This philosophical version has always been the most powerful to my thinking (although admittedly, what convices one individual person is subjective). When I was not a Christian and was following a type of "New Spirituality" the reality of time and the fact of the present moment haunted me and was used by God to help me see the logical need for God's existence. Thank you for these excellent resources as always.
@@ykn08001 he made a division of religion and philosophy and disregarded Aristotle's work, which is probably a reason for the violence for in islam today
Makes sense. Actual infinities would lead to contradictions. For example, an infinitely dense planet would be condensed into a sphere with a radius zero, i.e. it would not exist.
In the drcraig video on the Leibniz' Contingency Argument, it says numbers exist necessarily. However, in this video it says numbers don't exist. I am confused.
I'm not afraid to admit that I wept when I viewed this video. Such an eloquent explanation. This also helps me defend my faith against an increasing amount of people who want to tear it down.
@@Johnny-mz9ot "materialism"? why bother with "materialism"? The important thing is to separate out what information that good evidence from the bad information. Khalam Cosmological argument doesnt provide any information so it is useless. And the argument in itself is faulty 1) everything that begins to exist has a cause. i say that nothing that really begins to exist has a cause. Why? because most things are just rearrangenets of atoms and doesnt really "begin to exist". only things that seems to "begin to exist" are virtual particles and they are notoriously uncaused. And it also fails in another way: everything we see are things that folliws the laws inside the universe. We know nothing about the laws outside the universe and they are the laws that guides how the universe began. so first statement of Kalam is not necessarily true and thus we dont have to care about the rest.
Nice video. Fortunately, I have an infinite number of points built up in the Hilbert Hotel Rewards Program, in case an infinite number of guests show up, I still get an upgrade.
@@ChristianSigma Eristic atheists nitpick Christians with the argument that there's nothing conscious there doing any 'begging'. Atheism is wrong, and they'll look for ANYTHING to hurl back at us.
Are u suggesting the argument begs the question? Why? In order for something to beg the question it should presoppouse it's conclusion in it's premises, but the argument doesn't do that: p1 is based on a priori intuitions wich don't presoppouse the idea that the universe has a cause in the slightest and p2 is based on scientific evidence and finitist philosophical arguments wich also don't presoppouse the universe has a cause.
@@allstar4065 if he's saying the argument begs the question, but he's not using the term "beg the question" in its actual definition and as a logical fallacy then there's nothing wrong with begging the question. It's like accusing someone if special pleading and then claiming that you're not using the term "special pleading" as a logical fallacy. It's useless, misleading, wrong (as that's not the word's actual definition), makes no actual criticism of the argument and doesn't provide anything substancial
@TallestPiper Yes, someone on Facebook pointed it out to me in support of an actual infinite past and not understanding it exactly, I felt I had to defend my point of view against it. Not knowing that it's meant to show the absurdity of actual infinities.
This video disproves evolution. Not sure if that was the intended purpose. For anything infinite to exist. There would need to be a Creator of infinite solutions. When the proposed odd number of rooms appeared, most would hopefully ha e recognized, a negative solution is still a valid infinite possibility. Nothing created nothing destroyed. The empty rooms simply become a negative potential. God has a universe created by laws and mechanisms we can't see the design of the mechanisms, but we see the existence that it is built upon. For example, *evil* . We do not see evil beings, but we see the effects of evil doers.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not have a god/creator as it's conclusion. In it's entirety the argument is: 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2) The universe began to exist. 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. The conclusion is the universe had a cause. Any use of the Kalam argument beyond the 2 premises and the conclusion presented here is NOT the Kalam Argument.
That was excellently explained. The philosophical implications of infinity does present logical difficulties for those who propose a universe that has always been in existence. God has offered rationality in the underpinnings of the creation that exists today and it is those who humbly and intellectually seek it find the wisdom and reason which holds the grounds of our existence. I hope more people would come to terms with this. And I pray that more Christians would be on a pursuit of the wonders of the cosmos in light of the Lord Himself. Great job here, Reasonable Faith! May God bless your ministry all the more for Godʼs glory and the good of His people.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God. It originated in medieval Islamic theology and was developed by Muslim philosophers such as al-Ghazali and al-Farabi. The argument goes as follows: 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. The cause is then argued to be a necessary, uncaused, timeless, and spaceless being, which is identified as God. The argument is based on the idea that the universe had a finite beginning and that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Proponents of the Kalam Cosmological Argument argue that the cause of the universe must be an uncaused, eternal being, since it cannot be caused by something that came into existence after it. There are several criticisms of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, including the following: The first premise - that everything that begins to exist has a cause - has been challenged by some philosophers and scientists. They argue that the cause-and-effect relationship only applies to things within the universe, and that it is not necessarily applicable to the universe as a whole. The second premise - that the universe began to exist - is based on the standard Big Bang model of cosmology, which is still a matter of scientific debate and not a proven fact. Some philosophers and scientists argue that the Big Bang theory does not necessarily imply a beginning of the universe, and that alternative models, such as the cyclic model or the emergent model, are possible. The conclusion that the cause of the universe must be an uncaused, eternal being is not logically necessary. There could be other explanations for the cause of the universe, such as a natural cause or a multiverse. The identification of the cause of the universe as God is not logically necessary. The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not prove the existence of a personal deity with specific attributes, but only the existence of a necessary, uncaused being. In conclusion, the Kalam Cosmological Argument has faced numerous criticisms and objections, and its validity as a proof for the existence of God is still the subject of ongoing philosophical and scientific debate.
Excellent videos on the philosophical basis for God. No argument will convince those who don't want to consider it, but at least this prevents those undecided people, especially the young, for being so quick to decide that atheism is the only way.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not have a god/creator as it's conclusion. In it's entirety the argument is: 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2) The universe began to exist. 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. The conclusion is the universe had a cause. Any use of the Kalam argument beyond the 2 premises and the conclusion presented here is NOT the Kalam Argument.
Excellent. I defend this argument in Christian Apologetics. See also J.P. Moreland's treatment in Scaling the Secular City. I am going to use this in my apologetic class.
You should also check out Grim Reaper paradoxes, they are even more effective since they lead to direct contradictions. Compared to some of the other paradoxes we have, Hilbert’s Hotel is one of the weaker ones!
@@vaskaventi6840 See Methusaleh's Diary paradoxes and the problem of vicious circularity as well, as defended in Andrew Loke's new book. I think there are at least five sound philosophical arguments for premise 2, and that's not even getting into the scientific support :)
Let's talk about the Bible next and why it is one of the most historically accurate texts in existence. There are so many reasons it would be hard to put it in a 6 minute video.
What do you mean by "historically accurate?" No historical errors regarding historical dates, places, people, events, etc? Please explain, I'm not understanding how you would make/support such a claim. Not saying it can't be true. Just why do you believe that.?
Great job, does help explain the Hilberts Hotel which I have always struggled with as not noted by others, I love the philosophical evidences even if they are sometimes hard to get your head around.
Awesome as usual! I prefer the scientific version, though. I think it appeals to modern Americans better than the philosophical version. How about a video on how we got the Bible and why it is trustworthy?
@@les2997 But Tim is right, modern Americans prefer scientific videos to philosophical videos. OBviously, this philosophical defense is even better than the first video.
And so the intellectual argument demands the question of who created God [i.e.The creator of the Universe--which according to this argument must have had a beginning] And then we are led to who created the God who created the God? And then we have no choice but to struggle with who created the creator of God. And so on. Intellectual honesty.
The Kalam argument itself only asserts that whatever has a beginning has a cause. If time began at the creation of the universe, then the cause would transcend time and therefore lack a beginning. See our video on the Leibnizian Argument from Contingency for an argument concluding that the cause of the universe is itself uncaused.
1. We don’t know if something can from nothing 2. We don’t know if the universe always existed 3. We don’t know what it means to say a mind can think outside of time
Those are good questions; one way to arrive at an answer would be to employ one of several standards, including a "high degree of certainty", or "beyond a reasonable doubt"; notice that I'm not asking for s standard of evidence that is or even approaches 100%. With this in mind, it appears one can reasonably state "something cannot come from nothing". On #2, I think it's a safe argument to say the universe, at least in it's present form, cannot have always existed..
To all the atheist youtubers who will respond and nitpick at this video, keep this in mind: This video is a broad summary of a variety of arguments that attempts to express them in layman’s terms. It is meant to get the idea across to someone who is at the level of a high school student or so. There are much more rigorous and precise defenses of these arguments, so if you want to respond to the arguments for premise 2, please address some of the more advanced defenses, since they generally address the issues one has with the broad video summary.
You can't have your cake and eat it. You shouldnt produce a video if you are going to shut out people. Unless you don't want people to respond unless it's 'praise' 🤦
I’m confused how the number of past events being finite automatically means the universe began to exist? I can understand how a finite past points to the beginning of matter and energy since they are constantly changing, but how does a finite past point to the beginning of space and time?
The causal principle is not “everything has a cause.” It’s “everything that begins to exist has a cause.” Indeed, if the universe (all of space, time, matter, and energy) began to exist, it has a cause, but I’m asking how does the number of past events being finite imply that space and time began to exist?
@@anonymoushuman3657 well if time always existed the universe would need to be eternal which is not the cause since eternal past would mean today could never be reached. Its like this dominos fall forever and u expect the last to fall
"I’m confused how the number of past events being finite automatically means the universe began to exist?" - This is necessarily entailed. Since the universe is a temporal object, and since time had a beginning, the universe must have had a beginning too.
