The End of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? | Reasonable Faith Podcast
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 มิ.ย. 2022
- A popular atheist declares the end of the Kalam. Dr. Craig has a response!
For more resources visit: www.reasonablefaith.org
#kalam #cosmology #god #williamlanecraig
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains short clips: / drcraigvideos
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Fan Page: / reasonablefaithorg - บันเทิง
![อาจารย์ยอด : ลุงแว่วเล่าเรื่องผี [ผี]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Fd2Qsy4dqpM/mqdefault.jpg)
The lengths people will go to try and deny Gods existence is astounding
lol these are just common sense refutations of Craig's arguments. I wouldn't say this is going to great lengths. Some of the arguments he's making are quite dubious. For example he claims that only an unencumbered mind could exist outside of time and space. But we have no evidence that a mind (a) can exist independently of a physical brain (how or what are the processes responsible for thought if not neuronal activity? It just doesn't make sense here. Its like saying a car can exist outside of spacetime) and (b) would be able to operate if it were frozen in time.
What's more astounding is that you characterize simple refutations this way lol. But then again this makes sense considering your probable biases
@@radscorpion8 Do you have evidence that something can come from nothing?
Because I would say we have millennia of evidence that show that is impossible, but you're saying there's a chance :D
@@radscorpion8 how do you know that a mind must be ensconced within a brain?
“The lengths people will go to try and deny Gods existence”
😅😅😅
@@trueinviso1Sure , but you are ASSUMING that philosophical nothingness exists , then you are ASSUMING that philosophical nothingness is a plausible alternative to the known universe and then you are assuming that philosophical nothingness preceded the known universe
And doing this with ZERO evidence
The final quotes are the best part of this video.
Awesome, Bill!!
God bless you!!
I see the kalam-ity, as the worst argument for belief in anything
God bless you Dr Craig and Kevin and all at Reasonablefaith. The everlasting kingdom in coming.
Not likely
Matt Dillahunty is a Scientism Fundamentalist. Whenever he says the word *evidence* he actually means *scientific evidence* and it blows my mind nobody notices he is arguing that way fallaciously all the time.
Excellent points. Craig is so established as a professional philosopher scholar, he just shoots straight and rolls ahead, so to speak. I had to notice that my own context gives me a different emphasis, and one that´s a little more comprehensive in the sense you just pointed out.
My background is such that I´ve noticed that "science" itself requires clarifying, since its arguments are often given, and always by scientific materialists and physicalists, as externalized and absolute truth. The "evidence," the evidence of a physical object or process, is considered an external phenomenal object reality. Yet, we might even cite Thomas Kuhn for his paradigm shift insight. It´s really a basic wake up call to revive the original anchors for "science," as scientific natural philosophy. WL Craig´s one-time debate adversary M Pigliucci was a biologist studying philosophy when he went up as an anti-theist against Craig. At some point afterwards, he apparently thought twice and began arguing for the "Limits of Science."
And so, Dillahunty talks about the "illusions" of Kalam theists, and its clear he´s actually doubling back on his own projections. As you´re getting at, he´s planted himself with scientific materialists in a supermarket imagining that farms don´t exist and are illusions, to use somebody else´s metaphor. "Farms are just pictures on labels of cans and stuff, if at all."
Thus, as a human symbolic activity, scientific natural philosophy is on the spectrum of philosophical disciplines. In framing the discussion at that level of clarity, then, I have realized one key thing that´s missing. Spiritual-religious phenomena. Craig gets into Jesus´ Resurrection, which is amazing and pivotal. However, it is also a highlight in relation to other phenomena. I recall D D´Sousa once referred to the University of Virginia. Beyond that, I might jump to OC Simonton MD for his sequence in his psychosomatic medical clinical work written up in two books, Getting Well Again and Healing Journey. In the first, he highlights the basics without transpersonal material. In the second, he focuses on the transpersonal spiritual phenomenon, and a case that illuminates the transcendental nicely and in an extended case history. In terms that I´m attributing to the U of Virginia, we have medically attested, medically impossible healings with spiritual-religious testimony. The Catholic Lourdes and canonization clinics have done good work, the Christian Science church also has good material, along with others including a few doctors, including L Mehl-Madrona MD. That issue involves a new factor, the distinction of empirical evidence, with "scientific evidence" as physical. Empirical evidence involves understanding the alternative interpretive modes. "Psychosocial" involves the Levels of Explanation in those fields, with the transpersonal and transcendental then involving the philosophy of metaphysics/religion, in a central way.
