088QM8QXC
The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 1 'Philosophy of Religion' available worldwide on Amazon:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H42XCS
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H42XCS
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H42XCS
Check out the Philosophy Vibe merchandise store: philosophy-vibe-store.creator...
0:00 - Introduction
0:54 - Argument from Motion - Aquinas
2:04 - Argument from Causation - Aquinas
3:02 - Argument from Contingency - Aquinas
4:20 - Principle of Sufficient Reason - Leibniz
5:05 - Problems with the Cosmological Argument
8:10 - Kalam Cosmological Argument - Craig
#cosmologicalargument #existenceofGod #Philosophy #philosophyofreligion
Does God Exist A Philosophical Inquiry. Available Worldwide on Amazon: www.amazon.com/dp/B088BH5HTL
The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 1 'The Philosophy of Religion':
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H42XCS
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H42XCS
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H42XCS
"The Cosmological Argument (Argument for the Existence of God)"
But the Kalam doesn't present an argument for the existence of any god, and it certainly does not present any evidence for the upper-case God, which is generally used to refer to a specific god, the god of the Bible.
In it's entirety, the Kalam Cosmological Argument states:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
It should be obvious that nowhere in the argument and it's conclusion does it mention any god or God.
It is worth mentioning that any presentation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument that contains more than those 2 premises and the conclusion presented above is NOT the Kalam.
It will be a modified & appended version of the Kalam Argument.
I have watched countless philosophy vibe videos and I think this might be the first one when John losses the debate. Actually shook rn
Well, guess that settles it. God’s real, even John can’t win this one
@@owlympian1550 only if you subscribe to the theory that time is real. I'm just learning but it seems like the Kalam argument relies on the existence of time?
@@daquannewkirk2513 it seems like time exists...
U need a better mic, awesome vid
need to start a go fund me
Excellent! excellent! excellent! This video really helped me grasp this argument. Thank you for putting it together!😀
This channel is dope. You guys laid out the most basic disputes and now are going in to more modern stuff.
I am so happy you guys mentioned WLC 🙏🙏🙏
Very very good video. Thank you sir for your time and the timeless wisdom.
You're welcome, thank you for watching.
"The Cosmological Argument (Argument for the Existence of God)"
But the Kalam doesn't present an argument for the existence of any god, and it certainly does not present any evidence for the upper-case God, which is generally used to refer to a specific god, the god of the Bible.
In it's entirety, the Kalam Cosmological Argument states:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
It should be obvious that nowhere in the argument and it's conclusion does it mention any god or God.
It is worth mentioning that any presentation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument that contains more than those 2 premises and the conclusion presented above is NOT the Kalam.
It will be a modified & appended version of the Kalam Argument.
i have an AS exam in 8 hours..ur channel saved my life so ty
Absolute pleasure, good luck in the exam.
Hahah that’s literally me now
@@tyronethedinosaur4039 how'd you do haha
This is so amazing thank you!!
You're welcome, glad you liked it.
I'm in love with your channel, please upload some more I like to ponder philosophical questions.
Vivek Yadav Happy to hear you're enjoying it. There's definitely more to come and a lot of different topics to be covered.
Philosophy Vibe Very excited! Cheers
"The Cosmological Argument (Argument for the Existence of God)"
But the Kalam doesn't present an argument for the existence of any god, and it certainly does not present any evidence for the upper-case God, which is generally used to refer to a specific god, the god of the Bible.
In it's entirety, the Kalam Cosmological Argument states:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
It should be obvious that nowhere in the argument and it's conclusion does it mention any god or God.
It is worth mentioning that any presentation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument that contains more than those 2 premises and the conclusion presented above is NOT the Kalam.
It will be a modified & appended version of the Kalam Argument.
1) When Aquinas argues from motion it is not the same type of motion you showed as balls hitting one another forward or backward to infinity. Motion for Aquinas is the movement from potential to actuality. For example a hot cup of coffee has the potential to be a cold cup of coffee. However the potential to become cold is not the cause of the coffee getting colder if it does; it is the action of something extrinsic to it that actualises this potential to become cold; ie. for it to move from being potentially cold to being actually cold (in physics we understand this to be temperature differential). So for Aquinas the idea is that something in motion must have been put in motion by something else since 'potentiality' in and of itself has no power to move anything.
2) No decent cosmological argument (especially from Aquinas) says or ever has said that EVERYTHING has or must have a cause. What he did argue is that everything that is caused must have been caused by something else. Nothing, including God, could have caused itself. Again with 'causes' this video did the billiards ball type thing back to the Big Bang (and then God). To modernise Aquinas' argument he was talking of a simultaneous regression where all parts have to exist contemporaneously or everything ceases. I exist because of proteins, proteins because of chemicals, chemicals because of atoms, atoms because of subatominc particles, ...... etc. If anyone of these cease existence then it all collapses. However you cannot infinitely regress this chain or we could never exist here and now. So then he concludes there must be an uncaused cause and this he calls God (cosmologists have called it things like quantum flux, singularity, etc). Big bangs, cycling universes, infinite universes, etc. are not proper defeaters for this argument.
3) Existence. I exist, a chair exists, stars exist. We all share existence yet none of these entities is the cause of its existence; but receives existence and eventually loses existence. Again via infinite regress we must conclude there must be something which is capable of giving existence but did not receive its existence and this he called God.
Despite what this video says these three arguments are 3 separate arguments and not 3 versions of the same argument. Aquinas would have argued there is no way to philosophically prove that the Universe ever had a beginning as God could have generated the Universe as eternally as He is. He only figured the Universe had a beginning because it says so in the Genesis account; but it didn't affect his argument for first cause either way. Things which are caused act in material causality. The uncaused cause, or God acts ex nihilo : causes things from nothing so is in a different class of causation anyway. The unmoved mover, the uncaused cause, the necessary existent agent, the 'I Am who I Am' is not the super-perfect being of our 'being-ness'; but is a totally different class of being from which our reality derives existence.
Once you understand the arguments properly then you will come to understand how, like this video; people like Hawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, etc. have argued against a poor understanding of them and have not given any real defeaters for them.
@@thandolwamazulutom2828 How so?
Wow. This might be the best reply to anything I’ve ever seen on TH-cam ever.
It’s true. So far as I have seen, and I have been studying this specifically for 4 years now. There has been no defeaters. Especially when you factor in scientific truths as, Intelligence does not come from non-intelligence and life does not come from non-life. Abiogenesis is not proven and so far seems like it cannot be.
This comment takes the cake 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
"The Cosmological Argument (Argument for the Existence of God)"
But the Kalam doesn't present an argument for the existence of any god, and it certainly does not present any evidence for the upper-case God, which is generally used to refer to a specific god, the god of the Bible.
In it's entirety, the Kalam Cosmological Argument states:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
It should be obvious that nowhere in the argument and it's conclusion does it mention any god or God.
It is worth mentioning that any presentation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument that contains more than those 2 premises and the conclusion presented above is NOT the Kalam.
It will be a modified & appended version of the Kalam Argument.
You have just saved my life, I have a Religious Studies homework that seemed to be impossible, and you have made it possible, so, thanks and keep up the great work.!
Thank you very much, glad you found the video helpful.
"The Cosmological Argument (Argument for the Existence of God)"
But the Kalam doesn't present an argument for the existence of any god, and it certainly does not present any evidence for the upper-case God, which is generally used to refer to a specific god, the god of the Bible.
In it's entirety, the Kalam Cosmological Argument states:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
It should be obvious that nowhere in the argument and it's conclusion does it mention any god or God.
It is worth mentioning that any presentation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument that contains more than those 2 premises and the conclusion presented above is NOT the Kalam.
It will be a modified & appended version of the Kalam Argument.
@@cnault3244 "The Universe has a cause".. this cause has to be a necessary existence and not depended on anything and is self sufficient which is exactly what religious believe God is
@@saadshaikh7161 " this cause has to be a necessary existence"
Prove that assertion.
"and not depended on anything"
Prove that assertion.
"and is self sufficient"
Prove that assertion.
" which is exactly what religious believe God is"
It may be what some religions believe god is, not all religions believe that.
And it doesn't matter what people believe, it matters what they can show evidence for.
Your remarks are an attempt to define god into existence by making unproven assertions that only work if a person accepts the assertions without proof.
Btw if this god you defined exists and is self sufficient, it would not bother creating this universe.
@@cnault3244 First of all let me define the word God for you cuz you seem to have no idea about it's definition in rawest form
(God would be someone who is a necessary being for the existence of Universe I'll explain to you later why but assume it for now and this being would not have to depend upon any other being for its existence. Assertion - This cause has to be a necessary existence.
