Creation and Causation (a Reply to Dr. Craig)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 фев 2025
- To support me on Patreon (thank you): / rationalityrules
To support me through PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/...
To support me through merchandise: teespring.com/...
To follow me on Facebook: / rationalityrules
To tweet with me on Twitter: / rationalityrule
And, to watch / listen to my, Thomas Westbrook’s (Holy Koolaid) and Rachel Oates’ podcast: goo.gl/oFUiie
--
References:
1). William Lane Craig. The Kalam Cosmological Argument. University Of Birmingham, UK: • The Kalam Cosmological...
2). Merriam Webster’s definition of 'being': www.merriam-we...
3). Cambridge Dictorionary's definition of Being: dictionary.cam...
4). Physics Today. Causality in a Quantum World: physicstoday.s...
5). Quantum superposition of states and decoherence: en.wikipedia.o...
6). Minutephysics. Do Cause and Effect Really Exist? (Big Picture Ep. 2/5) Ft Sean Carroll: • Do Cause and Effect Re...
7). Wikipedia entry on the Law of conservation of energy: en.wikipedia.o...
--
As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that you found this response to Will Lane Craig useful, entertaining, and perhaps even thought-provoking.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair
you are applying that to the maker of this video, right?
jamie Russell
No Craig: The Big Liar
@@Jamie-Russell-CME that would be your Master of Mental Gymnastics WLC.
@@Jamie-Russell-CME no for dr.craig he knows nothing about the world and Universe
It can apply to people on both sides, it’s hard to find a coherent debate between people these days.
"Religious start with a conclussion, and work backwards. In this regard, they're the antithesis of science and an affront to honest, humble investigation" I really like this one. I remember, back when I was in school, a priest told us to not "see to believe" but "believe to see", to what I responded something like "that's beyond stupid" and they suspended me!
Great video, as always.
I hope you regarded your suspension as a badge of honour!
@@Andre_XX I sure did!
@@NairobyMS Good one! Schools are supposed to overcome ignorance and stupidity, not promote it!
Vasc0 MS this is so utterly stupid I can’t begin to understand how this naive empiricism ratio worshipping worldview is so prevalent. ALL WORLD VIEWS ARE CIRCULAR! You cannot escape the need for presupposition.
@@steviewonder417 What about this? Empiricism is prevalent because it works.
Yes, best to avoid those pesky -details that completely dismantle your argument- distractions.
Actually, those can be described deterministically, re: particle decays. As for virtual particles, they're only an approximation scheme.
@@vampyricon7026 ok I am confused - not an expert in philosophy but how can quantum mechanics be considered deterministic?
@@aardjazz In pilot wave theory, the wavefunction arises simply due to our ignorance of the system, but the system evolves deterministically according to the guiding equation.
In many-worlds theory, the wavefunction IS the system, and it evolves deterministically through the Schrödinger equation.
The reason Craig (rightly) identifies it as a distraction is because it's far from settled that radioactive decay occurs or virtual particles come into being without a cause. The cause of the decay of an unstable atomic nucleus is the interaction between constituent quarks. An energy threshold is exceeded and this is what triggers decay. Now since the quarks move randomly it’s true we cannot predict *when* the nucleus will decay, but that doesn’t mean there is no cause of it.
Similarly, virtual particles are fluctuations of the energy in the quantum vacuum. And as Craig's pointed out in other contexts, the vacuum is not nothing. It is a roiling sea of physical energy.
As theoretical physicist Matt Strassler puts it, “A ‘virtual particle’, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.” So it's actually neither without efficient nor material cause. It's just not with a *predictable* cause, is all.
@@Vic2point0 Virtual particles don't even exist. They're an approximation scheme used for calculations in perturbative QFT.
Your new backdrop makes it look like you are levitating above the kitchen floor.
I am :D
@@rationalityrules I knew it! Great video, keep up the rational work.
Acid trip
You can’t unsee it
Noki0100, thanks! Now that's all that I can see.
If you don't accept the claim that something can't come from nothing, it doesn't mean that you accept the claim that something can come from nothing.
Theists tend to forget about the non-arrogant/honest position... which is WE DON'T KNOW.
I just got a Christian ad at the end of your video. I'm laughing so hard right now. 😂😂😂
"Jesus died for you. So follow him right now." Sounds like a Twitter follow invitation". 😂
Same here
Install "Adblock plus" gets rid of ads.