I would imagine infinity could/would exist as long as moving with the direction of time. If we have a beginning, there is no necessity for an end. As long as creation is possible, it could continue creating for eternity. Correct?
"knowing" something intuitively is not actually "knowing", it is a feeling. Intuitively. "Adverb. by means of direct perception, an instinctive inner sense, or gut feeling rather than rational thought:They've been married so long, they know intuitively how best to support each other." We still don't "know" the universe began to exist, at best, we can say it might have begun as we know it at some point in the past. But even if we fully accept it had a creator, all we have done regarding infinity, is kick the can down the road, because what created the creator, or the creators creator? And none of this can point to a god until we have evidence for gods.
Suppose you say "God came into existence at "T = n", well how could he? Because he has always preceded n such that n is any number e.g. imagine you think "God was created at 13.8 billion years ago" - well how can he? He's timeless meaning that for any moment of time you think he's created he's existed prior to that time and this goes for any time. You probably think God is a material object. God is self-existent and couldn't have been created because there's no time at which he could have been created. If you're an immaterial, changeless, spaceless entity you can exist timelessly at the very moment of creation. E.g. suppose the cause of water freezing is the temperature being below 0° if the temperature has always been below 0° then any water left-over would be perpetually frozen. Why would there ever be a change to this timeless water without these external conditions changing? Now suppose a man has been sitting from eternity back, he may just will to stand up. In this case he is not confined to being perpetually in a state of sitting down because he can will something different. God does not change, he is not a physical entity.
@@andro8854 "God is self-existent" how do you "KNOW" that? How do you know there is a god, just saying that there is, does nothing to demonstrate any gods are really true. Until we see actual evidence for any gods, you can't just make a fact claim about your preferred god. You are at best, presenting what you "feel" to be real, not what you know
@@Jimages_uk because of the arguments given by Dr Craig. If you're good at logic you can see it with a lot of confidence. They are valid, sound and very powerful. Watch debates between dr Craig and atheists or watch his talks.
The fact we can conceive of eternity as an idea, yet have always lived and known finite as creatures in a finite universe, means eternity exists, but not inside this realm, and yet, we somehow were able to conceive of it, which means we experienced it, or interacted with it. The blind cannot conceive of sight, or colour. Likewise, we cannot think of new colours, only what we have already seen. We are ontological receivers, not projectors. Living in a finite universe, should by all means, cause us to be "blind" to the notion or idea of eternity. So eternity has somehow been "experienced" by us, or has been informed to us by something that in itself cannot be finite. Much like a sighted man telling a blind man about sight. A finite Universe that births men who can conceive of infinity reveals his infinite origins or cause.
Billy is like, "Wow, the only thing stranger than all these believers making such a commotion over something so obvious as this little two premise syllogism is the non-believers who deny it."
@Paul Dubya So, you are actually saying that the whole universe literally came from absolute nothing? You're not even talking about little known types of reality like the quantum vacuum, quantum gravity, the no boundary proposal, etc?
Excellent and informative video. The part where the vocal transitioned from the woman to the man was odd though. It sounded like a horror movie for a sec.
1. If the universe needs a Cause to exist, why doesn't God? 2. If god can exist with out cause. Why can't the universe? 3. Aren't we taking the rules of the universe, applying them to a time before the universe, where they may not apply?
I asked the same question. I found an answer in philosophy. There is only one thing that can exist without a cause. Existence is the only thing that can exist of itself. And logically, it has to be eternal. If there were a time when it did not exist, then nothing would.
@@Noahs_Crazy_Kid I'm sorry, but that is simply a nonsensical statement. Even under pantheism it is incorrect to say that God is conceptually identical to existence. It would simply be the case that there is only one fundamental thing IN existence, namely God. This is metaphysics 101. There are two broad classes of entities that do not overlap. There are abstract entities and concepts, and there are concrete entities/objects. Existence is an abstract concept, whereas God, if there is one, is by definition a concrete entity, since it has causal powers.
Causes can be temporally prior to their effects and if this is true, then the kalam argument fails as an infinite past is generated. The statement for every event there is an temporally prior event that is its cause is logically consistent so an infinite past is logically posssible and metaphysically possible so long as it is metaphysically possible for causes to always be prior to their effects.
The arguments concerning the infinite in this video are so deeply confused and so profoundly misleading that I’m inclined to call them immoral, as I believe Craig himself knows better. They exploit *obvious* ambiguities (e.g., on what “full” means) to generate bogus “contradictions”. There is absolutely nothing contradictory about Hilbert’s Hotel and the “contradictions” the video claims are inherent in the infinite are easily explained by anyone with a basic knowledge of transfinite arithmetic.
I probably won't word it great but it goes something like this.... If the first cause was mindless then what would act as the catalyst for it to create? The first cause by necessity would have to possess perfect entropy, that is stability. WIthout the existence of another "cause," then there would be nothing to upset a mindless balance. It would never create. The only solution to this problem is a mind that can choose to create or not create. The cause of creation then is found within itself.
0:00 - 0:06 This is a false dichotomy. It is entirely possible that spacetime itself has only existed for a finite amount of time, but that the rest of the universe has existed for all time. In other words, it is entirely possible that the time axis is itself finite in length. So it could be the case that the universe has existed for a finite amount of time, but did not have a beginning. There is no contradiction here. One claim is about which time coordinates the universe has existed for, the other claim is about the length of the axis of which the time coordinates are elements of. 0:06 - 0:17 No. In part 1, you pretended to use science to support your claims, but completely misrepresented it and made false and baseless claims and tried to pass them off as scientific. I wrote an entire comment thread deconstructing the video and explaining how the science was misrepresented. 0:27 - 0:36 Yes, but he was wrong. He failed to account for the possibility above that I already explained: that if time itself is a set of points with finite length, then it is possible that the universe had no beginning, yet is finitely old. Something having a beginning has nothing to do with whether it has existed for a finite amount of time or a finite amount of time. It has to do with whether there existed a point in time prior to which the thing did not exist, and after which the thing did exist. If yes, then the thing in question has a beginning. If there is no point in time during which the thing did not exist, then it did not have a beginning, and this is true regardless of how long it has existed for. Al Ghazali did not realize this, because he made his arguments during a time when set theory and order theory were not well-understood. 0:36 - 0:45 It does not, and it is not. 0:46 - 1:28 There is no contradiction here. What does it mean for a hotel to be full? It means that that there is no room that is unoccupied. When you shift the guests of the hotal one room forward, the hotel becomes not full, because exactly one room is unoccupied. When the new guest fills the room, the hotel becomes full again. There is no logical contradiction here, because there is no point in time during which the hotel is full and not full at the same time. Nothing about the situation is absurd. The video fails to recognize that moving the guests to different rooms means that the hotel stopped being full. 1:29 - 2:09 Again, this objection makes the same mistake as in the previous situation: the video is assuming that the hotel stays full when you move the guests around the hotel. That is not the case. By moving the guests, the hotel becomes unfull. The fact that it can thus be filled with new guests is not an absurdity, just a mundane fact. If you start with a false assumption, then you get a false conclusion. Nothing surprising there. 2:09 - 2:25 What is absurd about that? There is nothing absurd about this. This is called Cantor's property. Cantor's property is the property that every infinite set has at least one proper subset that has the same cardinality as the original infinite set. In fact, we can know exactly how many subsets of a set have a given cardinality, and this includes the cardinality of the original set itself. The number is given by the generalized binomial coefficients, defined for cardinal numbers, finite and transfinite alike. 2:09 - 2:43 No. There is no logical contradiction here. The number of guests that left the hotel is the same for both scenarios, but the configuration of the rooms they occupied is different. Changing the configuration of the occupied rooms by moving guests in the hotel changes the properties of the hotel. To be continued in the replies.
I agree with a lot of what you stated above, but it’s breath wasted here. The community around these videos won’t listen to anything unless it confirms what they already believe.
Thank you for such compelling evidence of GOD of the Universe who makes all things and things are established just as He decares in His WORD. The WORD of GOD is the TRUTH. HALLELUJAH 🙏
So the common atheist rebuttal is to say that "but then how is God infinite in existence". I understand god was the supposed first cause that didn't begin exist to exist but he still had to exist eternally which faces the infinity paradox
God is certainly difficult to understand. One of the big problems for us is when we try to define God using the rules of our universe. The definition of 'Eternal' absolutely depends on time. But since God created time, He's certainly not bound it. God does not have to exist 'eternally'; it is wrong to force Him into any universe rule that He, Himself, created.
@@jean1785 The claim suggests not to think of God as what came before him or how long he exists. We are using space-time in that case which is a thing within our universe and not beyond it.
If there are an infinite number of rooms, they can never all be full, because an infinite number or other rooms are available an infinite number of times.
I'll do it now. We don't have any example of something coming into existence. Therefore we cannot tell whether something that come into existence must have a cause or not. Done.
@@piage84 Surely this in not intended to be a serious argument. At least try to keep your arguments within context. He is talking about objects that weren't there before and now they are. Things that meet this definition happen thousands, maybe millions of times per day right here on Earth. Cars, coney dogs, microprocessors - ALL of these things alone come into existence and have a cause. So much for '[nothing has come] into existence'. "I'll do it now" - no you won't. "Done" - hardly.
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._* And here is the evidence as to why I currently hold to such a position. 1. I personally have never observed a god. 2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god. 3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists. 5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises. 6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 9. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable. ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
@Eddie Crume I am responding to your comment one issue at a time. You have made the _claim_ that this god you've mention is metaphysical. Are you claiming that this god is not real?