I also normally refer to Fritjof Capra for his Systems View of Life, JB Cobb´s Process Theology and ecological civilization, and Karen Armstrong´s transpersonal comparative history of religion. I´ve also innovated the term Multidisciplinary Philosophy to create the framework merely identified by multidisciplinary studies, or just identifiable second hand in the term "liberal arts and sciences."
@@robinhoodstfrancis
Good lord that is a long post.
@@Dhorpatan Man, I have hit the "too long" limits on FB time and again. But, in this pop world, quantity is how quality gets raised.
I can virtually guarantee that you´ve never seen anyone mention Mehl-Madrona, JB Cobb, or Fritjof Capra, and definitely not in the same sentence. lol
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic
@@paul715 I don´t know for certain who you´re responding to, but "sarcastic" doesn´t hold a candle to integrity. EM above was himself not doing much more than expressing some kind of shock or amazement.
I saw that video title and laughed. Matt is ridiculous.
No the kalam-ity is ridiculous
At one point, William Lang Craig said that it is clear Matt Dillahunty hasn't read his work on the Kalam. It is clear because of how he strawmans the argument left and right. He then goes on to say that theists using the Kalam are using it to make them sound smart; I think that's more of a trend of the quippy rhetoric atheists often use. But what's ultimately revealing is that in a debate with Michael Jones, Dillahunty literally boasts about having never read a book before.
I can't insult him to much for not reading considering how little I've read myself but why would he brag about it? I'm rightfully embarrassed by the face I don't read.
Please explain.
Please explain.
Who cares who read what , the kalam is literally the dumbest argument ever postulated
Matt Dillahunty is an example of an atheist who gets away with sophistic and fallacious reasoning simply because he speaks with confidence, but if you actually listen to what he says, you will discover that his reasoning is extraordinarily deficient. Not only that, but he has no respect for history or philosophy. He dismisses anything that can’t be neatly placed in a scientific worldview. In that regard, he is condescending in his ignorance, which is probably the worst sin of all. Even if I were an atheist, I would still consider Matt to be one of the most insular and uncultured men to ever walk the planet. None of this is meant to refute his arguments, but I’m merely starting what I think of his character. I would love for someone like Dr. Craig to debate and expose him.
I dearly wish that an atheist existed who would make the effort to debate WLC with intellectual honesty, but so far I have seen no such thing. At this point, I no longer believe that atheists exist... just hollow shells of people who disguise their hatred of God as the lamest arguments for why God does not exist. It's pathetic and embarrassing to watch. I suppose most of them also do not like their father, either.
Matt is much worse than what you even wrote, he is about as anti intellectual, narcissistic, self absorbed and rude as a person can get. Also a coward, talks to people on his show and treats calller worse than anyone i have seen because if they were standing in front of him, he would be on the ground crying if he talked like that to them in real life. Just an awful guy
Exactly
Give him a call on his show and argue and prove your points against him face to face.
@@hxhdfjifzirstc894the kalam is the absolute dumbest theory ever that operates on zero evidence
The only way...I repeat the only way an atheist can or will EVER prove that the Kalam argument is refuted is by saying and then backing up your evidence that the UNIVERSE has always existed or is eternal. GOOD LUCK...atheists...
Exactly. And there is not only scientific evidence suggesting that the universe is only finite, but on top of that, it is being shown and proven over and over again that and eternal universe is impossible. I'm not gonna get too deep into it, but I recommend searching up Hilbert's hotel or Gazzali's time argument
@@infodisco4097 that's not true scientific evidence doesn't say that universe had a beginning it says that there was a big bang 14 billions years ago and Big bang isn't a absolute beginning for more information check out scientific articles or skydivephil's documentary
Not really I strongly recommend you to watch Majesty of Reason TH-cam channel Kalam cosmological argument playlist
@@senkuishigami2485 Check out william lane Craig's rebuttal to sky dive phils documentary
@@senkuishigami2485 I have a question, if christianity were true would you become christian?
Do people actually take this Dillahunty guy seriously? serious question.
So-called 'atheism' is an emotional state of hating God, usually accompanied by hatred of one's own father. There's actually no such thing as a real atheist.
Yes, many Atheists do. He's a Scientism Fundamentalist so it's shocking anyone takes him seriously.