Yeah that got me by shock ! I think I reconsider my whole thought processes that ad was life-changing Hallelujah
So did Satan. Will they be calling to follow him too. I am curious now.
@@SalisburyKarateClub Use uBlock Origin instead, It's open-source and Adblock plus has a whitelist which allows ads as long as they get paid for it, unlike uBlock Origin which doesn't have a monetization policy
The tone of your recent content is fantastic - very calm and reasonable while still clearly and concisely delivering the hard-hitting arguments. Editing is on point as well. Keep up the great work, Stephen!
Amazing video as always! Although, it’s Stephen Hawking, not Hawkins. Just a small nitpick.
Thank you, I actually looked it up because I was like "Wait..."
@@monthebiff probably was thinking about Dawkins and got mixed up, I'm sure he knows it's Hawking.
Here's something for both your Hawking and Dawkins needs: ruclips.net/video/LIhVCrAKSoY/видео.html
I honestly didn’t notice that, and then I read this!
Nevertheless ignoring something because it doesn’t make you feel good is absolutely what I’m against, so the only thing I should do is say thanks!
Perhaps it's a reference to The IT Crowd? Jen clearly says "Stephen Hawkins" in one episode.
Holy creator Batman ! The Joker is a creationist.
To the factmobile Robin.
Fire up the science drive and prep the reality rockets. Its time to stop them from poisoning the well with word salad.
Thank you Thomas! I'm going to use that on some joker trolls.
Best Kalam shut down I know, that doesn’t need to mention quantum physics:
1) For causation to occur, time must exist both before and after the event in question.
2) Time began at the big bang.
C) The big bang was not a caused event.
Disclaimer: This is an argument from our best understanding thus far (and the hypothesis I find most compelling), there are hypotheses that have time existing before the big bang such as the endless universe.
It's even worse than that. In general relativity, time doesn't flow at all. The flow of time is an illusion created by our perception temporal ordering of events. Turns out, Craig doesn't even believe this because he thinks there's a unique reference frame (hint, he calls it god's reference frame). Craig sells bullshit as if it's science and his audience, not educated enough in science to correct him, buys it hook, line, and sinker.
Of course, once you dare to bring quantum field theory into the picture, you barely even need to make an argument, but I think the relativistic picture is even stronger of a counterexample because, unlike with quantum mechanics, the ontology is solid in general relativity; you get a picture to go along with your logic.
If it "doesn’t need to mention quantum physics" the I'd prefer "the biginning" over "the big bang" for 2 and C. It may not have been caused, but I'd put money on that it'll turn out to have been Quantum all along
So why couldn't God have created time before the universe....
@@korsol Time, and space, are part of the universe.
It is so absurd that Craig constantly invokes "Nothing" as if it were a proposal by Physicists. There is no "Nothing" to examine, there is no "Nothing" proposed which "things come from", it is meaningless to describe anything as complex as the expansion from the "singularity" with terms such as "Nothing".
It would be too honest for WLC to do that!
I’m waiting for him to cite Krauss as a nothing proponent so we know he hasn’t actually read the book
@@thelastsith1306 Ha ha! I believe you are correct! I always remember Craig's injunction in the preface of one of his books that the Christian must believe things even if they are shown to be unbelievable by employing a special "Christian Mindtrick". Dishonest is the word, and yet he always maintains that affable mask.
Correct Sir
@@thelastsith1306 I just made this exact point
The Last Sith
'
M
I actually completely agree with de-emphasizing the first premise, because it *does* always serve as a distraction. People spend all this back and forth pretending to understand quantum physics when in fact that's not the important part of the argument. If you could prove to me that: "If the universe had a cause, then God exists", then that alone would be Nobel Prize worthy. It's the handwavey: "hey let's call that cause 'God'" premise which is the most problematic. I'd much rather focus on that one.
I agree, but it is still dishonest to phrase it as modesty when in fact you can and should just say The old first premise doesn't work, here is the new version which does work (Not)
@@NekoDalian Exacly, so it makes sense to change up the argument, but at least be honest about it
@@NekoDalian The problem is that they'll fall back on pilot wave theory or many-worlds theory which are deterministic. I think many-worlds is true, so I don't criticize the Kalam using quantum physics, because in that case, it does have a (trivially true) cause: the state of the universe right before that moment.
vargonian who gives a fuck? Why let them get that far? Why discuss premise three when one is broken?
