Love the video. @5:29 To be fair, this objection would also fail if one believes that the resurrection results in us having one eternal experience similar to the one God is said to have.
I was vaguely aware of contingency arguments for God but they never moved me to anything but an apathetic agnosticism. It was Craig's Kalam argument and its second stage analysis that has moved me from agnostic to believer.
Seriously? There is no logical connection between "The universe has a cause.“ and "The cause of the universe is a timeless/spaceless/immaterial mind that can create universes from nothing.“
@@ramigilneas9274 if it existed before time, space, and matter it must be without those three things because they didnt exist yet. This is basic logic regarding the necessary qualities of a cause that exists prior to space, time and matter.
@@SonOfTheLion It’s also basic logic that it is impossible to cause anything or to make the decision to cause anything in the absence of time…. which leads to the only possible conclusion that time already existed prior to the creation of our universe. Everything that has ever been observed beginning to exist did so through a rearrangement of preexisting matter… and we know that matter and energy can not be created or destroyed. So basic logic tells us that the matter/energy that our universe is made of must have existed prior to our universe in some way. The Kalam presupposes that the universe was created from nothing and that the time/space/matter INSIDE of our universe is the entirety of space/time/matter in existence… with no supporting evidence whatsoever. So in reality the cause of our universe must have existed OUTSIDE of the time/space/matter that exists INSIDE of our universe… but that doesn’t means that the cause itself needs to be timeless, spaceless or immaterial.
@@ramigilneas9274 Time, space and matter ARE the universe. To say the universe came from itself is an absurdity. There is plenty of scientific evidence that there was a moment some 13 billion years ago when the universe began. This is supported by Einstien's model, Hawking's model and the GBV theorem. Observation is not the only way to know things. This is at best a hold over from Irrationalist like Hume and Kant; at worst Positivism from Comte. The problem with all of them is subjugating reason and logic to empiricism misses the fact that reason and logic is still needed to draw any conclusions about the data. The conclusion of subjugating reason in this way is that you would be unable to know anything if reason is unreliable as a way of knowing. (Something Kant is up front about and embraces in his theory of a "noumenal" world.) So based on logic, we can know it is impossible for matter to come from matter. That is an absurdity. If the matter came from outside the universe it still had to come from somewhere and must have been created at some time. You have only pushed back the beginning, not avoided it. It makes perfect sense that time would begin when the decision was made to create it. Nothing happens for an eternity then 13 billion years ago time comes into being as the mind makes the choice to create it, or maybe even because it had to make time to make the decision. To create time at the same moment the decision is made isn't logically impossible. Based on the logical impossibility of an infinite regresse of causes there is no way to explain a contingent universe without a non-continget cause. These are all logical conclusions SUPPORTED by modern cosmological science. Escaping them by applying physical laws to a "time" without matter is nothing more than bad science.
Wow. No wonder so many people find Christianity crazy. So God doesn't need logic for us to know him???? Because a third grader can tell you that the Kalam proves only that there is a cause. Not an intelligent being or God, or a Unicorn. WTF.
Would Joe Schmid say that no potential infinities exist since the number of unit intervals greater than any value on the X axis never grows? That seems wrong, but maybe I just don’t understand the objection.
@@mjdillaha I'm pretty sure he as no issues with potential infinites, the set of natural positive numbers (or numbers larger than X) is an actual infinite.
@@STAR0SS but the process of adding one number after another is potentially infinite. Joe seems to say it isn’t, since the set of natural numbers succeeding X is actually infinite. I don’t see how that follows.
@@mjdillaha He agrees that the process of adding one number after another is potentially infinite. You count 1, 2, 3... so the number you count is always finite but grows without bounds, so that's potential. However if you ask another question, "how many numbers will be counted" then that's infinity, aleph_0 and that set is fixed in size, an actual infinite. I think the issue between Craig and Joe is more about how to define "the future", if you define it as "the set of days later than today" then it's an actual infinite, but Craig defines "the future" at "the set of days that occurred between now and some time T in the future" which is a potential infinite if you allow T to grow without bounds, which Joe argues it's a bad model of the future (it's the number of days that **will have occurred up to T**, instead of **will occur**, so it's not the simple future tense). I think it's pretty clear in Joe video around 8min.