His worldview and most of his arguments can be shown to be false with one sentence:
The claim *Truth can only be known if it's scientifically verified* cannot be scientifically verified ITSELF.
So it's self-refuting and false by necessity.
He appealed to Scientism in this video by claiming the logical deductions regarding the cause of the universe can't be known just because it can't be demonstrated. It's just a fallacy of scientism.
I could see how he may be convincing for other Scientism Fundamentalists who haven't realized why Scientism is self-refuting yet, but to everyone else he's just hopelessly irrational.
@@hxhdfjifzirstc894 Yes i would say you are on point, They hate the idea of God, an ultimate authority that is greater than them, that can tell them what they should not do. Its purely psychological for them, It is pretty fascinating, how badly they dont want something to be true, they will believe the most irratiional things to keep their desires alive.
@@hxhdfjifzirstc894
That's a pretty arrogant statement to make gibberish name. Also, false. 😄
@@ceceroxy2227
Your comment is so arrogant and ridiculous and presumptuous, it reads like POE's law. Especially if you are a Christian.
can you guys pray for my aunt she needs a liver transplant, shes not doing so good. God bless.
I’m here a bit late but I’ll try to remember to include her in my prayers. God bless
Nah
This was poetry, especially the Outro
Watch the "debate" Dillahunty had with Jay Dyer.
It's hilarious. Dillahunty couldn't get out of first gear the entire time.
Which debate is it?
@@Strongtower
th-cam.com/video/AajJBhdRpDA/w-d-xo.html
@@knyghtryder3599 I am not convinced.
@@knyghtryder3599 I am convinced by your statement. Prove it. I am just using Dillahunty's tactic.
@@knyghtryder3599 LOL. Go engage the Kalam cosmological argument instead of trolling
When it suits Matt's atheism (i.e. the logical consequences of the KCA), he'll retreat into a "I don't know".
The point is: either the cause of the universe has material ontology or a non-material existence. If the former, then matter (in some shape or form) is the atheist god and, supposedly, does all the things the non-material God does, like generating a universe with highly complex life. The problem for the atheist then becomes, What is his explanation for love, altruism, morality...Is it all a matter of matter? (Tell your kids that and I'm sure they'll grow up to become fine, happy citizens.)
In Matt's lonely, cold, silent, morally indifferent universe, Matt should ponder Thomas Nagel's fine insight: "Life can be wonderful, but even if it isn’t, death is usually much worse. If it cuts off the possibility of more future goods than future evils for the victim, it is a loss no matter how long he has lived when it happens. And in truth, as Richard Wollheim says, death is a misfortune even when life is no longer worth living. [This is] what’s hard to get hold of: the internal fact that one day this consciousness will black out for good and subjective time will simply stop. My death as an event in the world is easy to think about; the end of my world is not. There will be a last day, a last hour, a last minute of consciousness, and that will be it. Off the edge.” (View from Nowhere, Oxford University Press, NY, 1986, pp. 224-5.)
Matt, YOUR clock is ticking...and, need I say, you can't rewind it.
*"death is a misfortune even when life is no longer worth living"*
Why exactly?
@@Dhorpatan There's very little good about death. I've never met an atheist who doesn't want more years, especially lots of them. For an atheist there is no more "next" after death. So his point was that even with pain, death is worse because with death there is nothing. Your non-existence is worse than your existence with pain.
Now of course I might have misunderstood but, well, there's nothing truly great about your own death, your loved ones' and the billions and billions of people who have come before and who might arise after your own death.
@@lesliewilliam3777
*"Your non-existence is worse than your existence with pain"*
This is not an objective statement. The many people who have committed suicide would disagree.
@@Dhorpatan Thanks, finally, to someone who knows how to argue.
I woke up during the night thinking about your previous argument. I think W's point was the following.
There are two aspects: the suffering and the death. There is no necessary connection between the two as someone can suffer but may recover and go on to live a pain-free life. On the other hand, people may die without any suffering e.g., someone who dies in their sleep and who was completely healthy up to that time.
People who are experiencing the former may wish for the latter to end it; however, that is not dealing with death qua death but only death as a means to end their suffering. Death qua death sucks! So even if one is suffering, this experience in no way obviates the horror of death. Death, for the atheist in particular, is the finality of self, the complete erasure of their existence, the final proof that the Cartesian cogito ergo sum is not only valid but sound, rationally demonstrated through the impossibility of a dead person articulating ‘I don’t think therefore I am not’, which would be a contradiction of terms, a simultaneous denial of the Law of Non-Contradiction and what it means to exist.