@Eddie CrumeI'm not sure I'm getting your drift here Eddie. Are you refuting the atheists stance? Also its perfectly rational to be skeptical of ALL claims without substantiation. Otherwise you could accept any old nonsense And of course atheism has no burden of prove at all. It makes no claims required to be proven. It just says I don't believe there is God - because there is not enough evidence. Whereas a theists makes all sorts of claims that he needs to substantiate with evidence. And BTW, even though we can't see gravity, we can prove it exists every time we drop something. You know that I think. God is Metaphysical-OK-how can we observe his effects? Its a non sequitur. As for Theo's 5 - show us a Philosopher who has proven the existence of a God. There isn't one. And if you think you can - congratulations - go collect your Nobel Prize! LOL My conclusion is the same as Theo's. No God exists. Take care my man.
Numbers arent infinite because they have a beginning. Even if you start counting backwards in a negative sense, how can you remove from something that doesn't exist? Even if you owe, you owe what?
I do need to understand better this argument. Do anyone know any book that explain easily this argument? For example, if an actual infinity can't exist, what about God existing infinitely in time? I don't understand a lot about this.
@@mmachuenemaloba5594Well, God can be an actual infinity, but not a material infinity. Just an object that can change is inside time. Because it has potentials. A universe, can't exist forever, because it should be changing infinitely an so on. But God is unchangeable, there is no other potential for Him. So If there is no chance, there is not an infinite amount of changes in Him, nor seconds, because time is not a thing for unchangeable beings.
According to this vid, the Kalam leads to a timeless God. God, as proved by this argument (if sound) isn't temporally infinite. He doesn't exist for an actually infinite amount of time. In fact, he exists for no time at all. He doesn't exist for any amount of time. The arguments in support of p2 (if sound) rule out the possibility of God existing for an actually infinite amount of time, because the arguments try to prove an infinitely long amount of time is logically impossible. Even temporalist conceptions of God can reject that God exists for an infinite amount of time.
Proposing that infinity is absurd because it is incomprehensible and at the same time accepting an incomprehensible creator of the universe is at least suspicious. If you insist that reality should be within what the human mind can understand be consistent.
The argument isn't that infinity is absurd because it is incomprehensible. It's that the properties of the concept of quantitative infinity *are* understood and result in absurdities if instantiated in reality. Thus, a universe with an actually infinite past would lead to absurdities and therefore cannot be real. Also, when we speak of God as being "infinite" we're not talking about a quantitative infinite, but a qualitative one, having his properties to the maximal degree. A mundane example would be water with maximal purity. Any quantity of water can be maximally pure if it is without contaminants. So, there's nothing logically incoherent about an infinite God, so long as we're using infinity in the qualitative sense. - RF Admin
This infinite hotel thought experiment only shows that anything countable must be finite. But who claims that an infinite time has countable events? It is not an ad absurdum as the proposition of infinite events does not also state that the events are countable. If you can imagine an infinite number of events in the future, i.e. Uncountable events in the future, and that is not absurd, the same holds for the past. As for the domino analogy: it is begging the question.
That thing you said about the infinite events in the future isn't true. There is a difference between potential infinites and actual infinites. You should watch the talk Lane craig had with cosmic skeptic. They talked about that
The vid actually adresses your first argument. If the past is infinite, then there was enough time to make an infinite hotel if a room per year was added and all those contradictions would be possible. That's the response given in the vid.
Isn't an argument against infitinity the best argument against god? An argument against infinite would mean that god can't be infinite and therefore the first cause argument also falls apart since god is not infinite himself. Also what about set theory?
Honest question I have is: if God is imaterial, hence it has no matter, no format, no substance, or one can say it simply didn come to be, how could he have created man "on his own image", since he had to image?
No, the argument is that God is the cause of the Universe. The big bang is a theory to explain the past history of the universe up to its beginning (or back to its beginning if you like). The big bang theory says nothing about what caused the universe to begin to exist, only that it did begin to exist.
The fact that we intuitivly think that what begins needs a cause doesn't mean that it is true that all that begins needs a cause. U say the universe can't cause itself bc in order to do that it should exist before itself. What u are suggesting is that something must be temporally previous to something else in order to cause it. Therefore, God should be temporally previous to the universe in order to cause it. However, God can't be temporally previous to the beggining of the universe bc the beggining of the universe is the beggining of time. And if u claim that it's not neccesary to be temporally previous to something in order to cause it, then ur argument against the the universe causing itself doesn't work.
The claim is that God is beyond space-time. So God can be after, before and present. It is a little hard to think as such. A temporal time creation is still a cause even if outside of time. For example, a photon exists for us when it leaves the sun and reaches our eye in around 8 minutes. Relatively, speaking that is an illusion right? At least to a photon, as for it there is no time. It's instantaneous (even that is hard to define as there is no real instant unless measured against a clock, which the photon can't by itself). Only we measure it as we are within space-time. Therefore, the question is: can an object exist beyond space-time? The photon does exist in manner of speaking, at least for us. Was it caused? Yes, as in the example that I mentioned, it came from the Sun.
@@bkhan19 hello! Thanks for the response. It's pretty good. However, the fact that God is timeless doesn't mean he can be temporally previous to the beggining of time. Nothing can be temporally previous to the beggining of time by definition. Even WLC and others claim that the moment of creation is an example of simultanous causation. That's why many proponents of the Kalam defend simultanous causation. If simultanous causation is impossible, then the cause of the universe should be temporally previous to the beggining of time. Given that nothing can be temporally previous to the beggining of time, the cause of the universe must be temporally simultanous. Even most proponents of the Kalam agree with what I'm saying. God could be logically or causally prior to the moment of creation, but not temporally prior. I don't think the photon analogy is a good one. Even if timeless things could be caused that doesn't clear out the contradiction of claiming the universe can't cause itself because it can't be temporally prior to itself but then claim that God, who isn't temporally prior to the universe, caused the universe.
@your future self Thanks for reading! I would suggest to think again on your meaning of atemporal or in simple terms something without relation to time. You are mentioning 'temporarlly prior'. What does that mean? Temporal means within Space-Time. 'Prior/Post' to it is illogical as we are in Space-Time. Perhaps you are suggesting something before our Universe and after it. That again is outside of Space-Time or timen as we know it. Again, think of the photon as when it exists within our Universe it is temporal for us. But to itself it is not. Think of a Universe made only of Light aka photons. You would never be able to know what the age of the Universe is. It will exist but independent of proper time as there is no quantum fluctuation (in simple terms, no energy variance). No energy variance, means no variable excitation of the photons, meaning no difference of motion, which means no change in energy state, which means no new particle with mass forming, which means no relativity, which means no proper time. But there would be light. It exists. Now if there is even one variant excitation within that light it can only be a measure relative to the previous state. Suddenly we have difference. But even if it did happen the cause was still atemporal. It was not fixed in time but it was what led to the excitation. That is why the term 'cause'. I do understand your grief is with God and creation as that requires Space Time. Yes, when the Universe starts aka the Big Bang happens Space-Time forms, so the creation act is within time. But Only for our Space Time. We are still trying to figure ours out, let alone fathom what is the beyond and within (blackholes?). However, the cause, just as a photon's formation, does not require Time. It can be non temporal.
@@bkhan19 i think you slightly misunderstood my point, tho maybe i wasn't so clear. I wasn't criticizing the concept of creation itself or timelessness. I was critizicing an inconsistency in the vid about causality. WLC claims that the universe can't cause itself because that would mean it is temporally prior to itself, wich would break the law of non-contradiction. So what he's claiming is that causes are temporally prior to their effects. If he accepts that causes don't need to be temporally prior to their effects then he should accept that the universe could have caused itself. However, if this line of reasoning is accepted, then the universe must be uncaused, because, given that there is no time before the universe, nothing can be temporally prior to the universe and cause it. If one accepts that causes don't need to be temporally previous to their effects then the universe doesn't need to be temporally previous to itself in order to cause itself. If simultanous causation is impossible (if causes must be temporally prior to their effects) then the universe is uncaused because nothing is temporally prior to the universe and if simultanous causation is possible then WLC's argument to prove the universe couldn't have caused itself fails. This isn't about creation requiring time, about timeless things not having temporal effects or about causation being neccesarly temporal. This is about an inconsistency in the vid.
According to Roger Penrose the universe started with the Big Bang, and there was actually a universe already existing before it and the Big Bang was merely the end of that universe.
Who defined all the interactions, and the parameters, and who set that thing up? Also as said in the video, if the universe was in an endless cycle, we would have never gotten here.
Scientist themselves have already shot down that argument. They determined that the universe does not have enough mass to ever contract, so there is no cyclical Big Bang. The Big Bang we see is, therefore, the only one - which means it had a beginning.
@@BlisterBang A further problem with cyclic universe scenarios is entropy. How come we are in a state of high entropy if the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies across the chain of universes, as we would expect?