You stop them at the door, friend, and turn them away. You don’t let them in on a fallacy, then get a couple fallacies deep, and then at that point say “why is this cause god?” Because at that point you’ve already conceded too much ground.
@@NekoDalian Actually, the Big Bang says nothing about the universe beginning. Time didn't begin at the Big Bang, the theory only states the universe was originally in a hot, dense state.
We’re about to have a great one y’all. Let me grab some popcorn. No, tea instead. We have to do it right.
*grabs beer
Alright, then green tea for me, please. And a lemon slice.
It was actually terrible. RR needs more study time less hair time.
69 likes
Nice
N T fuck, I came back too late.
He's conflating "cause" with "purpose", and "possibility" with "probability". That's what I gathered from watching his full lecture. Very entertaining though. Great video. Thanks for doing these.
the word "reason" is ripe for equivocation also.... Could mean HOW (the mechanics/process) something happened.. OR could refer to the INTENT of an intelligent being who produces something.
To say that something has a "purpose" is to say that there is or was intent behind it. The cause of something may or may not have intent, e.g. an earthquake causes a house to fall down, but there was no intent by the earthquake to make the house fall down, nor was there intent behind the movement of tectonic plates to cause the earthquake itself (some people might dispute this).
To say that something is "possible" is to say that it could happen, and anything that can happen will happen eventually. To say that something is "probable" is to say that it is true or likely true. You cannot know that something is probable unless you also know that it is possible. The fact of the universe's existence doesn't prove that a god exists anymore than a picture of a dragon proves that dragons exist. You cannot that something is probable only because, if it were true, then it would be a sufficient explanation. Any event that has any probability at all has occurred at least once by necessity.
kolbyjackcorgi
He is not mix anything up. Watch this ruclips.net/video/XgIPAjwuk8I/видео.html
Craig hilariously asserts that something coming from nothing is worse than magic, and then proceeds to mock the idea of a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Then he goes on to suggest that God did exactly that, pulled the universe out of nothing, with magic, and he didn't even have a hat. You can't make this shit up.
You always conclude your videos so eloquently, relating it back to topics in the video. Mad respect. I find the concluding paragraph, especially the last sentence, to be the hardest part about writing essays.
You have to respect the laws of equivalent exchange.
Rantoni pepperoni 🙏
I find the 'Quantum vacuum > fluctuations Theory' more plausible than the 'Magic Man did it Wild Speculation'.
What caused the quantum vacuum to exist?
@@sageseraph5035 You are asking a very ignorant question. Get an education please and stop annoying those of who do.
DB Cisco quantum theory is totally compatible with theism lol.
@@moderncaleb3923 Yep. You can needlessly insert Zeus into lightening strikes,too.
DB Cisco No...not really. For an atheist you sure have a poor understanding of theism.
Does he think the rabbit actually comes from the magician and the hat? 😂
I hope that's a joke, a good one, I may add
The universe can’t come from nothing! Just don’t ask me where God came from!
**EDIT wow thanks for all the likes! Feel free to checkout my channel 😆**
Check mate religionists
God came from a stack of turtles.
They usually respond with an asspull like "He's beyond space and time"
@@lungisatakane772
Well.... Stephen Hawking thought the universe created itself. Is that theory more logical? Are there any others worth considering?
God has the propper atributes to qualify as a neccesary excistence the universe doesnt
Fantastic video. I've been making these rebuttals for over 20 years. Great to see them online explained so simply.
Oh, dear...
The reason Newton's laws are called laws and Einstein's theories are called theories is because in the hierarchy of words as used by scientists, laws are weaker descriptions than theories are.
A law is essentially just a mathematical description of a phenomenon; it's really just a statement of what happens. A theory, however, provides a model that describes how things happen, and which consequently implies any laws covered by the theory.
In the example of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation and General Relativity, Newton's law is simply an observation that a force exists between any two objects with mass, and a description of how the strength of that force varies with the masses of the objects and the distance between their centers. General Relativity, however, stipulates that mass (really, energy) interacts with spacetime. Energy is able to warp spacetime, and it is restricted to follow certain trajectories by the shape of spacetime.
When you work the math out, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity reproduces Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation when you take GR to a "low" gravity limit (the surface of the Earth is sufficiently low gravity to count, as is most of the solar system in relation to the Sun, but Mercury is actually close enough that GR provided a correction to predictions about Mercury's orbit that couldn't be understood in Newtonian gravity).
