The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Part 1: Scientific

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 9 янв 2025

Комментарии • 948

  • @gunnarneumann8321
    @gunnarneumann8321 9 месяцев назад +9

    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?

    • @d.bcooper2271
      @d.bcooper2271 9 месяцев назад +4

      Watch the infinite regress vodeo

    • @DanaDeGidio
      @DanaDeGidio 6 месяцев назад +1

      Good pont

    • @killerbee6484
      @killerbee6484 5 месяцев назад +4

      1- god is necessary and eternal 2- the universe is contingent and has a begining 3- God is outside time and space

    • @cirqueyeagerist5641
      @cirqueyeagerist5641 4 месяца назад +1

      Universe cant exist without a cause , it was just stated here , cause if the universe could exist without a cause why dont thnigs exist within it without a cause ?

    • @gunnarneumann8321
      @gunnarneumann8321 4 месяца назад

      @@cirqueyeagerist5641 as I previously pointed out in 3 that would be taking the rules of the universe and applying them to a time before the universe

  • @leoevans1839
    @leoevans1839 2 года назад +18

    Russell was actually agnostic not atheist because he agreed that proving God doesn't exist is just as difficult as proving God does exist.

    • @cnault3244
      @cnault3244 2 года назад +6

      So he is saying god is on par with leprechauns and pixies.

    • @leoevans1839
      @leoevans1839 2 года назад +3

      @@cnault3244 yes nice ricky gervais quote haha

    • @virtuosisimo
      @virtuosisimo Год назад

      admitting that it is hard to disprove the existance of planet X or 9 doesn't mean that I believe in its existance. Atheist simply means "without god" so in practice agnostics are atheist

    • @danii7584
      @danii7584 11 месяцев назад

      @@leoevans1839 that's probably a referrence to dawkins.
      so sad that nobody in this comment section bothered correcting you on your misconception of agnosticism and atheism. agnosticism deals with knowability of anything. atheism deals specifically with the denial of the existence of god. so being agnostic and atheistic aren't mutually exclusive, doofus. also an abjection of god can simply happen on the basis of lack of evidence, therefore atheists needn't disprove the existence of god, they merely have to point out how theists make a bad case for god.

    • @CorbinHoffman-lg7iu
      @CorbinHoffman-lg7iu 5 месяцев назад

      @@cnault3244no. That would be a false equivalency logical fallacy.

  • @PR1NC345
    @PR1NC345 7 месяцев назад +21

    This is my favorite argument for God and i even argue asgaint myself and ask tell myself new answers and qustions as an atheist and then go back to Christianity and answer the qustion

    • @thejabberwocky2819
      @thejabberwocky2819 5 месяцев назад

      It isn't even an argument for God.
      The premises of the kalam only get you to a first cause

    • @blusheep2
      @blusheep2 2 месяца назад +1

      @@thejabberwocky2819 Do you know the arguments that flow out of the Kalaam? When we speak of the Kalaam being an argument for God we are also talking about its corollaries. What I've noticed is that the average atheist doesn't want the Kalaam to work so he finds something he can cast doubt on and never follows the argumentation through to God. This appears to be a description of you?

    • @thejabberwocky2819
      @thejabberwocky2819 2 месяца назад

      @@blusheep2 @blusheep2 1. The kalam fails at the first premise, so no arguments can flow from it.
      2. Even if the kalam was in fact valid and sound, there is no possible logical connection that would allow you to bridge the gap from "first uncaused cause" to "my particular deity exists"
      So any time you feel like it, stop whining and put your money where your mouth is.

    • @blusheep2
      @blusheep2 2 месяца назад

      @@thejabberwocky2819 Your just proving my point. Instead of showing curiosity about the flow of the argument towards God and His attributes, you just cast doubt on the first premise and ignore everything that follows. That is exactly what I said average atheists do and average atheists are nothing but village atheists that regurgitate what other athesits tell them.
      1. So all you did is make a claim, "The Kalaam fails at the first premise." Why don't you tell me how it fails. The first premise is:
      P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
      To say this fails you are saying that you can produce 1 thing that has come into existence without a cause. What is that 1 thing that came into existence without a cause?
      2. You said this, _there is no possible logical connection that would allow you to bridge the gap from "first uncaused cause" to "my particular deity exists"_
      This sentence here shows once again that you are unfamiliar with the Kalaam and its corollaries. The Kalaam is a "proof" for "God." Not the Christian God(though it coheres very well with the monotheistic worldviews), not the Muslim God, not Zorastrian God. To go from "God exists" to "The Christian God is true," that would take a different line of argumentation. Why haven't you been able to see this?

    • @thejabberwocky2819
      @thejabberwocky2819 2 месяца назад

      @@blusheep2 No, I didn't prove your point. Pointing out that the argument you're attempting to base your other arguments on ISNT SOUND, is a 100% refutation of any further point you want to make until you can prove that the base argument is sound. Which you can't, since the brightest Christian minds have been trying to make the kalam sound for a long time and have all failed.
      So yeah, if you have no foundation of course I'm not interested or curious about the rest of your fantasy. Weird how logic works.
      1. Burden of proof is on the positive claimant (that's you) to show that your argument is both valid and sound. An argument which is not valid and sound does not lead to true conclusions. This is logic 101, so it's highly embarrassing that you want to pretend that I have to prove the argument false. The first premise fails on account of it not being sound. I do not have to produce an inverse example, YOU have to prove that EVERYTHING that begins to exists has a cause, since if that is not valid and sound your argument fails.
      2. Then we can examine the problem of "begins to exist" because nothing actually begins to exist, everything that is is simply a rearrangement of matter and energy that _already existed._ So now premise 1 fails from two different angles, and there is really nothing you can do to recover from this apart from playing semantic games.
      3. Nope, I am very familiar with the kalam and it's corollaries, more familiar than you it seems since you're blissfully unaware of the massive, gaping hole in the logic therein. But let's play this game. The kalam alone ONLY gets you to a first uncaused cause. That's the conclusion of the premises. Everything else that theists desperately try to bundle/smuggle in there inevitably fails since they provide no VALID inference rule to show that the first cause must be a god. Which you didn't even attempt to justify.

  • @peterrobinherbert
    @peterrobinherbert Год назад +5

    For something to begin to exist, it implies that there is a time it didn't exist followed by a time it did exist. Given that time is part of the structure of the universe then, even if the universe is past finite, then it is not possible that there was a time the universe didn't exist.
    Therefore, whether the universe is past finite or past infinite, there was never a time the universe didn't exist. So the whole Kalam Cosmological Argument fails at the first step.

    • @Pyr0Ben
      @Pyr0Ben 11 месяцев назад +4

      Given that the universe and time had to come into existence at the same time as the universe (matter and space), as you yourself admit, your opening statement is true by definition. It doesn't MEAN anything.
      If time had lasted forever, today could never have come. Time must necessarily have a beginning, as paradoxical as it sounds to describe time in temporal terms.

    • @GogglesOstrich
      @GogglesOstrich 5 месяцев назад +1

      That would be playing on definitions, not logic. Word definition isn't the point here. The point is that there was a point that time (the entire universe) started existing. Therefore, there must be a creator. God bless and much love ❤️✝️

    • @peterrobinherbert
      @peterrobinherbert 5 месяцев назад

      @@GogglesOstrich Again, no. There is no point in time that the universe started existing unless there was a point that it didn't exist. I am not playing with a definition, I am sticking to the definition. It makes no sense to say something starts to exist if it was never non-existent. Face, it, the argument fails at this point.
      Craig attempts to rescue it with a complex, multi part definition of "begins to exist", but his definition raises even more questions (for example, what does he mean by "timeless")

    • @GogglesOstrich
      @GogglesOstrich 5 месяцев назад

      @peterrobinherbert So the universe never had a beginning is what you're saying? So you're saying time goes infinitely back? Which would mean we passed infinite time to reach today

    • @guitart4909
      @guitart4909 5 месяцев назад +2

      @@GogglesOstrich No. Time does not go infinitely back. Time cannot exist without space. They are both fundementally the same concept i.e. space time. A universe or the singularity that resulted in the big bang had no spatial volume, thus no time. Thus it is both eternal (existing throughout all time), without being infinitely old in the past. And since it has existed at all points greater than T=0, its not subject to time based causality. It has always existed. In order for the Kalam argument to work, you have to ignore the timeless singularity and arbitrarly label the universe as "begining to exist" when it merely "began to expand." There is no evidence that the universe began to exist since the is no such time as T

  • @Luvallo
    @Luvallo Год назад +5

    Why should the universe's cause of existence be uncaused?

    • @kenandzafic3948
      @kenandzafic3948 Год назад +3

      Because an infinite series of causes explains nothing. Imagine I want to shoot a target and to do that I need permission from person 1, he has to get permission from person 2 and if this goes on forever, will he ever shoot the target?

    • @Luvallo
      @Luvallo Год назад +3

      @@kenandzafic3948 thanks, makes sense.

    • @fanghur
      @fanghur Год назад

      @@kenandzafic3948 That analogy does not represent how reality actually is. The actual state of affairs would be more akin to: If I want to choose to shoot person 1, I need permission from person 2. In order for person 2 to give permission, event X needed to have occurred.
      If event X occurred, it doesn't make any difference how many prior events preceded it or what they were. You WILL get permission from person 2, and thus you WILL shoot person 1.

    • @kenandzafic3948
      @kenandzafic3948 Год назад

      @@fanghur
      1. No this doesn't look like reality, an eternal universe implies that time has existed forever which means we have an infinite number of material causes that affect this one event today.
      2. It would violate causal finitism, which we have very good reasons to believe.

    • @fanghur
      @fanghur Год назад

      @@kenandzafic3948 We do not have good reason to accept causal finitism actually. See Majesty of Reason's excellent critique of it. Like, yes, at some point you just have to accept that it's a brute fact that this is the way the universe is. But that isn't a problem, at least not to me. Again, all that matters from a practical point of view are the causal factors in our immediate past. We don't need to know what happened a googol years ago.

  • @zachio69
    @zachio69 Год назад +2

    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.

    • @EdwardJem
      @EdwardJem Год назад +1

      The second premise is not based on the big bang theory, as many who use the Kalam don't believe in the big bang. I certainly don't and still hold to the Kalam. Nobody is saying that it HAS to be the Christian God. What is being posited is that there is CLEARLY something with intelligence, outside of space, time, and matter that caused all this. It baffles me that people don't grasp this. We see it played out in everyday life, cause and effect, yet, seemingly, when it comes to existence, some people draw a blank. Something can't come from nothing. That is something that is factual and observed in everyday life. The criticism against this argument are weak and some even outlandish and comical.

    • @zachio69
      @zachio69 Год назад

      @@EdwardJem I agree that it is possible that there is an intelligence that exists outside of our universe. However we don't know if there is an intelligence outside the universe. I don't think it matters either way because if there is it's not interacting with the universe as we know it today.

    • @BobTrikob-pr2ts
      @BobTrikob-pr2ts Год назад

      ​@@zachio69 if it is possible an All Powerful encompassing being exists then we can see if it is possible if this being can exist in any possible other reality
      Yes it is possible that this being can exists in every single possible reality and is all poweful and perfect.
      If it is possible for this being to exist in every single possible reality then this being exists in actual reality.

    • @zachio69
      @zachio69 Год назад +1

      @@BobTrikob-pr2ts Nobody knows if there is an all powerful perfect deity that exists that's what you said.

    • @BobTrikob-pr2ts
      @BobTrikob-pr2ts Год назад

      @@zachio69 no im saying if its possible for this being to exist in every possible reality it then should exist in actual reality

  • @themicdropprophet
    @themicdropprophet 2 года назад +37

    "If the universe has been here forever it would have run out of energy by now," This is the only statement that I don't quite track with.
    I think if the universe exists or existed eternally, it would be internally sustainable. Meaning that it wouldn't run out at all ever.

    • @lightbeforethetunnel
      @lightbeforethetunnel 2 года назад +53

      I recommend studying the Second Law of Thermodynamics further. It is a *LAW* of physics (something that is always true in physical reality) that tells us the universe is running out of usable energy.
      You'll have to understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics fully to understand.

    • @themicdropprophet
      @themicdropprophet 2 года назад +4

      @@lightbeforethetunnel I would have just worded it differently. It may be consistent with the second law of thermodynamics, but forever implies just that, forever. Eternity, infinity, forever.
      I would say that, the second law of thermodynamics makes an eternal universe impossible. Because, it can't be eternal if the usable energy is slowly running out.