These are the best objections to the Kalam argument: It is counter-intuitive, but not logically impossible, that the universe has a potentially infinite linear past. It is not logically impossible for the universe to have a circulatory infinite past. So everything would repeat itself. The argument could just as easily lead to a pantheistic or Spinozistic universe (God would be identical with nature), that is, to something that the traditional Christian finds somewhat atheistic. A dimensionless simplicity or singularity would extend itself to the four-dimensional universe. "Even if valid, the first-cause argument is capable only of demonstrating the existence of a mysterious first cause in the distant past. It does not establish the present existence of the first cause. On the basis of this argument, there is no reason to assume that the first cause still exists - which cuts the ground from any attempt to demonstrate the truth of theism by this approach." (George H. Smith - Atheism. The Case Against God) "Indeed, why should God not be the originator and now no longer exist? After all, a mother causes a child but then dies." (Peter Cole - Philosophy of Religion) The cosmological argument only leads to a poor tautology: the ultimate cause is the ultimate cause.
William Lane Craig's discussion with CosmicSkeptic about the Kalam Cosmological Argument was my one of the most insightful and decent criticisms that I have watched so far.
"It's counterintuitive, but it's not logically impossible" What logic are you talking about? classic? dialectic? intuitionist? fuzzy? Free? quantum? If it's classical, what basis do you have other than intuition to ensure classical logic is correct? Furthermore, the falsehood of 2+2=4 is not logically impossible either. The first cause doesn't corrupt (corruption, destruction, degeneration and annihilation are typical of matter and time), so it's hard to think that it can cease to exist.
If the past were infinite the present wouldn't have arrived because it would be preceded by infinite events. Then space, matter and time began to exist and their cause must be beyond space, matter and time and extremely powerful. Did that help?
Al-Ghazali was Muslim, I hope you now view Islam a bit more differently that what you used to due to your corrupt media. There’s no rift that separates between us Jews, Christians and Muslims we all worship the same unchanging, eternal Creator who brought the Universe into being, we simply differ concerning the view of Christ.
There are two kinds of beginning: beginning of change and beginning of existence. You can prove that there had to be a beginning of change, but something had to be there at the initial state. If it can be God, why couldn't it also be the entire universe? Just saying that the past is finite doesn't prove that the universe ever didn't exist.
The beginning of change of the universe is enough to prove the existence of God Good remark from your side in the difference between beginning of change and beginning of existence. Al Ghazaly did address this problem in his book ( The Moderation in belief) He argues that an eternal can't change, the universe did change, then the universe is not eternal . Others argued that the action of the will of God is temporal, The universe is from the will of God, the the universe is not eternal Other theologians argue that contingent beings can't be eternal, and the universe is contingent I like to say that the physical quantities we use to describe the universe such as energy or mass have no meaning in the absence of time ( mass is related to inertia related to time , energy related to force related to momentum related to time ). So we can't describe the universe with something not time dependent in its essence. That will lead to say that an eternal universe has no meaningful essence
@@dakyion That's interesting. None of the arguments you mention seems plausible. The way I see it, if you want to argue for God from the beginning of change, you'd have to argue that only conscious agency can cause change, and also that the initial state could only have one conscious agent if you want monotheism. But the initial state, whatever it was, was not caused in any way so how could there be any reasons one could argue that it _had_ to be one way or another? To your last point, I'd just say that descriptions are not reality. If "we" can't describe the universe a certain way, that would say nothing at all about the true nature of matter.
@@petromax4849 The initial state if assumed eternal must have a cause because it's contingent and not necessary This cause in this case is not temporal. And if you deny non temporal causes , that what theologians have said to deny that the universe has eternal existence In the atomistic view of theologians, the "atoms" must have a state of movement or rest to be considered existing otherwise there is no differentbetweenthem and mathematical points or points of abstract space which are not consideredexisting, so the initial state of the supposed eternal universe is not moving nor in rest So that state can't describe an existing matter! For the arguments that mentioned in the comment above , they are not detailed, the details with answers of problems are mentioned in specialized books !
@@dakyion The initial state by definition is before any change has occurred, so it cannot be caused. "Non-temporal cause" sounds like an oxymoron, honestly, or at best an unsupportable speculation. There doesn't need to be a reason for the first state being what it was, since nothing came before to make it that way. There could be no change to be caused before the first change. Of course the initial state is at rest. What else could it possibly be? That has to be true whether you thing the initial state included all currently existing things, or just God. There had to be _something_ that existed before any change. I don't see why that would have to be a god. Arguments based on the concepts of "contingent" and "necessary" don't work because those are artificial categories. Whatever was in the initial state, no matter what it was, wouldn't be contingent, would it?
The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not have a god/creator as it's conclusion. In it's entirety the argument is: 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2) The universe began to exist. 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. The conclusion is the universe had a cause. Any use of the Kalam argument beyond the 2 premises and the conclusion presented here is NOT the Kalam Argument.
This subject brings us to whether God was Eternal in the past or Timeless without creation ( sans Creation ). If all there was was God and He decided that He would create, then from the point of God thinking about creating to Him actually creating, requires the process of time. Namely, because God actually creating something is in God’s Future ( from the point where He is only thinking about creating ). And the future requires time. This means that it is logically incoherent to say that God was Timeless.
"God was eternal in the past". God IS eternal. The term "past" isnt relevant. You're assuming that God thought about creating. God brought the universe into existence at the same time that time began. God didnt exist temporally prior to the universe. He existed logically prior to it.
@@TheMirabillis You saying my position is wrong doesnt make it so. If an all powerful being, who is not subject to time and knows all things, exists, then why would such a being need to deliberate? Furthermore, you are conflating our existence, in time, with an atemporal being's existence outside of time. There is no way we temporal beings can imagine, explain or understand that.
@@TheMirabillis This is like me asking you if you stopped doing drugs this week? Yes or no? Its called a loaded question fallacy. Please tell me what the definition of time is.
This philosophical version has always been the most powerful to my thinking (although admittedly, what convices one individual person is subjective). When I was not a Christian and was following a type of "New Spirituality" the reality of time and the fact of the present moment haunted me and was used by God to help me see the logical need for God's existence. Thank you for these excellent resources as always.
Thanks for sharing that brief testimony. It illustrates to me that it is not one thing that brings us to faith in God.
@@JamesKimSynergize Thank you. Yet, thankfully He knows what each one of us needs (if we are at least willing) and meets us where we are.
@@terryhollifield9343 I share some of the same having been an agnostic.
@@JamesKimSynergize Glad to be in the family with you.
Thank imam alghazali and kalam science
Can we appreciate al ghazali for his wisdom
No. He was Muslim.
😁🤣😁
@@karlmuud I mean come on bruh, even tho I m as a muslim definitely. At least in here we are agree there s a God.
He made islam a pretty oppressive religion and is a reason for the horror today. So he has negative as well
@@suzaneoriordan4366 how did Ghazali do that?
@@ykn08001 he made a division of religion and philosophy and disregarded Aristotle's work, which is probably a reason for the violence for in islam today
Makes sense. Actual infinities would lead to contradictions. For example, an infinitely dense planet would be condensed into a sphere with a radius zero, i.e. it would not exist.
@mystix Zero volume means thing doesn't exist. Otherwise, there is no infinite density.
Black holes don't have infinite density at the center.
@mystix black holes only have a super highly density, yet it cannot reach the realm of infinity
In the drcraig video on the Leibniz' Contingency Argument, it says numbers exist necessarily. However, in this video it says numbers don't exist. I am confused.
@@hsingh5650 Provide times in both videos where he says what you claim. Nobody is going to re-watch both videos again.
@@les2997 th-cam.com/video/FPCzEP0oD7I/w-d-xo.html
Go to 2 mins 22 seconds
I'm not afraid to admit that I wept when I viewed this video. Such an eloquent explanation. This also helps me defend my faith against an increasing amount of people who want to tear it down.
Thank to al gazali and wiliam l craige
eloquency doesnt prove anything. logic and observation does.
@@matswessling6600Can you justify materialism or atheism in the face of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? (Which you didn't attempt to refute.)
@@Johnny-mz9ot "materialism"? why bother with "materialism"? The important thing is to separate out what information that good evidence from the bad information.
Khalam Cosmological argument doesnt provide any information so it is useless.
And the argument in itself is faulty
1) everything that begins to exist has a cause.
i say that nothing that really begins to exist has a cause. Why? because most things are just rearrangenets of atoms and doesnt really "begin to exist". only things that seems to "begin to exist" are virtual particles and they are notoriously uncaused.
And it also fails in another way: everything we see are things that folliws the laws inside the universe. We know nothing about the laws outside the universe and they are the laws that guides how the universe began.
so first statement of Kalam is not necessarily true and thus we dont have to care about the rest.
Nice video. Fortunately, I have an infinite number of points built up in the Hilbert Hotel Rewards Program, in case an infinite number of guests show up, I still get an upgrade.
0:08 So glad she said, "raises the question" instead of "begs the question."
Why?
@@ChristianSigma Eristic atheists nitpick Christians with the argument that there's nothing conscious there doing any 'begging'. Atheism is wrong, and they'll look for ANYTHING to hurl back at us.
Are u suggesting the argument begs the question? Why? In order for something to beg the question it should presoppouse it's conclusion in it's premises, but the argument doesn't do that: p1 is based on a priori intuitions wich don't presoppouse the idea that the universe has a cause in the slightest and p2 is based on scientific evidence and finitist philosophical arguments wich also don't presoppouse the universe has a cause.
@@yourfutureself3392 It doesn't have to be used as a fallacy term all the time.
@@allstar4065 if he's saying the argument begs the question, but he's not using the term "beg the question" in its actual definition and as a logical fallacy then there's nothing wrong with begging the question. It's like accusing someone if special pleading and then claiming that you're not using the term "special pleading" as a logical fallacy. It's useless, misleading, wrong (as that's not the word's actual definition), makes no actual criticism of the argument and doesn't provide anything substancial
الله يرحم مولانا الحجة الغزالي
Thanks for giving us this great video. It gives better ideas to explain things.
