The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- In this video we debunk the Kalam cosmological argument (commonly used by Dr William Lane Craig). The cosmological argument is commonly used by religious people all over the globe despite the huge holes in its reasoning.
Original video - • The Kalam Cosmological...
Thanks for watching!
Subscribe for weekly videos!
Like this video and share it around!
Follow us on Facebook - (www.facebook.c...)
Also follow us on Twitter ( / youtube_trc )
Thanks again for watching
- R & J
Not even two minutes in and the entire video becomes moot. If you claim not only that the laws of physics but also logic no longer apply (without any viable reason to assume otherwise) then there is absolutely no way to argue because you can create any response you want. That is nihilistic bonkers.
Is it possible to be wrong? Is it possible to believe it is impossible to be wrong believing? Nothing can be created from nothing therefore eternal God exists. It is not the same an eternal entity than an eternal sequence of finite causes and effects. Don't fight reason and follow the logic to the truthful conclusion. Eternity is a miracle impossible to understand. God is a paradox, logic that defies logic, a miracle of infinite possibilities, Time. Between any two moments there are infinite moments and the present moment would never be reached with an infinite past. The logical God's paradox is that it is impossible to exist existence without the existence of an impossibility possible or the miracle of God. I exist therefore the paradox must be resolved. The God’s paradox is resolved by being the impossibility made possible by the miracle of God, creator without creator, first uncaused cause or decision, origin of everything because nothing existed before Time, creator and creation because nothing can be created from nothing, unless nothing is something, an impossibility possible or the miracle of Time that can not be deceived because created forgetfulness and memory and everything else from Self to become Alive from eternal Existence. The religious god is logically impossible because free will is an uncaused cause, a decision or choice between alternatives conditioned by circumstances to do what you want or don't want to do or lie, therefore can not be foreseen. The answer "the Bible says" or "the Quran says" is a fallacy of authority, like "addiction is a brain disease because the World Health Organisation say so", believing in the infallibility of persons.
They're saying the laws of logic may or may not apply outside of A, which is not the same as saying the laws of logic absolutely don't apply ANYWHERE, including A. Thus we cannot make provable statements on anything else outside of A, from a place within A. But they're not denying that we can make provable, logical statements from a place within A as applied to something within A. What theists are trying to do is make a logical statement from within A that applies to something outside of A, but there is no way to confirm if that logical statement is true or false.
Furthermore, if you argue that there is a God, such a God, by definition, would also be unbound by laws of physics and logic (for if the logic of A holds with respect to God, then that God must have a cause and a beginning, even though we're defining God as that which has no cause and no beginning) and thus a theistic argument would suffer from the same flaw you're proposing: that there is no way to argue.
Causality is not a law of logic. Not even a law of physics according to most scientists...
@@LightningStrike1212 The statement "Being cannot come from non-being" Pretty much avoids the fallacy of composition. Thus proves a transcendent being. Denying this statement advocates for infinite regression which is absurd.
@@memerbyblood4946 at best the KCA proves that the universe has a cause and that there was something before the universe. Doesn't prove that that something is a being in the sense of something personal.
"We don't know if cause and effect exist outside the universe so let's assume it doesn't even tho its more plausible that they do since every cause we've observed has an effect".
You realize that everything is in the universe, therefore something outside of it is essentially outside of being itself, time and space? We dont know the nature of universes cuz we only have 1. Outside of it, is the hard limits of our knowledge and perception. Plus, you dont need a tacit explanation for god or faith anyways. You are entitled to believe what you want lol
@@fierypickles4450 you ate that shit ngl
@@fierypickles4450 However considering no one knows what happens after we die, and there are chances of the consequences being massive according to what we believe in, it makes sense to look for the most logical and reasonable solution to limit our chances of suffering consequences, and from all we can infer, we take the most plausible option, that every cause we have observed has an effect and apply it to our universe. We are maximising our chances.
This debunk can eaisily be debunked
+legendary _mus.k Feel free to provide specifics.
R
+legendary _mus.k
I see it's so easy that it can merely be asserted. Unfortunately, we're not clairvoyants, so we are incapable of reading your thoughts on this issue. You'll actually need to communicate support for your statement for it to be valid.
or he would have communicated that we have no scientific reason to "throw out causality', it's simply NOT a supported statement and rational people care about things like that.
legendary_ mus.k. Don't worry, I already did...but good comment nevertheless.
+Felix Rodriguez Where? I don't see it in any of your comments.
Yeah, in EVERY official debate against credible, highly educated atheist philosophers, I have not seen ONE use any type of reasoning like this. Not to use the argument from authority but if it seems so easy to "debunk" this argument it is surprising to me that none of the people William Lane Craig has debated was able to do so.
fallacy of composition, temporal defence.
@Random-sk6hm it is definitely not a fallacy of composition the way craig and 99 percent of people argue. They use induction at the very worst
@@commiehunter781 🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️ embarrassing
@@raphaelfeneje486 what's embarrassing?
@@commiehunter781 The video
Hardly a debunking, the entire conclusion of the video is basically, "We don't know". The issue with atheists is that they fail to understand that arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument are but a small part of a wide array of evidences and arguments that make up the bedrock of the theist position. Theists acknowledge the religious history of humanity, the experience of "miracles", spiritual experience, and the personal need that many have for religious practice and experiences, just a few examples. Since the atheist worldview often denies most forms of knowledge, other than empiricism, these other factors are rarely discussed or acknowledged. I was an atheist once, it was a sad existence of watching TH-cam videos of theists and religious people getting "owned" and reading half-baked, strawman arguments from Dawkins. To the atheists, just for a few days, put aside your premises and cognitive frames and truly examine theist positions with open minds and hearts, you have nothing to lose. Also, Islam is the way to go. Peace :)
He can't be serious surely, lol many great philosophers have tried to debunk it for centuries this guy thinks he has debunked it lol
The reason he believes that it is primarily due to his poor understanding of the robustness and the efficacy of the cosmological argument or he is lying to himself and his subscribers.
You said it, bro, Islam is the way to go. But before we get there, they first need to sort out themselves, they can't accept Islam if they reject God. I use the word reject because that's what atheists do. I have had many former atheist friends who admitted that they rejected God, not through reasonable conclusions but choice. I have known many ex atheists who became Muslims, a few became Christians and later embraced Islam.
what a king ma sha Allah
@Gil Yair Yamin Stay on the topic please, and thanks, I do know what debunking is and what a refutation is.
When you state that you don't know, you're in no position to claim someone else's explanation is false, unless you can present an argument or a better explanation, this is how it works.
The contingency argument is un-debunkable, you can't debunk it, it's been around for centuries nobody could debunk it. If you think you can debunk it, go right ahead, you're in for a Nobel Prize.
I believe you don't understand how robust the argument is, if you did, you wouldn't be here trying to redefine the word debunk.
This is not a matter of opinion, it's as stubborn as they come, yes it really does piss off many so-called atheists, because it really puts an end to their delusional drivel.
If you think you can do better, be my guest, but be warned you may end up looking like a fool. Even with the available mental gymnastic.
@Gil Yair Yamin One last thing, the Kalam argument is a series of arguments, not just one.
This is sloppy. If you're going to accuse people of being lacking in criticality as part of your evidence then your evidence must be critical. For example, the quote from Bertrand Russell is easy to find, and was taken in context (It's from the Coplestone Radio Debate).
Secondly, it is correct reasoning to make deductive assumptions based on out knowledge of the universe when making assumptions about what is outside the universe. It is also correct to make logical assumptions.
For example, anything that has dimensionality (space and time), by definition exists within a universe. If you assume that these things exist outside the universe then you are really just picturing our universe like a fish tank in a room, and that room becomes the new definition of universe. Cause and effect, by definition - our definition of universe - cannot exist outside the universe. If it did, time would exist there. If time exists there, so would space (according to the General Theory of Relativity). And it that were the case, that area would be part of the universe. This is the logical proposition of non-contradiction.
There are some things we KNOW can't exist outside the universe because if they did they would be considered part of the universe.
"It is correct reasoning to make deductive assumptions based on out knowledge of the universe when making assumptions about what is outside the universe. It is also correct to make logical assumptions." So you admit God is an assumption? That's a start. Now we can move on to the next question: is it the most probable assumption? The most reasonable assumption? According to Occam's razor, it's rational to believe the scenario which has the least speculation. So why couldn't a law or principle of necessity be what holds everything together, instead of God? After all, it has the same attributes as God (spaceless, timeless, immaterial) but it's not personal. Why would it have to be personal after all? You would need to speculate that immaterial minds can exist. According to Occam's razor, God is not the correct assumption.
I would also like to point out that the General Theory of Relativity breaks down when it comes to the origin of the universe. We know this because of Quantum physics. So time may or may not have had a beginning at the Big Bang.
@T J True, but it depends on what you mean by "time" :)
@@srrlIdl "So why couldn't a law or principle of necessity be what holds everything together, instead of God? After all, it has the same attributes as God (spaceless, timeless, immaterial) but it's not personal. Why would it have to be personal after all? You would need to speculate that immaterial minds can exist. According to Occam's razor, God is not the correct assumption. "
Because this fictional "law" has been specified. I.e. this random "law" somehow decided the universe has something called space, time, expands, has a singularity in the beginning, has stars, planets and so on. A mindless, unconscious existent cannot specify. However, we know things have been specified. Therefore, the eternal, beginningless, omnipotent, omniscient existence must have WILL. And will cannot exist without LIFE. A rock cannot have a will.
@@geniuz4093 You're already thinking about the universe in terms of a will to prove there was a will. Who says it was decided that the universe has something called space, time, expands etc? Why can't thing exist without a will? And if things can't be without a will, that how could God exist?
@@srrlIdl By... literally observing things? We know space and time exist because we can literally measure and observe them. > Why can't things exist without a will?
Because if something is defined, something must be a DEFINER. for it. This bottle has 3 litres. The water bottle company defined it to have 3 litres. The universe has space. It expands. Therefore, a beginningless, eternal, omnipotent existent with a will has defined it.
I agree cause-effect relationships may not apply within reality "B", while they do in reality "A". However, logically, it still follows that if A begins to exist, than it MUST be due to some property of reality B. The cause-effect relationship still holds because we are talking about the THRESHOLD of reality B to reality A. At the very least, if we can observe the beginning of something, it will always follow that a cause existed.
Another point missed is that in order to create something from nothing it requires infinite power/ability. Such properties would at the very least exist in reality B.
And according to quantum mechanics, the cause and the effect can happen at the same exact time. This means that they cannot quite be labeled as a cause and an effect. So for something to happen, it doesn’t always need a cause.