    • @thepubliusproject
      @thepubliusproject 2 года назад +3

      @@lightbeforethetunnel That's not accurate. Energy can be stored in the form of more stable states, such as mass (as mass and energy are the same things), but matter is energy itself and neither matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed. They can be modified, such that they do have changes that have significant impacts on things within their proximity of influence, but they cannot be _destroyed_.

    • @thepubliusproject
      @thepubliusproject 2 года назад +1

      @@themicdropprophet Energy can be stored in the form of more stable states, such as mass (as mass and energy are the same things), but matter is energy itself and neither matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed. They can be modified, such that they do have changes that have significant impacts on things within their proximity of influence, but they cannot be _destroyed_.

    • @lightbeforethetunnel
      @lightbeforethetunnel 2 года назад +16

      @@thepubliusproject I agree with your comments regarding "energy." But it's all irrelevant given the context is "usable energy."

  • @YorgosSimeonidis
    @YorgosSimeonidis Месяц назад +1

    The first premise is based on everyday experience and scientific knowledge. It applies, as far as we know, to to things within the universe, but this does not mean that it necessarily applies to the whole universe including space and time. The funny thing with the first premise is that God's existence too is against everyday intuition and scientific knowledge. Why is this criterion valid when it is about the uncaused existence of the universe and not valid when it is about the existence of God?

  • @Burg7.
    @Burg7. 2 года назад +9

    0:57 Because we are inside the universe. Everything that has existed in the universe came from something else. The universe itself isn’t in itself.

    • @wyett123
      @wyett123 2 года назад +1

      @Osamatarig Osman saying humans come from matter is like saying lakes come from water...
      And consciousness, i.e a function of the brain, is also made of matter. Otherwise lopping off a part of your brain wouldn't change your consciousness in any way

    • @wyett123
      @wyett123 2 года назад +2

      @Osamatarig Osman just bc we can't fully explain something ATM doesn't mean you can just assert magic did it!
      This has nothing to do with determinism, which has its own issues.
      And EVERYTHING we know about what we label as "consciousness" takes place in the physical. You can't show me one thing that has consciousness but no brain!
      And once again someones consciousness can be altered by messing with the brain, clearly showing consciousness to be a by product of the brain, the same as hunger, sadness, etc.

    • @Promisedone47
      @Promisedone47 11 месяцев назад

      it does not, and you no proof it does, also if that was right, then me you and a rock would be justr rearrangements of atoms, thus unaliving you wouldn't be bad or good, it will jst be@@wyett123

    • @luzdani11
      @luzdani11 9 месяцев назад

      no, the universe is the entire thing, everything within it simultaneously makes up a universe.

  • @CesarClouds
    @CesarClouds Год назад +2

    @0:50 That's a spatial-temporal example that Craig uses to defend a non spatial-temporal one (god). There's a magician (god) but no hat, so, according to Craig, that's better than having an actual hat and magician! And what's Craig's example of "nothing"? A bicycle popping out of "nothing" is not nothing because the universe is something.

  • @VenturaWeddings
    @VenturaWeddings Год назад +74

    Since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer.

    • @therick363
      @therick363 Год назад +11

      That’s one way to interpret things but not the only way

    • @VenturaWeddings
      @VenturaWeddings Год назад +6

      @@therick363 How would you explain these fine tuned details that to me and others look like they had to be intelligently designed?

    • @therick363
      @therick363 Год назад +13

      @@VenturaWeddings just because they appear fine tuned doesn’t mean they are. There is also the simple fact that say other than that…what else says intelligence? All we see are natural causes and events

    • @VenturaWeddings
      @VenturaWeddings Год назад +1

      @@therick363 I respect your feelings. I disagree. I can't disagree what i and so many others can clearly see with my own eyes everywhere i look. RUclips presentations for fine tuning are mind blowing but also make perfect sense to me. You disagree and that's fine. I just cant deny there was a hand involved in everything coming together so perfectly.

    • @VenturaWeddings
      @VenturaWeddings Год назад

      @Anon Ymous Who says we have to present the tuner. Thats your job. Intelligent Design just presents that scientific facts that lead to the fact that everything we can study and see around us is obviously fine tuned. BTW big bang theorist or any other theory has eye witness of when it all started. We only have our God wired minds to figure that out. Oops, I said God. To each their own.

  • @russkinter3000
    @russkinter3000 Год назад +1

    The "universe is running out of energy"
    That refers to the second law of thermodynamics which states "All open systems must reach a state of equilibrium." The key word here is "open".
    If the universe is a closed system, then it doesn't have to reach a state of equilibrium and therefore not lose energy.

    • @blusheep2
      @blusheep2 Год назад

      I don't remember that part but I think it was a mistake. It should have said "closed" systems. An open system may not reach equilibrium because other systems interact with it and either add or subtract from it, so only in a closed system could you reach total entropy.

    • @russkinter3000
      @russkinter3000 Год назад

      A perfectly sealed refrigerator would keep food cold forever and it would also be a "closed system". Your open systems would eventually reach a state of equilibrium with each other.
      @@blusheep2

  • @YorgosSimeonidis
    @YorgosSimeonidis Месяц назад +3

    It is funny how theists try to use science in order to pretend that they draw their theistic theories from it. In reality science hasn't concluded anything about the beginning of the universe. It is an unknown. Current laws of physics are not necessarily eternal as we have observed in the singularity where they don't hold any more. The universe could have a beginning or it could be eternal. No one knows. In both cases inserting a creator as a cause for its existence is only one of the many possible explanations.

    • @cashcxrtii-4083
      @cashcxrtii-4083 День назад

      Honestly if I didn’t believe in my religion, science would be next believe of a religion. Next best guess is that us actively learning, understanding, creating and expanding our reality is us actually connecting to a higher being.

    • @YorgosSimeonidis
      @YorgosSimeonidis День назад

      @ Science has nothing to do with a higher being. After all to see someone as "higher" is an evaluation and science does not do that. Science makes descriptions.

    • @cashcxrtii-4083
      @cashcxrtii-4083 День назад

      @@YorgosSimeonidis I agree, I just meant that I think it’s the closest thing to finding a discovery that could be used to evaluate whether God or is true or not. Religion was the wrong word, just that it’s probably better for us to rethink religion and consider some of the descriptions and explanations science has provided us so far. Even if there is no hope for science to actually do that, it’s our best bet.

  • @bilosan97
    @bilosan97 2 года назад +24

    I think the 'Kalam' should bring christians and muslims closer together, since this argument comes from Islamic scholasticism. A good reason for a group among fellow christians to stop calling muhammad a 'pedophile' or attacking the Koran without knowledge. Reasoning and researching for oneself is the best way to find the truth about something, instead of following conjecture and parroting strawman arguments. This is not an attack but a call to reason.

    • @kizu5451
      @kizu5451 2 года назад

      indeed

    • @bilosan97
      @bilosan97 Год назад +2

      @Yizzy Roger Hello dear brother/sister. I hope you take a tiny bit of your time to read this. Disclaimer: I am not trying to falsify anything from the bible or am an apologist for brand 'Islam' or try to convert you. Quite the contrary:
      First we have to define what 'islam' and 'muslim' means. Islam does not mean the arabic sect with 5 pillars, Islam merely means 'Surrender', in the context of the Quran, Surrender to God. The definition of 'Muslim' is 'someone who surrenders'. It is originally not a name given to those who adhere to a religion called 'Islam'. So a jew or a monotheist christian who follows the mosaic law or the Gospels we have today and surrenders completely to God alone, they are 'surrenderers' (arabic. 'muslim'). The doctrine of the mainstream 'brand Islam' is nowhere to be found in the Quran. The Quran tells that the Torah (OT) and the Gospel (NT) is from God and that the Quran confirms them and does not abrogate them. I know that it seems like 'Allah' is another God but no. Allah is arabic and means 'The God'. Just as in the Gospels God is called 'Ho Théos/ο Θεός' which literally translates to 'The God' i.e. 'Allah' in arabic. Yah** is our God. The word Allah just explains that he is one God nothing more. The Quran also uses thr names of the Prophets including Yah's name. And middle eastern christians also use the name 'Allah' for God. In aramaic, Jesus' language God is called 'Alaha' in hebrew 'Aloh' or 'elohim'. The Quran is a message not a book belonging to a sect or a 'religion' in the conventional sense. Mainstream 'islamists' like to bend verses so that it fits their religion which actually comes from sources that were written down 150 years after the death of Muhammad. The Quran does preach the same message as the OT and NT. The day of the lord, hell heaven, inheriting the earth (like in the psalms) it ieven brings a verse from the psalms in 21:105. Prophet mohammad did not try to convert others into his 'new' religion, he merely called every believer back to God and also as a warner for his tribe, like Jonah went to his people to warn them as a gentile prophet. I appreciate you if you've read all this.
      [He sent down to you this scripture (O Mohammad), truthfully, *confirming* all previous scriptures, and *He sent down the Torah and the Gospel.* (Quran 3:3)]
      [Say: "O people of the Book, let us come to a common understanding between us and between you; that we serve none except God, and that we do not set up anything with Him, and that none of us takes each other as patrons besides God." If they turn away, then say: "Bear witness that we have surrendered." (Quran 3:64)]
      P.s. I recommend you the lecture of 'Fred Donner'. Unfortunately I cannot mention links here. The title is:
      "Islam's origins: Myth and Material Evidence - Fred Donner"
      Peace and blessings from our one father who is in Heaven.

    • @SerenityWithin101
      @SerenityWithin101 Год назад

      @Yizzy Roger wrong my friend, we don't believe in trinity, our God that we call Allah is it the same as what you call Father, if you go translate the word God to Aramaic (which is Jesus's language) it's translated as אלהא Elāhā (Biblical Aramaic) and ܐܠܗܐ Alāhā (Syriac). Don't let them mislead you of thinking we worship "another" God, I had a discussion with a guy who thought we worship the moon, and I was like "WHAAAT" ! I didn't know it was so misleading to think we worship different God

    • @jimnichols1066
      @jimnichols1066 Год назад +1

      There is no God but Allah and Jesus Christ is his Son.

    • @bilosan97
      @bilosan97 Год назад

      @@jimnichols1066 yep. But 'Son' as in 'vicegerent' not a literal begotten child. Almighty God does not beget. God even calls Israel his 'first born Son' or the angels 'sons of God'. Even adam is called 'Son of God' in the Gospels. The Gospels should be read in context with the Torah (old Testament) otherwise there will be much inconsistencies and misconceptions.

  • @gamersusan
    @gamersusan 2 года назад +25

    THis is surprisingly high quality. Nicely done!

    • @con.troller4183
      @con.troller4183 2 года назад +1

      Great production. Useless argument.

    • @jakubdub7557
      @jakubdub7557 2 года назад +4

      @@con.troller4183 Prove it.

    • @con.troller4183
      @con.troller4183 2 года назад

      @@jakubdub7557
      Prove that the universe "began to exist".

    • @jakubdub7557
      @jakubdub7557 2 года назад

      @@con.troller4183 Prove that I am not love You.

    • @Raiddd__
      @Raiddd__ Год назад +3

      @@con.troller4183you literally made the claim that it’s useless. That’s a positive claim. Burden of proof is on you

  • @rickdelatour5355
    @rickdelatour5355 2 года назад +2

    Every “cause” we have come to understand has had a natural explanation. This fact makes naturalism the logical default. Not once have we observed a divine cause for anything, ever. The Kalam does nothing to demonstrate the possibility of a creator god.

  • @michellecho3414
    @michellecho3414 9 месяцев назад +14

    God bless! I'm so glad He is a wonderful Creator.

  • @guitart4909
    @guitart4909 Год назад

    Contemplate this mental exercise. Suppose the universe is a giant warehouse. You observe that everything in the warehouse is wrapped in plastic. Can you logically conclude that the warehouse (universe) is also wrapped in plastic? How can we logically conclude that the universe had a cause simply because the material within it had a cause?

    • @blusheep2
      @blusheep2 Год назад

      Your really not that far from the Kalaam's argument. What you are arguing for is a First Cause. Something that itself is eternal. Is Necessary. So the Kalaam comes to the same conclusion that you are coming to intuitively. The question then is what must the first cause's qualities be and does the universe fit those qualities... hint.... it doesn't.

    • @guitart4909
      @guitart4909 Год назад

      @@blusheep2 well, I feel like I’m more showing it’s weakness as a an argument. It assumes a premise for the universe by assuming it must have a cause because everything within it had a cause. There’s no evidence that the universe began to exist.