Great video! To me, Ghazali's second argument is easier to understand and explain to people, so I generally go with that one
Very helpful. I have struggled to explain the Hilbert hotel and this makes it’s much easier.
@TallestPiper
Yes, someone on Facebook pointed it out to me in support of an actual infinite past and not understanding it exactly, I felt I had to defend my point of view against it. Not knowing that it's meant to show the absurdity of actual infinities.
This video disproves evolution. Not sure if that was the intended purpose. For anything infinite to exist. There would need to be a Creator of infinite solutions. When the proposed odd number of rooms appeared, most would hopefully ha e recognized, a negative solution is still a valid infinite possibility.
Nothing created nothing destroyed. The empty rooms simply become a negative potential. God has a universe created by laws and mechanisms we can't see the design of the mechanisms, but we see the existence that it is built upon.
For example, *evil* . We do not see evil beings, but we see the effects of evil doers.
Been waiting for a video version of the phislosophical argument for premise 2 of Kalam Cosmological argument.
@@abashedsanctimony154 We see evil, these are the satanic pedofile demons that rules the media's.
I really love these animated videos. PLEASE KEEP IT UP!
I enjoy the simplicity & depth of Dr.Craig's work.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not have a god/creator as it's conclusion.
In it's entirety the argument is:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The conclusion is the universe had a cause.
Any use of the Kalam argument beyond the 2 premises and the conclusion presented here is NOT the Kalam Argument.
Simple, yes, deep, no. The reasoning is atrocious.
@@TXLogic I don't find his reasoning atrocious at all. Care to explain why you think it is?
That was excellently explained. The philosophical implications of infinity does present logical difficulties for those who propose a universe that has always been in existence.
God has offered rationality in the underpinnings of the creation that exists today and it is those who humbly and intellectually seek it find the wisdom and reason which holds the grounds of our existence. I hope more people would come to terms with this. And I pray that more Christians would be on a pursuit of the wonders of the cosmos in light of the Lord Himself.
Great job here, Reasonable Faith! May God bless your ministry all the more for Godʼs glory and the good of His people.
May Allah bless Al Ghazali for writing the cosmological argument
but your salafistes kafarouhou..
@@majukanumi9639?
Superb! Well Done!
4:06 that sounded really cool
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God. It originated in medieval Islamic theology and was developed by Muslim philosophers such as al-Ghazali and al-Farabi. The argument goes as follows:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The cause is then argued to be a necessary, uncaused, timeless, and spaceless being, which is identified as God. The argument is based on the idea that the universe had a finite beginning and that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Proponents of the Kalam Cosmological Argument argue that the cause of the universe must be an uncaused, eternal being, since it cannot be caused by something that came into existence after it.
There are several criticisms of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, including the following:
The first premise - that everything that begins to exist has a cause - has been challenged by some philosophers and scientists. They argue that the cause-and-effect relationship only applies to things within the universe, and that it is not necessarily applicable to the universe as a whole.
The second premise - that the universe began to exist - is based on the standard Big Bang model of cosmology, which is still a matter of scientific debate and not a proven fact. Some philosophers and scientists argue that the Big Bang theory does not necessarily imply a beginning of the universe, and that alternative models, such as the cyclic model or the emergent model, are possible.
The conclusion that the cause of the universe must be an uncaused, eternal being is not logically necessary. There could be other explanations for the cause of the universe, such as a natural cause or a multiverse.
The identification of the cause of the universe as God is not logically necessary. The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not prove the existence of a personal deity with specific attributes, but only the existence of a necessary, uncaused being.
In conclusion, the Kalam Cosmological Argument has faced numerous criticisms and objections, and its validity as a proof for the existence of God is still the subject of ongoing philosophical and scientific debate.
Excellent videos on the philosophical basis for God. No argument will convince those who don't want to consider it, but at least this prevents those undecided people, especially the young, for being so quick to decide that atheism is the only way.
4:06 This one gave me a Transformers vibe, ngl.
Thank you for making this video. God bless.
This indeed is a very strong argument for the presence/existence of a Divine Being.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not have a god/creator as it's conclusion.
In it's entirety the argument is:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The conclusion is the universe had a cause.
Any use of the Kalam argument beyond the 2 premises and the conclusion presented here is NOT the Kalam Argument.
Excellent. I defend this argument in Christian Apologetics. See also J.P. Moreland's treatment in Scaling the Secular City.
I am going to use this in my apologetic class.
amen
You should also check out Grim Reaper paradoxes, they are even more effective since they lead to direct contradictions. Compared to some of the other paradoxes we have, Hilbert’s Hotel is one of the weaker ones!
Rationality Rules gives some interesting talks on the Grim Reaper paradox in a video with CC.
@@vaskaventi6840 See Methusaleh's Diary paradoxes and the problem of vicious circularity as well, as defended in Andrew Loke's new book. I think there are at least five sound philosophical arguments for premise 2, and that's not even getting into the scientific support :)
Great work Dr Craig.
God bless you.
Thank Dr Craig and thank al gazali
I LOVE THESE VIDEOS!! thank you Dr. Craig!
Animated videos sure do help guys like me. Lord knows that's the only way I can understand things.
This is a really good quality video, the voice work and art work is very nice!
Al Ghazali is very genius
i really love this channel, it gave me easier explanation on God, GBU from Indonesia
This is terrific!
Let's talk about the Bible next and why it is one of the most historically accurate texts in existence. There are so many reasons it would be hard to put it in a 6 minute video.
simpatico ideale
Dio vi benedica
Yeah, he should do one on the Pauline epistles, one on the gospels, and maybe get a colleague to help him with the major prophets, psalms, proverbs.
Perfectly said Christian Brother
Quran is tbf
What do you mean by "historically accurate?" No historical errors regarding historical dates, places, people, events, etc? Please explain, I'm not understanding how you would make/support such a claim. Not saying it can't be true. Just why do you believe that.?
May God bless this apologist . She is so smart ❤ i am amazed
Me encantó. Muchas gracias Profesor Craig. 🙂❤✌
Great job, does help explain the Hilberts Hotel which I have always struggled with as not noted by others, I love the philosophical evidences even if they are sometimes hard to get your head around.
Thanks Dr. Craig; I thought the world was ending at 6:03 because I had my subwoofer on LOL.
The temporal world would end, an eternal world would begin...
awesome infographic video very illustrative
Awesome as usual! I prefer the scientific version, though. I think it appeals to modern Americans better than the philosophical version.
How about a video on how we got the Bible and why it is trustworthy?
Science exists on top of philosophy.
@@les2997 But Tim is right, modern Americans prefer scientific videos to philosophical videos. OBviously, this philosophical defense is even better than the first video.
@@prime_time_youtube si
And so the intellectual argument demands the question of who created God [i.e.The creator of the Universe--which according to this argument must have had a beginning] And then we are led to who created the God who created the God? And then we have no choice but to struggle with who created the creator of God. And so on. Intellectual honesty.
The Kalam argument itself only asserts that whatever has a beginning has a cause. If time began at the creation of the universe, then the cause would transcend time and therefore lack a beginning. See our video on the Leibnizian Argument from Contingency for an argument concluding that the cause of the universe is itself uncaused.
Love the illustrations.
Al Kindi also used some of the arguments in this video. Al-Kindi also stated that the universe and time are created.
1. We don’t know if something can from nothing
2. We don’t know if the universe always existed
3. We don’t know what it means to say a mind can think outside of time
Those are good questions; one way to arrive at an answer would be to employ one of several standards, including a "high degree of certainty", or "beyond a reasonable doubt"; notice that I'm not asking for s standard of evidence that is or even approaches 100%. With this in mind, it appears one can reasonably state "something cannot come from nothing". On #2, I think it's a safe argument to say the universe, at least in it's present form, cannot have always existed..
To all the atheist youtubers who will respond and nitpick at this video, keep this in mind:
This video is a broad summary of a variety of arguments that attempts to express them in layman’s terms. It is meant to get the idea across to someone who is at the level of a high school student or so. There are much more rigorous and precise defenses of these arguments, so if you want to respond to the arguments for premise 2, please address some of the more advanced defenses, since they generally address the issues one has with the broad video summary.
You can't have your cake and eat it. You shouldnt produce a video if you are going to shut out people. Unless you don't want people to respond unless it's 'praise' 🤦
@@interestingreligion5204 He is not shutting out people, but only giving a heads-up to this and there is nothing wrong with that.
@@steelcarnivore8390 the tone and texture of a message can be easily miscommunicated. I'm easily fooled into the wrong assumption.
@@interestingreligion5204 Then smarten up and don't be easily fooled bruv ;)
@@heartfeltteaching I can't and I am unsure if this is a serious post or a tongue in cheek response. 😜
Yeah thanks Dr. Craig!!!
I’m confused how the number of past events being finite automatically means the universe began to exist? I can understand how a finite past points to the beginning of matter and energy since they are constantly changing, but how does a finite past point to the beginning of space and time?
Didnt you read the cosmo arguments everythings has a cause
The causal principle is not “everything has a cause.” It’s “everything that begins to exist has a cause.” Indeed, if the universe (all of space, time, matter, and energy) began to exist, it has a cause, but I’m asking how does the number of past events being finite imply that space and time began to exist?