To summarise: No matter how much suffering is experienced, death for that individual may be a release from it but it cannot do away with the angst driven by their contemplating their own non-existence. After all, if a person’s suffering were to disappear, would they still wish for their non-existence?
Y’all are assuming that people wouldn’t be happy with the notion of non existence. When I was an atheist, that was all I really wanted. Lol
It would be great to observe a debate between the 2.
Challenge Craig RE that. He has refused to do so.
@@kevinfancher3512 Matt dosnt have the credentials and whont be able to respond to Craig's philosophical responses
@@offense53 Haha, Matt would totally win. Craig just made up that excuse to avoid being defeated by Matt face-to-face.
@@L-8 you aren’t serious. Matt couldn’t handle Jay dyer. WLC is leagues above him.
Craig is a well renowned scholar. Matt is just a dude that makes clever quips from time to time.
It would be like having a debate with a chimpanzee. Craig has several credentials and a PHD in philosophy with over 200 publications. Whereas Matt has no degree in any area of study and is only relevant because he had an online show where he disrespects Christians. 98% of the topic would go right over Matt's head leading him to make some disrespectful, obnoxious remark. Matt should have no business being in the same room with Craig other than to be educated. Unfortunately he is the personification of dunning Krueger so that won't happen.
Dr Craig can you always response to a series on Kalam by Rationality rules
he has responded to Stephen on Capturing Christianity.
@@ceceroxy2227 I'm talking about his series with Joe
@@senkuishigami2485 he responded to stephen and the kalam i believe
@@ceceroxy2227 no
He didn't responded to Stephen's Kalam series with Joe
@@senkuishigami2485 Oh yeah youre right, I am guessing he has some other things to do in his life. Actually this video was recorded a few months ago at least.
Thanks for addressing the idea that the Kalam argument is dead. I would concede that God's existence doesn't follow directly from the premises, but the premises can be extended to show that a timeless, spaceless, etc. being exists.
Can the premises be supported?
I'm unaware of any evidence of anything beginning to exist. Including the universe.
If you could present some evidence to support the premises you might be onto something.
@@somerandom3247 Actually try showing something that exists that does NOT have a beginning. How could things be 'invented', if they always existed. I guess Jesus would have had an Iphone.
@@hxhdfjifzirstc894
See there, you have pointed out the bait and switch that the Kalam relies on.
All the materials in an iPhone have always existed. they were just rearranged and given the new name "iPhone" nothing new had to begin to exist to assemble an iPhone.
Is that what p.2 is talking about? Stuff that already existed being rearranged and all of a sudden being called "the universe"?
Or is it talking about the universe beginning to exist where there was nothing before?
If it's the former, then the Kalam is disingenuous. If it's the latter, then please provide some evidence to support that claim.
@@somerandom3247 walk me through this position?
@@KLRyogaprivate
What position sorry?
It would be interesting for WLC to respond to people like Joe schmid
Are there any objections raised by Joe Schmid that you think are particularly strong?
@@jackplumbridge2704my opinion is based off of a simple fact , we have zero evidence showing that at some point the universe did not exist, we have zero evidence showing the universe ever began and we have zero evidence showing it is even possible for the universe to not exist
@@knyghtryder3599 That is your opinion. I have a different one.
@@jackplumbridge2704 Sounds good , but the entire argument is an assumption based on no evidence, as we have zero evidence that the universe began , we have zero evidence that the universe ever did not exist and we have zero evidence that it is even possible for the universe not to exist
This is sad, the Kalam arg has so many holes. I am honestly surprised.
I suppose there are too many holes to list even one.
@@hxhdfjifzirstc894 if you're interested, I could present them to you one by one
@@TrisagionBand cool, let's start at P1: everything that begins to exist has a cause.
I would say that the only thing that began to exist was the universe. Since after the big bang it has only been transforming. So we only have one instance of something actually "beginning to exist". Your thoughts?
@@TrisagionBand Already watched, but do you specifically have some thoughts to discuss? Because pointing to a different resource doesn't directly answer the question.
@@TrisagionBand Ok then provide another instance.
Once again the Kalam remains unscathed.
or does it? matt dillahunty has responded to this repsonse on paulogia's channel. You should check it out, its worth watching.