@@The-Devils-Advocate that’s because it it still exists within A. Quantum mechanics only begin to function within the context of space time. Not with the lack there of. And there would be no way to observe quantum mechanics in that state either because Nothing does not exist.
@@The-Devils-Advocate "And according to quantum mechanics, the cause and the effect can happen at the same exact time" - not true, I see you are not a physician or took course 101 at best from QM. QM mechanic is a probabilistic model, not deterministic, so by definition, we don't know. QM is just a statistical method to produce statistical results. Not knowing and even improved QT of Field doesn't describe reality the way we can say "we know". To know you need absolute sentient knowledge with starting data. all you do is guess unless you operate only on logical truths. And it needs to be caused in all cases- even in QM particle randomly disappear cause is transfer energy, but we don't include that because model is built this way. E=mc2 works in QM but it's just a model for getting results, not for creating truths. B is Logic and Cause, and in joint point, B&A causality MUST work, otherwise, it doesn't work anywhere else and you get billions of billions of universes created in infinite time and space BECAUSE ACC to you CAUSALITY somehow is not 1 rule of the universal law of physics.... gl with that. Atheism is done.
@@zeeknunez5616 that is true
@@jesusmygodmylove While it is true that I am not a physicist and have not gone to college yet, my points still stand. I would first like to point out that some interpretations of quantum mechanics are indeed probabilistic, including the prominent Copenhagen interpretation, but others are deterministic, like the Many-Worlds interpretation or the De Broglie-Bohm interpretation, so it cannot be said that quantum mechanics is wholly probabilistic. Will you please cite where you got the information that discredits the claim that the cause and effect can happen at the same time, according to quantum mechanics? You state that quantum mechanics is a probabilistic model, meaning that “by definition, we don’t know.” Can you please elaborate on that, as I’m not sure what you mean by that. Then, you claim that quantum mechanics is a statistical model while previously claiming that it is a probabilistic model, so please make up your mind. You also state that if one is to know something, they need absolute sentient knowledge with starting data. Can you please explain or cite this, too? You state that there must be a cause in all cases, giving an example of a particle randomly disappearing to be caused by a transfer of energy, but also saying that it should not be included because the model is built in a certain manner. There are many things as to what you might be referring to, so can you please specify what exactly you mean here? By the way, E=mc^2 originates from Einstein’s theory of Relativity, but agrees with quantum field theory. Though it does yield results, I don’t see “results” and “truths” as separate things. Can you please explain why you do? You state that “B is Logic and Cause, and in joint Point, B&A causality must work, otherwise, it doesn’t work anywhere else and you get billions and billions of universes created in infinite time and space.” Other universes could exist, we just don’t know if they do or not, and whether they could or not. In the case they couldn’t exist, I don’t see why B&A causality would have to work, so could you please explain that? Since B does not necessarily follow causality or logic of any form, we can say nothing as to how B affects A. Causality is not the most fundamental rule of the universe, all fundamental rules are equally fundamental, otherwise they wouldn’t be fundamental. And this is all if we are assuming the universe had a true beginning, since it has not been ruled out that there could have been a Big Bounce, as far as I know. Even if your reasons were valid, you wouldn’t have discredited atheism, since you didn’t explicitly prove how these reasons lead to God. Lastly, can you please improve your English or speak in your most fluent language?
This "debunking" video is utterly embarrassing.
Roce Jacobs. Couldn't agree more with your statement.
+Reoce Jacobs
Not as embarrassing as your comment.
Henry School. And your comment is the most embarrassing.
Yes, very original!
your comments show you to be around 15-16 and uneducated to this point--
Good luck with atheism-- Im sure it will take you far-lolth-cam.com/video/9fSluNqGxRA/w-d-xo.html
The amount of intellectual gymnastics in this “debunk” is truly astounding.
Personal incredulity is not observing mental gymnastics.
DENIAL !
Thats all they have. They have abandoned science and logic and shift right into metaphysical idiocy
Thats not gymnastics. Also, if it was, disprove it by applying your own reasoning lol what a lazy thing to say.
Saying that something can happen for no reason inside of universe B because it is in universe B is a logical contradiction. It is the same as saying something can happen in universe B for the reason that it is universe B. You are literally saying that something can happen for no reason for a reason.
Your arguments seem to be a desperate form of special pleading. You are asking us to take by faith your assertions of possible conditions before/outside the universe. Which you are agnostic about. My question then is, What is the best explanation for the universe? You say, "I don't know but it can't be God." or I think that is incoherent! Also, your language which is dramatic and derisive seems to state passionately your agnosticism but does not disprove the Kalaam Cosmological Argument. You offer no viable alternatives.
Remember that the KCA is trying to assert that it is reasonable to believe in the existence of God and that He created the universe. Whereas you are trying to prove and failing badly at suggesting that it is unreasonable. It seems like ornery agnosticism- we don't know and neither can you! Now, who is being unreasonable?
Actually you don't have to take anything by faith, we don't make positive assertions about the starting conditions of the universe. We outline directly that it is a complete unknown due to limitations of current science. We don't have the evidence to make any assertions. For the KCA to have any bearing you have to accept things about the nature of the universe as a whole that there isn't sufficient evidence to prove (i.e premise 1).
And secondly I find it ironic that you accuse us of a fallacy and then commit an argument from ignorance fallacy combined with a strawman fallacy. Did I say "I don't know but *it can't be god*? No, and even if we don't have another explanation that doesn't give any more credence to the God one.
The point of this video is that there isn't enough evidence to prove the premises are sound in the KCA, making it a useless argument (if you can't prove the premises correct, you can't use them to call the conclusion correct or likely correct). Making the "soft claim" of it is just saying it is reasonable to believe in a god doesn't help your position. Because it is reasonable to believe in things that you have sufficient evidence for and not reasonable to believe in things without sufficient evidence. Its a pointless clarification.
Look buddy, I get that the position of "I don't know" is uncomfortable for you. it is uncomfortable to me to. But the issue is, without sufficient evidence the only intellectually honest thing to do is defer to "I don't know". Unless you have verifiable evidence the reasonable position for you too is "I don't know"
Hopefully this helps clarify things.
R
Thank you for responding. I think your epistemology is faulty, you said,
"Actually you don't have to take anything by faith, we don't make positive assertions about the starting conditions of the universe." That is a claim to knowledge. That is a premise statement. It sounds like you are saying, "I don't want to know the starting conditions of the universe because it might point to God."
What evidence do you accept? I find what is known about the initial conditions of the universe point to a big bang and a Big Banger. You do believe in the initial point of the universe? The point when time, space, matter and energy are created? Right? You may not like where the evidence points towards, that is to an absolute beginning as illustrated in Genesis 1:1 John 1:1 Psalm 33, Colossians 1:15-18, Hebrews 11:3. None the less go where the evidence points.
You also said, "And secondly I find it ironic that you accuse us of a fallacy and then commit an argument from ignorance fallacy combined with a strawman fallacy." It looks to me like you could be accused of making an argument from ignorance fallacy! The absence of evidence or "there isn't enough evidence" as you say. That is irony doubled! :-)
In any case, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, is it? Your assertion that the K.C.A. is unproven is being used to say it is evidence of absence. I think you are trying to find a reason not to believe the evidence. As an atheist are you willing to concede your atheism as a possible lack of objectivity? I am certainly willing to go quid quo pro on that as a theist. So if God is real as described in the William Lane Craig K.C.A. video are you willing to talk to Him? Something as basic as, "God if your real show me." I did that, so can you. He showed up. I had an extraordinary experience that has shaped my worldview ever since. If there is a God do you want to know Him? He did an amazing job on creation, how much more amazing would it be to know this infinite Creator.
+Bruce Greenwood
"You may not like where the evidence points towards, that is to an absolute beginning as illustrated in Genesis 1:1..."
Actually, we can't claim the evidence points to an _absolute_ beginning because we don't know the extent of the universe. You would also admit you don't think it is an absolute beginning; an absolute beginning to existence is not logical.
"Something as basic as, "God if your real show me." I did that, so can you. He showed up."
And how do you know it was god? Aren't you only an imperfect human? Do you think you are above being deceived by a force more powerful than yourself?
Hank have you tried it ?
Good Bless
Tyler Lee well said
Raise the bar of public discourse? That's what I was waiting for when I clicked on the video. You've debunked nothing.
Craig has addressed all these, for example, the fallacy of composition for premise one.
Firstly, the KCA does not state that everything in the universe, which began to exist, has a cause, and therefore the universe has a cause. Therefore, it does not make the fallacy of composition.
Secondly, is no reason to think that the laws of logic and causality are bound to the physical universe. Why think such a thing?
Thirdly, the universe must have a cause, because something cannot come from nothing. To deny that statement is worse than magic or sorcery. Indeed, the first premise is pretty straight forward. You have to mentally bend over backwards and clearly be motivated by a naturalistic agenda, to deny it.
Fourth, you can never observe what is outside the universe, because you need physical things (like light, eyes, brains, space, etc.) to observe things and there are no physical things outside of the universe. This smacks of an elementary blunder, known as scientism. You don't need science or observation to find out all truth.
Something cannot come from nothing is tautology - self evident analytical statement that is derived from the meaning of those words. Yet, there is something that exists, therefore it would follow that something was never created (began to exist) - it is eternal.
@@aletheia2064 psst. Virtual particles.
It still equates creation ex materia with creation ex nihilo.
Right.
Wrong. Equation.
Also 0 = - 1 + 1
Matter + Antimatter.
Also virtual particles.
Yes. Yes. How do you know? No. Well, how do you know its true, if you can't test it?
My problem with the first premise is that most things in the Universe don't "begin to exist" in any meaningful sense of the words. Things are merely re-compositions of existing material.
+Halophilic NC Yeah, that's a good point. They are extrapolating cause and effect to things beginning to exist. Another reason why their first premise can't be demonstrated properly.
R
+Halophilic NC That's really all that's needed to debunk their claims entirely. There are so many false equations that rely on connotations than actual physical properties that it's pure lunacy. It's actual delusion. It also corners god into a specific entity with specific properties. A god could do anything and make it look like anything. It wouldn't need an explanation. However, assuming your god actually cares about you would lead to quite the cognitive dissonance considering humanity's current situation.
another unsupported statement.
Halophilic NC. Then, according to that logic, you or I never began to exist, and that is absurd. The Universe had a beginning, otherwise you always existed, which is absurd. Also, material reality cannot possibly be eternal, otherwise it would have taken an infinity for you to be formed or created, which is logically and scientifically absurd.