@@anonymoushuman3657 well if time always existed the universe would need to be eternal which is not the cause since eternal past would mean today could never be reached. Its like this dominos fall forever and u expect the last to fall
@@anonymoushuman3657 are you hearing yourself
"I’m confused how the number of past events being finite automatically means the universe began to exist?" - This is necessarily entailed. Since the universe is a temporal object, and since time had a beginning, the universe must have had a beginning too.
Fantastic video! Thank you so much
This is awesome. Please translate this Part 2 into Spanish 😩
People say there can't be an infinite, but if the athiestic worldview is correct, how long does death last?
potentially forever, but you will never reach forever
I would imagine infinity could/would exist as long as moving with the direction of time. If we have a beginning, there is no necessity for an end. As long as creation is possible, it could continue creating for eternity. Correct?
Alhamdulillah....
"knowing" something intuitively is not actually "knowing", it is a feeling.
Intuitively. "Adverb. by means of direct perception, an instinctive inner sense, or gut feeling rather than rational thought:They've been married so long, they know intuitively how best to support each other."
We still don't "know" the universe began to exist, at best, we can say it might have begun as we know it at some point in the past.
But even if we fully accept it had a creator, all we have done regarding infinity, is kick the can down the road, because what created the creator, or the creators creator?
And none of this can point to a god until we have evidence for gods.
Suppose you say "God came into existence at "T = n", well how could he? Because he has always preceded n such that n is any number e.g. imagine you think "God was created at 13.8 billion years ago" - well how can he? He's timeless meaning that for any moment of time you think he's created he's existed prior to that time and this goes for any time. You probably think God is a material object.
God is self-existent and couldn't have been created because there's no time at which he could have been created. If you're an immaterial, changeless, spaceless entity you can exist timelessly at the very moment of creation. E.g. suppose the cause of water freezing is the temperature being below 0° if the temperature has always been below 0° then any water left-over would be perpetually frozen. Why would there ever be a change to this timeless water without these external conditions changing?
Now suppose a man has been sitting from eternity back, he may just will to stand up. In this case he is not confined to being perpetually in a state of sitting down because he can will something different. God does not change, he is not a physical entity.
@@andro8854 "God is self-existent" how do you "KNOW" that? How do you know there is a god, just saying that there is, does nothing to demonstrate any gods are really true. Until we see actual evidence for any gods, you can't just make a fact claim about your preferred god.
You are at best, presenting what you "feel" to be real, not what you know
@@Jimages_uk because of the arguments given by Dr Craig. If you're good at logic you can see it with a lot of confidence. They are valid, sound and very powerful. Watch debates between dr Craig and atheists or watch his talks.
The fact we can conceive of eternity as an idea, yet have always lived and known finite as creatures in a finite universe, means eternity exists, but not inside this realm, and yet, we somehow were able to conceive of it, which means we experienced it, or interacted with it.
The blind cannot conceive of sight, or colour. Likewise, we cannot think of new colours, only what we have already seen. We are ontological receivers, not projectors. Living in a finite universe, should by all means, cause us to be "blind" to the notion or idea of eternity. So eternity has somehow been "experienced" by us, or has been informed to us by something that in itself cannot be finite. Much like a sighted man telling a blind man about sight.
A finite Universe that births men who can conceive of infinity reveals his infinite origins or cause.
Awesome!
Billy is like, "Wow, the only thing stranger than all these believers making such a commotion over something so obvious as this little two premise syllogism is the non-believers who deny it."
@Paul Dubya So, you are actually saying that the whole universe literally came from absolute nothing? You're not even talking about little known types of reality like the quantum vacuum, quantum gravity, the no boundary proposal, etc?
@Paul Dubya Well, I don't see the error, but what's the loop model? Is that like Hawking's no boundary proposal? Is it a pre-big-bang, pre-time model?
OUTSTANDING VIDEO! PLEASE MAKE MORE
Excellent and informative video. The part where the vocal transitioned from the woman to the man was odd though. It sounded like a horror movie for a sec.
The Hilbert hotel is a great example of how maths and reality are not the same thing. Things that work in maths do not always work in real life.
1. If the universe needs a Cause to exist, why doesn't God?
2. If god can exist with out cause. Why can't the universe?
3. Aren't we taking the rules of the universe, applying them to a time before the universe, where they may not apply?
I asked the same question. I found an answer in philosophy. There is only one thing that can exist without a cause. Existence is the only thing that can exist of itself.
And logically, it has to be eternal. If there were a time when it did not exist, then nothing would.
@@Noahs_Crazy_Kid Well then that would mean that God would require a cause. At least, assuming that God is something that exists.
@@fanghur I apologize for not being clear. G-d ‘is’ existence. He is One and there is nothing else. That’s Existence.
@@Noahs_Crazy_Kid I'm sorry, but that is simply a nonsensical statement. Even under pantheism it is incorrect to say that God is conceptually identical to existence. It would simply be the case that there is only one fundamental thing IN existence, namely God.
This is metaphysics 101. There are two broad classes of entities that do not overlap. There are abstract entities and concepts, and there are concrete entities/objects. Existence is an abstract concept, whereas God, if there is one, is by definition a concrete entity, since it has causal powers.
Rules of universe are not applied to anything outside it. But if that is a cause then it must powerful.
Causes can be temporally prior to their effects and if this is true, then the kalam argument fails as an infinite past is generated. The statement for every event there is an temporally prior event that is its cause is logically consistent so an infinite past is logically posssible and metaphysically possible so long as it is metaphysically possible for causes to always be prior to their effects.
Is this a reupload? The Argument from Intelligent Design is IMO a more powerful argument then the Kalam
The arguments concerning the infinite in this video are so deeply confused and so profoundly misleading that I’m inclined to call them immoral, as I believe Craig himself knows better. They exploit *obvious* ambiguities (e.g., on what “full” means) to generate bogus “contradictions”. There is absolutely nothing contradictory about Hilbert’s Hotel and the “contradictions” the video claims are inherent in the infinite are easily explained by anyone with a basic knowledge of transfinite arithmetic.
Can you explain
Where is part 1 pls?
Here you go: th-cam.com/video/6CulBuMCLg0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=whqndO_mZ_ArJk3w. - RF Admin
I don't understand what actually number of past events mean? is it the movings of atoms? or the digits of time like second?
How would you prove that the cause was conscious though
I probably won't word it great but it goes something like this.... If the first cause was mindless then what would act as the catalyst for it to create? The first cause by necessity would have to possess perfect entropy, that is stability. WIthout the existence of another "cause," then there would be nothing to upset a mindless balance. It would never create. The only solution to this problem is a mind that can choose to create or not create. The cause of creation then is found within itself.
0:00 - 0:06 This is a false dichotomy. It is entirely possible that spacetime itself has only existed for a finite amount of time, but that the rest of the universe has existed for all time. In other words, it is entirely possible that the time axis is itself finite in length. So it could be the case that the universe has existed for a finite amount of time, but did not have a beginning. There is no contradiction here. One claim is about which time coordinates the universe has existed for, the other claim is about the length of the axis of which the time coordinates are elements of.
0:06 - 0:17 No. In part 1, you pretended to use science to support your claims, but completely misrepresented it and made false and baseless claims and tried to pass them off as scientific. I wrote an entire comment thread deconstructing the video and explaining how the science was misrepresented.
0:27 - 0:36 Yes, but he was wrong. He failed to account for the possibility above that I already explained: that if time itself is a set of points with finite length, then it is possible that the universe had no beginning, yet is finitely old. Something having a beginning has nothing to do with whether it has existed for a finite amount of time or a finite amount of time. It has to do with whether there existed a point in time prior to which the thing did not exist, and after which the thing did exist. If yes, then the thing in question has a beginning. If there is no point in time during which the thing did not exist, then it did not have a beginning, and this is true regardless of how long it has existed for. Al Ghazali did not realize this, because he made his arguments during a time when set theory and order theory were not well-understood.
0:36 - 0:45 It does not, and it is not.
0:46 - 1:28 There is no contradiction here. What does it mean for a hotel to be full? It means that that there is no room that is unoccupied. When you shift the guests of the hotal one room forward, the hotel becomes not full, because exactly one room is unoccupied. When the new guest fills the room, the hotel becomes full again. There is no logical contradiction here, because there is no point in time during which the hotel is full and not full at the same time. Nothing about the situation is absurd. The video fails to recognize that moving the guests to different rooms means that the hotel stopped being full.
1:29 - 2:09 Again, this objection makes the same mistake as in the previous situation: the video is assuming that the hotel stays full when you move the guests around the hotel. That is not the case. By moving the guests, the hotel becomes unfull. The fact that it can thus be filled with new guests is not an absurdity, just a mundane fact. If you start with a false assumption, then you get a false conclusion. Nothing surprising there.
2:09 - 2:25 What is absurd about that? There is nothing absurd about this. This is called Cantor's property. Cantor's property is the property that every infinite set has at least one proper subset that has the same cardinality as the original infinite set. In fact, we can know exactly how many subsets of a set have a given cardinality, and this includes the cardinality of the original set itself. The number is given by the generalized binomial coefficients, defined for cardinal numbers, finite and transfinite alike.
2:09 - 2:43 No. There is no logical contradiction here. The number of guests that left the hotel is the same for both scenarios, but the configuration of the rooms they occupied is different. Changing the configuration of the occupied rooms by moving guests in the hotel changes the properties of the hotel.
To be continued in the replies.