@@Joshua52391
Besides just only Caucasian males being acknowledged on that, I also refuted the Kalam 10 years ago. 😄
@Ruben
I decisively refuted the Kalam 10 years ago.
Or the kalam is literally the dumbest argument ever postulated
@@knyghtryder3599 The dumbest ever?
For a brief period of time I watched Matt Dillahunty. But for the precise reason shown in this video, with his complete disregard and misrepresention for anything that even remotely points to theism, I couldn't stand listening to his takes anymore. It reminds me of the documentary Religouslus, by Bill Mayer, where he insults the most fundamentalist and ordinary people of various religions. I'm still not convinced of all the conclusions drawn from the Kalam, but not considering seriously is baffling to me.
The only evidence I need of a creator is creation itself.....for it is lined with FAR too much intelligence to be random.
Let's imagine you and I are walking down a sandy beach on the Golf coast of Florida late last summer. We walk up to a large message written in the wet sand. The message reads, "Tampa Bay Bucs Super Bowl LV Champions!! Tom Brady is the GOAT!!!"
We both read the words and then the following conversation proceeds between us.....
ME : Well I guess someone loves the Bucs huh?
YOU: What do you mean??
ME : I mean some Tamps Bay Fan must have just been here and wrote this in the sand.
YOU: How do you know that?? How do you know someone wrote it??
ME : (confused) What do you mean?? The message in the sand....someone wrote it.
YOU: How do you know?? Where's your "proof"??? there's no "evidence" that someone wrote it?
ME : That's the silliest thing I've ever heard? The ONLY proof I need is the message itself.
YOU: It's just your theory that someone wrote it. It could have just randomly appeared there through the natural forces of the Ocean.
ME : That is absurd!!
The ONLY evidence you need that someone wrote the words in the sand are the words themselves!!! NO PROOF IS NEEDED!!! The ONLY person in this scenario that must provide proof is YOU!! Because the odds of the words appearing there naturally are inconceivably staggering.
What exactly is not convincing to You if may I ask?
@@topseykretts7608Prove that anything can be random , because no scientist has ever made that claim
Give some evidence that there are only two options; a fictitious creator dude in the sky or random
Give one scrap of evidence showing that the universe began or at some point did not exist
@@knyghtryder3599 again, the only "evidence" I need that someone wrote the message in the sand....is the message itself! It's you that must provide evidence that it occurred some other way .....the burden of proof is on you, not me.
now keep crying about it.
@@topseykretts7608 Its not about crying , have you ever seen someone write a message ? Have you ever seen a universe created? You could not think of a more disingenuous comparison. If a apples vs universes comparison satisfies you , go for it. But I know you are being disingenuous because you would not use the same level of evidence for anything else in your life. If I told you to give me all your money , and I will put it in my safe because my safe is a box , and one time I saw someone put money in a slot machine, which is another kind of box and they got rich , would you do it ? And yet my fallacious example is WAY WAY WAY. more relevant , because both safes and slot machines are boxes where people put money. But sure if a cocktail napkin resembles a universe to you go for it
Dillahunti ought to pursue some other type of career, outside of quasi philosophising, maybe stand up comedy... It might bring him more views/ad revenue.
The Kalam is dead in the water, it's nothing but special pleading. If the universe began to exist, then the principles therein began to exist and cannot be applied. That would include causality. You don't get to say "The universe began to exist... except for the one principle I need to make my argument."
We also lack a single piece of evidence showing that the universe ever began or at some point did not exist
Separate the arguments,1Kalam 2 Cause of Kalam.1 cannot be refuted.2 any honest person would agree with WLC.
End of Kalam? perhaps, like the universe, it never had a beginning. How can we be sure that the law of conservation of energy ever broke down?
what has no beginning material, energetical - having a structure with symmetry had to have begun to exist. When it's preexistence or pre-bigbang we have to disposition an infinite time. The problem however sounds simple infinity isn't some number - it's infinite, never ends in one end at least.
If you also break the causality rule you have nothing. You can't build any cause everything is random. The theory of Gravity is false since is based on cause, Earth is flat, Quantum Physics is a Hoax, and CHemistry Book is a bulk of 500 sheets of paper where is nothing written on it.
From abstract basic law and logic Conscious sentient El - Logos(Logic itself), created existence (as YHWH - I'm). All were written in book of atheists demise thousands of years ago.
To believe that the universe is an infinite age, you must also believe in infinite energy (otherwise we would have reached the heat death of the universe already). Magical thinking is common among people who cannot reason.