Proof - The being which we are referring to as God cannot be a contingent existence cuz it would have to depend on something else which would contradict the definition of God. Nothing within human knowledge is necessary, everything is dependent upon something else for eg
Why do you and I exist becoz of our parents and why do they exist becoz of their parents and so on. Even planets cannot exist without being dependent on something else.
Why does our Solar system exist becoz of a dense gas billions of years ago collapsed due a shockwave and so on.
Then the Big Bang explosion would be the first end/start point but who gave rise to Big bang (you cannot say that our universe is necessary cuz it depends on Big Bang for it's existence) the answer would be someone who has no starting point or endpoint, something who has no dependence or sustainance which leads us to our original definition of God.
This was just pleasure to watch!
Thank you :D
KEep up the good work
It's very easy to understand philosophy through ur video thanks a lot.
You're welcome, thanks for watching.
All we can prove is our being and capacity for benefit or harm, all else is conjecture. All we can experience is resonance and intimation.
Great video, very simple and clear.
Thank you :D
"The Cosmological Argument (Argument for the Existence of God)"
But the Kalam doesn't present an argument for the existence of any god, and it certainly does not present any evidence for the upper-case God, which is generally used to refer to a specific god, the god of the Bible.
In it's entirety, the Kalam Cosmological Argument states:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
It should be obvious that nowhere in the argument and it's conclusion does it mention any god or God.
It is worth mentioning that any presentation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument that contains more than those 2 premises and the conclusion presented above is NOT the Kalam.
It will be a modified & appended version of the Kalam Argument.
What about Mackie’s counter arguments to Aquinas? I’m having trouble grasping it.
Rupert Spira seems to have already answered alot of this. I still enjoy this channel though.
Nice intro discussion. I would like to see a continuation, where you take Einsteinian Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into account, which are absolutely essential in any discussion of the beginning of time.
+FirstRisingSouI That's why philosophy died. The scientific method was born from it and now it grew enough to be independant. Philosophy is now like your grandpa. Talks a shitload with knowledge they have gained 50 years ago and nothing new added to it and expect to sound relevant and taken seriously. I don't think philosophy will die though, sadly. It is interesting to philosophise. If not fun I guess. But let's just stop taking it so seriously.
Razgrits Philosophy is more of a method than a discipline. It's the method of applying logic to ideas. When it takes all the current knowledge into account, it can be an essential tool for telling us what might be reasonable and what might not. The problem is when people value rationalism over empiricism, and ignore evidence that complicates their philosophical ideas.
+FirstRisingSouI
Very true, philosophy is a necessary method of applying logic to ideas. It's still very necessary, not just as a historical study of thoughts, ideas, etc. came to be processed and explained, but still serves to inform the art of rhetoric. What is occurring in the field of science is a strong lean on pure empiricism, which is appropriate in an purely evidence-based field like science, But rationalism has its place as well - in considering intangible objects.
But again, you're very right by saying it's a problem when people value rationalism over empiricism. In fact, that is evidenced from ancient times even before Socrates, most notably by the Dialectic of Zeno in the 400s BCE. In order to prove the absurdity of the pluralistic theory of the Pythagoreans by showing that, if it was true, motion would be impossible. But suppose that you want to traverse a race track. To do so you would have to traverse an infinite number of points --according to the Pythagorean hypothesis-- in finite time. It would be impossible, not only to traverse the track, but to move any amount of distance at all, since being made up of an infinite number of points, it would be an infinite distance.
ERGO, sometimes empirical evidence simply disproves theoretical rationalism.
FirstRisingSouI You think false reasoning can arise from philosophy? One reminder, inductive reasoning. Rationalism isn't much of an issue as philosophy is a tool as you said, but you can hold a hammer upside down and still bang a nail in. That doesn't mean that you are right or that you 'really' got the job done. In philosophy there is no objective way to say anything is true or false. Unless you use empiricism as you said. Anything else is empty jargon with no real value other than intellectual masturbation.
Razgrits What did I say to elicit such a hostile retort? And what are you even trying to say? It sounds like you're claiming that logic is pointless.
This video deserves an update with Alex Malpass and Wes Morrison’ refutation of Craig’s position on Actual Infinities.
"The Cosmological Argument (Argument for the Existence of God)"
But the Kalam doesn't present an argument for the existence of any god, and it certainly does not present any evidence for the upper-case God, which is generally used to refer to a specific god, the god of the Bible.
In it's entirety, the Kalam Cosmological Argument states:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
It should be obvious that nowhere in the argument and it's conclusion does it mention any god or God.
It is worth mentioning that any presentation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument that contains more than those 2 premises and the conclusion presented above is NOT the Kalam.
It will be a modified & appended version of the Kalam Argument.
I was hoping you would post more videos.
Thank you for being the saviour of my dissertation lads
You're welcome, good luck in the dissertation.
@@PhilosophyVibe Gonna need it lmao :')
@@PhilosophyVibe I got 75😎
Amazing, congratulations!
If we imagine time moving backwards, then events that we currently experience as effects would be perceived as causes, and events that we currently experience as causes would be perceived as effects. This suggests that the concept of cause and effect is not an objective feature of the world, but rather a result of our experience of time. if you refocus this argument on the idea of reason (logic applied to a set of principles) and you replace the idea of god with the idea of a transcendental plane of existence then the argument becomes valid -> everything has a reason including existence itself (to make the distinction between existence and something inside existence is arbitrary/ invoking a different belief) therefore all I need to do to prove this transcendental plane of existence is to ask a valid but unanswerable question such as "why does stuff exist".
1- the actual infinity objection rests on craig conception of time.
2- how we conceive of time? We can say by time we track the motion of the earth,those numbers on time ( in clocks) are just trackers of the motion of the earth,and the forward uni-directional passage of time is just our convention, there's no such thing past became present, there are only things and individuals,and those change and act, some changes and acts must be sequential,others can be co-occurrent.
"Everything that exists must have a cause (except for this thing my pastor told me about which also happens to be undetectable by scientific means)"
Strawman. The premise is that everything we find, see, experience, etc. has a cause (of changes of state). The argument appeals to ordinary (and scientific) experience.
It's the _conclusion_ of the argument (not a premise) that _not_ everything that exists must have a cause; i.e. that logically there _must_ be something that exists that is _uncaused_ (not caused by something else, like everything we experience is) for the whole show to get on the road.
Tysto that began to exist!!! god by defenetion is eternal
GOD DOESN'T BEGAN TO EXIST BY DEFINITION, YOUR ATHEIST SILLY OBJECTION IS OUTDATED
WYNTOX [قل هو الله أحد الله الصمد لم يلد ولم يولد و لم يكن له كفأن أحد]
Tysto is correct - the argument is illogical in that it assumes cause-and-effect was a requirement BEFORE the big bang. If that's true, then magic man is an impossibility. If it's not true then this universe could have simply popped into existence and magic man is not required. The cosmological argument wants to have its cake and eat it too.
I see a lot of comments about the temporal beginning of the universe. The argument doesn't rely on the universe having a beginning. Aquinas only thought that the Universe had a beginning because of his belief that it was revealed in Scripture. His arguments don't argue for a beginning of Universe and he in fact argued vehemently against those who thought that they could prove it through philosophical arguments.
Thank you. Somebody else gets it.
for the Kalam argument: I think the problem is the idea of time. What it what we experience as present is just an illusion, what if the past, present and future are just an illusion created by our minds. What if time is just an illusion? Then infinity would make sense. So there is no cause and no effect, it's just an illusion.
"The Cosmological Argument (Argument for the Existence of God)"
But the Kalam doesn't present an argument for the existence of any god, and it certainly does not present any evidence for the upper-case God, which is generally used to refer to a specific god, the god of the Bible.
In it's entirety, the Kalam Cosmological Argument states:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
It should be obvious that nowhere in the argument and it's conclusion does it mention any god or God.
It is worth mentioning that any presentation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument that contains more than those 2 premises and the conclusion presented above is NOT the Kalam.
It will be a modified & appended version of the Kalam Argument.
please, i love you both, saving me night before A-levels
I can't do this
Glad we could help. Good luck in the a levels.
It’s hypocritical to say that the universe is not a brute fact and is caused by a creator but says that the creator who caused it is the only brute fact. And the logic that uses the assumption that there is a creator that caused something is an infinite paradox as it will go on and on. If one claims that there is a final creator then he would be hypocritical to say so.
I love your channel and have bought your book . I am however perplexed that you have gone through the arguments without mentioning many of the great Muslim philosophers that actually propagated them. For example you have attributed Kalam argument to WL Craig whereas it originally came from Imam Ghazali. Even WLC admits to this. Similarly you have mentioned Aquinos and Libenez in the contingency argument but not mentioned Abn Sina who initially formulated this. Please look them up and give us a true historic account.