Is it possible that the present moment is an actual infinite? 🤔 So that if everything could subsist on its own, it would be eternally paralyzed if it weren’t for Mind(s) acting on it? So the “passage of time” would just be God and other minds changing that which can’t change itself in the infinite present moment. But then God has to be temporal… Has anyone thought like this?
I know Craig has talked about how God could enter time upon the creation of time/space while being eternal before the creation. But if time doesnt really exist, that may have other implications.
@@SonOfTheLion Interesting! I didn’t think about it that way. Is that what it sounds like I’m saying? That time doesn’t exist? I’m open to that, but I’m also sure that change is real. What’s the difference between time and change?
@@theautodidacticlayman If time really didn't exist but God made it so, it might imply that everything but God is timeless. Which would be odd but I haven't thought too much about it either.
If you go in the description of the video, there should be a button that says “Show Transcript.” Hope this helps! I’m using an iPhone, so I don’t know if it’s the same on the desktop version.
Can't understand why you keep coming up with these silly arguments for god where you put forward some kind of argument and insert god. Although when you have no real actual proof I suppose it's the best you can do.
Loved this!
Thanks for this.
Thanks for watching!
We love to see it 🔥
Yes. Yes we do.
Love the video.
@5:29 To be fair, this objection would also fail if one believes that the resurrection results in us having one eternal experience similar to the one God is said to have.
Very interesting the difference between "every" and "all".
I was vaguely aware of contingency arguments for God but they never moved me to anything but an apathetic agnosticism. It was Craig's Kalam argument and its second stage analysis that has moved me from agnostic to believer.
I like Craig's second stage approach. I think it's even more powerful when put with contingency arguments.
Seriously?
There is no logical connection between "The universe has a cause.“ and "The cause of the universe is a timeless/spaceless/immaterial mind that can create universes from nothing.“
@@ramigilneas9274 if it existed before time, space, and matter it must be without those three things because they didnt exist yet. This is basic logic regarding the necessary qualities of a cause that exists prior to space, time and matter.
@@SonOfTheLion
It’s also basic logic that it is impossible to cause anything or to make the decision to cause anything in the absence of time…. which leads to the only possible conclusion that time already existed prior to the creation of our universe.
Everything that has ever been observed beginning to exist did so through a rearrangement of preexisting matter… and we know that matter and energy can not be created or destroyed.
So basic logic tells us that the matter/energy that our universe is made of must have existed prior to our universe in some way.
The Kalam presupposes that the universe was created from nothing and that the time/space/matter INSIDE of our universe is the entirety of space/time/matter in existence… with no supporting evidence whatsoever.
So in reality the cause of our universe must have existed OUTSIDE of the time/space/matter that exists INSIDE of our universe… but that doesn’t means that the cause itself needs to be timeless, spaceless or immaterial.
@@ramigilneas9274 Time, space and matter ARE the universe. To say the universe came from itself is an absurdity. There is plenty of scientific evidence that there was a moment some 13 billion years ago when the universe began. This is supported by Einstien's model, Hawking's model and the GBV theorem.
Observation is not the only way to know things. This is at best a hold over from Irrationalist like Hume and Kant; at worst Positivism from Comte. The problem with all of them is subjugating reason and logic to empiricism misses the fact that reason and logic is still needed to draw any conclusions about the data. The conclusion of subjugating reason in this way is that you would be unable to know anything if reason is unreliable as a way of knowing. (Something Kant is up front about and embraces in his theory of a "noumenal" world.)