@@hxhdfjifzirstc894 The laws of thermodynamics are a belief system now? I'm no expert, but I thought science was not a system of beliefs.
Energy can exist in many interchangeable forms, quantum gravitation, dark matter, sub-atomic particles etc.
@@ergonomoverand….?
The question is it infinite not what form it can take
@@ergonomoverwhy are you making statements of science beliefs then…think about it…
The only evidence I need of a creator is creation itself.....for it is lined with FAR too much intelligence to be random.
Let's imagine you and I are walking down a sandy beach on the Golf coast of Florida late last summer. We walk up to a large message written in the wet sand. The message reads, "Tampa Bay Bucs Super Bowl LV Champions!! Tom Brady is the GOAT!!!"
We both read the words and then the following conversation proceeds between us.....
ME : Well I guess someone loves the Bucs huh?
YOU: What do you mean??
ME : I mean some Tamps Bay Fan must have just been here and wrote this in the sand.
YOU: How do you know that?? How do you know someone wrote it??
ME : (confused) What do you mean?? The message in the sand....someone wrote it.
YOU: How do you know?? Where's your "proof"??? there's no "evidence" that someone wrote it?
ME : That's the silliest thing I've ever heard? The ONLY proof I need is the message itself.
YOU: It's just your theory that someone wrote it. It could have just randomly appeared there through the natural forces of the Ocean.
ME : That is absurd!!
The ONLY evidence you need that someone wrote the words in the sand are the words themselves!!! NO PROOF IS NEEDED!!! The ONLY person in this scenario that must provide proof is YOU!! Because the odds of the words appearing there naturally are inconceivably staggering.
*"for it is lined with FAR too much intelligence to be random."*
Naturalism does not entail randomness for creation of things. For example, planets being round is not random, as shown by how they are always round as far as I know. You are engaging in a strawman.
@@Dhorpatan LOL... looks like somebody learned to use the word "Strawman" whenever they can't provide proof for their argument. You just don't like the analogy because it makes your world view look juvenile and silly.....that's not my fault.
Again, the only evidence I need that someone wrote the message in the sand, is THE MESSAGE ITSELF!! Because it has FAR too much intelligence behind it to have occurred naturally
The burden of proof is on YOU!! You have to proof it happened randomly!! And just shuffling out the word "strawman" isn't going to work. Maybe that's worked for you with other people, but not here. You're going to actually have to give proof!!
@@topseykretts7608
It's a wildly pathetic analogy, since to prove your point you bring up linguistics, rather than say naturally occurring creations like planets or solar systems or stars or trees or water.
@@Dhorpatan a bunch of blabber....zero proof for your side. What a shocker! You're just mad because you have no answer. The only evidence I need that someone wrote the message in the sand is the message itself.
You say, "planets or solar systems or stars or trees or water" are "naturally occurring".....okay....where's your proof they are naturally occurring??? Because the probability of them being "naturally occurring" without intelligent guidance are astronomically bad.
Here's is just a handful of physical quantities that have to come together perfectly (without outside help or influence) for your theory to be correct.
* Low end entropy of the initial universe 4 x 10 (t the 81st power) J/K
* Number of Spacetime Dimensions 3 (space) + 1 (Time)
* Baryon, Dark Matter Mass per photon 0.57 eV, 3eV
* Higgs Vacuum Exception Value 246.2 GeV, MeV, 104 MeV
* Mass up/down, Strange Quark 2.13
* Mass of the Electron, Neutrinos (sum)
* Electromagnetism coupling constant 0.0079
* Strong Nuclear Force Coupling Constant 0.1187
* Cosmological Constant (2.3 x 10-3rd) eV4
* Scalar Fluctuation Amplitude Q (2 x 10-5th)
* Gravity Force Rate F = G m1 m2/ r2
* Gravitational Constant 1/.0060th part
If even ONE of these constants (and there's about 100 more) were off only .00001 of a degree....there would NO LIFE in the universe at all, anywhere!!!!!!!!
You can keep crying if it makes you feel better, but the only evidence I need that someone wrote the message in the sand is the message itself.
@@topseykretts7608
*"where's your proof they are naturally occurring"*
You're saying you don't know how stars or planets are naturally formed?
*"If even ONE of these constants (and there's about 100 more) were off"*
Do those constants apply to the quantum vacuum? Just curious.