The tl;dr here is that it wasn't from any sort of humility that Einstein had a theory and Newton had a law. In science, a theory is the strongest statement that can be made, while a law is a much weaker statement offering no explanatory power.
The reason Craig (rightly) identifies it as a distraction is because it's far from settled that radioactive decay occurs or virtual particles come into being without a cause. The cause of the decay of an unstable atomic nucleus is the interaction between constituent quarks. An energy threshold is exceeded and this is what triggers decay. Now since the quarks move randomly it’s true we cannot predict *when* the nucleus will decay, but that doesn’t mean there is no cause of it.
Similarly, virtual particles are fluctuations of the energy in the quantum vacuum. And as Craig's pointed out in other contexts, the vacuum is not nothing. It is a roiling sea of physical energy.
As theoretical physicist Matt Strassler puts it, “A ‘virtual particle’, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.” So it's actually neither without efficient nor material cause. It's just not with a *predictable* cause, is all.
Yes, that is my understanding of the quantum vacuum as well! Events that occur at that level are INDETERMINATE, but not UNCAUSED. And nothing begins to exist without a cause, especially out of NOT ANYTHING. And when we consider that there are at least ten different interpretations of quantum mechanics, (some of which are as mechanistic as Newtons Law of Motion), and NO ONE knows which is the correct interpretation, it makes sense that all such talk of quantum phenomena is indeed a distraction.
@@Mark-cd2wf Exactly. And it's somewhat misleading to say "virtual particles come into existence" to begin with, since these are not actually particles but disturbances/fluctuations. They're events rather than "things".
@@Vic2point0 Precisely. And the first premise is not based on the law of cause and effect, but rather on a metaphysical principle of being: BEING cannot come from NON-BEING.
One thing I still don't quite understand, hoping you can shed some light: how does making the first premise more modest remove the need to talk about whether subatomic particles "come into existence" or not? I don't see the connection.
Thanks for getting back! That clears things up. Did you notice how, after sneering at Lane Craig for being a "theologian," RR mentions talking to a "really smart" ACTOR friend of his, who claimed that nothing really begins to exist, it's all just a matter of rearranging already existing material???
Stephen Hawking would disagree. He said, "Almost everyone now agrees that the universe began to exist, a finite amount of time ago." Alexander Vilenkin, of the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin Theorem, said, "ALL the evidence we have points to a beginning. With the PROOF now in place, scientists must wrestle with the problem of a cosmic beginning."
That's an extraordinary thing for a scientist to say. All the evidence never points in just one direction, in science. But this evidence does.They tried for TEN YEARS to come up with an alternative explanation, and couldn't.
And btw, the BGV Theorem also applies to a multiverse (it would need a beginning too), and it applies all the way back to the Singularity, regardless of the laws of physics at Planck time.
And yet RR and his friends would have us deny the last 100 years of cosmology, and just say "Well, we don't know, we don't know, maybe the universe is eternal, we can't know for sure, we mustn't be arrogant." Yet they raise objections to the KCA (which is fine), and then arrogantly claim to have debunked it (which isn't fine, because they haven't).
Ever notice how atheists worship science, until it disproves their atheism?
In Craig's statement that "Something cannot come from nothing" he is actually saying "Something cannot be created from nothing". So there must already be something there from which the universe is altered into. (AKA - Energy of the universe.) If you go back in time, no matter how far, the energy of the universe doesn't simply disappear. Where would it go ? It's still there. The energy of the universe remains as an existent thing as far back as we can look in time.
At it's earliest form, we have a universe that exists as only energy. And that unstable energy expands and changes rapidly into what we call the material universe. (elements, gravity, stars, galaxies and life). An unstable anything doesn't need a supernatural push. Instability is a natural function of nature & time. When you have time, you have change and when you have change, instability rises.
In other words....No gods needed.
No gods are ever needed.
The universe is seen as a system, and it started to exist after the Big Bang (which is supported by the Penrose-Hawking theory and BGV theorem). That means the energy of this system (this universe) couldn't have existed before it the system itself began to exist). Base on what you’re saying, the energy existed outside of the universe.
Is there any evidence that shows energy can exist outside of a system?