So based on logic, we can know it is impossible for matter to come from matter. That is an absurdity. If the matter came from outside the universe it still had to come from somewhere and must have been created at some time. You have only pushed back the beginning, not avoided it. It makes perfect sense that time would begin when the decision was made to create it. Nothing happens for an eternity then 13 billion years ago time comes into being as the mind makes the choice to create it, or maybe even because it had to make time to make the decision. To create time at the same moment the decision is made isn't logically impossible. Based on the logical impossibility of an infinite regresse of causes there is no way to explain a contingent universe without a non-continget cause. These are all logical conclusions SUPPORTED by modern cosmological science. Escaping them by applying physical laws to a "time" without matter is nothing more than bad science.
Comment for traction
One of your first videos is with Papa Craig? 😭
haha. We have many more videos but our videos never receive a lot of attraction. Need more people to share them!
@@furtheringchristendom714 I’ll get on that now that I know about your channel :)
@@ExploringReality Gracias!
Wow. No wonder so many people find Christianity crazy. So God doesn't need logic for us to know him???? Because a third grader can tell you that the Kalam proves only that there is a cause. Not an intelligent being or God, or a Unicorn. WTF.
Would Joe Schmid say that no potential infinities exist since the number of unit intervals greater than any value on the X axis never grows? That seems wrong, but maybe I just don’t understand the objection.
You can check his channel, he made a pretty extensive response.
@@STAR0SS I’ve since seen that response. It seems this is what he’s saying. I wonder if he agrees with that, or if I’m missing something.
@@mjdillaha I'm pretty sure he as no issues with potential infinites, the set of natural positive numbers (or numbers larger than X) is an actual infinite.
@@STAR0SS but the process of adding one number after another is potentially infinite. Joe seems to say it isn’t, since the set of natural numbers succeeding X is actually infinite. I don’t see how that follows.
@@mjdillaha He agrees that the process of adding one number after another is potentially infinite. You count 1, 2, 3... so the number you count is always finite but grows without bounds, so that's potential. However if you ask another question, "how many numbers will be counted" then that's infinity, aleph_0 and that set is fixed in size, an actual infinite. I think the issue between Craig and Joe is more about how to define "the future", if you define it as "the set of days later than today" then it's an actual infinite, but Craig defines "the future" at "the set of days that occurred between now and some time T in the future" which is a potential infinite if you allow T to grow without bounds, which Joe argues it's a bad model of the future (it's the number of days that **will have occurred up to T**, instead of **will occur**, so it's not the simple future tense). I think it's pretty clear in Joe video around 8min.
Common Tyler McNabb W
Common MemeLord Matt W
Is it possible that the present moment is an actual infinite? 🤔 So that if everything could subsist on its own, it would be eternally paralyzed if it weren’t for Mind(s) acting on it? So the “passage of time” would just be God and other minds changing that which can’t change itself in the infinite present moment. But then God has to be temporal… Has anyone thought like this?
I know Craig has talked about how God could enter time upon the creation of time/space while being eternal before the creation. But if time doesnt really exist, that may have other implications.
@@SonOfTheLion Interesting! I didn’t think about it that way. Is that what it sounds like I’m saying? That time doesn’t exist? I’m open to that, but I’m also sure that change is real. What’s the difference between time and change?
@@SonOfTheLion And what implications do you see that follow from the non-existence of time? I’ve only recently begun to entertain this idea. 😆
@@theautodidacticlayman If time really didn't exist but God made it so, it might imply that everything but God is timeless. Which would be odd but I haven't thought too much about it either.
We need subtitles for this :(
If you go in the description of the video, there should be a button that says “Show Transcript.” Hope this helps! I’m using an iPhone, so I don’t know if it’s the same on the desktop version.
Excellent. Looking forward to more.
Thanks!
@Real Atheology, what did you make of Craig’s answers here?
Joe Schmid has replied to this. I think Craig would find the replies worth engaging.
great job, enjoyed this discussion gentlemen. The Kalam remains as sound as ever! 💪💪
Still seems that way to me *shrugs*
Can't understand why you keep coming up with these silly arguments for god where you put forward some kind of argument and insert god. Although when you have no real actual proof I suppose it's the best you can do.
First