    • @blusheep2
      @blusheep2 Год назад

      @@guitart4909 Oh, but there is. I'm sure you've heard of the singularity? Do you realize that the singularity isn't a thing? Its not a concrete object. Its an abstract. Its a word that we use to identify a time in the finite past when the universe is curved or "compressed" to the infinite.
      Similarly, so is the word "infinite." "Infinite" is not actually a number. Its representative of an immeasurable series vector. So if you start subtracting 1 from 100 and you keep doing that over and over, without anything to put a stop to this chain of subtractions, you will reach infinity. Infinity is not an actual number. It represents what is immeasurable. So when scientists look back in time they are "subtracting 1s" When they keep trying to reach back they run into an infinity. An immeasurable curvature/compression of space, time and matter.
      You will often hear it said that "our math breaks down" at this point because the scientists don't know what to do with these infinities. You may have even heard scientists claim that the universe was compressed down to the size of a basket ball, but that would mean that the universe had dimension and wasn't infinite.
      In math we have negative numbers but we have them because we have arbitrarily assigned a value as zero. Take temperature. Zero degrees doesn't mean there is no temperature. Do you see how "measurement" is different then "counting?" When you measure something Zero is relative to a choice you made. Anything above zero will be measured as a positive number and everything below zero will be measured as a negative. On the flip side, if we were just counting the number of matchbox cars your sons has, we could count zero if he owned none.
      So when you measure the universe over the passage of time, you are making a measurement. You are not counting. If you were counting the number of electrons that existed in the universe at different points in time, you would come to ZERO at the "singularity." But if you are to measure the size of the universe as you look back in time, you will run into "infinity." So the way I see it, and I'm no mathematician and may be convinced otherwise one day, is that there is no better definition of "nothing" then saying that the universe was curved or compressed to the infinite.
      I think the scientists know this. They initially rejected the concept of the Big Bang because of the appearance that the universe came from nothing. Now they have math that suggests it did not exist at some point in the finite past and they don't like that either and so they tell us "the math breaks down," and they treat the singularity as a concrete object, when it really is just an abstract.
      So there is strong evidence that the universe had a beginning and that fits the definition of Premise 1 of the Kalaam. "Begins to exist" means that at some point in the finite past the "thing" did not exist.
      To prove this wrong, I think you would have to be able to point at the universe past the infinite but it would be impossible to point past an infinite. You never get to the end of an infinite to find something to point at.

  • @lloydwalden4053
    @lloydwalden4053 2 года назад +9

    GOD will have the final say.🙏🙏❤✝️

  • @metinamusic
    @metinamusic 2 года назад +2

    I got a question. If this argument has one of the premises as “Everything has a cause, or a creator” then why would it stop at God? Why doesn’t to keep going? Is an infinite number of causes possible?

    • @drcraigvideos
      @drcraigvideos  2 года назад +4

      That's not one of the premises. The premise is "Everything that *begins to exist* has a cause." Clearly, if the cause does not begin to exist, then it doesn't fall under the things described in the premise. - RF Admin

    • @guitart4909
      @guitart4909 Год назад +2

      The original premise of the KCA was "everything that exists has a cause." We arbitrarily assign properties to God so that he is immune to the contradiction contained within the first premise. This begs the question though, if God can have all of these properties then why can't the universe or rather the universe's constituents also be timeless as well? Furthermore, "begins to exist" is somewhat arbitrary. The water I am drinking began to exist, but it also came from previous constituents (hydrogen and oxygen). Since we don't know what the previous constituents of the universe was, we can't rule out that the universe "began to exist." The only thing we can say for certain is that the universe began to expand.

    • @wafflesthearttoad6916
      @wafflesthearttoad6916 11 месяцев назад

      Just that everything has a cause, the cause does not have to be God but the cause cannot be tied down by the laws of thermodynamics. I think. Idk I started getting tired after scrolling through so many replies.

    • @1x35_10
      @1x35_10 10 месяцев назад

      The simple answer is that God was always there, he created time, space, and matter. Therefore he was out of it, therefore there wasn't a need for a beginning or an end

    • @MrMojahed1983
      @MrMojahed1983 7 месяцев назад

      Simple: Even the infinity starts with One. And nothing is before One, it must be uncaused.

  • @mostafaomar2366
    @mostafaomar2366 2 года назад +12

    سبحان الله

  • @ElectricBluJay
    @ElectricBluJay 29 дней назад

    Very concise and interesting. Thank you.

  • @mr.sneakyman1267
    @mr.sneakyman1267 2 года назад +37

    Thank you Craig

    • @sayedtalhahassan6213
      @sayedtalhahassan6213 2 года назад +5

      thanks to imam gazali 😍😍

    • @younesshbiddou6865
      @younesshbiddou6865 2 года назад +2

      Craig should thank Imam al Ghazali

    • @Raiddd__
      @Raiddd__ Год назад +2

      @@younesshbiddou6865he literally did by calling it the Kalam Cosmological argument and has cited him many times

  • @ImHeadshotSniper
    @ImHeadshotSniper Год назад +2

    i'll repeat what every single 6 year old who first learns about God asks. "who created God?"

    • @drcraigvideos
      @drcraigvideos  Год назад +10

      And, as every single six year old should be answered, the concept of God is of a being that is not created, so if it's a being that's created, it's not God. - RF Admin

    • @ImHeadshotSniper
      @ImHeadshotSniper Год назад +1

      @@drcraigvideos if God is not created, how do they exist?

    • @drcraigvideos
      @drcraigvideos  11 месяцев назад +8

      @@ImHeadshotSniper Asking why a necessarily existing being exists is like asking why a bachelor isn't married. - RF Admin

    • @ImHeadshotSniper
      @ImHeadshotSniper 11 месяцев назад +1

      @@drcraigvideos the assumption that the necessarily existing thing is an intentional being who also influences the world post-creation (as is the idea of a fundamentalist Christian perspective), is purely a culturally and emotionally biased, as well as ultimately uncertain faithful belief.
      who says the universe can't necessarily exist by itself without an external necessarily existing thing?
      if you are applying this logic to the universe, you can just as easily apply it to a God.
      since we're quite sure the universe exists in some form, it seems to be that case that it necessarily exists. whether anything else external necessarily exists, while a valid assumption, is nothing more than an assumption.
      to feel confident that you know exactly what the root necessarily existing thing is, seems quite hubris, as we're impossibly tiny aspects of this universe, and i personally wouldn't count on the idea that we are even capable of understanding the root of reality.

  • @jakubdub7557
    @jakubdub7557 2 года назад +6

    Life after life is a fact

    • @con.troller4183
      @con.troller4183 2 года назад +1

      Prove it.

    • @jakubdub7557
      @jakubdub7557 2 года назад

      @@con.troller4183 Death is not eternal dream. Reincarnation is possible. My opinion.

    • @jakubdub7557
      @jakubdub7557 2 года назад

      @@con.troller4183 God exsist

    • @jakubdub7557
      @jakubdub7557 2 года назад

      @@con.troller4183 Universe is INTELIGENT DESIGN.

    • @jakubdub7557
      @jakubdub7557 2 года назад

      @@con.troller4183 I dont must prove anything.

  • @xoxohavoc3913
    @xoxohavoc3913 2 года назад +2

    According to law of thermodynamics "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed but it can be converted into one form to other"
    This proves that energy is eternal and has always existed and will exist in the universe one way or another

    • @habtamutalew9798
      @habtamutalew9798 2 года назад +1

      This is not the law of thermodynamics, it is law of conservation of energy. And it goes, "energy that has started to exist..."

    • @therick363
      @therick363 2 года назад

      @@habtamutalew9798 I think you might want to check that. Where did you hear it?

    • @guitart4909
      @guitart4909 Год назад

      Not quite accurate. The implications in the laws of thermodynamics is that the net energy must be zero. How can you get something from nothing without violating this? Simple, you can get (-1) and (+1) from zero. In this context the (-1) is anti-matter and the (+1) is the matter we interact with. It allows for the creation of matter provided an equal amount of anti-matter is also created without raising or lowering the net energy from zero. One of the biggest mysteries of the cosmos centers around the missing anti-matter or asymmetry being matter and anti-matter.

    • @CuriousSquid06
      @CuriousSquid06 17 дней назад

      Energy needs space in order to exist

  • @abhishekandstuff
    @abhishekandstuff 2 года назад +23

    Your ministry is such a great blessing to us

  • @savedbymylovegodthelordjes8394
    @savedbymylovegodthelordjes8394 2 года назад +2

    praise the only true living LORD and GOD bless you all glory be to the HOLY TRINITY forever and ever amen 💖✝️✝️✝️

  • @_VISION.
    @_VISION. 6 месяцев назад +3

    It always blows my mind how these videos never start with their definition of God

    • @drcraigvideos
      @drcraigvideos  6 месяцев назад +1

      Helpfully, Dr. Craig defines what is meant by "God" here: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/defining-god. - RF Admin

    • @_VISION.
      @_VISION. 6 месяцев назад +1

      @@drcraigvideos he definitely didn't lol

    • @blusheep2
      @blusheep2 2 месяца назад

      @@_VISION. You looking for a full description of God but that is not necessary to know about a God.

    • @_VISION.
      @_VISION. 2 месяца назад

      @@blusheep2 it is when you're making a theological argument. Stop it, get some help.

    • @blusheep2
      @blusheep2 2 месяца назад

      @@_VISION. No its not. You just want it because you think its a weakness of ours and you want to pounce. I can know about God. I can deduce certain attributes about Him. I can receive revelation about him and all of it can be true without knowing all things about God. Its not rational nor scientific to demand we know all things about something before we believe it exists. We don't know everything about the Big Bang. We don't know everything about biological evolution and we haven't observed it. We don't know everything about quantum mechanics. Yet we say all these things are the cause of life on our planet.

  • @wes5619
    @wes5619 Год назад

    God and the Devil aren't what people think they are.
    Keep your soul close to your heart and don't give it away so freely. Once it's gone, it's gone. Worship what you will, but keep your soul.

  • @abhishekandstuff
    @abhishekandstuff 2 года назад +23

    My dream is to learn Apologetics from You sir..I want to be like you..Big fan from India ❤️

    • @drcraigvideos
      @drcraigvideos  2 года назад +5

      Have you connected with our local chapters in India? If not, you should! - RF Admin
      www.reasonablefaith.org/chapters/directory

    • @cnault3244
      @cnault3244 2 года назад +1

      @@drcraigvideos Mr Craig, are you a Christian?

    • @drcraigvideos
      @drcraigvideos  2 года назад +3

      @@cnault3244 Yes, Dr. Craig is a Christian. - RF Admin

    • @cnault3244
      @cnault3244 2 года назад +3

      @@drcraigvideos In that case, why would he waste his time with the Kalam cosmological argument? That argument does not get you to Jesus or Christianity.
      It doesn't even get you to the god of the Bible. Using that argument you can plug in Brahma, Ptah, Odin, Zeus, or any other creator god or goddess people have worshiped, or some unnamed god or goddess.
      He should be presenting evidence for the Bible story of Christ's resurrection.

    • @drcraigvideos
      @drcraigvideos  2 года назад +9

      @@cnault3244 This is part of a cumulative case for Christianity. Arguments from natural theology can significantly increase one's willingness to accept Christian theism. In fact, some people have accepted Christ because the Kalam Cosmological Argument convinced them that theism was true! And, of course, Dr. Craig has also done tremendous work on the historical argument for the resurrection of Jesus, so it's not as if he offers arguments like the above to the neglect of Christian theism specifically. - RF Admin

  • @kuro758
    @kuro758 22 дня назад +1

    Lost me at first premise.
    Subatomic particles exist out of nothing all the time.

    • @drcraigvideos
      @drcraigvideos  21 день назад

      No, subatomic particles do not exist out of nothing. They come from the quantum vacuum, which is a sea of roiling energy that is governed by the laws of nature. - RF Admin

  • @sanidhya9145
    @sanidhya9145 Год назад +11

    The Kalam argument states that since everything has a cause, the universe must have one too (God). But think about it. Since everything has a cause, then who or what caused God? And then who caused the entity that caused God. There begins an ininite chain of causality. The argument doesn't solve the problem and Its self contradictory.

    • @kenandzafic3948
      @kenandzafic3948 Год назад +34

      The argument does not say that everything has a cause but that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

    • @zekerolando5140
      @zekerolando5140 Год назад

      @@kenandzafic3948 But why would God be the exception, not the rule?

    • @guitart4909
      @guitart4909 Год назад +3

      the argument says everything that exists (except God) has a cause.