Thank you for purchasing the book, it is very much appreciated. You make some excellent points with regards to the Muslim philosophers. This particular video tried to keep to the UK A-Level syllabus which mainly focused on the Western Philosophers.
@@PhilosophyVibe thank you I appreciate it. I still feel that UK A- level students deserve to know the whole truth.
I was really hoping they would mention stephen hawkings grand design because if mtheory is correct it shuts down the cosmological argument
Hi I'm Simion. I'm watching from India 🇮🇳, Assam 💓
Nice video. But when you referenced in walking in negative time (to past) every point of the past would be the present, because you can you exists in here and now. (same applies to the future).
Holy crap good point
that’s not what the big bang theory is we say it ‘started’ but that’s not what we’re actually saying we can only observe things with light the universe was transparent and protons weren’t moving . Also how do you know we started at 0?
"The Cosmological Argument (Argument for the Existence of God)"
But the Kalam doesn't present an argument for the existence of any god, and it certainly does not present any evidence for the upper-case God, which is generally used to refer to a specific god, the god of the Bible.
In it's entirety, the Kalam Cosmological Argument states:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
It should be obvious that nowhere in the argument and it's conclusion does it mention any god or God.
It is worth mentioning that any presentation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument that contains more than those 2 premises and the conclusion presented above is NOT the Kalam.
It will be a modified & appended version of the Kalam Argument.
That's the thing. Advocates of a god call for a need for a deity as an unmoved mover, which would make it also a brute fact, just like the universe appears to be. But the universe requires far fewer assumptions as a brute fact, as we can observe it in countless ways, and it does not require an ephemeral additional quality of thought and agency that the concept of an all powerful being (as opposed to an all powerful mute force) implies.
"just like the universe appears to be" - the universe does not appear to be a brute fact.
"But the universe requires far fewer assumptions as a brute fact" - no it doesn't. besides, the universe cannot be a brute fact as an infinite regress of time is impossible.
Infinite regress and god did should not be the only options because we know too little about the early universe to draw such conclusions.
@@jackplumbridge2704 An infinite regress is not impossible first of all. Nor is it the only option for a godless universe. Also, please explain the definition of 'brute fact' that the universe does not meet.
@@curvingfyre6810 an infinite regress is impossible.
The only other option for an atheistic worldview is a brute contingency, which is ultimately self-defeating.
The universe is not a brute contingent thing for a number of reasons, one of which being the fact that brute contingencies are self-defeating, as mentioned above.
@@jackplumbridge2704 @jackplumbridge2704 Why is anninfinite regress impossible? Its a fairly well accepted possibility in scientific circles, burden of proof is on you to poke holes in it beyond just saying "nuh uh"
Brute contingencies are a different word than we were using before, can you explain the precise definition of this new term, why they are self defeating, and why the language has suddenly changed?
Here is my problem with the last argument: it basis the ideas that these infinite universes would prescribe to the same laws and theories our universe prescribes to. If every universe had the same laws as ours, yes, I could follow the idea of a god. However, there is no evidence to suggest that a universe outside of our own would have to follow our laws in this universe. Also, math is fake but that's a different matter. (we discovered a new shape recently. It changes all the time)
Hey! What do you mean by math is fake? And what shape?
@@BilalBilal-wj3ze homie thinks he’s already disproved physics
Causality will affect any temporal reality. Therefore, infinite regress is a problem when positing any eternal chain of temporal reality, hence any temporal reality is contingent upon an atemporal reality.
0:30 "Ok, so how does it prove the existence of God?" That is simple: It doesnt. :-)
Sure, the idea of infinite regress has a problem. But the idea that time started is also problematic. Without time, nothing can happen, nothing can start existing, so how can time start existing? The answer "time was created by God" doesnt make sense either, because he didnt have time to create time or even think about doing it. Some answer could be that God was created by time... or that he IS the time. Origin of God is also questionable - "allways existed" is infinite regress and "started to exist" raises a question if he came from nothing or some higher cause created him.
before time, all that was being done; was started, being worked on, and finished, within a single moment. this means time immediately came into existence, along with any other creation made in that moment (if there were any)
@@ovix4150 Yes, but isnt it weird? Started, being worked on and finished - those are three things done in no time. I cannot imagine even ONE thing done in no time.
There are several key flaws in their presentation of the arguments, most notably their assumption that the argument from causation is talking about a chronological series of events stretching backwards through time, which it is not. Whether intentional or not, their statement that Aquinas flatly rejected eternal regression is misleading at best and deceptive at worst. Aquinas rejected eternal regression because he was a Christian, but Aristotle, with whom most of these lines of thought originated, was a pagan who believed the cosmos had always existed and always would. It isn't the case that the argument simply *assumes* that time had a beginning. One or the other can be true and the argument remains effective, again, because the 'causation' being talked about is not a chronological sequence, but contingent things deriving the conditions of their existence derivatively - in other words, not 'horizontal' through time as 'vertical' through contingency. I'd encourage you to check out David Hart's comments on divine simplicity here on yt, as well as Mathoma's excellent series on classical theology to find out why "we have no idea how the universe came into existence, no one did and no one will" and "maybe the universe doesn't have a cause" are total non-sequiturs.
@@liberval9425 Hmm... not sure if i understand you. And who is this David Hart? Does he have a yt channel with some videos on it or is he just writting comments?
@@eklektikTubb because we are within time, and all our actions are done through movement, which requires time, because we are not omnipotent. sorry, only just now saw your response
The Cosmological Argument left out an important feature called "The Cosmos" which is infinite, eternal and forms our local universe called the Milky Way.
Why does the Cosmos exist rather than not? You can't explain that by just pointing to it
@@geraldharrison5787By the same reason that God exist rather than not.
@@kasianowakowska7984 God can do anything, right? That's true by definition. So God can explain God's existence. The cosmos, by contrast, can't explain anything. On the contrary, it stands in need of explanation.
Is the "cosmological crisis" solved by the Particle Photon and the Variable Speed of Light theories?
In 1987, shortly before his death in a tragic climbing accident near Fort Collins, Colorado, 1986 Boise State Physics Graduate John William Blake, who later went on to become a graduate student in Physics at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado, gave a presentation to the Tesla Society in Colorado Springs, Colorado entitled "The Particle Photon." Based on observations of pulsars, calculating the rest mass of a photon, etc., "The Particle Photon" argued that the speed of light was a speed limit rather than an absolute constant.
In 2014 observations of deep space from different locations began to seriously contradict one another leading to what cosmologists began to call a "cosmological crisis," casting doubt on the Big Bang theory, and it's follow-on postulates including Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Inflation, the Flat Universe and especially the Doppler effect only explanation of the Hubble Redshift. Cosmologists predicted that the "cosmological crisis" would likely worsen in the future.
Unlike the Big Bang and Dark Matte, casting such doubt on the Big Bang, that prediction proved to be surprisingly correct. With the launch of the powerful James Webb telescope it was discovered that rather than the empty space that the Big Bang theory predicted would exist beyond the "Hubble Sphere," there were instead an untold number of galaxies and stars, leading a growing number of cosmologists to declare that the Big Bang theory was dead.
During his time at Boise State John also conducted Tesla based research at the former Wendover airbase on the Utah-Nevada border. John was also my best friend and brother. In his honor , because the time is right, and my firm belief that John was absolutely right, I have co-written "The Particle Photon: How the Particle Photon and Variable Speed of Light Solve the Cosmological Crisis.
www.amazon.com/Particle-Photon-Variable-Cosmological-Crisis/dp/B0BBY2JM1P/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2KA7EKVEUJ31C&keywords=the+particle+photon+blake&qid=1664473821&qu=eyJxc2MiOiIwLjc1IiwicXNhIjoiMC4wMCIsInFzcCI6IjAuMDAifQ%3D%3D&sprefix=the+particle+photon+%2Caps%2C101&sr=8-1
In addition to John's very professional and well-argued paper, the book examines quantum mechanics, string theory, the multiverse, dark matter, dark energy, the Big Bang, the Unified Field theory, the Standard Model of Cosmology, and the Variable Speed of Light theory, in relation to the findings of "The Particle Photon." It also discusses the related thoughts of Einstein (who first posited that the speed of light was variable), Tesla, Newton, Hubble and even "dissident" physicist Alexander Unzicker.
Past is relative to a present. There cannot be a past without a present.
The present is part of the infinite in reality.
In a sense, an omnipotent being could arrive at the middle and create an infinite universe to both ends, in an ironical image, throwing his magic spitting hands in the opposite directions in a christian cross manner ;) I don't know if that kind of an universe is possible, surely you need something bigger to do that.
my guy god bless you, you a life saver
You're welcome, thank you for watching.