*"the only evidence I need that someone wrote the message"*
Why are you dishonestly using linguistics when that is a sentient situation?
Matt makes his money like that,
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
An argument that Uses the most fundamental laws of
contemporary physics and engineering. To prove. The presence. Of God. Allah.
1-Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existe.
2-The universe began to exist.( The Big Bang Theory of the Universe postulates a beginning.)+(the second law of thermodynamics (entropy). In a closed system the available energy will become less and less until
until finally you have no available energy at all (you have reached a state of entropy).simply The universe is running out of energy.which also points us to a universe that has a definite
beginning.
3-therefore, the universe has a cause.
In Holy Quran the Word of God,
THE ‘BIG BANG’ VERSE
اَوَ لَمۡ یَرَ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡۤا اَنَّ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضَ کَانَتَا رَتۡقًا فَفَتَقۡنٰہُمَا ؕ وَ جَعَلۡنَا مِنَ الۡمَآءِ کُلَّ شَیۡءٍ حَیٍّ ؕ اَفَلَا یُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ
Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass (ratqan), then We opened them out (fafataqnahuma)? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (21:31 Al-Anbiya)
The universe is running out of energy VERSE
﴿٨﴾ أَوَلَمْ يَتَفَكَّرُوا فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ ۗ مَا خَلَقَ اللَّهُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ وَأَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى ۗ وَإِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنَ النَّاسِ بِلِقَاءِ رَبِّهِمْ لَكَافِرُونَ
8. Do they not reflect within themselves? Allah did not create the heavens and the earth, and what is between them, except in truth, and for a specific duration. But most people, regarding meeting their Lord, are in denial. ( The Romans
Only thing that surprised me about Matt's "commentary" is that I didn't hear "I'm not convinced" within his 2nd sentence.
He does like that phrase doesn't he?
He still said it pretty early on.
@@GumbyGoons well, can we really blame him? He doesn't really have much more than that. Once I heard him say in a debate "you need empirical proof" (his shtick) and then later on "I don't have empirical proof for the validity of logic but I believe so and it must be the case". Not joking.
@Ron Berg I can't say I'm surprised to hear that.
Can you present some evidence, or arguments to support the 2 premises?
1. Daddy left when you were young.
2. You now hate God as an expression of your anger towards Daddy
@@hxhdfjifzirstc894
My dad didn't leave at all lol.
And my reason for not believing in gods is that there isn't any evidence, or arguments that warrant believing they exist. I don't hate god, I just don't believe it exists.
Why did you choose to try to insult me instead of providing the evidence I asked for?
Is it because you don't have said evidence? Because that's how it seems......
Craig has written a whole book on it, and probably hundreds of papers, go buy his book, its even on youtube. There are so many discussions, scott clifton, alex occonnor he talked with, go look it up
@@somerandom3247 you spend a lot of time talking about something you dont believe exists
@@ceceroxy2227
Can YOU present any of the evidence? Or have you just blindly believes that Craig has the evidence? I've read his book and seen his debates, he hasn't answered this question in either.
sadly Mr Dilahunty is obviously upset at the real possibility that he doesn't comprehend the depth of the Kalam, his pride is taking a hit it's so obvious. He speaks well though, if one didn't understand what the Kalam was he would believe Mr Dilahunty. That's also important, to be able to express oneself eloquently to convince the audience
The kalam-ity is literally the dumbest argument ever postulated
The depth of the kalam-ity begins at the erroneous assumption that the universe began , and at one point did not exist , and does so with zero evidence
Oh, so, god is defined by its definition. Why didn't you say so in the first place? Craig, this is not philosophy, this is hubris that will in fact die, sooner rather than later. THE KALAM IS NOT DEAD (but it's not looking so good around the gills).
It is impossible to refute Kalam.
It is entirely possible, we keep building bigger and bigger telescopes and collecting older light and there is always MORE of the same than we expected, more heavy stars , more black holes , more organized galaxies, we have never been surprised in the opposite way
We see zero evidence of a beginning, we see zero evidence of the universe ever not existing, we see zero evidence of even the possibility of the universe not existing, we see virtually no examples of anything being created anywhere in the universe
It seems you are stuck on Zeno's paradox, if a metre can be divided into infinite parts how could anyone walk two meters? But maybe I am wrong and you have evidence of the universe not existing at some point, please share it
@@knyghtryder3599 Do you believe the universe is infinitely eternal in the past and future?