    • @mcdawol
      @mcdawol Год назад +2

      @@guitart4909again, why is god an exception?

    • @guitart4909
      @guitart4909 Год назад +3

      @@mcdawol I don’t think god should be the exception. I’m pointing out the fallacy of using a premise to allegedly prove god and then exempting god from the premise that allegedly proves his existence in the first place

  • @erdogan123erdogan4
    @erdogan123erdogan4 Месяц назад

    time is a dimension. space, time and energy-matter are always there. they are necessary

    • @drcraigvideos
      @drcraigvideos  Месяц назад

      If time is necessary, then there have been an actually infinite number of past moments. But if there have been an actually infinite number of past moments, then time would never be able to arrive at the present moment. To reach the present moment, time would have to have reached the previous moment (call it t-1). But prior to reaching that moment, it would have to have reached the moment previous to that (t-2). And so on ad infinitum. One just gets pushed backwards forever. So, just as one cannot ever count up to infinity, so too is it impossible to traverse an actual infinite backwards in time. This is sufficient to show that time itself had a beginning. - RF Admin

    • @erdogan123erdogan4
      @erdogan123erdogan4 Месяц назад

      @@drcraigvideos not really... Because time is a dimension meaning just as length, breadth and height it is a line ... so all events from big bang till now and till end of universe is already present and existing.......Hitler becoming chancellor of germany , or birth of earth, birth of sun all are present. There is no universal now. see Rietdijk-Putnam-Penrose argument.....
      perhaps if you travel to future, there will be a point where entropy will increase to such an extend that it become zero. meaning a new big bang start .. you are back to big bang time..... space is also curved near massive object...so if you travel in one direction you will reach back to earth.. space time , energy are always existing necessary... all these events form necessary existance

  • @billjohnson9472
    @billjohnson9472 Год назад +3

    Its the argument that refutes itself - it claims everything has a beginning, then claims there is at least one thing that does not have a beginning. What kind of idiot could take that seriously?

    • @panzerjäger_1
      @panzerjäger_1 Год назад +1

      Did you even watch the video? It shows that the cause was Uncaused and did not have a beginning.

    • @billjohnson9472
      @billjohnson9472 Год назад +1

      @@panzerjäger_1 So you agree there are things without beginnings which refutes the first claim that everything has a beginning.

    • @panzerjäger_1
      @panzerjäger_1 Год назад

      @@billjohnson9472 no because god never began to exist because he has always existed so he didn’t need a cause to begin to exist

    • @billjohnson9472
      @billjohnson9472 Год назад +1

      @@panzerjäger_1 That falsifies the first claim that everything has a beginning. Because you are giving an example of something without a beginning. QED

    • @panzerjäger_1
      @panzerjäger_1 Год назад

      @@billjohnson9472 yep

  • @celsoruiz4339
    @celsoruiz4339 Год назад +2

    Thank you so much. July 2023 and I'm watching this video to help me understand for my college class. It is excellent to visualize what I just read but couldn't comprehend. The professor doesn't offer any reviews or notes.

    • @Raiddd__
      @Raiddd__ Год назад

      What class and college? If you don’t mind me asking.

  • @Halfdan96
    @Halfdan96 2 года назад +13

    I’m shocked when I saw the word Kalam on the book cover 😂

  • @johnfitzgerald8879
    @johnfitzgerald8879 Год назад

    "The universe began to exist."
    Says what?
    So far and at lease, energy, mass (or matter), linear momentum, angular momentum, and electric charge are conserved quantities meaning they don't have a cause, they just exist.

  • @YusufAkram-Hussain
    @YusufAkram-Hussain Год назад +2

    Amazing video

  • @stevekeeley39
    @stevekeeley39 2 года назад +7

    Praise God almighty😃🙏

  • @freeluigi4444
    @freeluigi4444 2 года назад +1

    And who says the universe can't create itself?? Where's the proof for that?

    • @bornformission
      @bornformission 2 года назад +5

      Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. That is the premise. The universe began to exist. Besides, our everyday experience shows that things don't just pop into existence without a cause. We have sufficient proof to establish that something cannot create itself rather it has a cause always.

    • @bornformission
      @bornformission 2 года назад +2

      The fact is the claim that the universe popped from nothing is not made by the theist but by the atheist and scientist. We, the theists, claim that the material universe came to existence not from nothingness but from a cause, God.

    • @bornformission
      @bornformission 2 года назад

      The modern science points to the fact that the universe began to exist because it cannot exist infinitely in the past. Because of that the scientist are left with no option but to conclude that the universe began from a starting point and it continues to expand. Even though the scients may say that they are agnostic to what was there before the beginning of the universe it only stands as an excuse. Even primordial soup is still material and anything material must cause and the material causes will go on an infinite regress. The Kalam cosmological argument points to a probable cause of the universe. And in this case the immaterial, timeless, personal, all-powerful God stands as the most probable cause.

    • @bornformission
      @bornformission 2 года назад

      @Airator - Gaming Thank you for the response. To point you are making, I can only say that I am agnostic to how God makes something out nothing. However, with the Kalam cosmological argument, it points to God, an immaterial being, as the plausible cause for the universe. Moreover, God by definition is omnipotent who can certainly be the author and finisher of material substances which we see and experience everyday, which includes bringing something to existence. Having said that, if we agree that God is beyond the natural and God could perform supernatural act, then creating something from nothing is not something that is hard for us to comprehend. With that, even if we are completely agnostic to how God brings something from nothing, that still doesn't derail the deduction of the Kalam cosmological argument that God must exist. I do not claim to know everything and in this case how God creates. By the way, I suppose, we all should take that position because that teaches us to be humble and be modest.

  • @CD-221
    @CD-221 2 года назад +10

    Jesus Christ YAHSHUA is our savior! Bless his Holy name

    • @asmodeus304
      @asmodeus304 2 года назад

      yahshua is the name of the prophet joshua, not jesus

    • @CD-221
      @CD-221 2 года назад

      @@asmodeus304 you are wrong. This is the hebrew translation.

    • @asmodeus304
      @asmodeus304 2 года назад

      @@CD-221 jesus is a greek name?? why would you translate a greek name into hebrew

    • @CD-221
      @CD-221 2 года назад

      @@asmodeus304 you are not educated. Jesus is the english translation of the greek translation of the HEBREW name. Jesus spoke hebrew and aramic

    • @CD-221
      @CD-221 2 года назад

      @@asmodeus304 its a hebrew name translated to greek and english

  • @aleruiz9460
    @aleruiz9460 Год назад +1

    I sure am glad that as an species we imagined out of nowhere a magical person that created the universe, otherwise maybe the universe would have a scarier cause :(

    • @humanbeing7624
      @humanbeing7624 Год назад +3

      if the first two premises are correct, I am open to the idea that the first cause must be uncaused. Could be God, a council of gods or a timeless energy outside our universe.

  • @eagle6702
    @eagle6702 2 года назад +3

    virtual particles can be observed coming from nothing in the Casimir effect.

    • @karozans
      @karozans 2 года назад

      It's embarrassing that you are still using that silly argument.

  • @Yamyatos
    @Yamyatos Год назад +1

    Well made, but sadly that doesnt change the fact that the Kalam cosmological argument is a huge mess, and has been debunked over and over.
    Also, while the universe certainly had a beginning (thats century old knowledge at this point, no need to drag it out), the first premise is a statement about the universe we live in. Leaving out the fact that we arent even sure if it actually applied on the quantum level, it says absolutely nothing about how any other universe, or the laws outside this universe (which would have given rise to this universe) work.
    The third premise can be considered correct, if we think about things like the multiverse, or another universe giving rise to our universe. However, what is actually means here is "something rather than nothing". So going all the way back to the beginning of anything at all: there is only two possibilities. Either something existed forever and had no cause, or something came from nothing. The cosmological argument basically argues that there must be a creator, but the 4th premise does not follow *at all* from anything discussed previously *whatsoever*. Sure, something that created our universe would have to be outside of the laws we know as space or time, as those came into the existance when our universe was created - but there may be other similar or identical such concepts. But there is no reason to imply the existance of some creator. It's as i said. Two options. Something always existed. Or came from nothing. Why do we need to explain a different cause for the universe by implying the existance of an infinitely more complex being who spoke it into the existance by literal magic, and who itself then faces the same problem: it must have come from nothing, or always existed. But if this infinitely more complex thing is allowed to do so, how can the same not simply be true for the natural processes that gave rise to this universe. It makes no sense. It shifts the problem, all the while making it infinitely more complex, as well as introducing literal magic.

  • @IgonDrakeWarrior
    @IgonDrakeWarrior Год назад +8

    Grasping at straws if this is their best defense for their divine spy camera in the sky

    • @nicolehawley3111
      @nicolehawley3111 Год назад +1

      it’s not the best defense

    • @IgonDrakeWarrior
      @IgonDrakeWarrior Год назад

      @@nicolehawley3111 are you a teacher? You have a lot of lectures on your youtube.

    • @nicolehawley3111
      @nicolehawley3111 Год назад

      @@IgonDrakeWarrior yes I am!

    • @CesarClouds
      @CesarClouds Год назад

      @@nicolehawley3111 What's the best defense?

    • @nicolehawley3111
      @nicolehawley3111 Год назад

      I think there are many that are better than the Kalam Cosmological argument. As far as the "best" would mostly depend upon who I'm talking to. But I think the Fine-Tuning argument is one of the most convincing for many people: ruclips.net/video/EE76nwimuT0/видео.html
      But I think that the best argument for God in my own life and many others is the personal encounters I have had with Him and others have had with Him. God is real to me not because I've reasoned that He must exist but because I've encountered Him and felt His love for me and others
      @@CesarClouds

  • @someoneonyoutube8622
    @someoneonyoutube8622 Год назад +1

    The first premise conflicts with free will

    • @kenandzafic3948
      @kenandzafic3948 Год назад

      No, free elections have a cause, the cause is the personal agents themselves.

    • @someoneonyoutube8622
      @someoneonyoutube8622 Год назад

      @@kenandzafic3948 ok then, we can test this.
      Can you choose to want to choose something?
      To be clear im not asking if you can make yourself do something you don’t want to do and im not asking if you’re able to change your mind, im asking if you can choose to change how you feel about a choice without any outside influence.
      Because if you yourself are the cause for your free will then you should be free to choose your underlying perceptions on what you value.
      Let me give you a more specific example. Can you choose to like something you absolutely hate for no reason, Or vise versa?
      Can you just decide without reason to genuinely enjoy being in physical and mental anguish for example?
      Once again im not asking if you can choose to put yourself in mental and physical anguish im just asking if you as you are now can choose to just WANT to experience that without any underlying reason or cause or reservations about it?
      As a personal agent as you describe you should be able to do this, but psychologically that’s just about impossible, you can’t force yourself to want to want something that process just happens automatically based on your past experiences and personal preference, neither one of these you can change freely, one you’re born with and the other you experience from the world external to yourself. You can’t choose to change the core of who you are.

    • @kenandzafic3948
      @kenandzafic3948 Год назад

      @@someoneonyoutube8622 1. This is a meaningless question because you are what you choose, so if nothing caused your choice, it is only yours and shows what you are like.
      2. That you can change your opinion without any external influence.
      3.I didn't understand this part about perceptions.
      4. Yes you can, but you won't because your choice shows who you are as a person, so it's not just random things, I think you're confusing causelessness with randomness.
      5. You can but it's not likely unless you're a psychopath.
      6. It seems that your point is whether I can just change drastically for no reason and logically yes but probabilistically no.
      7. No those things are inconsistent with free will as I said you are confusing the causelessness of free choices with randomness.

    • @someoneonyoutube8622
      @someoneonyoutube8622 Год назад

      @@kenandzafic3948 what the heck are you on about I never said any of that you’re replying to things I never said. So either you don’t understand or you’re being intentionally dishonest. But Im going to give you the benefit of the doubt.
      "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." - Arthur Schopenhauer
      This is the point im trying to get at. None of what you said addresses this.

    • @kenandzafic3948
      @kenandzafic3948 Год назад

      @@someoneonyoutube8622 I disputed that too, his point here is false because what you choose is you and it is simply pointless to ask the mogul to choose what I will choose when you choose.

  • @abhishekandstuff
    @abhishekandstuff 2 года назад +8

    You are an inspiration ❤️

  • @BANKO007
    @BANKO007 11 месяцев назад

    Worryingly, I can't see the error in this argument or in the assumptions, other than that the cause does not necessarily have the power of volition or any conscious awareness.