It is an amazing channel. Thank you for this great work. But in this video I think Muslim philosophers should have mentioned more.
At least monument to argument, here. I think to reason well is good yet faith explains better. I like Aquinas. I liked Aristotle, too yet reason is myth and when we study saints we see argument to God. This is great for kids to learn and reviews well.
The concept of “nothing” cannot have the ability to act, otherwise it would exist as a “potential act” and be one of many things that exist. If the universe came from “nothing” then this nothing would have had the ability to become the universe. But the concept “nothing” as we previously explained, cannot have the ability to act, therefore, the universe could not have come from nothing on its own.
Since there are things that do exist, then “something” must have always existed, because as we just proved, things cannot come from “nothing” on their own.
If time had ever proceeded at an infinite rate, which is like fast forwarding through a motion picture, we would not be here today because all events would have already occurred in a single instant. Therefore, time has always progressed at a finite rate and any mathematician can prove that time could never have progressed over an infinite time interval. The proof goes like this, pick any number no matter how great. You can always add one to it and thereby make it greater in value, therefore you can never reach infinity.
And you cannot say that all we need to do is to wait an infinite amount of time and then we would reach infinity, because then you are assuming that you can wait an infinite amount of time. However, this is what you were trying to prove and so that is not proof at all. You cannot assume to be true, that which you are trying to prove to be true otherwise you can prove anything to be true, even that which is false. Therefore, time could not have started an “infinite” time ago and therefore had a beginning a finite time ago.
Since “something” always existed as we previously proved, it had to have existed before time started. Since space and time are one entity called the space-time continuum as Einstein pointed out, then this “something” had to have existed before space and time existed and therefore caused space and time.
Since this “something” existed outside of space and time it cannot be made up of material things, because material things can only exist in space. And this “something” could not be just chaos which has no order, because as we previously proved, something cannot come from nothing on its own, hence order cannot come from pure disorder. Therefore, this “something” had to have had the ability to cause order, space-time, material things, beauty, life, everything in our universe, including our universe and natural laws and rules. Since we call ourselves beings, then we should at least call this “something” a Being, who we call God.
Since only God always existed, and the universe is not made of God as we just proved, then God must have created the universe out of “nothing”. Since “nothing” does not even exist, then God must have infinite Power in order to have created the universe from “nothing”. Since all people desire happiness, then God must have created us to be happy out of love for us.
Naturally, all creatures should love their Creator. For us to love God from our heart, God had to create in us a free-will, because no person can be forced to love, otherwise this would not be true love from their heart. With our free-will, we can choose to do good or bad to our neighbor and this is why there is sin in the world, because some people have chosen to hate God and their neighbor and are only interested in pleasing themselves. God did not create evil, nor does He desire evil, but he does allow sin to happen because He had to form us with a free-will, in order for us to love Him and others from our heart.
Is there free will in heaven?
good one
Even if you could show that there must be a being that exists outside space and time, you still have a lot of work to do to get to the creator god.
What is the mechanism for the uncaused cause? How can a being outside our local space and time, act upon our local space and time.
I've made very similar arguments... no response yet.
There seems to be an entire group of people that are happy to accept reality as being the result of some philosophical argument without testing the initial premises, the validity of the logic or the final conclusion.
Would anyone get into a plane that had never been tested, just because someone said "Oh, it works on paper" ?
"Even if you could show that there must be a being that exists outside space and time, you still have a lot of work to do to get to the creator god" - actually no. the argument demonstrates that there is a timeless, spaceless and immaterial being that created the universe.
I think you mean to say "you have to prove WHICH being".
"How can a being outside our local space and time, act upon our local space and time" - how could it not? it created space and time, it can easily act inside of it as well.
@@lewis72 that precise link between the manisfest universe and the metaphysical/superior order is concluded by deduction, not by demonstration. Demonstration is impossible because we are bound by the universe. Only intellect and abstraction can work through this. A "mechanism" implies something manifest or bound by time and/or space which would be in our reach thus contingent.
So I reapeat : only through intellectual deduction can we conclude a god/creatorand not by demonstration
@@Furn427
But the deductive arguments are without foundation, which is the point I first made.
You can’t just argue something into existence because of what you think must have happened.
You still need proven premises and valid logical steps, something I’ve found lacking in all arguments for theism.
@ 9:51
you explain how it is impossible for an actual infinity to exist, but what if he never began to walk ? If he was always walking then it seem unclear that and actual infinity is impossible.
an actually infinite amount of time in the past is impossible because an infinite never ends, by definition.
the term "past infinite" is a contradiction, as infinity is something that never ends, and the past has already ended.
so the term "past infinite" is stating that a thing that cannot end, has ended.
@@jackplumbridge2704
This is a good point.
But this only disproves one scenario out of three scenarios.
Besides the first cause scenario there is also the possibility of a causal loop which would mean that time has no first cause but is also not infinite.
But to be fair this scenario is very unlikely in a universe whit accelerating expansion.
Also it would need large scale time travel to the past to work.
@@plantae420 "Besides the first cause scenario there is also the possibility of a causal loop which would mean that time has no first cause but is also not infinite." - positing a causal loop is positing an actual infinite though, as you are asserting that there have occurred an actually infinite number of loops.
and if not, if you are positing a finite number of loops, then time began looping a finite time ago and had a beginning.
also, there are only two theories of time that i am aware of, A-theory and B-theory. i am not familiar with any theory of time that can explain how a causal loop is possible.
Can you guys go into the metaphysics of Aristotle?
Yes, that is on the list, will be releasing it soon.
A horrid topic.
God is a necessary being… for your argument
First I am a christian. Second I could be wrong but I think that you are confusing the big bang theory with the cause of the universe. I could be wrong, but I thought that the BBT happened at a point in time and space. I don't know this form of the oscillating universe "theory", but I would like to learn more about it, pls link any articles, I probably wont completely understand them but I was an undergrad astrophysics major so I think I can handle it. Anyway you go on to claim or Craig at least does an A theory of time. This has it's own problems but I digress. The real problem is that while I think that you can reason to the universe is contingent I don't think that you can actually conclude the same thing about this universe creating mechanism or thing. Since it's efficacy is still under question and we know possibly nothing about it. It would seem presumptuous to say anything about it or about what it is not. You end by saying that God is beyond space and time, and quite frankly I don't understand what that mean. Does this mean that while the entirety of the material universe is bound by an A theory of time that God not being a part of this universe is bound by a B theory of time (God wouldn't be a thinking agent though in a B theory of time)? I really don't know how you are going to solve the problem of how a non-material being that doesn't exist in our local universe or any material universe actually interacts with our universe. In other words how does that which is not material interact with that which is? Here is the biggest problem with the Cosmological Argument it doesn't or cannot conclude with therefore God. There need to be many more premises and defense of these premises to get to a conclusion of God did it.
Please raise the volume of the videos
Its important to note that there has never been a point in time when the universe did not exist. As we understand it, scientifically, time started when theuniverse started. Therefore, there is no point in time before time and the universe existed. this also means that the univese cannot have been "caused", because causality only exists if time exists.
Causality does not depend on time.
Cush Yes, it certainly does. The universe has a speed-of-causality, "c", also called the speed of light. (E=mc^2, for example.)
Causality *is* a temporal concept. Without time, there is no causality.
yea but you miss the point that time is created as well. God is timeless... if you have "time" you have a starting point. If you have a starting point you must have a starter. EVERYTHING in the universe is caused. God is uncaused.
The Bible explains things rather clearly.
Bible Authority No. William Lane Craig is wrong, and you copying him are as well.
Not everything in the universe is caused.
antiHUMANDesigns That is not the point of antiHUMANDesigns' erroneous suggestion.
I like that this video is about the cosmological argument and the full video time is 11.11..😉
btw the cosmological argument was created by a muslim
@@isaacfoster2820 There are 3 types of the cosmological argument. One was by St Thomas Aquinas, the other as you mentioned would be the Kalam argument? And another version was by Leibniz and Clarke..
@@englishtongan yeah true
Assuming the universe is infinitely old creates many problems.
I think we can't use the same laws of nature to the origin of the universe, especially when we know how absurd and complex the universe is to understand. But doesn't it mean that applying God is infinitely old have the same kind of problems?
@@Anonymous-gg6rc I am not using laws of nature but laws of logic with the problem of *actual* infinity which will create many problems. That would also as you say include an infinitely old G-d.
The kalam cosmological argumrnt isnt made by william lain craig. It just happened that he is the most famous one who argues for it today. The kalam cosmological argument was made by early muslims and it was defended by muslims through the entire history of islam
Very nice God is great 100% correct.