Quantum Mechanics has shown that classic cause and effect break down, correct. But that doesn't get to the first premise's point, namely, that its a metaphysical impossibility for something to come into being from non-being. So the supposed "refutation" you claim to have made, that is, that creation and causation are not two sides of the same coin given QM, actually doesn't address WLC's fundamental reason for thinking premise 1 to be true. WLC has openly stated in his debate with, you guessed it, Sean Carroll, that one can adopt ones favorite theory of causation. This would include any causal relations within QM.
Metaphysics is the Scripture of the "Modern Atheism" and Philosophy is its Theology. As an igthiest, I find both sides of the (Not so) Great Denate hilarious.
"its a metaphysical impossibility for something to come into being from non-being" a common sense claim that is totally wrong.
@@peterwright5311 Then I don't think you have understood what non-being means in philosophy.
@@kylepage594 I don't think you have asked yourself what 'meta physics' means.
Non-being means absolutely nothing whatsoever. So to suppose a thing can spontaneously pop into being from absolutely nothing whatsoever is intellectual bankruptcy of the highest magnitude imaginable. It's a total betrayal of reason on every possible level.
93% Stephen Hawking + 7% Richard Dawkins = 100% Stephen Hawkins
:D two thumbs up! lol
Yours is one of the few channels I click the bell for. Love your content!
Your channel is by far one of my favorites. Keep doing you!
If quantum physics calls into question the law of non-contradiction then both RRules and WLC are correct.
ruclips.net/video/pGKe6YzHiME/видео.html
@@rationalsceptic7634 how does that video respond to what @Tony is saying?
I agree that QM doesn't contradict the law of non-contradiction. Quantum objects are A in one state of the wavefunction and ~A in another one. They are A and ~A in DIFFERENT WAYS, not in the same way. Just like in the Many-worlds interpretation objects aren't both A and ~A in the same way. They are A in one quantum universe and they are ~A in another one. Under the Coppenhagen interpretation, prior to collapse, the two superposed states are the same as two worlds in Many-worlds. It's just that under the Many-worlds interpretation, those two superposed states never stop being superposed. If Many-worlds doesn't go against the law of non-contradiction, then neither does the Coppenhagen interpretation, because the 'contradictory' state in the latter is the same as different worlds in the former.
They keep re-framing the Wachmaker analogy. It's ironic that he talks about a horse since they keeps beating a dead one.
ogogo ogpgpg www.deviantart.com/gannadene/art/Hekapoo-s-Fire-759370179
No explanation from Craig of his favourite magic man again!
Considering WLC is incapable of integrating the clear rational debunks of his pablem, I don't know why people even bother re-debunking his old and tired crap. And considering HE believes that EVERYTHING came from nothing because his god, that somehow does not need a creator, spoke magic incantations, there is no need to pay any attention to him.
Gosh I love you Steven. And I appreciate all the effort and quality content you present.
You taught me more about thinking rationally,and that men can have an amazing hair!
Thank you so much!
First cause arguments do not state "everything has a cause", they state "everything not from eternity has a cause". In other words, "everything which begins to exist".
"Something cannot come from nothing!"
Okay....than where did your god come from?
[Awkward silence.....]
They will give u the explanation God is above the rules that he is the exception an anomaly but a big bang or likewise cant be an exception lmao delusional
They use the argument "God did not begin to exist, but always existed and therefore has no cause" that's why they often call him the uncaused cause or unmoved mover.
Thats why you hit em with
Prem1 : If something exists, something else can also exist
Prem2 : God existed before the universe began
Concl : Things can exist before the universe began
And following on from that, if things existed before the universe that are not God, then they can be the cause of the universe
Science has never seen anything come from nothing and has never made such claims. In fact only religion makes the claim that something comes from nothing when they say god has always been, and there was nothing before its existence.
Special pleading.. not only for a God ,, but a specific God.... The Kalam could just as well make a case for the Universe being fabricated in Santa's Workshop.
@@ds4010 exactly. Why can't the universe be eternal? Why does it have to be God?
Ok. These days the bit I get stuck at is: Why are these 'trivially determined as bloody awful' arguments still being advanced? I mean, it is easily the case that someone could be utterly convinced by Dr.Craig's reasoning and yet still not be Christian, or indeed, religious. If the universe had a cause, the very best we can say is that we don't know what that cause was\is. Even if the cause was somehow determined to be a God, of some description we can find agreement on, even then, we still don't necessarily get to Christianity or any other specific religion. There's a massive cascade of bad reasoning that has to follow this bad reasoning in order to get to the position we seem to be in where religions have an overly out-sized impact on policies that hurt people out there in the real world.