  • @thepubliusproject
    @thepubliusproject 2 года назад +4

    Running out of "usable energy" (even if true, which is in dispute), wouldn't mean it's running out of energy. If I live on a sailboat and the wind stops blowing, I have run out of energy despite the fact that the energy that _was_ going into the wind is now going into something else, for example the movement of larger animals on land. Just because it's not usable _to me_ in its current form doesn't mean it's actually going away. It's simply changing its state of existence, just as when I light a match. The wood, and the energy from the heat of the match are not "gone" once the match burns out. They're just now in a different, largely inconvenient state for me to utilize again.

    • @thepubliusproject
      @thepubliusproject 2 года назад

      @Richard Fox I was explaining why that was the case.

    • @thepubliusproject
      @thepubliusproject 2 года назад +1

      @Richard Fox I see! I appreciate it. I thought I had just been too convoluted in my first explanation. Thank you for the reinforcement!

    • @BigFatWedge
      @BigFatWedge 2 года назад +1

      I think the actual law of thermodynamics is that the movement of energy in the universe will slow down until all the energy is dispersed evenly. Craig’s point still works if you think this is the case.
      However, that is nowhere near the biggest problem with this video. Look up “Cosmological Argument Paulogia” to have it explained.

    • @thepubliusproject
      @thepubliusproject 2 года назад +1

      @@BigFatWedge No, I don't think this is the biggest problem with this video. It's hard to pick the biggest turd at a shit show, though, and this one was pretty egregious.
      Thanks for the response!

    • @BigFatWedge
      @BigFatWedge 2 года назад +1

      @@thepubliusproject Always happy to reply and be responded to. 😊
      Yes this argument has some problems. But the only way to give the Kalam credence is to look at science hay only necessarily applies to the universe. If you go to pure philosophy for support, you’ll always run into Carl Sagan’s “why not save a step” conjecture.
      (It’s interesting how Craig seems so totally ignorant of that line of reasoning. Huh. 🥴)
      For the “more of a stretch than believing in magic” thing, there’s always the point that the universe was the beginning of time, and that cause and effect aren’t necessary outside of the universe’s scope. I confess to not really understanding that. 😂 I should really search that up.
      And that thing about how “one by one, all the models were disproven”( 2:40 ) sounds sort of fishy. It doesn’t seem plausible to claim that we know absolutely that nothing could have happened before the Big Bang, and even then you have the whole beginning-of-time thing.
      But I’d say the worst part is the second part, the “philosophical” defense of the Kalam. Carl Sagan took down all that in about 2 minutes, years before the video was even made.
      Seriously Craig, either you’re ignorant or deceptive, and either way, please admit to it.
      (Also any strange grammatical choices I’ve made are cause I’m stupid 🤣)

  • @Revo5660
    @Revo5660 2 года назад +1

    0:58 - Virtual particles.
    1:07 - Cause is something that happens earlier in time than consequence. How can anything happen before the beginning of the universe if there's no concept of time before that at all?
    1:24 - That quote was not a proof of eternal universe theory at all.
    1:33 - Explicit lie. The second principle claims that in an isolated physical system it's entropy is always rising, which doesn't mean that energy is disappearing AT ALL - for that would directly contradict the law of conservation of energy.
    3:18 And they do face it, every day and every year digging deeper into roots of cosmic secrets, trying to explore and discover more. Meanwhile, almost none of those who talk about God made any contribution into this study, except using it to make their beliefs less silly - of course while ignoring other logical counterarguments, too inconvenient to them.
    3:37 - And what does "extremely powerful" exactly mean? Maybe I'm just biased, but that looks like a cheap attempt to push us the idea of a personified deity.
    "William Lane Craig - American analytic philosopher, Christian apologist, author of Wesleyan theologian." - why am I not surprised by the fact that a short video that tries to prove God in four minutes by heavily simplifying complicated cosmological concepts and explicitly misinforming the viewers is made by a theologian?

  • @cnault3244
    @cnault3244 2 года назад +4

    "William Lane Craig and aims to provide in the public arena an intelligent, articulate, and uncompromising yet gracious Christian perspective on the most important issues concerning the truth of the Christian faith today"
    But the cosmological argument does not get you to Jesus or Christianity, so why present the argument here?
    Also, it is called the cosmological argument instead of the cosmological evidence. Can you understand why?

    • @CD-221
      @CD-221 2 года назад

      Theory of gravity is a theory not much evidence to support it. In fact there is evidencd that goes against it. Yet you dont worry about floating away. The COSMOLOGICAL argument does get you to Jesus because it shows logical proof of a single personal creator, the father. Watch the video over

    • @CD-221
      @CD-221 2 года назад

      Also the Cosmo argument provides solid logic of a single creator much like the one described in the old testaments and by Jesus in the new testaments.

    • @cnault3244
      @cnault3244 2 года назад +1

      @@CD-221 "The COSMOLOGICAL argument does get you to Jesus because it shows logical proof"
      Wrong. Try again: it is called the cosmological ARGUMENT, not the cosmological EVIDENCE. Can you figure out why?
      Even if you accept all the premises of the argument, all it gets you to is an unidentified creator god. It does not get you to the god of the Bible, it does not get you to Jesus.

    • @cnault3244
      @cnault3244 2 года назад +2

      @@CD-221 "Also the Cosmo argument provides solid logic of a single creator"
      LOL.
      And the argument that Thor is responsible for lightening is supported by the fact lightening exists.

    • @somedudewithinfiniteiq9391
      @somedudewithinfiniteiq9391 2 года назад +1

      @@cnault3244 because of the cosmological argument
      We conclude that there is a creator.
      But now we can't call a human or any other being the creator.
      We need an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and immaterial being to make the universe. And that Being is the God of the bible.
      So we do end up with Jesus

  • @cnault3244
    @cnault3244 2 года назад

    "Whatever begins to exist has a cause."
    Can anyone present an example of something that exists which didn't begin to exist?

    • @slenderman6925
      @slenderman6925 2 года назад +3

      Well Christians would say god

    • @cnault3244
      @cnault3244 2 года назад +2

      @@slenderman6925 But none of them have presented a god. All they have presented is a claim that this god exists and they define the god as always having existed.

    • @multienergy3684
      @multienergy3684 2 года назад +4

      Numbers

    • @cnault3244
      @cnault3244 2 года назад

      @@multienergy3684 What about numbers? They only exist as concepts, it isn't possible to show someone an actual number.
      All you can show them are symbols used to represent the number.
      For example, the number four can be represented using the following symbols:
      4 IV

    • @youngmarl9351
      @youngmarl9351 2 года назад

      @@cnault3244 Not without speculating. It's also non-sensical to speculate on what happened before the big bang. Time requires space in order to exist and space didn't exist prior to the start of expansion. Its like asking what time was it before time existed? Its possible that the laws of reality in which the fundamental forces emerged from has always existed. The argument in this video is quite flawed logically.

  • @huwcarr
    @huwcarr 2 года назад +8

    I find it very hard to believe that William Lane Craig doesn't know the counters to all of these points that are presented here. He attempts to present it as if there are only some counter-arguments, and then presents the opposition to those arguments, to support his premise....and then stops. As it would take too long to list them all here, I would suggest searching for this phrase; "debunking the Kalam Cosmological argument". In watching such a video, you will see all of the debunking to these claims that Lane Craig seemingly chooses to ignore, or perhaps is ignorant of. As he has debated people for decades on this topic, I find it very unlikely that he doesn't know them. One therefore has to conclude that he chooses to ignore them. So, if we are being intellectually honest, we are left to ask in what position would one present one stream of statements, and then *choose* to ignore their counters. As far as I can reason, the only explanation I can come up with is that he is *afraid* that the counter-arguments invalidate an idea that is very precious to him. Now, I understand that Land Craig believes in some sort of deity (I am not sure which version) so that the idea of him accepting that it may be invalid is painful and undermining. My concern is however, that he is being dishonest in this; as he clearly is happy with attempting to present the argument as if there are no counters to the Kalam Cosmological argument that are valid. He only asserts that any counter-claim is not valid. I am very, very disappointed that such a well-researched and accomplished speaker as Dr. Craig is choosing to be so deceptive. :

    • @armano1b945
      @armano1b945 2 года назад +10

      Oh please stop rambling. Your rambling does not prove anything. If you have the counter-arguments to Lane Craig's, tell us here...

    • @ExNihiloNihilFit319
      @ExNihiloNihilFit319 2 года назад +2

      Basically you are saying, Craig is dishonest and afraid of debunks and that there are videos of the Kalam being debunked in that wall of text.

    • @lightbeforethetunnel
      @lightbeforethetunnel 2 года назад +4

      The answer is simple. Because none of the supposed "debunkings of Kalam's cosmological argument" actually debunk it. They're all just arguments made by people with low logical and/or scientific literacy... or by people who don't understand what "debunking" actually means.

    • @ExNihiloNihilFit319
      @ExNihiloNihilFit319 2 года назад +1

      @@lightbeforethetunnel I couldn't watch 2 minutes of that video without cringing.

    • @lightbeforethetunnel
      @lightbeforethetunnel 2 года назад +8

      @@ExNihiloNihilFit319 Is that your best debunk of Kalam's cosmological argument? Perhaps you don't *WANT TO* believe it's true but that doesn't have any impact on whether it is actually true.

  • @solideogloria5553
    @solideogloria5553 2 года назад

    bereshit bara alohim: in the beginning, God blow/bloom/blast/fattened/发/肥 the cosmos= big bang, perfectly captured in an ancient language of an ancient book about the ancient ancient. QED

  • @flinkstiff
    @flinkstiff 2 года назад +3

    Extremely well produced video. But when it comes to the argument on the other hand it doesn't really hold.
    I had never heard of the argument before but here are some of my first thoughts while thinking a bit about this.
    What is being reasoned about in the first premise is actually "Whatever begins to exist in this universe has a cause", since we have no examples of how cause and effect works outside of our universe. It's kind of like saying everything inside of my house is white, therefor my house has to be white.
    And tbh we actually have examples of things popping into existence in this universe on the quantum scale and since the universe started from one infinitely small point (i.e. at the quantum scale) perhaps it could have a similarily incomprehensible origin.
    Lastly saying what created the universe has to be "powerful" is not true. Also it's not necessarily causeless. And even if we accept those descriptions of its cause i could say that its much like Cthulu or Zhsakhjd (Zhsakhjd is an all powerful being i just made up in my mind).
    But great video nonetheless.

    • @abasis.baruti9819
      @abasis.baruti9819 2 года назад +3

      I'm trying my best to honestly and openly explore this argument, but at the risk of being arrogant, it just seems so childishly simple. None of the fundamental assertions HAVE to be true regarding the existence of the universe. In fact, these are all, essentially, well crafted hypotheses that use logic that applies to the known universe to explain something that MUST be outside it! This, on its face, makes it untenable. We simply do not possess the ability, yet, to get the information we need to ACTUALLY prove or disprove any genuinely possible idea about this subject. If we can't test it, then it's just philosophy and philosophy is not fact. Am I wrong? What am I missing?

    • @drcraigvideos
      @drcraigvideos  2 года назад +6

      1. The first premise is a metaphysical principle that applies to all of reality, not just the physical universe. This is precisely why "this universe" is not included in the wording of the premise. It seems quite obvious that the idea of something coming into existence uncaused out of nothing is absurd, no matter whether it's within our universe or not.
      2. It is false that things pop into existence uncaused at the quantum level. The cause of the coming into existence of quantum particles is the quantum vacuum itself, which is not nothing.
      3. Something's being able to cause the existence of the universe without preexisting matter seems to be paradigmatic of the concept of "powerful." Moreover, if the cause of the universe did not begin to exist (since time plausibly began at creation), then it existed in a timeless state without the universe. It would be very strange to think that such a being had a cause, since its being timeless precludes its having a first moment of existence (i.e. coming into being). Finally, by calling the cause "Cthulu" or "Zhsakhjd," one is merely calling God by another name. That doesn't do anything to change his properties. - RF Admin

    • @flinkstiff
      @flinkstiff 2 года назад

      ​@@drcraigvideos Point 1 assumes that cause and effect can happen without time or space which is absurd. Point 2 and 3 is kind of correct though. But point 3 assumes that Cthulu and Zhsakhjd does not have any other properties except for being "what caused the universe to exist". If your definition of god is only one thing "that which caused the universe to exist", then your statement is true.
      Finally, there is this one thing i havent ever really come close to understanding; how could something "cause" the universe to exist outside of time and space itself. Cause and effect literally only make sense inside of a universe. Time is basically an abstraction of movement in space.