"The Cosmological Argument (Argument for the Existence of God)"
But the Kalam doesn't present an argument for the existence of any god, and it certainly does not present any evidence for the upper-case God, which is generally used to refer to a specific god, the god of the Bible.
In it's entirety, the Kalam Cosmological Argument states:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
It should be obvious that nowhere in the argument and it's conclusion does it mention any god or God.
It is worth mentioning that any presentation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument that contains more than those 2 premises and the conclusion presented above is NOT the Kalam.
It will be a modified & appended version of the Kalam Argument.
The fallacy is, you think from the past to the present, and not from the present to the past. And when he says “it is impossible to reach the present”, reach it from where? The last doesn’t have starting point. You can only TEND to infinite from the origin (0), not the other way around. In asymptotic theory, we look what happens when we let something go to infinite, we have no idea how to treat something which “comes” from infinity and tends to 0. Infinity is a concept, not a number.
When Craig adds up all negative number starting from zero, this is gives him (the negative of) the number of time a certain event lies in the past relative to today. Nothing more.
02:04 The argument does not start with "everything has a cause". This part of the video is incorrect as then the same argument can be applied for God as well.
It’s actually “everything that begins to EXIST has a cause”
@@peterstevens2660 Yes indeed.
Fist video I see of you guys and id like to point out some things that bothered me. For example you seem to force a false dilemma with the actual infinite universe. You told us that its either God or infinite universe and if the infinite universe is impossible then it HAS to be god. Making it believe as if there was no other option, for example a universe that runs in a cycle (where the end is also the cause of the beginning). Also please try to be more accurate with scientific arguments such as using the The Big Bang. This theory never states that there was nothing and then an explosion, but rather that there was a very dense and hot mass with all the energy in the universe condense in one.
We only know about the observable universe there could be anything outside of it (like other universes). There can be something else outside the observable universe that is still physical matter and that caused the big bang. Are point of view is way too small right now to know and so it might seem at first sight as if the universe is everything but the truth is that the universe is a lot to us like the ocean was too us in the past. It's vast and we see no end in sight so we come to some premature conclusions, but it is ridiculous to just assume its God or no-God.
***** Cause it is not just a yes or no question? How much explanation would you need XD. There is more than just 2 options, therefore it is ridiculous to just narrow it down to something so simple.
+Self Order You talk as if you know how the universe functions and that your logic has to apply because it is what makes sense... to you. Also it is not an argument to say that since I can't show proof of something it means it does not exist.
No it does not work like that... We do not have any information about how universes are created at all. What is inside the universe doesn't need to apply to what is outside of it. You obviously did not read my last reply, because you are still arrogantly thinking that your simple 2 step logic is enough proof to say facts about the creation of the entire universe. The only thing your statement can say is that as far as we know everything within the universe has causality, nothing more.
"and from that probability, we can come to assert" no. No you can not.
THE UNIVERSE DOESN'T OWE YOU AN EXPLANATION! 👍🏿
The kalaam is the argument that refutes itself 1) everything has a beginning. 2) there is something that does not have a beginning. The problem here is obvious to 10 year olds.
This went right over your head bro. You clearly didn't understand how your comment is refuted in the video
@@emtiedvessel the video confirms my statement. the claim that everything has a beginning is refuted by the subsequent claim that there is at least one thing without a beginning. there is no amount of extra words that can rectify that problem - which falsifies the entire argument.
@@billjohnson9472 The problem is that you aren't actually presenting the argument. Premise 1 is not "everything has a beginning.". Premise 1 is actually, "Everything THAT BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause.
Since "begins to exist" has a definition in the peer reviewed argument, your conclusion can't be true.
Now lets look at the way you framed it because this is interesting because it would be an attempt to argue FROM an absurdity. So.... if everything has a beginning, then this leads to a logical fallacy known as infinite regression. Logical fallacies demonstrate the absurdity of the argument. Therefore, the only option left that avoids the infinite regression is "There is a first beginning."
Now the argument is usually framed as causes not beginnings but you get the point, I imagine.
So if we use either the actual Kalaam argument or your misunderstanding of it, we get the same outcome. There must have been a first cause that began all other causes/beginnings, that is itself uncaused or without a beginning.
@@blusheep2 Infinite regression is not a fallacy. There is no logical reason to dismiss it. Assuming that a priori that there are things that don't begin to exist is begging the question; assuming the conclusion before making the argument. Therefore your reasoning is invalid.
@@billjohnson9472 There are plenty of reasons to deny it logically and it has been done so for 1000s of years now. Most professional philosophers will admit to the problems of infinite regression. I bet you, if we delve into your theories about existence, we will find that you will eventually speak to something that has "always" existed. That will be because intuitively you know that infinite regressions are impossible.
How is any of this begging the question. These are peer reviewed arguments and the responses from the professionals hasn't been "it begs the question." And your making these claims about the argument when you didn't even know how to present the argument for what it really is. Why would you think, after learning the truth, that you now know enough about it to make these accusations? Shouldn't you just take the time, in light of this, to go back and think through it slowly again?
But, lets play the game. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." That is premise 1. "The universe began to exist" is Premise 2. "Therefore, the universe has a cause."
Tell me, in what world is that circular? How the heck do you come to conclude that the conclusion is assumed before making the argument?
If I said,
P1 All Ferraris are red
P2 Tom has a Ferrari
Conclusion: Tom's Ferrari is red.
Is this circular to you? Does this beg the question? Of course not. Valid means an arguments premises lead to the conclusion. This argument argues from the general to the specific as does the Kalaam.
The reason that the Kalaam isn't what you say it is because Premise 1 doesn't establish that the universe had a beginning. So premise one knows nothing about the universe and if it needs a cause or not. Only premise two establishes that the universe began to exist. Put them together, then and only then can you reach your conclusion. That is anything but circular or question begging.
...never had respect for craig before...
How did an immaterial something, make something from nothing, if something from nothing is impossible? If space did not exist prior to our universe, where could a Being be? If nothing can happen without time, how did anything do anything without time? Note: "It was magic" is not an explanation. More questions/ no answers.
"How did an immaterial something, make something from nothing, if something from nothing is impossible?" - because the something didn't come from nothing, it came from God.
"If space did not exist prior to our universe, where could a Being be?" - God is spaceless, he doesn't occupy physical space.
"If nothing can happen without time, how did anything do anything without time?" - who said nothing can happen without time? temporal cause and effect doesn't happen without time, but something can exist timelessly and can also create time from eternity.
"Note: "It was magic" is not an explanation" - the only people advocating for magic are atheists. declaring that the universe spontaneously popped into existence out of nowhere for no reason.
@@jackplumbridge2704 My understanding is that the Universe came to be because God willed it to be so, and God exists by his own will, but where does a will come from? Doesn't that fall into infinite regress?
@@user-rt2vj3oe4e God does not exist because of his own will. God exists necessarily.
Do Ontological argument if you haven't already.
We have indeed...
th-cam.com/video/DLsjYTdd8C4/w-d-xo.html
We have also done the reformulation of the Ontological Argument focusing on Necessary Existence...
th-cam.com/video/tVfXeZr3_IM/w-d-xo.html
Soooooo, the argument starts with the core premise that cause-and-effect is fundamental and non-violable -- and yet the argument concludes that therefore there is a being who came into existence WITHOUT a prior cause? Riiiiiiiiiiiight....
Hehe
"Soooooo, the argument starts with the core premise that cause-and-effect is fundamental and non-violable -- and yet the argument concludes that therefore there is a being who came into existence WITHOUT a prior cause? Riiiiiiiiiiiight...." - you seem extraordinarily ignorant...
everything that begin to exist must have a cause. not everything that exists has a cause.
I think you should spend more time reading what the argument actually says and less talking, then you wouldn't embarrass yourself like this...
@@jackplumbridge2704 what's your point by saying "not everything that exists has a cause" ?
@@god8239 my point is exactly that. Not everything that exists has a cause.
@@jackplumbridge2704 really? Can you give me some examples?