Do you believe time,space,matter and energy have always been?
Can you explain how that could be possible?
@@larrywilliams5490 easily , first we have zero indications that the universe is not infinite in any dimension, we have never seen anything empirically indicating an end or beginning of any kind
We keep building bigger and better telescopes collecting older and older light and finding more of the same the further out we look , older stars than we expected, black holes and even more organized galaxies
We have never been surprised in the opposite way
Also infinity is a quality, not a quantity, there can be greater or lesser infinities and you can add or subtract them
It seems like you are stuck on Zeno's paradox, from about 3000 years ago I would catch up
If we can divide a meter infinitely,how can anyone walk two meters...........
@@larrywilliams5490 It is entirely possible, we keep building bigger and bigger telescopes and collecting older light and there is always MORE of the same than we expected, more heavy stars , more black holes , more organized galaxies, we have never been surprised in the opposite way
We see zero evidence of a beginning, we see zero evidence of the universe ever not existing, we see zero evidence of even the possibility of the universe not existing, we see virtually no examples of anything being created anywhere in the universe
It seems you are stuck on Zeno's paradox, if a metre can be divided into infinite parts how could anyone walk two meters? But maybe I am wrong and you have evidence of the universe not existing at some point, please share it
@larrywilliams5490 It is entirely possible, we keep building bigger and bigger telescopes and collecting older light and there is always MORE of the same than we expected, more heavy stars , more black holes , more organized galaxies, we have never been surprised in the opposite way
We see zero evidence of a beginning, we see zero evidence of the universe ever not existing, we see zero evidence of even the possibility of the universe not existing, we see virtually no examples of anything being created anywhere in the universe
It seems you are stuck on Zeno's paradox, if a metre can be divided into infinite parts how could anyone walk two meters? But maybe I am wrong and you have evidence of the universe not existing at some point, please share it
It's sad that people are taken in by a pseudo intellectual hack like WLC. He's embarrassing. He's also deeply dishonest. Apologetics is not for unbelievers, it's purpose is to provide believers with reasons to continue believing in something they know makes no sense.
Yup the kalam is literally the dumbest argument I have ever heard
Quiero creer, pero me queda un impedimento
¿Si se supone que somos libres de escoger creer en Dios como lo pide la Biblia (evangélicos y similares) porque la tendencia estadística muestra que son tan pocos los que tienen la fe salvadora?
es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religi%C3%B3n_en_los_Estados_Unidos
Este es el país que en el mundo más protestantes, evangélicos y pentecostales tiene, ok, concedo que la cultura de ese país está en decadencia, pero tienen una larga tradición en la fe de la Biblia, ¿Que queda para el resto del mundo? ¿Cómo decir que es algo que realmente es realista tener esa clase de fe para evitar el infierno eterno?
PD: Esta publicación es complementaria con otra que hice hace unos días, y como en esa repito aquí, no quiero tentar a nadie a abandonar su fe, sino que quiero franquear los obstáculos que me impiden tener a mí una fe plena, si, oren por mi, porque no, yo no lo sé todo, puedo estar en un error, sólo pido que se me muestre.
no se español es del traductor de google
Está apelando al sesgo de confirmación, asumiendo erróneamente que los estadounidenses son inteligentes. no lo son: si no las universidades aceptan a los mejores inmigrantes del planeta, ni siquiera están entre los 30 mejores en ciencia, por ejemplo. Y atraes a las masas
www.verywellmind.com/the-asch-conformity-experimentos-2794996
"¿Qué queda para el resto del mundo?"
Bueno, no va a suceder de la noche a la mañana, dijo Jesús, va a ser más desafiante para la próxima generación, que somos nosotros. Tenemos más que nuestros antepasados: medicamentos, información, no tantas guerras y plagas. Cada uno de nosotros tiene que elegir por su cuenta. En los EE.UU. está cayendo porque la gente puede "matar a Dios" en sus corazones. Nadie le pregunta a la gente qué pasa con el más allá, e incluso si se encogen de hombros y van a Netflix, juegan, tienen sexo, Instagram, etc. No sé por qué cuentas con la inteligencia de los demás: Rusia está invadiendo Ucrania en este momento. y el 83% afirma que es bueno, correcto y humano, y cree en esta propaganda nazi. Y los rusos no son tan estúpidos: tienen los mejores programadores de algoritmos del planeta y matemáticos. Aprende, mira debates y no sigas los placeres del mundo que pasará.