I agree with a lot of what you stated above, but it’s breath wasted here. The community around these videos won’t listen to anything unless it confirms what they already believe.
Absolutely marvellous!!!👍🤓
great video
Legend says it took them 8 years to find that audio clip
So cool! Very cool! Thank you!😎👍👍💥🎉
Thank you for such compelling evidence of GOD of the Universe who makes all things and things are established just as He decares in His WORD.
The WORD of GOD is the TRUTH.
HALLELUJAH 🙏
Love this!!!!!!!!
So the common atheist rebuttal is to say that "but then how is God infinite in existence". I understand god was the supposed first cause that didn't begin exist to exist but he still had to exist eternally which faces the infinity paradox
God is certainly difficult to understand. One of the big problems for us is when we try to define God using the rules of our universe. The definition of 'Eternal' absolutely depends on time. But since God created time, He's certainly not bound it. God does not have to exist 'eternally'; it is wrong to force Him into any universe rule that He, Himself, created.
The infinity this argument is facing is a quantitive infinite and the infinity that is part of God's attribute is a qualitative.
@@jean1785 The claim suggests not to think of God as what came before him or how long he exists. We are using space-time in that case which is a thing within our universe and not beyond it.
If there are an infinite number of rooms, they can never all be full, because an infinite number or other rooms are available an infinite number of times.
Hasn't been disproved in a 1000 years.
I'll do it now. We don't have any example of something coming into existence. Therefore we cannot tell whether something that come into existence must have a cause or not. Done.
This comment came into existence.
@@piage84 Surely this in not intended to be a serious argument. At least try to keep your arguments within context. He is talking about objects that weren't there before and now they are. Things that meet this definition happen thousands, maybe millions of times per day right here on Earth. Cars, coney dogs, microprocessors - ALL of these things alone come into existence and have a cause. So much for '[nothing has come] into existence'. "I'll do it now" - no you won't. "Done" - hardly.
My neighbour has an explanation for the origin of the universe.
He is a Hindu. Should I love him ?
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._*
And here is the evidence as to why I currently hold to such a position.
1. I personally have never observed a god.
2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god.
3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists.
5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises.
6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
9. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable.
ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god.
I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
Sadly Theo you are casting your pearls before swine on this website LOL
You might as well be talking to a brick wall.
@Eddie Crume By "observe" I mean to perceive, notice, or examine (a phenomenon).
@Eddie Crume I am responding to your comment one issue at a time. You have made the _claim_ that this god you've mention is metaphysical. Are you claiming that this god is not real?
@Eddie CrumeI'm not sure I'm getting your drift here Eddie. Are you refuting the atheists stance?
Also its perfectly rational to be skeptical of ALL claims without substantiation. Otherwise you could accept any old nonsense
And of course atheism has no burden of prove at all. It makes no claims required to be proven. It just says I don't believe there is God - because there is not enough evidence.
Whereas a theists makes all sorts of claims that he needs to substantiate with evidence.
And BTW, even though we can't see gravity, we can prove it exists every time we drop something. You know that I think.
God is Metaphysical-OK-how can we observe his effects? Its a non sequitur.
As for Theo's 5 - show us a Philosopher who has proven the existence of a God. There isn't one. And if you think you can - congratulations - go collect your Nobel Prize! LOL
My conclusion is the same as Theo's. No God exists.
Take care my man.
@@theoskeptomai2535 Your point 1 is a point that suggests that you only treat things as truth that you observe. Am I right? Do you 100% follow that?
Numbers arent infinite because they have a beginning. Even if you start counting backwards in a negative sense, how can you remove from something that doesn't exist? Even if you owe, you owe what?
I do need to understand better this argument.
Do anyone know any book that explain easily this argument?
For example, if an actual infinity can't exist, what about God existing infinitely in time?
I don't understand a lot about this.
That is exactly my concern. What's the infinite standout of God.
@@mmachuenemaloba5594Well, God can be an actual infinity, but not a material infinity. Just an object that can change is inside time. Because it has potentials. A universe, can't exist forever, because it should be changing infinitely an so on. But God is unchangeable, there is no other potential for Him. So If there is no chance, there is not an infinite amount of changes in Him, nor seconds, because time is not a thing for unchangeable beings.
According to this vid, the Kalam leads to a timeless God. God, as proved by this argument (if sound) isn't temporally infinite. He doesn't exist for an actually infinite amount of time. In fact, he exists for no time at all. He doesn't exist for any amount of time. The arguments in support of p2 (if sound) rule out the possibility of God existing for an actually infinite amount of time, because the arguments try to prove an infinitely long amount of time is logically impossible. Even temporalist conceptions of God can reject that God exists for an infinite amount of time.
God being outside the limits of space and time makes him infinite and limitless.
Proposing that infinity is absurd because it is incomprehensible and at the same time accepting an incomprehensible creator of the universe is at least suspicious. If you insist that reality should be within what the human mind can understand be consistent.
The argument isn't that infinity is absurd because it is incomprehensible. It's that the properties of the concept of quantitative infinity *are* understood and result in absurdities if instantiated in reality. Thus, a universe with an actually infinite past would lead to absurdities and therefore cannot be real.
Also, when we speak of God as being "infinite" we're not talking about a quantitative infinite, but a qualitative one, having his properties to the maximal degree. A mundane example would be water with maximal purity. Any quantity of water can be maximally pure if it is without contaminants. So, there's nothing logically incoherent about an infinite God, so long as we're using infinity in the qualitative sense. - RF Admin
This infinite hotel thought experiment only shows that anything countable must be finite. But who claims that an infinite time has countable events? It is not an ad absurdum as the proposition of infinite events does not also state that the events are countable. If you can imagine an infinite number of events in the future, i.e. Uncountable events in the future, and that is not absurd, the same holds for the past.
As for the domino analogy: it is begging the question.
That thing you said about the infinite events in the future isn't true. There is a difference between potential infinites and actual infinites. You should watch the talk Lane craig had with cosmic skeptic. They talked about that
The vid actually adresses your first argument. If the past is infinite, then there was enough time to make an infinite hotel if a room per year was added and all those contradictions would be possible. That's the response given in the vid.
Alhamdulillah
Isn't an argument against infitinity the best argument against god? An argument against infinite would mean that god can't be infinite and therefore the first cause argument also falls apart since god is not infinite himself.
Also what about set theory?
why people hate philosophy so much? I think the smartest people are philosophers.
I agree with you. They are very intelligent 👌
Is a black hole a potential infinite or an actual infinite?
Honest question I have is: if God is imaterial, hence it has no matter, no format, no substance, or one can say it simply didn come to be, how could he have created man "on his own image", since he had to image?
He is not an image in His absolute being. But the whole creation containing His virtues. Man is a collection of those virtues at one point.
great work, thank you
So, if I am to understand this correctly, you're saying that God and the big bang are one in the same? I'm trying to wrap my head around this.
No, the argument is that God is the cause of the Universe. The big bang is a theory to explain the past history of the universe up to its beginning (or back to its beginning if you like). The big bang theory says nothing about what caused the universe to begin to exist, only that it did begin to exist.
The fact that we intuitivly think that what begins needs a cause doesn't mean that it is true that all that begins needs a cause.
U say the universe can't cause itself bc in order to do that it should exist before itself. What u are suggesting is that something must be temporally previous to something else in order to cause it. Therefore, God should be temporally previous to the universe in order to cause it. However, God can't be temporally previous to the beggining of the universe bc the beggining of the universe is the beggining of time. And if u claim that it's not neccesary to be temporally previous to something in order to cause it, then ur argument against the the universe causing itself doesn't work.
The claim is that God is beyond space-time. So God can be after, before and present. It is a little hard to think as such.
A temporal time creation is still a cause even if outside of time. For example, a photon exists for us when it leaves the sun and reaches our eye in around 8 minutes. Relatively, speaking that is an illusion right? At least to a photon, as for it there is no time. It's instantaneous (even that is hard to define as there is no real instant unless measured against a clock, which the photon can't by itself). Only we measure it as we are within space-time. Therefore, the question is: can an object exist beyond space-time? The photon does exist in manner of speaking, at least for us. Was it caused? Yes, as in the example that I mentioned, it came from the Sun.
@@bkhan19 hello! Thanks for the response. It's pretty good. However, the fact that God is timeless doesn't mean he can be temporally previous to the beggining of time. Nothing can be temporally previous to the beggining of time by definition. Even WLC and others claim that the moment of creation is an example of simultanous causation. That's why many proponents of the Kalam defend simultanous causation. If simultanous causation is impossible, then the cause of the universe should be temporally previous to the beggining of time. Given that nothing can be temporally previous to the beggining of time, the cause of the universe must be temporally simultanous. Even most proponents of the Kalam agree with what I'm saying. God could be logically or causally prior to the moment of creation, but not temporally prior. I don't think the photon analogy is a good one. Even if timeless things could be caused that doesn't clear out the contradiction of claiming the universe can't cause itself because it can't be temporally prior to itself but then claim that God, who isn't temporally prior to the universe, caused the universe.
@your future self Thanks for reading!
I would suggest to think again on your meaning of atemporal or in simple terms something without relation to time.
You are mentioning 'temporarlly prior'. What does that mean? Temporal means within Space-Time. 'Prior/Post' to it is illogical as we are in Space-Time. Perhaps you are suggesting something before our Universe and after it. That again is outside of Space-Time or timen as we know it.
Again, think of the photon as when it exists within our Universe it is temporal for us. But to itself it is not.