"Then, according to that logic, you or I never began to exist, and that is absurd."
It is quite true actually... According to the first law of thermodynamics, the energy that makes you has always existed. The thing that you call 'you' is made up of a particular pattern of energy. That pattern is always changing (even as you read this) so the idea that there even is some definable 'you' is actually an illusion.
What a poor debunk! They actually went ahead and proved the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
COPE
If nothing cannot create something, requiring a cause, then that cause would necessarily be something. Something creating something would mean that nothing ever was. And if nothing ever was then something has always been. Something that has always been requires no cause, or beginning, but only change from one state to another. And as Heraclitus said: "The only permanence is change"
That's good...that's really good.
Why change from one state to another?
So the main argument here is cause and effect does not necessarily apply to the beginning of our universe, or the big bang, or the singularity, or our universe coming to being. Both the Kalam argument and this video postulates there is 'area B'. So either way, whatever is in 'area B' caused our universe 'area A' to be, because it exist within 'area B', so the law of cause and effect still stands. Sure, cause and effect does not point to a man who is god who sent himself on earth to be crucified for our sin; but still this video does no debunk the argument that our universe is 'caused'.
They did say that they where not sure area B exists. Also, we would need to define cause, before we know if anything in area B caused the creation of area A. We simply have no idea about area B to make that claim.
+enemay
That's true, the problem with the Kalam is not that it suggests the universe had a cause, it is that it is illogically worded to open the door to that cause being god.
Did the universe have a cause? We don't know. It depends on how you define universe, it has two possible meanings which are rarely differentiated. If you define the universe as 'everything that exists' then the universe would be eternal if 'area b' were eternal. In that case, the universe had no cause. If, instead, you are defining universe as 'our space-time bubble' which happened in 'area b' (which could be called a metaverse), then the universe had a beginning and probably a cause which happened in the metaverse.
A common objection to this is for people to say that you can't prove 'area b'... that's true, we can't. The problem with that objection is that we don't have to. The logic of the Kalam argument _requires_ that there is no eternal 'area b' and they are also unable to prove that there isn't. Basically, they have to prove that the universe (everything that exists) had a beginning and that is impossible. A deeper problem with that definition is that it would also include the god they are trying to prove... does he exist? They would say yes. If he exists and the universe is defined as 'everything that exists' then god is part of the universe. The proof then shows that god must also have had a cause.
Henry School That's very good. But with a scientific measuring stick we can't make any claims or form arguments that area B would be eternal or as you already said, even exist. And I would say that the people making the Kalam argument does claim there is area B. they would say it's where god lives, or his state of being where he has always been. But then you end up asking them, well how do we end up with your version of god, Allah, Jesus, Hanuman...and I think that's really where it falls apart and a better argument against these people who's always screaming, aha moment, with the Kalam argument; and then they would say, well we're not talking about my religion here... :-/ ?
enemay
"But with a scientific measuring stick we can't make any claims or form arguments that area B would be eternal or as you already said, even exist."
That's 100% true but it doesn't matter. The logic of the Kalam argument falls apart even if there is only a possibility that area b exists. In fact, ANY other possible claim for the universe being eternal must be logically proven to be false or premise 2 cannot be used.
Another way is to beat them to the god conclusion by eliminating it from their first premise. We all know that the reason 'begins to exist' is in the first premise is to open the door for a god explanation. The easiest shoot-down of the Kalam I have ever done is to disagree with the language of the first premise and ask them to name something that _DIDN'T_ begin to exist. (The usual logic here is to point out that things don't begin to exist, they merely transform from other things that already exist but you can go the other way too) They will respond 'god' which can't be used because that's what the argument is trying to prove. In their mind, there is nothing else they can use (since god created everything). The objection is then that the language is logically flawed and should be modified. The first premise is then 'Anything that exists has a cause'. The door letting god in has been closed and they cannot later claim that 'god did it'. For some reason, this defeat is much easier for theists to take, presumably because it results from their own inability to come up with an example.
+Henry School
Numbers and sets exist necessarily. They exist because it is their nature to exist. They have no external cause. Similarly, God exists necessarily.
We dont know cuz we dont see it". The argument is upon logic not our senses.
The greatest minds in Science and Philosophy have been challenged by this question for 900 years, and the rational channel is greater than them all. I'm being sarcastic!
Lol no actually he's only telling whath the data and cosmology today says
Ur claim is absurd as if someone explains how malaria works
He is not giving his opinion rather the reflection of what the data suggests according to modern research which happened and developed over many years
Your claim of pitting those 900 years of research to the current knowledge ( which is the effect of the previous )
Is simply illogical and rubbish
The greatest minds know that the kalam argument is nonsense.
If everything has a cause, except your god, you are committing a special pleading fallacy. You set a rule, only to exclude something from that rule, in order to have an argument.
You also automatically destroy your argument, because if your god doesn’t have to have a cause, then you are admitting that some things can exist without having a cause.
Now using Ockhams Razor (meaning that we should be searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements), we can eliminate the element of your god and simply say the universe was uncaused and existed eternally in some form.
Logic 1 - Theism still 0
These counter-arguments are incredibly weak. You are appealing to utter ignorance. You repeatedly say "we just don't know" or "We may never be able to observe it". These arguments are useless in explaining anything in this supposed video. Then you go on to say "Now the first premise is broken.." and you clearly have not made any positive arguments that there is any reason to disqualify premise one that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. The premise remains logically solid. The rest seems to be nitpicking semantics.
I don't think you quite understand how an argument is made. If someone makes a positive assertion and you can demonstrate that they don't have the evidence to make that positive assertion then their argument loses its efficacy. You don't have to prove it wrong, only prove that the positive claim is not appropriate. That's how you can not believe in something without believing it is false.
R
+Nathan Slemmons
Regarding the 'logically solid' first premise... can you please name something that exists that didn't 'begin to exist'?
Let me just break it down to you why the first premise is just flat out false.
This first premise has two major flaws:
1) It assumes that things can begin to exist. On what grounds is this assumption made?
Sure, common-day objects such as tables and chairs "begin to exist" in the sense that the arrangement of matter that people agree are "tables" and "chairs" begin to "exist" when someone arranges the matter in those precise ways. However, that's not what the premise is arguing. The matter itself didn't "begin to exist". It was just rearranged. The argument refers to first there being nothing, and then something beginning to exist.
This is an unfounded premise which cannot just be assumed without any justification, and currently there is no justification to make it according to known physics. According to current knowledge energy (which is what matter consists of) cannot be created nor destroyed. The energy that exists in this universe is, as far as we know, permanent: It doesn't change. Nothing of it can be destroyed, nor can it be created. The only thing that can happen is for the energy to change from one state to another, but the total amount is always preserved.
Comparing concepts like "the chair began to exist when the carpenter created it" and "the universe began to exist", and considering them equivalent, would be a fallacy of equivocation. It's certainly not the same thing. (In the first case nothing actually came into existence. A more accurate assessment would be that matter was transformed from one shape to another.)
Did the energy in this universe "begin to exist" at some point, or has it always existed (the definition of "always" not being trivial, as we will see later)? This is currently an unknown. There is no justification to say either way. Thus, especially in this context, there is no justification to say that it did begin to exist. Hence the premise is unfounded.
2) Even if we make the assumption that energy "began to exist", the second assumption made by the premise is also unfounded: That it must have had a cause for it beginning to exist.
Again, there is no justification for this claim according to modern knowledge of physics. For example, according to current knowledge, in quantum mechanics so-called virtual particles begin to exist (in a sense) without any cause for their existence. Their appearance is spontaneous and stochastic. (Spontaneous means that there is no external cause for the phenomenon happening, and stochastic means that it's not possible to predict when or where it will happen, in other words, the phenomenon is completely non-deterministic and uncaused.)
It is currently unknown whether the energy in this universe has always existed or if it appeared spontaneously (inside a "metaverse", possibly paired with a "negative universe" with an equal amount of "negative energy"). There is no justification to make a claim one way or the other. It is certainly not completely out of question that it was a phenomenon without a deterministic cause.
Nathan Slemmons so inserting a made up answer of a magical sky daddy is rational to you? Lol.
If we don't know, then we should say so. It saves a lot of useless arguing.
I remember when I was an atheist and first heard about the idea of the multi-verse...I rolled my eyes and then realized that atheism is sillier than theism. It was like they had to keep on coming up with more and more reasons to roll the eternal regression back...all the while falling on the idea that "we dont have all the answers, and we are openly humble because of it".
If there is a Beginning, which almost all scientist & philosophers believe that to be true, then there must be a first cause.
I feel sorry for atheist cause even most of them, like Harris, are Determinists that somehow dont believe in the idea of free will. They are some how trying to escape this undeniable fact that there must have been a first cause...or else they would be left with a materialistic eternal universe. There really is no other way around it. Maybe you can have a sneaky idea of the universe coming through another dimension portal hole of another existing universe...but that wouldnt be much different from the idea of a pre-existing multi universe.
Hence, it is the reason why the worlds top atheists physicist, people such as Lawrence Krauss, have written entire books to try and convince people of how you get something from nothing....But William Craig is the Snakes Oil's man....LOL unbelievable...the only thing that comes from NO THING is NOTHING.
Thankyou. This video can’t really be called a debunk when their main argument is “we don’t know enough.” I always though Athiesm was a silly thing aswell.
The argument is “it is impossible for us to know”. That’s an argument for agnosticism about a creator and it is correct. We exist completely within and as a part of this universe (Area A). We cannot look outside of Area A and see what begat us at the Big Bang. We simply cannot by virtue of the fact that we are Area A and to suggest that we can do that by using reason which arises and plays out again within A is fallacious and intellectually dishonest. Perhaps if the Bible said that we were created following a Big Bang which spawned life which then evolved to give us human beings more people might believe. But it doesn’t, because religions are human constructs and don’t come to us as some special visitation from B. If you hold to a creed, you need to justify why your creed is correct and everyone else’s is wrong, and there is just no answer to this.