    • @BigFatWedge
      @BigFatWedge 2 года назад +1

      @@flinkstiff Dude. There is always like one logical person in these Christian Apologetics videos, and you are that person here. Thank you 🥹

    • @Yamyatos
      @Yamyatos Год назад

      @@drcraigvideos
      1. Which is where you are wrong. Everything we observe and any rules we make based on it, are based on our experience inside of this universe. That tells us literally nothing about how any other universes might behave, or how things go outside of our universe. "Not making sense to the human brain" is also not a good reason to believe something to be true. The quantum world involves teleportation as well as things existing at different locations at the same time. None of that makes the least bit of sense to our brains, because at the level where they experienced the world, none of it happens. It's still a fact of reality.
      Going back far enough, something either had to have come from nothing, or just always existed. There is literally no other explanation. Yet neither of them make sense to our human brain. They dont have to, which doesnt change that there is no other option. But there is no reason whatsoever to arbitrarily assume this "something" to have been an infinitely complex creator being using literal magic. Not only does this shift the problem, it makes it more complex and introduced the supernatural. None of which is necessary, since we can equally well assume that some natural laws either always existed or came from nothing.

  • @thepubliusproject
    @thepubliusproject 2 года назад

    Not all things that exist are required to have a cause. If the idea that _all_ things have a cause, what caused God?

    • @drcraigvideos
      @drcraigvideos  2 года назад +1

      You are correct - not all things that exist are required to have a cause. The first premise of the argument, however, says "Everything that *begins* to exist has a cause." Since the universe began to exist, it must have a cause. - RF Admin

    • @thepubliusproject
      @thepubliusproject 2 года назад

      @@drcraigvideos What proof do you have that the universe "began" to exist any more than God did?

    • @drcraigvideos
      @drcraigvideos  2 года назад

      @@thepubliusproject The video outlines several evidences for the beginning of the universe. - RF Admin

    • @thepubliusproject
      @thepubliusproject 2 года назад

      @@drcraigvideos I certainly didn't see those. I saw claims, but not evidence. What timestamp should I review?

    • @thepubliusproject
      @thepubliusproject Год назад

      @Rick Soldier of God Wow, surrender much?
      An argument doesn't become invalid because no one can answer it over time. In fact, it becomes more compelling over time. Your attempt to insult, rather than defeat it, is a concession that you have no better tool available.
      I accept your acknowledgement, and am glad you were willing to post it.

  • @peopleofearth6250
    @peopleofearth6250 Год назад +5

    Biblical Christianity is asinine. There is literally nothing that you can say or do to change that.

    • @drcraigvideos
      @drcraigvideos  Год назад +1

      The KCA isn't specifically about biblical Christianity. It just purports to show that the universe had a transcendent cause. But why think that biblical Christianity is asinine to begin with? - RF Admin

    • @IgonDrakeWarrior
      @IgonDrakeWarrior Год назад +3

      @@drcraigvideosso it can be swapped onto any religion making it even more asinine

    • @drcraigvideos
      @drcraigvideos  Год назад +1

      @@IgonDrakeWarrior Unfortunately, your comment shows that you're unfamiliar with the breadth of variety of world religions. There are many religions which deny that the universe had an absolute beginning (Mormonism and some forms of Hinduism, for example), so they wouldn't be able to affirm that the universe had a transcendent cause. Also, Dr. Craig's analysis of what it means to be a cause of the universe includes the property of being personal. This would preclude any religion which has an impersonal cause of the universe. - RF Admin

    • @allstarwatt7246
      @allstarwatt7246 Год назад

      @@drcraigvideos the beliefs of those other religions are still equally unsupported by evidence and logic as your own religious beliefs.

    • @drcraigvideos
      @drcraigvideos  Год назад +3

      @@allstarwatt7246 Either the universe is eternal or it's not, so clearly the evidence will favor one view or the other, which means they are not "equally unsupported," as you claim. - RF Admin

  • @suzaneoriordan4366
    @suzaneoriordan4366 2 года назад +1

    But what about if something outside the universe doesn't need a cause as it doesnt need to comply to the physical laws that govern this universe

    • @lightbeforethetunnel
      @lightbeforethetunnel 2 года назад +7

      That's God. He exists outside the 3d material realm (the universe).

    • @suzaneoriordan4366
      @suzaneoriordan4366 2 года назад

      @@lightbeforethetunnel but it could be a non living paradox which creates the universe and maybe more, who knows, I'm not a fan of the multiverse idea

    • @jim3769
      @jim3769 2 года назад +6

      @@suzaneoriordan4366 You're just reasoning other cause to escape the fact that it's god.

    • @suzaneoriordan4366
      @suzaneoriordan4366 2 года назад +1

      @@jim3769 no I'm not. I'm only opening selection to things beyond just god. That doesn't mean I reject him, I'm just giving other possibilities and solutions to this argument

    • @jim3769
      @jim3769 2 года назад

      @@suzaneoriordan4366 There is nothing beyond god, if there is then that's the god we worship.

  • @carolusludovicus3845
    @carolusludovicus3845 2 года назад +4

    Amen!

  • @vyomanair6720
    @vyomanair6720 2 месяца назад

    Still has the same illogic as all such theories - where is the cause of the cause?

  • @RichConnerGMN
    @RichConnerGMN Год назад +5

    tl;dw i personally don't understand, therefore god did it!

    • @IgonDrakeWarrior
      @IgonDrakeWarrior Год назад +3

      Pretty much lol

    • @motashaiye
      @motashaiye Год назад +4

      i dont understand why 0+0 made the universe, therefore atheism is correct.

    • @IgonDrakeWarrior
      @IgonDrakeWarrior Год назад +1

      @@motashaiye Atheism isn’t a declaration. It is the rejection of claims. Religion has created claims that we reject. Just because religion is the norm does not mean that it is correct.

    • @grantjepson1735
      @grantjepson1735 5 месяцев назад +1

      This video has so much evidence and science and then you say that?? Seems like they do get it 😂

  • @principlemethods5281
    @principlemethods5281 2 года назад

    j thought that energy is never lost and that it only changes forms? how could the universe run out of energy?

    • @Ryan-xv6ob
      @Ryan-xv6ob 2 года назад +1

      If you had a gallon of gas in your car and it was the only gallon of gas in the universe and you burn that gallon of gas driving
      The gas doesn’t disappear it turns into energy, heat , gas and multiple other particles but that energy is now dispersed you can’t repackage it into another gallon of gas
      Same thing with the universe as the energy of the stars and galaxies is being burnt it’s dispersing into heat and gas and particles but it can’t be repackaged infinitely into “ another gallon of gas “

    • @principlemethods5281
      @principlemethods5281 2 года назад

      @@Ryan-xv6ob how do we know there's not a way it recycles that gallon? kinda like how we die and become fertilizer and more life grows out from our body?

  • @cuthbert2546
    @cuthbert2546 15 дней назад

    Your 1st premise is incorrect.

  • @phillipfaig3928
    @phillipfaig3928 2 года назад

    Who would I contact re: permission to use this in a church service?

  • @ltrp3374
    @ltrp3374 2 года назад

    I don't know about you, but have you noticed that whether God exists or not, it doesn't affect him at all?

    • @cnault3244
      @cnault3244 2 года назад

      Which god are you referring to?

    • @jakubdub7557
      @jakubdub7557 2 года назад

      @@cnault3244 paranormals are real, death isnt end. Over discussion. You lost

    • @jakubdub7557
      @jakubdub7557 2 года назад

      @@cnault3244 prove that not

    • @cnault3244
      @cnault3244 2 года назад

      @@jakubdub7557 Your comment is a blatant attempt to shift the burden of proof, a tactic employed by children.

    • @jakubdub7557
      @jakubdub7557 2 года назад

      @@cnault3244 I am good boy. Moaw moaw 🐈‍⬛🐈🐱

  • @tedgrant2
    @tedgrant2 Год назад +1

    I spiders web began to exist in my garden.
    Therefore God has eight legs.

  • @paulanelson1629
    @paulanelson1629 Год назад

    Nothing was made that isnt dependent on other things to exist.

  • @2tehnik
    @2tehnik Год назад

    What would prevent there being some number of immaterial principles mediating God and the world? I mean, there’s no reason to say that the cause of the world is uncaused.

    • @kenandzafic3948
      @kenandzafic3948 Год назад

      Yes, because an infinite series of causes does not explain anything.

    • @2tehnik
      @2tehnik Год назад

      @@kenandzafic3948 but a finite series would/could.
      I mean, you look at metaphysics in the ancient world, and they all pretty much had that view. No where is there the idea that God/the first principle can just directly make the world.

    • @kenandzafic3948
      @kenandzafic3948 Год назад

      @@2tehnik 1. As far as I understand you are defending the position that there is simply a brute fact, however that is irrelevant to the Kalam argument.
      2.Again the cause of the universe must be a timeless, extraspatial, immaterial, immutable, eternal, supremely powerful entity with free will.

    • @2tehnik
      @2tehnik Год назад

      @@kenandzafic3948 1. No I’m not. What gives you the idea I am? I’m just talking about the possibility of metaphysical mediators. If it’s a brute fact to assume for there to be mediators, then it’s also one for there to be none.
      2. Ok. Is that a problem? Why should there be only one immaterial existent? I would also say that Kalam’s argument for the first cause having something like libertarian free will pretty bad, as it relies on it being eternally imbedded in time rather than in divine (timeless) eternity. And I know he says the exact opposites at certain points, but that just goes to show how Craig contradicts himself when he starts talking about God changing and the idea that something like the One would necessitate an eternal universe (which I think is certainly false).

    • @kenandzafic3948
      @kenandzafic3948 Год назад

      @@2tehnik 1. There are several reasons why the cause must be 1.
      1) Occam's edge says that we don't multiply entities unnecessarily and since we don't need any intermediaries they are simply ad hoc.
      2) In order for two things to exist, there must be something that distinguishes them, however, nothing would distinguish two immaterial entities, which would then be one entity.
      3) Do their wills conflict, if not, then they have only one will and then simply all mediators become unnecessary and must prove themselves.
      2. Free will is compatible with a timeless God, Craig believes that God enters time at the moment of creation, I as a Catholic do not accept this but in any case it is not a problem.

  • @Reno_Slim
    @Reno_Slim Год назад +2

    Faith isn't reasonable if it doesn't reliably lead to the truth.

    • @BenJehovah6969
      @BenJehovah6969 Год назад +1

      They confuse faith with knowledge. A con man always needs your faith for the con to work. Once you stop putting faith in him, the con falls apart, because that's when you will ask for the promise to be fulfilled. Surprise, surprise....It won't be. It'll just be a bunch of double talk or the cold shoulder.

    • @allstarwatt7246
      @allstarwatt7246 Год назад +1

      religious faith is delusional.

  • @Matttski
    @Matttski 2 года назад

    Which god does it prove? Allah? God of the bible? Ra? Odin?

    • @therick363
      @therick363 2 года назад

      @@theoallred5105 but even that it still doesn’t work

  • @abrarfaiyaz6503
    @abrarfaiyaz6503 19 дней назад +1

    The universe having a cause is different from there being a God.

  • @gregorymurphy6115
    @gregorymurphy6115 Год назад +1

    This cosmological argument only makes it reasonable to believe in something that could be called God, but it does not mean a single thing in the Bible or Quoran gets a single thing correct about whatever something God might be.

    • @kenandzafic3948
      @kenandzafic3948 Год назад

      That's not even the point of the argument, the point is to show that God exists, which he did.

  • @con.troller4183
    @con.troller4183 2 года назад +2

    No. The Universe did NOT have a beginning. Existence (the unive4rse) always existed.
    Kalam fails on the second premise.
    End of lesson.

    • @jakubdub7557
      @jakubdub7557 2 года назад

      Prove it.

    • @con.troller4183
      @con.troller4183 2 года назад +1

      @@jakubdub7557
      Prove the universe "began to exist".
      Thanks for playing.

    • @jakubdub7557
      @jakubdub7557 2 года назад

      @@con.troller4183 Prove that universe always exsisted.

    • @jakubdub7557
      @jakubdub7557 2 года назад

      @@con.troller4183 BTW. I like you.

    • @jakubdub7557
      @jakubdub7557 2 года назад

      @@con.troller4183 Can you be my friend?

  • @krisztian4150
    @krisztian4150 Год назад

    Deck list pls!

  • @wyett123
    @wyett123 2 года назад +2

    This is FULL of unfounded baseless assumptions. So it makes since as to why this is evidence for god. Bc God is unfounded and baseless

    • @jon__doe
      @jon__doe 2 года назад

      Full? how so? There are two premises in this version, both are reasonable. The conclusion is a logical imperative if both premises are true.