Think of a Universe made only of Light aka photons. You would never be able to know what the age of the Universe is. It will exist but independent of proper time as there is no quantum fluctuation (in simple terms, no energy variance). No energy variance, means no variable excitation of the photons, meaning no difference of motion, which means no change in energy state, which means no new particle with mass forming, which means no relativity, which means no proper time. But there would be light. It exists.
Now if there is even one variant excitation within that light it can only be a measure relative to the previous state. Suddenly we have difference. But even if it did happen the cause was still atemporal. It was not fixed in time but it was what led to the excitation. That is why the term 'cause'.
I do understand your grief is with God and creation as that requires Space Time. Yes, when the Universe starts aka the Big Bang happens Space-Time forms, so the creation act is within time. But Only for our Space Time. We are still trying to figure ours out, let alone fathom what is the beyond and within (blackholes?). However, the cause, just as a photon's formation, does not require Time. It can be non temporal.
@@bkhan19 i think you slightly misunderstood my point, tho maybe i wasn't so clear. I wasn't criticizing the concept of creation itself or timelessness. I was critizicing an inconsistency in the vid about causality. WLC claims that the universe can't cause itself because that would mean it is temporally prior to itself, wich would break the law of non-contradiction. So what he's claiming is that causes are temporally prior to their effects. If he accepts that causes don't need to be temporally prior to their effects then he should accept that the universe could have caused itself. However, if this line of reasoning is accepted, then the universe must be uncaused, because, given that there is no time before the universe, nothing can be temporally prior to the universe and cause it. If one accepts that causes don't need to be temporally previous to their effects then the universe doesn't need to be temporally previous to itself in order to cause itself. If simultanous causation is impossible (if causes must be temporally prior to their effects) then the universe is uncaused because nothing is temporally prior to the universe and if simultanous causation is possible then WLC's argument to prove the universe couldn't have caused itself fails. This isn't about creation requiring time, about timeless things not having temporal effects or about causation being neccesarly temporal. This is about an inconsistency in the vid.
According to Roger Penrose the universe started with the Big Bang, and there was actually a universe already existing before it and the Big Bang was merely the end of that universe.
Who defined all the interactions, and the parameters, and who set that thing up?
Also as said in the video, if the universe was in an endless cycle, we would have never gotten here.
@@F4CTZV si roger penrose just repeats the past eternal universe stuff in another manner
@@Romailjohn What was the genesis of _those_ interactions, actions, parameters, etc...? How far back are we going here?
Scientist themselves have already shot down that argument. They determined that the universe does not have enough mass to ever contract, so there is no cyclical Big Bang. The Big Bang we see is, therefore, the only one - which means it had a beginning.
@@BlisterBang A further problem with cyclic universe scenarios is entropy. How come we are in a state of high entropy if the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies across the chain of universes, as we would expect?
These are the best objections to the Kalam argument:
It is counter-intuitive, but not logically impossible, that the universe has a potentially infinite linear past.
It is not logically impossible for the universe to have a circulatory infinite past. So everything would repeat itself.
The argument could just as easily lead to a pantheistic or Spinozistic universe (God would be identical with nature), that is, to something that the traditional Christian finds somewhat atheistic. A dimensionless simplicity or singularity would extend itself to the four-dimensional universe.
"Even if valid, the first-cause argument is capable only of demonstrating the existence of a mysterious first cause in the distant past. It does not establish the present existence of the first cause. On the basis of this argument, there is no reason to assume that the first cause still exists - which cuts the ground from any attempt to demonstrate the truth of theism by this approach." (George H. Smith - Atheism. The Case Against God)
"Indeed, why should God not be the originator and now no longer exist? After all, a mother causes a child but then dies." (Peter Cole - Philosophy of Religion)
The cosmological argument only leads to a poor tautology: the ultimate cause is the ultimate cause.
William Lane Craig's discussion with CosmicSkeptic about the Kalam Cosmological Argument was my one of the most insightful and decent criticisms that I have watched so far.
"It's counterintuitive, but it's not logically impossible"
What logic are you talking about? classic? dialectic? intuitionist? fuzzy? Free? quantum?
If it's classical, what basis do you have other than intuition to ensure classical logic is correct? Furthermore, the falsehood of 2+2=4 is not logically impossible either.
The first cause doesn't corrupt (corruption, destruction, degeneration and annihilation are typical of matter and time), so it's hard to think that it can cease to exist.
@@caiomateus4194 I did not claim that the arguments are convincing, only that they are the best.
can someone explain this to me even more simpler?
Lololololololol
If the past were infinite the present wouldn't have arrived because it would be preceded by infinite events. Then space, matter and time began to exist and their cause must be beyond space, matter and time and extremely powerful.
Did that help?
@@yourfutureself3392 yes thank you
Cause of anything is beyond it.
Al Ghazali was a G
Truth is beautiful; especially the truth about God.
3:32 reminded me of "Doctor Who." Anyone else?
Al-Ghazali was Muslim, I hope you now view Islam a bit more differently that what you used to due to your corrupt media. There’s no rift that separates between us Jews, Christians and Muslims we all worship the same unchanging, eternal Creator who brought the Universe into being, we simply differ concerning the view of Christ.
Wahhabipig movement almost destroyed Islamic traditions
This video trains my brain
There are two kinds of beginning: beginning of change and beginning of existence. You can prove that there had to be a beginning of change, but something had to be there at the initial state. If it can be God, why couldn't it also be the entire universe? Just saying that the past is finite doesn't prove that the universe ever didn't exist.
The beginning of change of the universe is enough to prove the existence of God
Good remark from your side in the difference between beginning of change and beginning of existence.
Al Ghazaly did address this problem in his book ( The Moderation in belief)
He argues that an eternal can't change, the universe did change, then the universe is not eternal .
Others argued that the action of the will of God is temporal,
The universe is from the will of God, the the universe is not eternal
Other theologians argue that contingent beings can't be eternal, and the universe is contingent
I like to say that the physical quantities we use to describe the universe such as energy or mass have no meaning in the absence of time ( mass is related to inertia related to time , energy related to force related to momentum related to time ). So we can't describe the universe with something not time dependent in its essence. That will lead to say that an eternal universe has no meaningful essence
@@dakyion That's interesting. None of the arguments you mention seems plausible. The way I see it, if you want to argue for God from the beginning of change, you'd have to argue that only conscious agency can cause change, and also that the initial state could only have one conscious agent if you want monotheism. But the initial state, whatever it was, was not caused in any way so how could there be any reasons one could argue that it _had_ to be one way or another?
To your last point, I'd just say that descriptions are not reality. If "we" can't describe the universe a certain way, that would say nothing at all about the true nature of matter.
@@petromax4849
The initial state if assumed eternal must have a cause because it's contingent and not necessary
This cause in this case is not temporal.
And if you deny non temporal causes , that what theologians have said to deny that the universe has eternal existence
In the atomistic view of theologians, the "atoms" must have a state of movement or rest to be considered existing otherwise there is no differentbetweenthem and mathematical points or points of abstract space which are not consideredexisting, so the initial state of the supposed eternal universe is not moving nor in rest
So that state can't describe an existing matter!
For the arguments that mentioned in the comment above , they are not detailed, the details with answers of problems are mentioned in specialized books !
@@dakyion The initial state by definition is before any change has occurred, so it cannot be caused. "Non-temporal cause" sounds like an oxymoron, honestly, or at best an unsupportable speculation. There doesn't need to be a reason for the first state being what it was, since nothing came before to make it that way. There could be no change to be caused before the first change.
Of course the initial state is at rest. What else could it possibly be? That has to be true whether you thing the initial state included all currently existing things, or just God. There had to be _something_ that existed before any change. I don't see why that would have to be a god.
Arguments based on the concepts of "contingent" and "necessary" don't work because those are artificial categories. Whatever was in the initial state, no matter what it was, wouldn't be contingent, would it?
great philospher
The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not have a god/creator as it's conclusion.
In it's entirety the argument is:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The conclusion is the universe had a cause.
Any use of the Kalam argument beyond the 2 premises and the conclusion presented here is NOT the Kalam Argument.
My brain is steaming.
Filipino version please! for better understanding.
Surprised they're allowing comments! Hello to Nel the narrator. :)
When a philosopher meets a video creator
This subject brings us to whether God was Eternal in the past or Timeless without creation ( sans Creation ).
If all there was was God and He decided that He would create, then from the point of God thinking about creating to Him actually creating, requires the process of time. Namely, because God actually creating something is in God’s Future ( from the point where He is only thinking about creating ). And the future requires time.
This means that it is logically incoherent to say that God was Timeless.
"God was eternal in the past".
God IS eternal. The term "past" isnt relevant.
You're assuming that God thought about creating. God brought the universe into existence at the same time that time began. God didnt exist temporally prior to the universe. He existed logically prior to it.
@@MarkNOTW On your position, God was not able to plan nor deliberate about what He wanted to create. Your position is completely absurd and wrong.
@@TheMirabillis You saying my position is wrong doesnt make it so. If an all powerful being, who is not subject to time and knows all things, exists, then why would such a being need to deliberate? Furthermore, you are conflating our existence, in time, with an atemporal being's existence outside of time. There is no way we temporal beings can imagine, explain or understand that.
@@MarkNOTW Did God think about and choose what and whom He would create ?
Yes or No ?
@@TheMirabillis This is like me asking you if you stopped doing drugs this week? Yes or no? Its called a loaded question fallacy. Please tell me what the definition of time is.