😄
It's obvious casual logic needs to happen in a temporal way, so silly to talk about cause/effect before time
Did u even tried to focus on the video
Debunking in a nutshell:- i dont know so it doesnt exist😂
I don't know and so don't u but we know enough that unsubstantiated assertions which come with it's fair amount of pseudoscience ARE UNLIKELY
Accept it
Ur God is an assertion with nothing to back him up
@@arianagrandaremix8858 its hard to prove god exists, true.. But its even harder to prove god doesnt exist.. If there is something infinite that has to be supernatural bruh.. Believing in trillions of coincidences happening perfectly in sequence to form life, the paradox of human exclusive reasoning & free will are even more superstitious than believing in a divine source of everything that is God.. Stop imagining god as humanly figure with all sorts of ridiculous attributes.. Think as a source of energy, someone you feel humbled, loved and respected
@@arshu916 well first off all u didn't addressed what my comment suggested
secondly
well props for being partially honest
it's hard to prove god exist bez it is highly improbable
ur argument that it's harder to disprove is not something that validates his existence and is an attempt to shift the burden of proof
it is hard to prove any supernatural
the celestial tea pot for instance
it's an unsubstantiated claim and not being able to disprove is not something that validates it's existence bez we both know a pink unicorn farting the universe from nothing is a big claim that requires a lot of evidence and resources to disprove it
it does not validates the existence of the unicorn
that's why we require evidence in the first place
now if u make such a claim the burden of proof falls on u
and if u don't provide evidence
it can be dismissed without evidence
but we both know it's improbable and highly unlikely
thirdly , u yourself are a probability of one in a 3 or 4 billion not to mention other factors
ur existence is nothing more then the consequence of randomness of a random spern out of billions that happened to fertilize the egg at the right time
so i don't see how it's something inconceivable for a universe with an assumebly infinite amount of time with 40 billion galaxys out of which one speck of a planet happened to be on the right spot for life to evolve
it's something BOUND TO HAPPEN
and if u look at it from the aspect of probability then according to probability there should "at least 50 billion planets in the Milky Way" of which "at least 500 million" are in the habitable zone.
I'm not talking about the obserbable universe let alone the ENTIRE COSMOS
so yeah it's not so unlikely as u suggest
and free will is a what it is
neurology clearly shows that brain has certain parts of
activation and predecision before conscious action
this implies more to our chemical nature
in fact morality it's self is shown to be genetically linked
and that explains why ppl, as a hole are against typical axamiatic truths morality is based around
from ur perspective anyone who does not falls under ur typical religion should be immoral and pro chaos
but that's not the case and this is the reason why
it's simply an uncomfortable truth
though i would argue that u do are responsible for ur moral choices
Theists: I don't know so god ig
@@Random-sk6hm " I don't know " is such a weak position on either end. For an Atheist 'I don't know if I'm in the matrix' is the correct position, you can't prove that a car on the road isnt something from your imagination because at most you can only prove your own conciousness is real. So then what? How do you behave in regards to the car... Do you step on the road and go ahh I'll behave like its not real because I can't prove it. No you behave like it is based on all your experience. This video's whole thing about point B being outside of the universe, so we cant apply the laws of our universe and we'll never be able to experience it so we should forever not assert anything is so impractical and a complete cop out. You would go with the best assumptions you have and practically act in accordance to that, the same way you do in everyday life. So you'd apply the laws of our universe as it's the only thing we have any experience of and can have, which then makes the first premise true and consequently applies to the rest of the kalaam argument, leading to the existence of God. Knowing what God then is like, you'd investigate the religions and if you investigate thoroughly you would come to an easy conclusion of the correct religion, with all the others having clear contradicitions, evident manipulations and man made changes and logical impossibilities, whilst also sometimes just being factually incorrect such as their holy text putting forward the young earth theory which has been factually disproven via carbon dating
Your entire "debunk" is based on special-pleading and appeals to ignorance...
The universe is not running out of energy at all. It is just the form that energy takes which is changing. The universe is not leaking. The total energy always stays the same.
Well black holes seem to be leaking.
But sadly we can't observe what happens there.
How can we believe your arguments when you said you don't know? 😁🤣😂
Me when I don't understand the burden of proof
So what it comes down to is that something must be eternal......either the universe is eternal or that which caused the universe is eternal.
So Let me sum up the debunking, Identify and name the fallacy committed and commit Special pleading and argument from ignorance as debunking.
U just described the cosmological argument for me lol
Except that’s all the cosmological contingency argument is. It’s a fallacy that predicates on atheists not knowing how the universe exists.
Nah. The BVG theorem only found that an expanding universe has a finite past spacetime boundary. It is actually a very different thing to interpret that as an absolute beginning.
That doesn't mean that all of existence began at that boundary, because the information to test such predictions is inaccessible to us at the current moment, and perhaps forever.
@Chris Cuomo thats only one conclusion and theres no reason to say thats the best one. Redshift only shows that the universe is expanding and strongly suggests to near certainty that the universe was much smaller in the past, and the CMB shows there was an age when barionic matter had low entropy.
Theres no better luck next time as its grasping at straws trying to force out a conclusion from something that cannot prove or strongly suggest a finite beginning.
@Chris Cuomo thats an incoherent demand for the time being, its wanti g proof of somethig that cant be shown. A hard limit to the age of the universe is implying that we knkw all rhere is to know about the early universe, when its actually one of the high level fields of research for astronomy and particle physics.
It isnt that no scientists beleive the universe didn't begin, its that most scientists in the relevant fields of research dont believe they have enough evidence to make a solid claim in either direction. Its like walking to the beach and claiming thats the edge of the world because you cant walk any further.
We live inside the universe...great reasoning, lol
Can't debunk it, can you?
@@an.d.m.a debunk what?
@@monkeybrain1968 I can't remember what I was referring to.
Ok. So, no "cause and effect" outside the universe? Would that mean "no logic"? Anything goes?
Isn't that exactly what theists claim all day? An all-mighty beeing who can speak things into existence seems exactly as something that can be described with "anything goes".
Nice video, but also: The first premiss must surely be begging the question. Since nothing ever actually "begins to exist" in a material sense within the universe, then whatever "begins to exist" can only be referring to the universe itself. This is of course what the argument sets out to prove in its conclusion, which makes P1 an informal fallacy.
Nice addition :)
R
You have confused deductive arguments with question begging.
@T J No, I was not assuming that. However, it is implied because causality is probably both material and temporal: Action and reaction are referring to physics and a flow of time between events. Without those components the expression wouldn't describe anything in particular and isn't necessarily even meaningful.
Also, the term "begin" is universally used to describe an event subsequent to a moment when that event did not exist, which is meaningless unless time flows between both those instances. The First Moment of Time is a unique event and should logically be excluded from comparison with any superficially similar event (like a "beginning").
@T J Well, do you have an example of something that can be, or was, caused that isn't material? (Other than a mere concept, of course.)
I wouldn't claim to know how time actually works and I'm certainly a layman on this topic. However, I would say that time is necessary for certain concepts of our language to be meaningful. As I mentioned, the term "begin" is referring to something that takes place exclusively within an existing timeflow, whereby the term derives it's meaning. To describe something outside of an existing timeflow, temporal terminology is by definition useless.
@T J I think we do need examples, since I'm just not sure that the term is even meaningful in that context otherwise. In fact, I don't currently see that it would be. As for your example, stars are of course part of our space and time (otherwise known as reality, I guess), where we do know quite a bit on how things may come to be. How stars are born is something we can deduce from how gravity and chemical processes work. And of course, stars are material as well, so it doesn't help us on this issue.
Yes, the dichotomy you describe is also called synthetic and analytical logic. But the bigger issue here is that arguments like this are suggesting we can find hidden truths simply by verifying the meaning of words, which is ultimately futile. Let me explain. We use language to describe a particular thought, meaning or intent that we want to communicate. Words are like ferries to carry that meaning across when two people talk, if you will. But the only thing we can find when we analyze a spoken or written word (such as "begin" in this case) is the intended meaning of whoever used it. For example, the word "begin" in this argument can't prove some truth about the universe other than that the person making the argument chose to use this particular word in this particular context (which I would argue is insufficient to describe an event that defies comparison). The only meaning of the word we can find is always only that which the arguer attempts to convey, nothing more.
Wait a second. You said the universe could have begun to exist due to some natural processes that we don’t yet understand. And yet you reject the first promise that whatever begins to exist has an explanation for its existence. What do you mean by universe? And if there is something outside of the universe that caused it to begin to exist then you have affirmed the first premise not debunked it.
Hahaha my favorite part was when you took back the cookies they earned😂 Seems like an interesting channel, and it's cool how you go back in forth in the red/blue ties switching sides. Subscribed
+Cloud Colonel Thanks, glad to have you on board. They definitely didn't deserve the cookies after slapping god on the end of the argument with no explanation. -J
At about 9:25 they mentioned we can only observe things inside the universe which suggests there is something outside the universe. That's the point of the whole argument. To suggest that there is something outside of the known universe is what theists believe. So it can either be a transcendent being or an abstract object.
It seems that most non theists reject the possibility of God more because they cannot accept it and less because it's not possible.
“I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause” - David Hume
Neither have I. Only that the universe maybe, possibly, doesn't need a cause if it has always existed (which we don't know is true or not). I also don't think Hume had any knowledge of the Casimir effect or access to a 21st century understanding of particle physics.
-J
The Rational Channel "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." - Alexander Vilenkin
+Reoce Jacobs
"“I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause” - David Hume"
So perhaps you can explain what caused god?
Henry School A most basic definition for God is an uncaused creator. So in that context your question is "What caused the uncaused creator?"...which makes absolutely no sense.
Reoce Jacobs
According to Hume, that definition is an absurd proposition. The problem with it is that, try as they may, no one has been able to provide a logical explanation of an 'uncaused cause' or a 'first cause'. If such a thing exists we might as well call it 'the universe' since we have no evidence of some timeless, spaceless creator existing at all.
Not to mention, they keep say "outside the universe" if the universe always existed then there is no "outside the universe"...
I am a hardcore bloopist and I am glad you're spreading the word of bloop.
+Matt Plush This channel is being repurposed into a ministry for Bloop.
R
I agree cause-effect relationships may not apply within reality "B", while they do in reality "A". However, logically, it still follows that if A begins to exist, than it MUST be due to some property of reality B. The cause-effect relationship still holds because we are talking about the THRESHOLD of reality B to reality A. At the very least, if we can observe the beginning of something, it will always follow that a cause existed.
Another point missed is that in order to create something from nothing it requires infinite power/ability. Such properties would at the very least exist in reality B.
I believe in the one true Bloop, bane of Blipp, and bearer of all bulbous boulders up the hills of Paradise.
I just want to point out what metaphysics says "out of nothing, nothing comes" so to suggest some natural things we don't understand come from nothing sounds pretty contradicting to this. No intention to fight or anything just pointing that out
*Where is this "nothing"? Why would we think "nothing" has ever been the state of the cosmos? Incredulity?*
The models of the Universe conclude that. The Universe is not infinite in time, majority of astronomers agree.
There has to Be something metaphysical that explains this, in other words GOD!
At least is the best explaination, knowing that no one has offered a better one
EslyG Trejo Silva "The models of the Universe conclude that."