    • @wyett123
      @wyett123 2 года назад +1

      @@jon__doe the 2 premises NEVER lead to a god, or a conscious agent of any kind. The conclusion doesn't lead to any gods either.
      Also people who use this argument always stop at God. But if God existed, by the same argument, they would also need a cause. Anyone who disagrees with that contradicts their first premise, making it an invalid argument.

    • @jon__doe
      @jon__doe 2 года назад

      @@wyett123 you don't pay attention

    • @jon__doe
      @jon__doe 2 года назад +1

      @@user-we2gk7tf8e This is a 4 minute introduction video to the philosophical argument that fills volumes and has endured for centuries. There is much more to this, and even deeper proofs would be from Aquinas. The descriptors of God have a logical reason.
      God as creator would explain all causes and would not require a cause, this is how descriptors are derived. In order to be an uncaused cause, God must exist outside the physical universe. Descriptors are properties that, logically, a creator God must have.
      Why do you believe what you do? Why do you believe it enough to assault the alternative beliefs of others? You care enough to comment here, why?

  • @robtherealtor8007
    @robtherealtor8007 8 месяцев назад

    Great video!

  • @emilyrattini8462
    @emilyrattini8462 11 месяцев назад

    Is anyone else here because of a class of some kind?

  • @humanbeing7624
    @humanbeing7624 Год назад

    Can the cause also be a council of gods and not just one god?

    • @CesarClouds
      @CesarClouds Год назад +1

      Neither because there was no causation before the existence of the universe. And why would a deity need to use causation?

  • @freeluigi4444
    @freeluigi4444 2 года назад

    First premise is wrong… What is the cause of God? If God came out of nothing, that disproves your first premise

  • @spiritualevolvedlightbeing8597

    Difference between Religion vs Spirituality :
    👉Certainly! While there may be some overlap between the two, spirituality and religion are fundamentally different concepts.
    Spirituality refers to an individual's personal connection and relationship with something greater than themselves, whether that be a divine power, nature, or a spiritual energy. It is often characterized by feelings of wonder, awe, and a search for meaning and purpose in life.
    Religion, on the other hand, typically refers to organized systems of belief that involve adherence to specific doctrines, rituals, and practices. Religions often have specific dogmas, creeds, and hierarchies of authority.
    While some people find their spirituality through religion, it is entirely possible to be spiritual without adhering to any particular religious tradition. Conversely, one can practice a religion without feeling particularly spiritual.
    Ultimately, the distinction between spirituality and religion is a personal one, and people may use the terms in slightly different ways. But at their core, spirituality and religion represent two distinct approaches to understanding the world and our place in it.
    --(I'm spiritual but not religious meaning : The term "spiritual but not religious" refers to individuals who believe in a higher power or spiritual force, but do not adhere to any particular organized religion or set of religious beliefs. These individuals often seek to cultivate their own personal connection with the divine, rather than relying on the doctrines or practices of a specific faith tradition. They may also place an emphasis on principles such as empathy, compassion, and mindfulness as a means of enhancing their spiritual growth and overall well-being.

    • @jimnichols1066
      @jimnichols1066 Год назад

      God chose the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 1 Cor 1:21

  • @michaelhoward3048
    @michaelhoward3048 2 года назад

    Ultimately, by using these same Thermodynamic Laws, we can conclude that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain subject to an external source of energy coming into the system in the form of metabolism derived from the consumption of food. And being such an open system consciousness itself would not have the same properties as energy within a closed system that can neither be created or destroyed. In fact, besides metabolism, consciousness is dependent on oxygen, another source of energy coming into the system, and sleep which replenishes various chemicals and eliminates toxins which can accumulate causing Alzheimer's Disease.
    So if we wish to be honest in our inquiries, and stay true to the scientific principles such as the Laws of Thermodynamics which are used to justify claims such as the Kalam, then we must apply them to ourselves just as equally, regardless what truths that may reveal. And in the case of any eternal aspect to consciousness, or the memories and self-identity of our lives and who we were, we cannot expect our consciousness to endure in an afterlife. And conditions such as Alzheimer's, Down Syndrome, Epilepsy and various other neurological problems all point to the dependency of consciousness, and the cognitive capacity of the individual, on the physical condition of the brain.
    And a more horrifying demonstration of materialism is the now banned practice of Lobotomies, practiced in the 50's and 60's. Mental patients were frequently lobotomized to pacify their persistent psychotic episodes and outbursts for easier management by hospital staff. A long, steel rod was inserted through each orbital socket beside the eyeball and into the prefrontal lobe of the brain. Then a large cavity was formed by rotating the rod, burrowing into the brain tissue itself, permanently destroying the area and disrupted the flow of chemistry into those areas. This was enough to prevent excitement, anger, agitation, aggression, and fear which often sparked the patients psychotic episodes. But unfortunately it took away their capacity to also feel happiness, joy, hope, inspiration and most terrible of all, love.
    The patients then would sit in a chair all day with blank faces staring out the window, and demonstrated no emotional responses to any external stimuli. They could still eat, talk, think, and even wrote letters home to their families. But when they spoke it was in a monotone voice without inflection, and when their families visited they showed no excitement to see their own mothers and fathers. And when they left they had to be reminded to say goodbye and be nice and give their families a hug by the staff nearby because those desires and impulses were gone. Now a hug goodbye was obligatory. Their families would leave weeping knowing the son or daughter they once knew was gone. And some refused to ever come back and see their children again...
    So rather than exist as these emotionless zombies for the rest of their lives they began committing suicide. So many it became alarming for mental hospitals and a public relations crisis. The patients left behind suicide notes sometimes describing their condition and the emptiness in their lives. And these notes were used as evidence in the banning of lobotomies in the US beginning in 1967.
    One must conclude, using this as empirical evidence, that damaging the brain removes critical elements of consciousness and there are no idealistic scenarios in which the continuation of consciousness beyond the final death of the brain is possible. How would that work exactly? The person's love and feelings arrive first in the afterlife and await the rest of the consciousness to recombine later upon death? That parts of who we are, our emotions and the memories lost from brain injuries, can arrive in piecemeal over time and reassembled once the entire brain is gone? I have never even heard of any theological speculations about this, and I don't think simply deferring it to "God can do anything" works here. Some will certainly try and if a Sloth can walk from South America at 6ft a minute to the Middle East to board the Ark, so be it. Logic and reason will never appeal to them anyway.
    But for those with a bit more cognition, and truly do understand the implications of the story I have just told, I will see you in the nothingness of eternity, in the same non-existence as we have always been for the billions of years before we got here. And don't worry. We will never even know we are dead....

  • @judewarstler9253
    @judewarstler9253 2 года назад

    The part that just doesn't make sense to me is ruling out that the universe can't create itself. We exist, so we know the whether our reality is real or not, existence occurs, and therefore nothingness cannot. Everything we know exists as a balance between a dichotomy, like night cant exist without day, something can't exist without and nothing and vice versa. If the universe has a definite start, we know that it must die out energy wise at some point. It will become nothingness that way, or become one big black whole. Once everything is out of existence, there is no existence to allow nothingness to exist. This is why I think the big bang would just happen on a loop and create a new universe that exists but just slightly different.

    • @jon__doe
      @jon__doe 2 года назад

      You invite infinite regression which is logically untenable.

  • @aguyontheinternet8436
    @aguyontheinternet8436 2 года назад

    Once again, this argument fails to prove why it is the christian god specifically that created the universe. Why not any other immaterial and powerful god?
    Secondly, you have not proved the universe has a beginning. You have proved that matter had a beginning, which is not the same thing. Matter can have a beginning while the void universe itself does not.
    Lastly, all the things you mentioned as having a cause were self-contained in the universe. How would you know how things work beyond its boundaries?

    • @drcraigvideos
      @drcraigvideos  2 года назад

      First, the argument doesn't purport to show that the cause is specifically the Christian God. It merely shows that the universe had a cause with properties we normally associate with a generic monotheism. We conclude that this God is specifically the Christian God via Christian evidences such as the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.
      Second, the scientific evidence shows that the entire physical universe had a beginning. There is no such thing as a void universe with no beginning. It's not as if there was some vague beginningless non-physical universe that served as a container for all of the physical things that began to exist. Rather, the evidence shows that the whole physical universe -- including the quantum realm -- had an absolute beginning in the finite past. - RF Admin

    • @RichConnerGMN
      @RichConnerGMN Год назад

      @@drcraigvideos .. you know, seeing religion from the outside always makes me see how crazy it really is. "historicity[sic] of the resurrection of jesus"... like..... how do y'all believe this

    • @drcraigvideos
      @drcraigvideos  Год назад

      @@RichConnerGMN How? By studying how history is actually done and applying those standards to the New Testament texts. - RF Admin

  • @caclso4909
    @caclso4909 Год назад +1

    How does this video have 85% likes? lmao

    • @allstarwatt7246
      @allstarwatt7246 Год назад

      because religious people are incredibly gullible

  • @buzzbbird
    @buzzbbird 2 года назад +1

    Redshift does NOT show expansion, it ONLY shows distance!
    AND the redshift is due to cooling.
    Since light is NOT physical, but radiation, and because light's energy is bled off into space, effectively cooling it, the lightwaves cool. We know this and have already classified this in our classifications of hottest to coolest stars.
    Blue-white
    White,
    Yellow,
    Orange
    Red
    these are heat classifications, not size, heat.
    Cooler stars give off cooler light and the redshift happens to all until the light is no longer visible.
    In fact, redshift cannot BE MEASURED IN CHANGE from one star. man has ZERO measurements of a single star emitting a certain wavelength (color) light and then it becomes more read, meaning EITHER cooling or a greater distance between it and us.
    AS those ARE the fats, |Red shift is not even an accurate measure of distance, as s closer red star will appear to be identical to a blue/white hot star if that latter star is far enough away!

    • @karozans
      @karozans 2 года назад

      LOL light, most certainly is physical. Do you think light exists in the same manner as a number or an ldea?

  • @jovinmclovin
    @jovinmclovin 2 года назад

    Also, God said , “ let there be Light ! “ Jesus Christ said , “ I’m the light of the World ! What is light ? Colors ! The 7 colors of the rainbow visual light what we as humans can see light/ colors, we were created in the image of God ! Ezekiel 1:28 Revelation 4:3

    • @jovinmclovin
      @jovinmclovin 2 года назад

      E=mc2 The Speed of Light Jesus Christ rainbow 🌈! Energy Yellow Sun ☀️ Habakkuk 3:4 Psalm 84:11
      Luke 1:78-79
      Because of the tender mercy of our God, With which the Sunrise from on high will visit us, TO SHINE UPON THOSE WHO SIT IN DARKNESS AND THE SHADOW OF DEATH, To guide our feet into the way of peace

  • @brycew2
    @brycew2 2 года назад +1

    Thanks

  • @eu29lex16
    @eu29lex16 Год назад +1

    It's nonsense. Even ancient people who coined the god idea didn't think it's present without nature. Ancient theologians were3e actually naturalists and naturalism is actually the only good thing. Rest are all nonsense, I assure you.

    • @KevinAshton388
      @KevinAshton388 Год назад +1

      Naturalism denies free will. Without free will, you can't have moral accountability. Without moral accountability, you can't justify the punishment of others.

    • @drcraigvideos
      @drcraigvideos  Год назад +1

      @eu29lex16 Do you not consider the earliest Jews "ancient people"? Have you not read Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"? - RF Admin

    • @KevinAshton388
      @KevinAshton388 Год назад

      @@drcraigvideos I think you've replied to the wrong person...

    • @eu29lex16
      @eu29lex16 Год назад

      @@KevinAshton388 naturalism has that thing you talk about, you goof.

    • @KevinAshton388
      @KevinAshton388 Год назад

      @@eu29lex16 Ad hominem attacks? "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser"

  • @freetrial9728
    @freetrial9728 Год назад

    love the looney-tunes reference XD

  • @benitomcbenny3684
    @benitomcbenny3684 2 года назад

    Out of nothing, nothing comes. But according to this video God used Nothing as raw material to create something. That's absurd. Nothing is Nothing even in God's hands. No amount of "power" can change this fact

    • @drcraigvideos
      @drcraigvideos  2 года назад

      That's actually a mischaracterization. It's no part of the argument to say that "God used Nothing as raw material to create something." That would be material creation. Rather, the claim is traditionally known as creation ex nihilo, that is, God did not use any preexisting stuff to create the universe. So, the universe lacks a material cause. But, of course, it does have an efficient cause, namely God. By contrast, the atheist account lacks both a material *and* an efficient cause. If lacking a material cause is absurd, then the atheist account is doubly absurd and therefore cannot be rationally affirmed. - RF Admin

    • @person8064
      @person8064 2 года назад

      @@drcraigvideos then both points are disproven and the argument is left unresolved. We don't accept a creator because no creator hasn't been proven.