Great video! However I would like to point out that Aquinas didn't actually reject the idea of an infinite regress, or at least not for purposes of the cosmological argument. In fact, Aquinas thought that even with an infinite regress there still must be a so called Ground of Being for the continued existence of motion. In other words, Aquinas sought a First Mover or First Cause not in the temporal sense, but in the sense of rank or hierarchy. Aquinas did agree that "if the world and motion have a first beginning, some cause must clearly be posited for this origin of the world and of motion" (Summa contra Gentiles 1.14.30) but he did not regard arguments from the linear or temporal causes (I.e. The kind of arguments parroted by the theist side in this video) as justifiably demonstrative. Instead, Aquinas wanted to answer the question "Why does anything exist at any given moment?". Aquinas posited that every existing thing or entity is composed of an essence and an existence. If an essence is to exist, there must be a ground or act of being for that essence. Once again, this act of being or this actualization is not to be misinterpreted with the temporal or linear sense, but rather with the hierarchical sense. An example of this would be the light we see reflected from a moon. The moon carries this essence of light, per se, yet the light does not come from itself, but from an external light source. It is only then, that an infinite series in the hierarchical sense, can obviously not explain the existence of that essence of light that the moon has. The light that the moon reflects could be reflected from another moon, and the light from that moon from another, and so on and so forth into infinity. But do you still see the problem? Sure, while you could argue that in the linear sense an infinite regress can be a definitive explanation for the existence of motion (though I would beg to differ, but that is a discussion for another day), in the hierarchical sense we all recognize that even with an infinite series there is still a problem that refuses to be properly explained unless and until we arrive at a First Mover, Cause, or Actualizer not in the sense of time but in the sense of rank, that continuously bestows being or existence upon the members of the series. That is to say, something must be continually actualizing the potential of the members in a series. The light comes not from an infinite series of reflections, but from a first light source that actualizes the essence of light in each moon. Understanding Aquinas properly allows us to get a better look at the arguments. We see a universe composed of hierarchical structures. We see things in motion that derive their motion from something else that actualizes their potential and that thing in turn is actualized by something else and so on and so forth. Aquinas argue at it is therefore reasonable to assume that there is a first member of this causal series that is unactualized itself but is pure actuality. It is the first member in the hierarchical causal series that bestows it's being on others. It actualizes the potential of everything at any given moment. This thing exists outside of time as anything that exists inside of time has potentials. And it is immaterial as material things always have potentials. Aquinas says, this is what God is. An unactualized actualizer, immaterial, beyond time, with the capacity to actualize the potential of and to bestow being and essence upon everything. That's God. Aquinas also argues that such an entity is of an intelligent mind as it must have the ability to act freely without its own causes as unintelligent things have but this ultimately assumes libertarian free will which is another topic for another day. Anyhow, I appreciate the video (even though I know it is old) and thank you guys for the awesome content!
Tim Taft boring comment
@@AsadAli-jc5tg thank you i guess
My brain hurts now.
If everything needs a cause then what caused God to created The Universe? Why 13.8 Billion years ago instead 13.8 trillion or quadrillion years ago?
"If everything needs a cause then what caused God to created The Universe?" - the cosmological argument doesn't state that everything needs a cause.
You guys are so stupid, it is the tenth comment I'm reading asking the 'cause' of God. Dimwits 😑
I didn't ask what was the cause of God, I asked what was the cause of God creating the universe billions of years ago instead of trillions or quadrillions. Next time, try understanding the question correctly before calling people "dimwits".
@@jackplumbridge2704 So God just arbitrarily decided to create the universe at this arbitrary point in its own existence?
@@shadowmaydawn "So God just arbitrarily decided to create the universe at this arbitrary point in its own existence?" - what point? God is a timeless being, he exists outside of time. time only began to exist when he created it.
your question seems confused, it seems to assume that time already existed before God created it, and that God was sitting around waiting for a certain point in time to create the universe.
That was interesting. It seems to have a bit of a theistic bias to it. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Theists should be able to have their arguments heard too. But if you were looking for a more atheistic perspective, I'd say that as much as I admire Bertrand Russell, his arguments seem a bit outdated. But even if I granted that we must have a prime mover and a first cause, why does that have to be God? This whole "And this we know of as God." thing. We know of it as God? Who knows this? How does he or she know? God explains the universe fine but the problem is, God can explain anything you want him to explain. It's God. Arguments for God seem to consist mainly of revealing unknown things and saying "Must be God." Is there anything that you can point to that we can both agree on that actually points to God? Something about the universe that's consistent with God and not with anything else? Isn't that how arguments are done correctly? If not, isn't that pretty good evidence for atheism.
@@agadirand4four347 Are you kidding? I'd love one.
God picture is so funny 😂
The Hibert hotel is also a coherent argument against the idea of infinity. (th-cam.com/video/OxGsU8oIWjY/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=Veritasium)
Aquinas used Ghazali’s arguments
you just assumed that first mover must be consces being. no it doesn't, it can be something that dont have consciousness and is not being, like force or quantum realm. this is not prove for god
slimak lol well honestly if you want a more developed or detailed arguement for the cosmological arguement you should watch a longer video. Some people explain what a necessary being is and explain why it has to be a personal mind. They reason that since other necessary beings such as numbers cannot cause things then the only other option we have in this case is an unembodied mind with a will
Lugus firstly, disembodied mind is not an option. Secondly, there are infinite options not 2.
Some very big assumptions here.
I am 7 yrs late to this video.
But as a physicist i would interject, that outside of the universe there is no space or time. Time only exists within the universe and according to the big bang theory time starts with the big bang. That would be t = 0. So i dont agree with the argument. And also i think the big bang is just a theory. Nobody knows if you can rewind time. Yes the formulas allow it. But they are based upon current observations.
get better audio and i'd sub
+mikeymoughtin Thanks for the comment. We now have better sound quality for all future videos.
Special pleading 101
how is the cosmological argument special pleading?
“The first cause being uncaused” isn’t special pleading it’s just an axiom. The only reason “everything in existence has a cause” is solely because the first cause has no cause.
It was Al Ghazali not thomas Aquinas.
The big bang is not the start of the universe. Thats not what big bang cosmology says.
well the kalam argument is just stupid because the whole word bases the present moment on BC and AD and we are living in it right now
And what caused god? If everything must have a cause and you conclude that this leads to a God (which is an argument of ignorance btw) than who caused god to be created?
But more so God needs to exist in something who or what created this something? And thus you landed your self into a circular reasoning fallacy.
So you cannot conclude that there has to be a singularity for "nothing" the void of "nothing" could always have been there. The first thing in proper science and philosophy is to state, we don't know and we will never know because we are trapped in this universe of space and time.
+Raymond Doetjes I believe your understanding of God is flawed. God being God means intrinsically that God is uncreated and the Only One that truly exists. What is created is everything within the universe (whether detectable or not.) Proper science will only give you objective facts that can be interpreted with different methods of reasoning; philosophy is the means of interpreting the facts to understand the wisdom behind it.
Youshizzle
Well there's exactly the problem with your reasoning. If everything is created that means that also a Creator should be created.
You have created a logical paradox and therefore this logic is flawed.
And there are a lot of mathematical theories that even describe (although I do not subscribe to these hypothesis) that there's potentially an infinite amount of universes. That whisks a way a beginning.
So if god is "the matter outside of the boundaries of our universe, than sure there's a God but naming it God is misleading. It's matter, just matter, the same quantum stuff that we have here."
*****
That something has to be outside of space and time to trigger a big bang is quiet obvious. But to call that God or a Being assumes a certain intelligence. Nature, well that word suggests our universe. Matter is the only proper name for it in my opinion. More specifically virtual particle.
Raymond Doetjes
I think you're still misunderstanding the definition of God. God being Uncreated, meaning Eternal, Actually Infinite. Nature can be seen as the manifestation of wise order and expression. Virtual particles being the building blocks of matter are in simple terms the substrate of physics. For something outside of space-time to trigger an expansion of something from nothing and releases energy precisely to construct a unified order of laws while at the same time creating virtual particles to obey those laws is awesome.
Now it comes down to your own understanding of knowledge and philosophy to conclude that the force behind the universe is indeed The Uncreated Eternal Creator.
I personally believe this to be true.
***** Fair point
I'm not a believer. Trying to prove god via logic is stupid. I think that a mystical experience is a valid reason for someone to believe in something like god though; but then you wouldn't need to prove it to anyone by logic, you'd just know.
This video went over so many heads. People are making arguments that were thoroughly refuted in this video.
It might help to not associate any religion with this argument. This argument is before we know who or what God is. This argument does not assume the personhood of God. Its only referring to the universe having a beginning and something causing the beginning. God=cause to put it in simpler terms.
If the very first thing in this physical universe was created, then whatever caused it must be uncreated. That is what is meant by eternal. Eternal=uncreated. This is why infinite regress doesn't work.
@AnonYmous-yj9ib If God is the creator of all things, that would mean that God is uncreated or eternal, meaning no beginning, just always was. The infinite regression starts when you ask who or what created God. That question starts the infinite sequence. Since God is uncreated, then there is no infinite regression. Therefore, it doesn't work. Doesn't refute the cosmological argument.
@@emtiedvessel No, if you just say "God exists and never came into being" that does not answer the "why does something exist rather than not?" question.
There is an answer to it, I believe. But it's not 'because God never came into being'. A) yes he did and B) stipulating that he just exists doesn't explain why he does rather than not.