*No, they don't. The fact that you'd even make that idiotic statement demonstrates your ignorance of the facts. Please prove ALL MATTER(not just the matter in our observable universe) began to exist.*
"The Universe is not infinite in time, majority of astronomers agree."
*When astronomers discuss the universe, they are talking about the observable universe. Nobody knows what, if anything exists outside our observable universe so, you are wrong if you think that the majority of astronomers consider this universe all that exists.*
"There has to Be something metaphysical that explains this"
*Prove it & collect your Nobel. You idiots that claim you know for certain of this type of knowledge, are amazingly delusional. I'm not kidding about a Nobel. If what you are claiming were true, a Nobel would most definitely have been given out for that amazing discovery.*
"in other words GOD!"
*How the fuck did you jump to that conclusion?!?!!!! How could you eliminate **_ALL POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS_**(even the ones you've never heard)?*
"At least is the best explaination,"
*WTF are you talking about?!! That's not even an explanation!!! An explanation would entail **_HOW_** your invisible magician did it, not just "it did it".*
"knowing that no one has offered a better one"
*AHAHAAAAA!!!! Bullshit!!!! ANY scientific explanation(which there are plenty of) is better than your non-explanation.*
jwkivy It's quite obvious you're great with "ad hominem" arguments. Get your facts straight, I encourage you to believe at the evidence not meerly statements. Search for JESUS And Repent of your sins. Nice day
EslyG Trejo Silva *It's quite obvious you don't know the difference between an ad hom argument & an ad hom attack. I'm not claiming you're not wrong because your an idiot, you're an idiot because you are wrong.*
"Get your facts straight"
*Pure irony.*
*Search for REALITY and drop the imaginary friends. Enjoy your delusion.*
As a Pastafarian I find your mentioning of the malicious Bloop entity highly controversial...
Thank you so much for this channel.
+Aaron Hill There is no reason his noodly-ness cannot co-exist with Bloop. After all his noodley appendage touches us all. I believe his sauciness has gifted Bloop to us, to build the mountains so we might be closer to his meatballs of truth. Praise be to the prophet Bloop. -J
The 1st premise works. If A is the observable universe and cause and effect is internal and B is infinity EVERYTHING else or NOTHING than it will no properties whats so ever or it will have EVERY property i.e. cause and effect
I question the bare concept of cause and effect. An event, any event, is not the product of one cause. An event happens when proper sufficient and necessary factors had occurred. Any of these factors is a cause, none is *the* cause.
And then we have quantum mechanics. In a quantum field we have observed particles popping in and out of existence with no discernable cause. This either means we still don't know the cause or that there is no such a thing like a cause. Even if there is an unknown cause for these quantum fluctuations, it still denies that causality has been evidently proved again and again.
So cause and effect is actually a value we use interpret the world. This value is useful to describe the realm of our naked eye observations, so it is a convenient way of thinking for most aspects of our experience. But it doesn't follow that it is how everything works at any level.
So, if our very perception of the world around us is false, why should any of our "theories" like Quantum Mechanics be true?. The proposition itself seems self-defeating.
Default User94
Who said the perception of the world around us is false?
It is a very valid perception, adjusted for most of our survival necessities and which helps us to understand way beyond our basic survival necessities. It is just limited. And yet, we can understand such limitations and make models that help us understand and control beyond our immediate perception: quantum mechanics is such a tool. It works.
Or what do you mean by self-defeating?
particles popping in and out of existence is a description of our limits for seeing whats there.
Actually the quantum mechanics have very well known cause for the observed particles to "pop in and out of existence", which is the spontaneous fluctuations of the energy contained in the subatomic vacuum. You are also using what is called the Copenhagen Interpretation of the subatomic vacuum which many scientists believe to be untrustworthy and are not satisfied with it's interpretation of quantum physics.
"God is immaterial ... God exists." This is pretty great. Also virtual particles kinda destroy the cosmological argument.
+hedgehog3180 There are so many things that ruin the cosmological argument outside of the things we outline. I am happy that the comments section has become filled with them. Anyone that stumbles on this video will see not only our arguments but a load of other problems.
R
Their first objection is a weak one. And it might do them some good to brush up on exactly what false equivalence fallacies look like: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
The problem is that "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is a *metaphysical* truth; it isn't about laws of nature vs. the lack thereof. It's logically absurd to suggest that something could start existing with no cause whatsoever. Saying that "Maybe things don't need causes outside of our universe" is like saying "Maybe outside of our universe 2+2=5". You don't have to know what it's like outside of the universe to know that is logically absurd.
And bear in mind that a lot of these apologists (such as William Lane Craig) are not arguing that these premises are known with *certainty,* just that they are more plausible than their negations, which is all that's needed. And the original video is right; no good explanation *has* been offered to explain why if the universe can pop into existence out of nothing then nothing *else* has popped into existence out of nothing.
So the first premise still stands. Let's see how they do with the second... Well they don't seem to *have* a refutation of this premise, except to say that the "same standard of scrutiny" (talking about *scientific* scrutiny, mind) "also rejects the Kalam cosmological argument". This is very vague! I've never once heard of the cosmological argument being scientifically called into question. That's probably because it's a *philosophical argument,* not a scientific theory!
Next, they exhibit a lack of understanding of the aforementioned alternate theories. The video has already stated that models such as the oscillating models and multiverse theories, etc. have very glaring problems which scientists freely admit (the video quotes one such scientist). So why they went on to talk about "the universe before it began to expand" is beyond me.
They rightly point out that the Kalam cosmological argument doesn't prove a *supernatural* cause. But that's because the cosmological argument doesn't *try* to prove that; it only tries to prove that it is more plausible than not that the universe had a cause of some kind! Other arguments submitted by theists then try to narrow it down to a god of some kind, and then to the Christian god (typically).
Stubbornly, they deny the logic of "as the cause of time and space, it must be timeless and spaceless". They also ignore the logic that such attributes as those given in the video are what most people have traditionally meant by "god".
So the reason this argument is so popular among Christian apologists is that it is, as these guys have shown, actually very difficult to refute.
Vic 2.0 Thank you for saving me the time in writing a similar comment!
Heres a problem then. I could swap out Universe from premise 2 and insert God. Then all the argument does is prove God had a cause. You will say no because God is eternal and never "began to exist". Well that's an unfounded assertion, one I could easily make for the Universe itself. The issue with this argument is it grants special pleading to God, it attempts to argue away the possibility of an eternal while allowing God to be eternal.
@@icikle In order to swap out "universe" and insert "god" (the premise then reading "God had a beginning"), you would need to present evidence that whatever god which might exist must've had a beginning. That would be the problem with arbitrarily switching out these words, of course. You then need to revisit and resubstantiate the premise.
"You will say no because God is eternal and never "began to exist"."
I wouldn't have to assert the opposite claim. I'd just have to challenge yours.
"The issue with this argument is it grants special pleading to God,"
Not in the slightest, as I just explained.
"it attempts to argue away the possibility of an eternal while allowing God to be eternal."
It's not that it's logically *impossible* for anything (including god) to have had a beginning, just that you need to actually show evidence for your claims either way. This is indeed what people do with Craig when they argue against his second premise as is; they try and show that he hasn't actually provided evidence that the universe had a beginning.
That would be the way to go, to try and refute Craig. These off-the-wall accusations of logical fallacies don't work.
The statement, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause," is not a claim concerning our universe only. That is a metaphysical contention, so it is not committing a composition fallacy. And experience does support this. If a universe can come out of nothing uncaused, then so can anything. You might argue that perhaps things do regularly come from nothing but we do not experience it because they exist outside of our universe. But what is it about nothing that prevents things from appearing uncaused within our universe? Does "nothing" have a discrimination against existing space-time mechanisms? To make a similar claim about the Law of Gravity would be a composition fallacy because that is subject to our particular universe. The claim, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause," is not a claim concerning our universe but a metaphysical reality confirmed by experience.
It isn't a false dichotomy actually. That is, unless you can show scientific evidence for matter coming from nothing, which you can't. Without a scientific process by which that could occur, it's *required* that there must have been input from beyond the 3d material realm, as it has been shown to be *scientifically impossible* for matter to come from nothing.
Sorry, but all the arguments in this are just false accusations of logical fallacies that aren't actually being committed.
There *were* many fallacies committed by the narrator, however. For example, 3:50 . The accusation that Theists often misrepresent the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is just a vague ad hominem fallacy. Look up the "guilt by association" structure for ad homs. As a logic teacher, every supposed "debunk" in this video is just a logical fallacy. There wasn't a single coherent debunk. Lots of Scientism fallacies.
Nonsense
@@nyakabb2472 Appeal to ridicule fallacy. Very fitting, more fallacies to defend/deny previous fallacies!
Prove that there should be input from outside the 3d coz most cosmological papers haven't hypothesized that and so it's
Up to u to prove that and to also prove how God existed without beginning to come into existence firts
@@nyakabb2472 It can be known using rationality / logical deduction, but Atheists adhere to the self-refuting philosophy of Scientism so they think truth can ONLY be known if it's scientifically verified.
Here's why scientism is self-refuting:
The claim *Truth can only be known if it's scientifically verified* cannot be scientifically verified ITSELF.
So anyone arguing as if scientism is true has declared belief in a philosophy that philosophies can't be true, which is self-refuting and false by necessity.
This isn't a knock against science, it just means there ARE ways to know things beyond just science alone.
We can know the cause for the beginning of the universe must be supernatural by using rationality / logic.
Here's how:
“Nature” and “The universe” are synonyms. Nature did not begin to exist until this cause caused it to. Therefore, a natural cause (a cause coming, by definition, from nature) cannot be responsible for the origin of nature. To say otherwise would be to spout incoherence. You’d basically be saying “Nature caused nature to come into being.”
This entire video is him saying “cause and effect only exists inside our universe” which philosophically isn’t necessary but also scientifically doesn’t really make sense either.
3:10 - I applaud you for emphasizing _"in its current form"_ in your video, but I think you went a step too far when you said that time before the universe, "literally makes no sense." It may be that the question is nonsensical, but it may also be that time, in some form or another, did precede our universe. We just don't know.
5:07 - It's worse than that. The singularity isn't necessarily a thing at all, it is just the point where mathematical application of GR reaches its limit.
Bloop is awesome. :)
Are you trying to make a logical argument that nothing can be logically known about what’s beyond the universe?
Exactly. "We cannot apply the causal premise to things outside the universe because things outside the universe may be immune to logic, but we can use logic to argue against logical application of things outside the universe."