    • @drcraigvideos
      @drcraigvideos  2 года назад

      @@person8064 How have the points been disproven? Neither premise has been shown to be false. Moreover, the universe's having an efficient cause without a material cause simply follows from an analysis of what it means for the material universe to have a cause, whether one likes that analysis or not. - RF Admin

    • @person8064
      @person8064 2 года назад

      @@drcraigvideos I was referring to your last sentence, where you call both the atheist and theist points absurd.
      Even granting both premises, the conclusion does not necessarily point to god. It can be any number of unverifiable, unfalsifiable causes. That's the main problem -- that without any way of interacting with the outside of the universe, it is impossible to prove anything.
      Focusing on the premises, premise one is false as it extrapolates what occurs inside the universe to the unobserved outside. The universe could have popped into existence without any cause. Premise two is false as again, we simply don't know. Our current models of physics break down in the extreme environment of the big bang. We call that the beginning of the known universe, but ultimately it is unknown what exactly happened during the big bang.

  • @C-486
    @C-486 2 года назад +2

    I'll be frank, everything up to the whole 'God' point was solid.
    Here's my personal view: Does a 'God' exist? who knows. If one were to exist, let's say, then why would/should we worship something that is most likely not Human?
    Yes, it is in our nature to believe in or look up to something, our parents for example, or someone with power.
    Now, I'll admit. Religion was useful for our early development was a species, mainly the fear aspect of it, but I would say it has had its time and should be discarded. We as a species will need to throw off the shackles of this overbearing 'God' figure at one point.

    • @noyuchan
      @noyuchan 2 года назад

      He argued that. I think you don't understand what he has said ...

    • @gilmsgabriel
      @gilmsgabriel 2 года назад

      When humans throw out religion they start to cult about a new thing. For example consumerism. This goes to the point where it's impossible to make the biggest part of any human population to not have this characteristic.
      Discarding religion seems like a terrible idea, improving religion is a way better choice

  • @pilin-ike
    @pilin-ike Год назад +1

    Any person must appreciate the effort and thought put into this argument. It is a great attempt to conciliate religion with scientific discoveries.
    What saddens me the most, is that this well crafted argument lends credibility to many outrageous religious claims that have been causing harm for millenia. Equipped with the arguments of a few bright people that describe a possibility of a shapeless god, fundamentalists gain confidence to preach hatred against other religions, sexual preferences and race.
    I want to believe that the author did not mean that, but the crude simplifications of the premises paired with a seemingly intentional avoidance of certain terms, do raise some suspicions. For example, "the Big Bang theory" is never said out loud, just shown as a fleeting image on the background.
    I wish we can reach a future where people are not so defensive about their views, and are able and willing to challenge their understanding and change their beliefs upon finding more robust explanations. As an atheist (agnostic-atheist to be precise), I watch this video and humbly accept and ponder on my lack of knowledge and certainty on my understanding of the nature of the universe. The existence of a God, might be a possibility. That does not, in any way, justify the belief that a bearded human-shaped entity in the sky has laid out the rules to which we must abide. Especially when these rules are widely accepted as not written by God itself, but by men, across many centuries, cultures, political contexts and whatnot.

    • @drcraigvideos
      @drcraigvideos  Год назад +1

      We appreciate the thoughtful comment. Dr. Craig would largely agree with this sentiment. What we're after is truth. Sadly, some truths are misappropriated and conscripted into the service of people with dishonorable intentions.
      You seem to want to resist such behavior, but one wonders whether you think there's anything objectively bad about it, which of course leads into a discussion about the grounding of objective morals themselves. - RF Admin

    • @pilin-ike
      @pilin-ike Год назад

      @@drcraigvideos I appreciate the response!
      I guess the sentiment I'm trying to communicate, does come from my personal biases. I live in a country where we've been observing a huge rise in conservative Christian movements. I agree that, by itself, this can't be written off as objectively bad.
      We also observe conservative Christians taking up significant space and influence in the congress. Once again, this probably can't be written off as objectively bad. Afterall, it is a democracy, so the population should be able to elect representatives that share their values and world view.
      What I have a hard time accepting, is that these movements shield themselves from scrutiny, under the self-proclaimed sacredeness and infallibility of their religion. Protected by the law, we observe them pushing objectively harmful agendas, while misdirecting the focus away from important and rational discussions that have potential to promote positive change.
      With that said, I would love to see Dr. Craig's level of clear mindedness in the religious movements in my country. Honest, open and conciliating conversations about religion. What I sincerely hope and beg Dr. Craig takes into account, is how his thoughtful, clearheaded arguments can inadvertently fuel unjustified confidence in harmful beliefs, when presented in an oversimplified manner.

    • @drcraigvideos
      @drcraigvideos  Год назад

      @@pilin-ike We certainly sympathize with your lament regarding the misuse of the more simplified content. Sadly, we live in times that require a broad range of formats in order to catch the attention of those who would normally just ignore it. To remedy such abuses, we need people like yourself to direct others to the greater context and to challenge them to delve more deeply into these matters. We need more level-headed interlocutors, so we hope that you'll continue to be an active presence here! - RF Admin

    • @pilin-ike
      @pilin-ike Год назад

      @@drcraigvideos I trully appreciate the attention and encouragement. I understand the need for short format content in our context. I'm not a professional content creator, but I understand and appreciate the amount of work involved.
      In the spirit of honesty, I find it a little sad that your answer is outsourcing the responsibility to your interlocutors. I'll keep doing what I can as an individual, but I wish I could see more accountability from authors and content creators when it comes to the impact of their message. In the end, I have no claim or influence in what you do, that is completely up to you and there's nothing objectively wrong with it, and nothing I can do about it. The best I can hope for, is that my message sparks some interest, thought and discussion.

    • @CesarClouds
      @CesarClouds Год назад

      Since the horrible tribal desert deity, Yahweh, does not exist then the Kalam argument is specious.

  • @jakubdub7557
    @jakubdub7557 2 года назад +1

    Sweet, cool boy.

  • @Starfire777
    @Starfire777 2 года назад

    GOD has a NAME JHVH means "HE CAUSES TO BE" English. JEHOVAH

    • @asmodeus304
      @asmodeus304 2 года назад +1

      u know its heretical to write it out or attempt to pronounce it, right? also thats not even the right name there are no Js in hebrew

  • @nyakabb2472
    @nyakabb2472 2 года назад +2

    Pure nonsense

  • @justingonzales5436
    @justingonzales5436 Год назад +1

    It's crazy to me that there are people out there who believe this massive universe and everything in it exists "just because". And really... the more technologically advanced we become, the more I see evidence of a creator written on everything.

    • @ARRAM57
      @ARRAM57 Год назад

      Everything that begins to exist?
      The universe began to exist?
      Does Craig or anyone else have proof the universe began to exist at the big bang?
      We canstudy back as far as the big bang but cannot prove that the new evolving universe popped into existence from nothing. We do not know if the energy/matter was not already existing in a different presentation.
      The big bang is as far back as we can calculate, it tells us nothing about previous to the point in space time or where the matter/energy came from.
      Existence may be a brute fact which needs/has no explanation. In which case there is no need for a creator god.

    • @CesarSecondary
      @CesarSecondary Год назад +1

      False. No cosmologist says "just because", only Christians say that.

    • @therick363
      @therick363 9 месяцев назад

      The less I see of any creator the more we advance

  • @jimnichols1066
    @jimnichols1066 Год назад

    Hubble, Einstein? The rules were changed. God exists by FAITH. He deselected logic and evidence. 1 Cor 1:21.

  • @RandomNooby
    @RandomNooby Год назад

    Those trying to sell the Kalam are trying to design a fully functional aircraft carrier after reading the 12 page children's book, 'How aircraft carriers are made. A more accurate title would be The "I watched some youtube videos on astrophysics and cosmology (and didn't bother spending decades learning the facts and theories in their true complexity like Einstein and those others fools) and can now explain all of modern physics with no misunderstanding, argument.'

  • @ShannonLooper
    @ShannonLooper 2 года назад +1

    55 seconds in and it's already flawed. Whoever wrote this seems to have never taken a decent Physics course.

    • @drcraigvideos
      @drcraigvideos  2 года назад +1

      Care to elaborate? - RF Admin

    • @guitart4909
      @guitart4909 2 года назад +2

      @@drcraigvideos for one. It’s premise that the universe began to exist isn’t known. Certainly the Big Bang was an event that occurred at a moment in time, but regarding the singularity, there is no evidence to suggest that the singularity began to exist or was eternal itself, or that the singularity wasn’t merely a contraction from a previous universe. We have no idea what the conditions were at the start of the expansion and any claim is speculation. Also, It rejects the notion of fundamental forces being the cause by equating it to magic, yet takes no issue with the cause being a supernatural entity shaping reality with its will (which we would call magic).

    • @guitart4909
      @guitart4909 2 года назад +1

      @@drcraigvideos even if the argument didn’t require speculation, it would only prove the existence of an uncaused fundamental law or force of reality. Labeling it God is speculation. You conclude god exists from the premise that all things have a cause. But then we exempt god from our initial premise that proved his existence in the first place. We do this by arbitrarily assigning properties to god (unbound by cause and effect) so that he doesn’t contradict the premise that allegedly proved his existence.

    • @drcraigvideos
      @drcraigvideos  2 года назад +2

      @@guitart4909 First, the philosophical arguments for the impossibility of an actual infinite strongly demonstrate that the universe cannot be past eternal. You can find those here: ruclips.net/video/vybNvc6mxMo/видео.html.
      Second, as was noted, the models with the greatest empirical support all entail an absolute beginning to the universe. Even those which purport to be past eternal - such as the Carroll-Chen model - end up failing to secure past eternality. It is rational to conclude, then, that the best evidence available heavily favors an absolute beginning.
      Third, you say that postulating a supernatural entity as the cause of the universe would be magic. But on atheism, either the universe is eternal or else it came into existence without a cause (appealing to fundamental forces doesn't provide an exception, since physical forces are part of the physical universe). Since the philosophical arguments and scientific evidence make it much more likely that the universe had an absolute beginning, the atheist is left with the universe coming into existence uncaused from absolutely nothing. This is actually *worse* than magic. At least with magic, there's a magician! - RF Admin

    • @guitart4909
      @guitart4909 2 года назад

      @@drcraigvideos First off, thank you for your politeness. My counter argument doesn't require infinities to exist. We can certainly say that the Universe "began to expand", but as far as "began to exist" that something we can only speculate on. Keep in mind this argument is predicated on what we arbitrarily define as "the Universe." If we arbitrarily define the Universe as the "moment expansion started" then we can indeed say the Universe "began to exist." But what about the static, zero-volume singularity state prior to expansion? Time requires space in order to exist. So, the state of a static singularity of zero volume (prior to expansion) would not be bound by time and would certainly meet the requirements of "eternal" and "unbound by time," the very same requirements we have of God for the argument to work.
      But if we define the "Universe" as "all that is and was" we must include the static singularity prior to expansion. And there is no evidence of the static singularity as having a preceding cause, nor is there any fundamental laws of physics that require it to have had a cause. The video you sent me stated that “If the Universe did not have a beginning, then the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite, and an infinite number of past events leads to absurdity.” But that is not the case with the singularity. A zero-volume singularity is not bound by time. Until it starts to expand (the moment time exists) Its prior state is not dependent upon of previous state and thus does not require infinite regress.
      It's quite possible it always existed at a state disassociated with time until the moment it expanded and thus became bound by time. It doesn't require infinite time in the past because time doesn't exist without spatial volume. And if we allow for God to possess the attributes of "uncaused" I see no logical reason to deny the singularity those same properties. We dismiss the idea of the singularity as being uncaused but we don't apply the same scrutiny to the concept of God. I think it’s a great argument in demonstrating that there must be some form of "fundamental bedrock" regarding the nature of reality, but there is nothing in the argument that irrefutably proves that it is God. Replace "God" with any other entity or concept and the argument remains unchanged. I guess if it did prove God then there would be no need for faith. Perhaps the singularity and the resulting fundamental forces are what we could call God. Perhaps. We can only speculate, we can't scientifically prove God.