@geraldharrison5787 God is eternal. Meaning he always was. That is the belief. If it was created, then it's not eternal
@@emtiedvessel No, 'God' is a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. That's sufficient for God - that is, if a person such as that exists, then God exists, regardless of whether that person has existed eternally or not.
It is no explanation of God's existence to say "God exists eternally". No atheist will be remotely impressed with that. They'll reply "and why does God exist rather than not?' and all you'll be able to say is "God is eternal' - which is lame, as that is not an essential attribute of God and not an explanation.
Note, if God has to exist eternally, then God can't not exist - and that's now not God at all, but some hobbled creature who can't even take himself out of existence.
God is omnipotent. That means he can do anything. And a person who can do anything can realize contradictions. A person who can do anything can falsify any proposition - so there are no necessary truths if God exists.
And a person who can do anything - importantly - can create themselves. Nothing else can. For in the case of any other object, that would be impossible. But there's one person for whom all things are possible. And that's an omnipotent person. And so uniquely among existences, God can create himself.
And as all things that exist require explanation, God is the only thing that can explain everything. Not - not - because he exists eternally, but because he's omnipotent.
@geraldharrison5787 I'm not trying to impress atheist or convince them. I'm explaining my beliefs and why I believe. You do not get to say what is sufficient for God according to what I believe. That's is the most arrogant statement I have ever heard. If the universe is created, then something created it, and I refer to that source of creation as God. I don't believe there was ever a point that nothing existed. It's impossible to even fathom true nothingness.
The source that created all things is, by default, uncreated. If you ask why then my answer is an eternal source of creation(God), it is necessary for reality to exist. There had to be an eternal source because something can't come from nothing.
what i find interesting is that people try to disprove God using human theories and definitions and all that. That's the thing. We can't use any of those again Him because He's outside of it all. You cannot define God by human words. We try but we can't. He's outside of time. He has no beginning or end. He's all powerful. He is capable of things the smartest or creative people in the world couldn't even imagine. Trying to understand God is like an ant trying to figure out how to work a rocket ship. It's not possible. So people should stop trying to be their own God and surrender to the one and only God before it's too late. I mean whether they think they want to or not they will bow before Him and admit that he is God. Every knee will bow and every tongue confess.
What are NON-"human theories and definitions"?
"You cannot define God by human words."
God is incomprehensible... Now listen while I tell you all about him!
Lol whatever makes you feel good buddy
So god is space. Everything that exists within the eternity of space. Space is something and nothing simultaneously. Making it 1/0. Space inception the universe. I do know how. It's a lie that we don't.
If only theists could put their pride aside and just admit they don't know the answers to everything.... Sadly, none of them realize the historical origins of their god..... (son of the Canaanite god El)
If they did, we wouldn't be talking about the cosmological argument (aka excuse for god's absence and their obsessive need to use god as an answer for everything science hasn't answered yet).
Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (the principle of sufficient reason). Only God - an omnipotent person - is capable of explaining himself. Therefore, God is the ultimate explanation of everything else. Anything wrong with that reasoning?
Why does it have to be god? Imagine another concept, I'll just call it source: The source also has necessary existence, and it is what caused the universe. We do not know more about the source than that. The source might actually be the same as god, but it does not have to be.
My point is: The source has only the bare minimum of attributes required to give an explanation to the cosmological argument, while god has a lot of other attributes: consciousness, omnipotence, omnipresence, objective moral truth, etc.
Even if the cosmological argument would prove the existence of a source, that is not the same thing as a god. I see absolutely no reason why a source of the universe would have consciousness.
@@luiswi You seem to be addressing a different argument from the one I made. I did not argue that there is a 'necessary existent'. I don't think there is. i don't think necessary existences make sense. And certainly God isn't a necessary existent (the idea contains a contradiction).
I argued that an omnipotent person would be able to explain themselves - for if they were unable to do that, they wouldn't be omnipotent. And so as everything has an explanation, at least one thing must be self-explanatory. But only an omnipotent person can be self-explanatory. Therefore, if anything exists, an omnipotent person exists. And as some things exist, an omnipotent person exists.
Nevertheless your question can still be addressed to this argument: why can't a 'thing' be self-explanatory? Why can't a thing - rather than a person - be able to do anything?
Well, it's because of what being able to do anything involves. To be able to do anything the 'thing' would have to be the source of all the laws of Reason, for it is those that determine what is an is not possible. Thus only something that is the source of them would not be bound by them (and in this way be able to do anything whatever).
Why can't a non-person - a thing - be the source of the laws of Reason? Because the laws are prescriptive and descriptive, and only a person can issue a prescription or describe something.
Therefore, the only kind of thing that can be able to do anything - including things logic forbids - would be a person, a mind.
Thus the only kind of thing that can do anything is an omnipotent person.
@@geraldharrison5787 Interesting point, but I wouldn't necessarily say that everything requires an explanation, at least if we include abstract things like the laws of physics. They are what determines how other things come to existence, but never does something cause a universal law to suddenly exist.
Even if an omnipotent being would be required to explain how the universe came to be, that would only prove that this being existed and was conscious at some point, as an omnipotent being it could've chosen to no longer exist.
@@luiswi I am taking the principle of sufficient reason - which says that everything has an explanation - for granted. But everything is everything and so there is no exception granted for the laws of reason (the laws of physics, note, are not abstract for they are not laws of Reason.....but they need explaining too). Just as it is unacceptable for a theist simply to say "God exists and doesn't require an explanation' it is also unacceptable to say "abstract laws exist and do not require explanation'. That is no less arbitrary. Everything - everything - requires explanation. There are no exceptions. And that's why an omnipotent person's existence is entailed by the principle of sufficient reason: only an omnipotent person can explain themselves.
You are correct that the conclusion is that an omnipotent person is the explanation of all else, and not that the omnipotent person still exists today. It is consistent with an omnipotent person having existed that they no longer do, for nothing stops an omnipotent person from taking themselves out of existence. However, by hypothesis the omnipotent person is the source of all the laws of Reason - they would not be omnipotent otherwise - and those laws still clearly exist. The current existence of those laws entails the current existence of God. Of course, this does show the cosmological argument I just made to be surplus to requirements. Noting that that laws of Reason need to be a person's laws combined with the fact such laws exist is sufficient to demonstrate God's existence. What the cosmological argument - my version of it anyway - does is show that God is the explanation of everything. But God's actual existence today is demonstrated by recognizing that the laws of reason require God.
It is also potentially possible for a god to not exist. Therefore, if you propose a god does exist, there must be a reason for that, aswell. "Why is there a god rather than no god?", to counter the question "why is there a universe rather than no universe".
your not proving your case point your saying I'm missing the point but you dont guide me to what the argument is and now you're saying that how god is created is a whole other argument. your weird and I was hoping for a real debate about this with facts and logic but you're just waisting the value of your mind
Theist: Why is there anything? Something can't come from nothing, therefore god. (Implied: before there was something, there was "absolute" nothing.)
Skeptic: Then where did god come from?
Theist: God has always existed.
Skeptic: That negates the argument that "absolute" nothing was the starting point.
Theist: God created herself.
Skeptic: That negates the argument that something can't come from nothing.
Theist: Everything that exists needs a cause. But my god doesn't.
Skeptic: That negates the argument that everthing that exists needs a cause.
Theist: The universe necessarily requires an intelligent designer. But my god doesn't.
Skeptic: That negates the necessary designer argument.
Infinity, eternity, existence, and life are mysterious concepts, but unfortunately gods don't solve them.
It's not everything that exist but everything that BEGAN to exist or everything which is CONTINGENT. Stop missrepresent the argument, it's not nice to use sophisms like that seriously...
Ok how about this: everything that’s finite must have a determiner or a cause. U may misunderstood but not unable to understand
if god lives outside of the universe and nothing caused his existence he is infinite. the universe was born from god. there for the universe came out of infinity to become finite. and we just call that as god's causation. it kinda sounds like the same thing to me I think people want god to be an intellectual instead of a singular being that just does stuff with out having a brain like a jellyfish no brain but lives anyway
+Leslie Langmaid Yes but by saying that god is timeless you admit there is infinite regression is possible therefor undermine the original argument.
+Leslie Langmaid Yes but by saying that god is timeless you admit there is infinite regression is possible therefor undermine the original argument.
+Gareth Brooks-Martin but not putting god as an infinite being he would be finite then he himself would have a beginning then what caused his existence?
***** If you say he's finite you get back to the what caused God argument.
Just because you have A FIRST CAUSE doesnt mean it's some old guy with a white beard and robe in heaven. On the FLIPSIDE, Doesnt mean He AINT EITHER! HA HA
No actually God(a necessary being) cannot have created the universe(a contingent chain of events). That's because a necessary being cannot be causally prior to a contingent event.