It's self defeating. Why is it always atheists who want to jump ship on the very tools of reason and evidence when speaking about God? Can anything be more hypocritical than the CHAMPIONS OF REASON AND EVIDENCE questioning logic itself?
maybe "bloop" deserves those two cookies instead?
seriously, another great video. keep 'em coming, guys!
+Psycho Dad The Rational Channel is being repurposed to the Bloop channel next week. All the cookies are for Bloop from now on!
R
+The Rational Channel it also makes it much easier. need an explanation? "bloop done it!" see? end of video. 20-30 seconds tops.
Psycho Dad Our efficiency will skyrocket!
R
"we can't observe outside the universe, therefore we don't know if the universe requires a cause to exist"
Exactly my point.
Yay, a new TRC video!
+Mark Sykes Enjoy!
R
Mark Sykes. Well, so far the TRC is not doing a good job in backing up their name(or his or her name).
How amateurish.
This 'have a cookie' business; Supposing you're in any state to patronize these folk.
The absolute unbending arrogance of internet atheists is at the least a proof for the Fall.
Even if this argument held it's own, I could just as easily assert that our universe is the product of an eternal universe, instead of a God. Since both are possible explanations, theists/deists cannot simply assert that God is the answer.
+Iron Wasp Yeah exactly. At the very best their argument proves some kind of cause. That cause could be literally anything.
R
Good point.
@@TheRationalChannel they make the mistake to think the 4 dimensional Spacetime of our universe is all of spacetime
@@TheRationalChannel there is a cause. Whether it's God (or not) is a question neither of us can answer. So the only logical conclusion is "we have no idea" not "I am right you are wrong"
At the end of the video their argument was to completely ignore the B side of their own graphic. The argument being discussed here is refering to things only possible outside the universe, or as they labled it, “B”. In the end they brought it all back into A and used “A”s laws to dismiss what can happen in “B”.
They didn't attempt to disprove anything that could happen in B. They simply said we cannot observe what would happen in B and thus we cannot prove or disprove what can happen in B. And that's all they had to do because the burden of proof is on the theists.
SandE, you're absolutely right. I think it's hilarious that nobodies on the internet (especially anti-theists on TH-cam) with little to no higher education really think they're going to come up with the one refutation to Craig's arguments that none of the esteemed *scholarly* atheists have thought of yet. That's just insulting to academia in general, theist or otherwise.
In the dark ages they told us that God lives on the top of the mountains (Yahweh on Mount Sinai, Zeus on Mount Olympus etc.). We climbed the highest mountains and found he is not there. Then they told us God lives in heaven. We flew into heavens with 20x the speed of sound, moreover we even reached the Moon and sent probes to other planets. With the same result. Now they claim that Good exists beyond space and time. This argument is self-defeating. *How something/someone can exist nowhere and never?*
which one of all the gods that we worship these days does she refer to as the first cause? Hers?
I think it's metaphysically impossible for a universe to come into being out of nothing . Nothing means the absence of a thing, it's common sense that without anything nothing comes.
It is entirely possible to know the truth about something without observation. If all S are M and all M are P then we know that all S are P.
Similarly, if all time, matter, space, and energy came into existence at the big bang then they did not exist before the big bang. If there was something prior to be big bang than whatever that thing is could not be comprised of energy, matter, space, or be a time-limited being.
Because, via the principle of causality and sufficient reason, we know that the more cannot absolutely come from the less then we can also know that whatever created the universe must be equal to or greater than the universe. Since power is the ability of a thing to do work and the creation of the universe is a work then it follows that whatever created the universe must at least have to have enough power to create a universe-- which sounds like quite a feat of strength to me.
I'm not a fan of the KCA for other reasons and think that other arguments are much stronger but the KCA certainly does have some merit. Keep in mind that you are critiquing a four minute video and refuting truncated versions of an argument does not actually refute the argument itself. I'm not saying that you didn't treat this well but to say that the KCA is refuted is a bit premature.
+Jonathan Stute
_"It is entirely possible to know the truth about something without
observation. If all S are M and all M are P then we know that all S are
P."_
But the logical rule you are using was discovered by observation.
_"Similarly, if all time, matter, space, and energy came into existence at
the big bang then they did not exist before the big bang."_
What scientists say is that OUR spacetime was created at the big bang... not ALL space and time. No one knows what exists beyond the cosmic horizon.
_"Because, via the principle of causality and sufficient reason, we know
that the more cannot absolutely come from the less then we can also know
that whatever created the universe must be equal to or greater than the
universe."_
If your logic is correct then what ever created the universe must have been created by something even greater.
The KCA is utterly useless to prove anything. It cannot be shown to be sound and is of questionable validity.
"But the logical rule you are using was discovered by observation."
Mostly, yeah. But this doesn't invalidate my argument that we can make sound inferences from observed fact to unobserved fact.
"What scientists say is that OUR spacetime was created at the big bang... not ALL space and time. No one knows what exists beyond the cosmic horizon."
That is not what the KCA argues, which is what I'm addressing. Moving into questions of multi-verses and whatnot is an objection to the premises of the argument-- not the attributes that the cause must have if the argument from the KCA is sound.
"If your logic is correct then what ever created the universe must have been created by something even greater."
In looking at my premises, there is nothing there to indicate that whatever created the universe must also have a cause for its existence. Would you be able to show me which premise necessitates that conclusion?
"The KCA is utterly useless to prove anything. It cannot be shown to be sound and is of questionable validity."
The form of the KCA is indisputably valid. It is a simple BARBARA syllogism:
All M are P
All S are M
Therefore All S are P
This is also known as a "bulls-eye" syllogism.
Premise one : "All things which begin to exist(M) are that which have a cause for their existence(P)" is true on pain of gross irrationality.
Premise two: "The Universe (S) is that which began to exist (M)" is disputable but generally assumed to be the case.
Conclusion: "Therefore the universe (S) is that which has a cause for its existence (P)" Is necessarily true if premise 2 is true.
The question is whether or not it leads to "God" or not, but this doesn't mean that the KCA is useless to prove anything.
So, you're right that its soundness is questionable (because the premises are disputed) but its form is absolutely valid. Could we demonstrate the truth of premise two? Probably. So, I think that you might be off in saying that the argument can be shown to be sound.
Jonathan Stute
"But this doesn't invalidate my argument that we can make sound inferences from observed fact to unobserved fact."
OK, so when you said "It is entirely possible to know the truth about something without observation" you really meant WITH observation? How can you possibly know that something should conform to a specific logical rule if you have no observational information about that thing?
"That is not what the KCA argues, which is what I'm addressing."
The second premise of the Kalam clearly states that the universe had a beginning. That is something that cannot be known; there is no way to know if something exists beyond what we consider our universe and whether or not that thing is eternal. Vilenkin has said that the BGV theorem would not apply to universes causaly disconnected from ours. Making a positive claim of the nonexistence of something because we have no evidence for it is logically indefensible as I am sure you would agree. The second premise is, therefore, unknowable.
"In looking at my premises, there is nothing there to indicate that whatever created the universe must also have a cause for its existence."
Well, if you are going to say that 'the more cannot absolutely come from the less' simply does not apply to this creator then you are committing the fallacy of special pleading.
The validity of the KCA actually is disputable but that is not my argument. I have never heard it phrased the way you just did but, for arguments sake, I will conceed that the Kalam is another way to say 'If existence itself had a beginning then maybe it had a cause' so, Yes, the Kalam is ok as another way to say that and is not utterly useless. If you actually want to PROVE something with it then yes, it is useless.
If you could, would you please tell me of something that didn't 'begin to exist' as delineated in the first premise? If there is nothing in the universe that didn't begin to exist then please explain the reasoning behind that phrase in the first premise. Absent a reasonable example, I reject the first premise as loaded. Do you know why was this added to the original cosmological argument?
"OK, so when you said "It is entirely possible to know the truth about something without observation" you really meant WITH observation? How can you possibly know that something should conform to a specific logical rule if you have no observational information about that thing?"
Because the first principles apply to the nature of existence itself. The law of non-contradiction, excluded middle, law of identity, etc... Observed or not, all things that exist conform to the first principles. In order to argue against this position, you assume the first principles to be true. Hence if we say that all B are C and 1 is a B then we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt, or at least with an extremely reasonable certainty, that 1 is also C. This is merely an extension of the law of identity.
"Well, if you are going to say that 'the more cannot absolutely come from the less' simply does not apply to this creator then you are committing the fallacy of special pleading. "
Nope. There is literally no formulation of any cosmological argument offered by any philosopher ever which commits the special pleading fallacy. If I were to say, "all things that exist have a cause for their existence" and then say "except this thing" then it would be special pleading. However, that is not the argument which is merely that "All things which begin to exist have a cause..." Nothing is said of whether or not "the cause of the universe began to exist." So yes, more cannot come from less is a necessary truth but nothing in my premises indicates that the cause of the universe "came from" something. You've merely read that into the argument, like George Smith does in his book "A Case for Atheism".
"The validity of the KCA actually is disputable..."
I'm likely starting a PhD in philosophy in the fall and logic happens to be one of my best subjects. Could please you show me how a BARBARA syllogism like the KCA could be invalid? That would be a revolutionary breakthrough or at least certainly a decent dissertation topic.
"If you could, would you please tell me of something that didn't 'begin to exist' as delineated in the first premise? If there is nothing in the universe that didn't begin to exist then please explain the reasoning behind that phrase in the first premise. Absent a reasonable example, I reject the first premise as loaded. Do you know why was this added to the original cosmological argument?"
I just want to be sure that I understand you correctly:
You are asking what the reasoning is behind the premise "All that which begins to exist has a cause for its existence" by showing something that didn't begin to exist?
I'm not sure that I understand your objection to the principle of sufficient causality.
Jonathan Stute
"Because the first principles apply to the nature of existence itself."
Sure, I am fine with that (though theists often try to tell me that god does not need to follow the first principles even though he exists). So then your original statement "if all time, matter, space and energy came into existence at the big bang..." is simply a material conditional? Sure, that's fine too. I would simply say that if it didn't come into existence at the big bang then it did exist before it (or doesnt exist now). Yes, my argument goes to the soundness of the second premise. I claim it to be unknowable; do you disagree?
" I just want to be sure that I understand you correctly: You are asking what the reasoning is behind the premise "All that which begins to exist has a cause for its existence" by showing something that didn't begin to exist? I'm not sure that I understand your objection to the principle of sufficient causality."
I have never heard of the principal of sufficient causality. What I am asking for is an example of something that didn't _begin to exist_ that exists now. This thing would be required to extend the language of the principle of sufficient reason (which I have heard of and which would require this creator to have a cause if he exists) to add the qualifier 'begins to exist'. Otherwise, you are simply assuming that such a class exists.
"Could please you show me how a BARBARA syllogism like the KCA could be invalid? "
You mean besides the existential fallacy (which is why I am asking you to demonstrate a member outside the class of the first premise)? Absolutely, but to be clear, I did not say Barbaras were invalid, I am saying the KCA is not actually a Barbara. Since the 'Universe' is already defined as everything that exists (or as the Kalam version of the actual cosmological argument states, everything 'that begins to' exist) then the KCA can simply be reworded as:
P1. (The universe) has a cause
P2. The universe began to exist
C. The universe has a cause.
Does that look like a valid Barbara to you? The fallacy is that the first premise is simply a reworded version of the conclusion.
Bro you debunk an argument with illusion and a claim without proofing it 😂
As a physics major, I feel it is important to note that the 2nd premise they tried to assert is also false. As of 2015, the big bang model has been revised by physicists using quantum mechanical equations to replace the need for the singularity, thus giving the universe the possibility of existing forever.
The other thing mentioned about the 2nd law is also false. There is absolutely nothing in physics that says usable energy would have ran out by now if the universe existed forever, as we would have no data before the big bang to determine what the "usable" energy would be prior to the big bang.
Here is a link to the relatively new big bang model. It is important to note that the big bang absolutely DID happen, but the model removes the need for a singularity and thus allows the universe to exist forever.
www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.amp
That is the reader's digest version. Follow the citations to gain access to the original peer reviewed article published in Physics Letters B.
Radioactive elements prove energy loss since the actual evolution is decay. They all become lead.
The Big Bang is a false theory anyhow. Same with the Heliocentric model.
Of course you won't be taught this by the Rockefeller owned education system, but check out Convex Earth the documentary to see 7 years of scientific experiments proving Earth's surface doesn't curve, all conducted by world-class topographers and scientists using top-of-the-line equipment and lasers.
Every experiment is fully documented, shown step-by-step, and independently verifiable. The only responses claiming to "debunk" it are just silly ad hominem fallacies directed at the *producer* of the documentary because he believes in aliens or something, which has absolutely nothing to do with the independently verifiable science presented.
I predict your programming will cause you to want to reject this outright, but later on you'll find you actually do care about what you saw, if you watch it. It'll take time.
Even if the universe existed forever it won't get you off the hook, yes, they are trying to get rid of singularity, they have been trying to get rid of God for a long time, that doesn't mean what they are presenting is the reality. Science is not about consensus wake up. :D only the desperate would think in a dogmatic fashion. They should present EVIDENCE not some imaginary assumed bullshit lol. Keep trying. An eternal universe is impossible. Think about it, if you really are a critical thinker.
"As of 2015, the big bang model has been revised by physicists using quantum mechanical equations to replace the need for the singularity, thus giving the universe the possibility of existing forever." Get a refund. You know nothing.
"The Universe is running out of usable energy, according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics" and totally ignore the 1st law of thermodynamics. If you are coming from a theist point of view, you think that energy is created and destroyed, but the 1st law says it is neither, but it's transferred.
If I here "We just don't know." one more time. You debunked yourself.
You kind of argue the point of theism because you talk about B not having to have the rules of A.But the point of the argument is because of the rules of A there has to be something in B that doesn’t have to conform to the rules of A to start A.
That's the thing, their main argument is " maybe it isn't God " these idiots
In Bloop's name, we pray.
+Tim McNamara Bloop be praised!
R
Amen brother.
I don't think you've understood correctly what a "singularity" is. It's not a state of the universe it's a boundary to spacetime. They appear in the equations of general relativity when the null and timelike geodesics (the of particles with and without mass) terminate due to gravitational effects in the early universe. The geodesic you derive from the metric of spacetime (that's equation two in the BGV paper). So you can't extend a geodesic beyond that boundary and the spacetime for which you've proven geodesic incompleteness can't exist beyond that boundary. That means it has to have an absolute beginning (not just our local region but to any region that satisfies the assumption(s) of the singularity theorem).
Cosmological models which are eternal usually attempt to remove the singularity in some way with quantum gravitational effects. But BGV theorem is immune to that approach, you have to deny the condition that they assume in order to have an eternal universe. I should underscore that this isn't controversial among cosmologists. This is the working understanding that cosmologists have had of singularities since Stephen Hawking and George Ellis wrote their book.
"He traps the wise in the snare of their own cleverness." (1 Corinthians 3:18)
The "Rational" channel has not me a good reason to throw out the Kalam argument. I agree with Vic 2.0.
talk about poor reasoning lol how can anyone take this video seriously when the authors disagree with the premise that "something can't come into being from nothing." lmao its the law of non contradiction out of nothing comes nothing... stop being disingenuous and be honest with yourselves and with the audience. smh
0 = -1 + 1
Matter and antimatter.
But that's not the problem here.
The problem is, that the Kalam starts with equating creation ex materia with creation ex nihilo.
And continues to claim the universe came into existence, which is an empty assertion.
We don't know what was before the big bang. And the big bang is not a beginning of everything.
The Kalam is just a poor argument.
What the hell is the universe as a whole? The universe as an entirety is just a series of cause and effect,
Thanks for watching, remember to subscribe! At 1:29 we neglect to mention it's a composition fallacy when they assert laws internal to the universe apply to the universe as a whole. Thanks to user Mikhail Rezanov for pointing this out! R&J
Just so that you know, even Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin reject that interpretation of their work. All they demonstrated is that current expansion only models of the universe are inadequate to address what lies beyond the temporal boundary of the big bang. They fully accept that there could be something beyond that, and that ideas such as quantum gravity, or a temporal hypersphere could resolve the problems.
About the composition fallacy. No theist would accept the argument if the first premise was:
Everything which begins to exist has a natural cause.
And, if they don't then ask them to provide an example of an efficient cause that is non-natural. They cannot because there are no examples, they also can't say the universe itself is an example of a non-natural cause or it would be circular, and they cannot accept the conclusion that the universe has a natural cause because that would defeat the whole purpose of their argument whose conclusion was most likely presupposed anyway.
Mostly, all these arguments for the existence of God feel somehow artificial and forced. That is because the argument is constructed around the conclusion; leading the evidence instead of following it.
I'd also point out that the second premise is an equivocation with the term "universe". There is the proper meaning which would include all that exists and the various scientific definitions such as "visible" or "observable" or even "unknown" not to mention all the various models such as the Big Bang. Apologists such as WLC equivocate and even redefine "universe" to "all matter and energy" and "all matter and energy is the Big Bang" which again sounds artificial and forced.
Good luck to you and great video.
*****
Well said. But as the old saying goes, if you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.
Frank Turek, in answering a question about the resurrection, made the bland assertion that it is illogical to not accept miracles as a fact, because the "greatest miracle" has already happened - the "miracle" of creation. And I know many otherwise intelligent theists who find that a compelling answer.
The BGV theorem proves that the spacetime is geodesically incomplete. That's much more significant than just a beginning to the expansion.
Andrew Wells
Actually, it does not. It shows that current expansion models are inadequate to explain the temporal boundary. What it shows is that current theories are geodesically incomplete - not that spacetime itself is.
The first premise is not false. In the video and in your comments down here you seem to argue that the law of causality only applies to physical things within space-time and since the beginning of the universe is the beginning of space-time the law doesn't apply to the universe. That argument is self-refuting, because there is a causal relationship between your premises and your conclusion, and premises and conclusions are not physical nor are they in space-time. If the law of causality was a physical phenomenon bound to space-time then no argument could work because arguments are immaterial.
Just so you know, William Lane Craig had already addressed the point made in this video about efficient causes within the universe not being applicable to the universe itself.
See th-cam.com/video/3rX9yTwgHvQ/w-d-xo.html, @ 20:46.
To paraphrase, he's not saying that efficient causes within the universe can be extrapolated to include the whole universe. i.e. the fact that the bunny was caused within the universe does NOT explain that the universe was caused. Rather, he argues that the principle of efficient causes must apply to both the bunny and the universe because we have evidence that they both began to exist.
Craig is asked about this during a Q&A with Sean Carroll, as well: th-cam.com/video/wqKObSeim2w/w-d-xo.html (@ 01:29:00) If anyone is confused about the phenomenon of simultaneous cause and effect discussed in that video, then he can go to mondaymorningblogger.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/why-a-cause-and-effect-can-occur-simultaneously/ and read a pretty good builder/built analogy offered as a proof. There is also the sitting/lap example provided at www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=687.
Law of cause and effect only applies within the universe not the universe as a whole? I'd agree to that statement had the universe not had a beginning, but since most credible scientists agree that the universe is indeed finite why then should the law of cause and effect not apply to it?
On top of the flaws of the argument, I suggest that the purpose of the argument also be examined, or rather that the flawed argument is used as tool of psychological manipulation be examined. More specifically, a wedge for creationism. To wedge the broadest and most vague of creationist concepts, ie that God created the universe, so that they may eventually wedge into your mind an acceptance of the more narrow and small minded concepts of creationism, such as the physical claims of the creation story in Genesis. An interesting take on this would be to look at the "literal" interpretations of Genesis throughout history and see how the goal posts have moved over the ages in response to scientific evidence, such as Galileo's discovery of heliocentrism.
I agree it would be interesting to lay out on the table, all the changes in the interpretation of Genesis that occurred with our increase in knowledge over time. I think it would simply be a good illustration of the god of the gaps mentality. -J
1:47 then why do the laws of the universe exist at all? If nothingness existed forever without the universe then why did the universe come into existence in the first place?
3:10 if you believe that time didn’t exist before the universe, then how could the singularity, which caused the Big Bang, grow in mass? If there are changes happening then time exists, since time is a measurement of the space between changes. And if the singularity exists infinitely without time, then why would the universe need to exist.
Am I misunderstanding the argument? Because this isn’t making sense to me..
So B represents a spaceless, timeless, and immaterial universe that has Universe A within it? And if thats the case, Universe B is just a replacement for God. We're playing with semantics here.
So, the criticism is that if an assertion can't be observed and empirically verified (such as the first premise), then it's meaningless to discuss. Does that sound about right?
If it can't be empirically verified then you can't use it to make factual statements on topics that are not well understood. That would probably be a better description. You can discuss it all you want but it doesn't constitute evidence that people should accept. Though honestly I don't that really does the criticism justice as I don't think you can summarise it into one sentence without misrepresenting it.