Necessity is sort of insidious you see.
1. By definition, all causes are either a necessary cause or a contingent cause.
2. If God(a necessary being) caused the the universe(all contingent reality), then God did so either by a necessary cause or by a contingent cause.
3. Anything which exists in all possible states of affairs is necessary.
4. If God created the universe by a necessary cause, then the universe was caused to exist in all possible states of affairs.
5. Therefore the universe exists in all possible states of affairs.
6. Therefore the universe is necessary, which is a contradiction. [3,5]
7. If God created the universe by a contingent cause, then there is a state of affairs in which God did not cause the universe to exist.
8. Therefore there is a state of affairs in which nothing contingent existed.
9. If there was a state of affairs in which nothing is contingent then that entire state of affairs is necessary.
10. Therefore the state of affairs in which God did not create the universe is a necessary state of affairs. [8,9]
11. Therefore there is no possible state of affairs in which God causes the universe to exist.
C. God cannot cause the universe to exist.
+Xander Patten Justify 4th and 9th. Even 6 seems wrong and perhaps 1.
John Love
cause = when some state of affairs necessitates some other state of affairs
and...
necessary = in every state of affairs
so...
necessary cause = when every state of affairs necessitates some other state of affairs
#4 follows from that.
contingent = negation of necessary
#9 follows from that.
#1 follows likewise.
*****
4) is not true. This is the concept of free will. But let us assume that is not a necessary cause.
9) is obviously wrong.
Let us see.
8) does not follow from 7). Non existence of Universe does not meaan nothing contingent exists.
9) is obviously fallacy of composition. The fact that in a possible world, only necessary state of affairs exist does not mean that the world is necessary. It just means that those state of affairs are necessary.
So 10) obviously falls apart because it is dependent on 9)
John Love
You didn't actually address what I said for either #4 or #9, did you really think I would just accept your baseless dismissal? Try again.
I think the you're having trouble understanding this argument from last summer, because apologists define universe as "the sum of all contingent reality." So any point at which there is no universe, there is by definition no contingent reality.
Then we see #8 follows from #7, and #9 follows from #8.
#9 needn't be taken to mean that no additional contingent events could happen completely on their own. #9 merely excludes the possibility that anything that exists can have any causal linked to the creation of the universe, and #10 points out that that includes God(a necessary being).
*****
I did't? Ok. Let me restate.
A necessary state of affairs is a state of affairs that is present in all possible worlds.
If there exists a possible world where x does not exist and only necessary things exist, it does not mean non-existence of x is necessary. Only existence of other things are necessary.
Pls don't show God as a picture. I feel very uncomfortable
+Philosophy Vibe I think it would be best if you didn't give an image to God, it just seems blasé and deludes the grand nature of the subject.
+Zachary Pylypuik I see what you're saying but regardless, God in the Judaeo-Christian/Islamic prospective shouldn't be given an image, it's just part of the Abrahamic tradition to avoid creating images of The Eternal Transcendent Creator. Of course we have people today that just simply make God an old white dude because a bunch of Europeans decided that God, as well as Jesus, a middle eastern Jew, should be portrayed as white, which is so far removed from reality. I just feel like it's sooo dejected to think in such an uncritical manner, we're stupefying the greatest subject in existence; and it feels like such an injustice to the subject at hand. Maybe I'm alone in this frustration, but it just doesn't seem right to give an image when discussing this topic and this argument.
@@Youshizzle I agree, it's wrong, and offensive to many religions.
@@amnahsheikh8302
I couldn't give a crap if it's offensive to many religions. That's their problem for being so sensitive, not mine.
Anyway, this is just an argument for a deistic god, nothing else.
how do you know there was a "time" when the universe didnt exist?
i smell bullshit
When the universe did not exist there was no time nor space.
The only thing that can create time and space is something outside time and space.
Gods characteristics are as follows:
Immaterial
nonphysical
spaceless
timeless
personal
and immensely powerful.
Plato
"The only thing that can create time and space is something outside time and space."
citation fucking needed!!
tonybuk70 I'l be more than happy to go into my explanation a little further if you want, But before i do so i would like to know your best explanation for why the Universe came into existence from nothing.
-
Thanks for the question and thank you for your reply.
Plato
i tell you what, ill give you a completely honest answer and a mirror argument to show you what we (athiests) hear when we hear the comsmological argument for god.
fist the answer to your specific question is "i Dont know, but i find your god hypothosis unsatisfying and a bit silly"
next i present the cosmological rgument for magic pixies in our eyes
1. human cells are invisible to the naked eye
2. humans are made of cells (and therfore invisible)
3. humans can see each other, therefore we have magic pixies in our eyes that let us see humans.
conclusion .we know they are magic, only something non seeing could create something seeing, and they must be magic because theres no f***ing evidence for them blah blah blah.
This has the same fallacies in the same order as kalam - see if you can spot them :)
have a good day
tonybuk70 Thanks for the reply but i don't fully understand your counter-argument for the kalam argument. .
Mine is as follows:
Premise 1: Everything that exist must have a cause
Premise 2: The Universe began to exist
Premise 3: Therefore the universe has a cause.
Now of course non of us know, but we can weigh the odds and give an evaluation
Answer 1; A creator
Answer 2; Luck
Answer 3; The Multiverse Theory.
The shear hypocrisy of William Lane Craig believing in the impossibility of infinity while simultaneously believing in an eternally existing God (as Christianity describes God). Seems to me like he just uses "God" as a placeholder for the infinity he is trying to get rid of. Also, if God can be given necessary being status, why not apply Ockham's razor and cut him out entirely, and grant the universe that status, seeing as God is just excused out of the infinity problem by arbitrarily saying he is above natural law?
My theological argument.
Premiss 1. Everything that exists, exists within space and time, by definition.
Premiss 2. God, according to Christianity, islam, Mormonism, is outside of space and time.
Conclusion. The god described by those religions doesn't exist.
Further conclusion. If a god exists, it is within space and time and it is not the god described by those religions....and it could not have created space and time.
Either you need a new definition of exists or a new definition of god
Very bad argument because your first premise is absolute nonsense.
Not only space and time had an absolute beginning (so you're already wrong on that) but *even if* eternal you already have things apart from God that exist outside space and time; the laws of physics.
Dazed Maestro except that laws of physics dont exist and are fiction that explains regularities in nature.
@@jokerxxx354, then tell me why things behave a certain way.
Dazed Maestro with the way you asked your question, you imply that the answer must be that there is some reason that they are the way they are. I dont think there is any.
@@jokerxxx354, that's quite unreasonable and it also implies a violation of the principle of sufficient reason.
Horses have a horn on the head and do magic. Do horses exist? A logical fallacy is an error of reasoning that leads to the wrong conclusion. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly that no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. The atheist logical fallacy would test your IQ and if you don't understand it children would explain it to you because it is easy to understand being honest and impossible lying to oneself. To know if something exists or not first we must know what is that something. If you ask atheists to define God they would not answer correctly "the creator of the creation". Atheists accuse me of not knowing what is atheism, and i was an atheist too many years, and they don't know what is God! Atheists would ask "why not believing in fairy tales is a logical fallacy?" confirming I am right and atheists believe God is sky daddy and don't believe God exists, and they are wrong because they believe. The creation is what has a beginning of existence or is not eternal, like for example yourself, or the universe. If you don't understand why logically the universe can not be eternal is because atheists want you ignorant making foolish remarks like "who created god?". The universe can not be eternal because it is impossible the existence of an infinite sequence of causes and effects without a beginning of existence. The son can not exist without the parents, that can not exist without the grandparents, and so on so forth in an infinite regress of causes and effects without a beginning of existence. It is impossible that everything is created therefore an eternal entity that created what has a beginning of existence must exist. The proof that the creator exists is the creation because something can not be created from nothing, from non existence can not be created existence. The proof that God exists is the kalam cosmological argument that atheists believe is debunked saying "the kalam cosmological argument has already been debunked". Ask yourself why atheist platforms don't talk about the kalam cosmological argument and religious platforms do. An analogy of what for atheists is the special pleading fallacy is that in the football game can not exist goalkeepers because no one can be exempt from not being allowed to touch the ball with the hands, but reality is not how we want it to be. The proof that atheism is a logical fallacy is that atheists consider debunking the religious idea of God proof that God doesn’t exist. With arguments that debunk the religious idea of God can only be concluded rationally that a personal religious god doesn’t exist, not that no creator exists. To end religion atheists only have to admit God exists because nothing can be created from nothing and don't have to believe God is any of the religious gods, and to end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy, or lie inmune to arguments that harms innocent and vulnerable children, needs to be news.