R
What you have not debunked anything,you say that you don't know
Try doing this debunking with William Lane Craig
Theists seem to be unable to understand that "we don't know" actually IS a debunk for their claim. Theists have to prove god's existence. God's existence is a positive claim, of course the burden of proof is at the side that makes that claim. WLC seems to understand that, otherwise he wouldn't even bother to make videos that get debunked.
If we don't know, they failed to prove god..
Even if the Kalam Argument was valid in that the Universe was created by something outside the laws of cause and effect, how does the argument prove that the "something" is sentient, or a god, or specifically the Christian God?
Because whatever created the Universe can't be material,spaceless and timeless for obvious reasons.It also has to be powerful and so on.This is what we call God
@@Navii-05 BS. Our universe could be a simulation inside of another universe and the creator (god) would be a fat, spotty programmer. I don't make the positive claim that this actually is the case, but it could be. The simulation hypothesis is as reasonable as the god hypothesis.
@@klausroxin4437 You are not solving the problem, just taking it one step back. The same arguments would then again apply to this other universe you speak of. The main problem is that matter can not necessarily exist, it is contingent. I am rusty on this, it has been a long time since I learned about this but check out the contigency argument for Gods existence.
There are two requirements for something to be considered a necessary existence, which means that something can not not exist. One of them is that it is eternal, but I do not quite remember the other one.
@@Navii-05 "The same arguments would then again apply to this other universe"
How do you know? How many other universes exept ours have you ever seen? Another universe creating ours (simulation or creating other universes in black holes or whatever) could be eternal. This explanation is as good as the invisible wizard that lives outside of space and time and speaks our universe into existance.
Because of the part that I said about contigency and necessary existence, because matter can NOT necessarily exist which means it HAS to be contigent upon something external in order for it to exist. You should look into that.
Also, I do not KNOW any of this. More so, these things seem likely to be true.
Puny humans, magnificent God.
You didn't address the cause of the universe.
Radioactive elements prove that both the universe and earth have an age.
You lower the bar of public discourse. What do you mean by "outside the existing universe"? You put the universe in a box and you look at it from the outside? The universe contains your box, there is no outside.
Every theist makes the claim that there is an "outside", their god exists, as they claim, beyond time and space. How is that not outside the universe? Why are only theists allowed to make such claims? If there is no outside, there is no god who created the universe.
What is the cause for God’s existence?
I found this video to be very low level in its philosophical substance so I thought I would try to raise the standard of the conversation by giving some responses below:
1) Cause and effect only applies within the Universe.
This response demonstrates a failure to understand what the causal principle is. The causal principle is not a law of nature, like gravity, is a metaphysical law. It applies to all of reality, not just physical reality. So claiming it only applies to the Universe is patently false.
Furthermore, in claiming that things can come into being outside the Universe, but not inside the Universe, you are claiming that the Universe is standing in causal relationship with entities that do not exist. That is impossible. Causal relationships only exist between existing entities, not non-existing entities.
2) The Universe came from a singularity.
You are talking about the singularity as though it is a thing, an entity. It is not. The singularity is a boundary point to the Universe. It is much like the idea of a potential infinite in mathematics, where infinity serves as a limit to the process in question.
So speaking of the singularity as though it is an entity which transcends the Universe demonstrates a lack of understanding of the physics behind the big bang theory.
3) Scientific scrutiny rejects the Kalam cosmological argument.
This is perhaps one of the most bizarre claims I have ever heard anyone make. Scientific scrutiny does not reject the Kalam cosmological argument. The Kalam cosmological argument is a philosophical argument, not a scientific hypothesis.
Additionally, science provides good evidence for both of the premises in the argument, and there is no scientific evidence that gives any reason to think either premise is false.
Finally, the Kalam cosmological argument has been gaining additional evidence in favour of its truth as time has gone on, with things like the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem being developed in the early 2000's, and much philosophical advancements being made in regard to existence and formation of infinity.
4) The Universe may have had multiple forms.
This response demonstrates that you haven't even understood what is meant by the term "Universe". The terms means "all contiguous space-time reality". So, if you think there was some other form our local universe existed in before the big bang (contrary to all scientific evidence), that is irrelevant. That earlier stage is also included in the term "Universe".
As the very video you are responding to noted, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem applies even to a multiverse. All contiguous space-time reality had a beginning, the Universe had a beginning, that is what all the evidence we have tells us.
5) If the Universe has a cause, it doesn't have to be supernatural.
This is plainly false once you understand what the Universe is. If all contiguous space-time reality has a cause, then that cause is not part of space-time reality.
Since space-time reality, physical reality, is exactly what is meant by "nature", and since the cause of space-time would exist beyond space-time, the cause would be "super natural".
You debunked absolutely nothing
The kalam cosmological argument may not be able to make assertions of the nature of that which lies outside of time space but you can make a truthful statement that something existing outside of time space is a necessity
Yes and wouldnt the necessity that exists outside space time be spaceless and timeless and this just would prove the argument to be more true even if the laws of physics that exist in reality B could be different whatever reality B is is a necessity and is spaceless and timeless proving the arguemnt further
i think the point of the bunny illustration is that believing the bunny exist without a reasomed caused like believing in an uncaused caused. is one of the points in example. not in a fallcy way
When taken in the context of outside this universe, the original statement can be debunked .
But the statement originates from logical reasoning from inside the universe, which makes it difficult to argue against.
It isn't proof of a 'god', but logically the statement is sound.
If the universe was infinite in size then theoretically the universe could exist eternally without the universe running out of usable energy. This doesn't even go against the big bang theory (which has a horrible name) because maybe only the observable universe came from that point that long ago.
It is interesting that deductive reasoning is being debunked on the rational channel. While I understand certain people wanting to wear blinkers, the truth is science also allows for deductive reasoning not just 'we just don't know' argument. The big bang contradicts the first law of thermodynamics and every other explanation would too except for the existence of an Omnipotent Uncaused...the 'we don't know' argument is just like a 2 year old throwing a tantrum...
Deductive reasoning is perfectly acceptable in science. The issue is the premises that make up that reasoning have to be provable. When core premises are based on extreme speculation for all the reasons pointed out in our video the conclusion no longer becomes reliable.
R
Even if true, which I contend it is not, the Kalam only serves to prove there is A god, but this is not necessarily the God of Abraham. The God proven by the Kalam could be any God of creation.
*Actually, it's only attempting to prove a cause, not the invisible magician they want the cause to be.*
A clear message to the atheists out there, the minute you say "I don't know" that's it, you're done, you have no arguments, you have no leg to stand on, you're in no position to tell others they are wrong. Think about it.
Logically, if we can assert “I don’t know” and believe that, than it at least makes sense for us to believe that others cannot know as well, including theists, and thus, that whatever they say about something that happens involving the universe has no basis for being taken seriously.
It doesn’t mean we can assert that what theists argue about a phenomenon in the universe is completely false, but it DOES mean that because we have no foundational grounds for believing in something, they don’t either and that they have no evidence to support what they say.
Scientists don’t completely understand the neurological mechanism that is caused by anesthesia and makes patients lose consciousness. By your logic, I can assert something completely unfounded about anesthesia, such as that it transports their mind to Hogwarts using a dose of a magical chemical we haven’t discovered, and because physicians will admit they don’t understand the fundamental mechanism of anesthesia, they have no grounds to tell me I am wrong. Do you see how absurd that is?
@@crimsonfang8518 No, this would be a major assumption on your part, not because you don't know, or reject something that means everybody else is ignorant.
When you state that you don't know, reasonably speaking you won't have any choice but to accept the other's explanation.
If I asked you where did the universe come from? You'd say, well, I don't really know.
Then, I say, it had to be created by a Creator, because of x w and z, unless you propose a better explanation you won't have a leg to stand on. This is how it works.
We can't proceed any differently than all the other aspects and beliefs we encounter in our lives.
From a rational, logical and reasonable point of view, if something is created there has to be a creator.
Can you give us one example where something popping up into existence without a cause? And the cause has to be uncaused.
@@crimsonfang8518 This is where our roads of thoughts diverge, when you say evidence, what is your criteria for evidence?
Because to be honest I hear this argument thrown about, so I need to know what do you mean by evidence?
In my court, there is more evidence than anyone can chew, so which evidence do you need?
We have anecdotal evidence, historical evidence, scientific evidence, philosophical type evidence, so my question to you is, what other evidence do you need?
We can't provide you with evidence if we don't know what you require as "evidence"?
And in the same breath I can name hundreds of things that you believe without a shred of evidence, so why is it different when it comes to God? Lack of consistency right there, a classic case of a double standard in action if will. You need to maintain that level of consistency, reason and integrity.
this is hilarious because when you point out to theists that their proposed god doesn't make sense, they say "god is outside the universe, you can't apply the laws of this universe to it!"
The word beginning does not depend on how you define it. Webster:'THE POINT AT WHICH SOMETHING BEGINS:STARTS. It is definitely reasonable to say as Webster defines "beginning" that everything began at a finite point in time and is expanding from there. In the beginning (singularity, the point), God created the heavens and the earth....
This guy is just playing with logic and trying to reject it.
The cosmological argument does not prove god exists, it just proves the existence of the uncaused. To prove god exists, one needs to look at what relationship does the uncaused have with the universe whether it fits the definition of a 'God'
So you agree that it does prove the uncaused?
Why has no one pointed out the obvious here?
Let's say that the universe has to have been caused by something, say that something is a god. Okay, that god is something, what caused that? Another god? And what caused that god? It proves absolutely nothing.
I swear I seem to be the only one who has ever questioned the origins of a god (first thing I ever did once I heard of the concept actually).
They have a whole range of crappy responses to that lined up and ready to go :P
R
The Rational Channel It was explained to me multiple times that he just appeared out of nowhere, much in the same way that they claim the universe cannot.
+The Rational Channel dude, that's simple, an infinite s
chain of creators does not answer the question of where the first existing somebody of something came from. if existence is the onle possible state, the creator is not needed!
What you say is no counterargument against the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument doesn't state that everything needs to have a cause. It states that everything that began to exist has to have a cause. Since the Universe began to exist, the Universe has, according to the argument, a cause, but this is not necessarily the case for God, since he doesn't necessarily have a beginning.
+Martijn Bouman wow, wow. demonstrate everything that begins to exist has a cause
Why do they also predispose that the Universe ("everything that exist, must have cause") even has (a) cause. Not everything in life or in nature has a exact cause. Perhaps the Universe has/had no cause to it all, the conditions and properties that were necessary for it to facilitate existence came into being.
It appears to me that the Kalam Cosmological argument is just a argument from ignorance.
"We JuSt dOn'T kNoW yEt" that's a good enough argument for you to "debunk" it huh?