You fundamentally misunderstand QM. The superposition principal doesn't state that a particle can "be" at two positions at the same time. Rather it states that the sum of any two states (or wave functions) is again a legitimate state (unlike in classical mechanics).
The fact that a wave function predicts that there is a probability to detect a particle at two different positions does not mean that we will detect at the two positions. If we know that it is at one (via performing a measurement) we automatically know that it isn't at the other location and vice versa.
Any competent (theoretical) physicist should warn you of taking the physicality of the wave function too seriously. It does not give information about the state of exact being of a particle but rather it is a sort of generalised probability distribution giving you the probability of a particle being in a certain "classical" state (e.g. such as a specific location or being dead or alive).
Further the notion of causality as introduced in special (and general) relativity, i.e. the ability of being able to label two events as being first and second (or not being able to which is also possible) is no way violated by QM and quantum field theory (QFT). In fact it is one of the basic ingredients of QFT and quite necessary to formulate it properly.
And some other physicists would warn against not taking the physicality of the wavefunction seriously.
Any collapse interpretation (including the "default" one) violates causality.
Dr Craig loves how clever he is, watch his face and phrasing. Patronising and arrogant.
How foolish I am for not agreeing with him about his certainty and the arguments he uses to support it. How could a man who knows so many big words be mistaken.
Steve you nailed it, especially at the end. This guy has his answer and just keeps rewriting the question.
God bless The Hitch.
"Modest" xD More like "Oh shit we know enough to refute this corner stone of my premise. Better change it so they don't notice."
I would think, that due to the conservation of energy, no one has ever seen anything come into existing. All we have seem is order from chaos. All the materials of the horse already existed, they just weren't ordered like a horse.
"When a magician pulles a rabbit out of a hat. At least you got the magician... not to mention the hat"
AND the rabbit Doc, you forgot about the rabbit, it has there all along.
A whole series on Craig. He's a gold mine when it comes to debunking! This is going to be good!
Dr. Craig is clearly showing a lack of integrity with this sleight of mind change in his first premise.
Whenever I watch/listen to WLC prattling I miss Hitch that much more ... :(
Integrity. ? He has no idea what that is.
He's just making a living at Christian apologetics
There is no lack of integrity unless he knows better. It is immensely more likely for people to have a wrong understanding than for people to go around deliberately spewing nonsense as if it will somehow gain them something. Thinking he somehow gains something from it is pretending to know his motives without justification and it is a conspiracy theorist mindset (the government is controlling everyone too aren't they?) Get off your moral high horse and get back to reality.
I just had to comment basically this same thing to a bunch of thiests on another video. BS coming from people on both sides. *sigh*
@@Elrog3 WLC has heard the counter-arguments and refutations of his drivel so many times, it is exceedingly unlikely that he does not realise he is wrong. He is disingenuous, arrogant and has a really awful voice.
"Notice that the universe isn't something- its everything."
My head just freaking exploded and idek why 😲😹
Newton's laws are called laws because they predict but don't explain anything; Einstein's theories are called theories because they both predict AND give explanations. A theory is higher in science than a law (oh and BTW Newton's laws are wrong, we know this thanks to Einstein's theories).
Very nice point
@Emmanuel Araujo laws that don't make accurate predictions are wrong; also Newton's assumption that gravity is a force was wrong, there is only acceleration in a curved 4 dimensional spacetime.
For all non-relativistic speeds Newton's laws work just fine. Good enough for NASA in sending rockets about the solar system.
“Higher”? Interesting value judgement. Newton’s laws are. Theories are conceptual arrangements which ultimately can’t be proven in a laboratory setting. The tools of science simply don’t lend themselves to such metaphysical investigation. Ultimately the issue of having to use empiricism to justify empiricism is inescapable.
@@steviewonder417 A scientific theory is completely different to the general use of the term 'theory' and is in fact, the pinnacle of science
Some excellent points there Stephen.
WLC continues to refine this weak,special-pleading based verbal conjuring trick for his countless "Disciples" to eagerly devour.
Which ever way you cut it,positing a timeless,spaceless, eternal being,is to define your magic friend out of existence.
Richard Dawkins × Stephen Hawking = Stephen Hawkins? Not sure about this math here
@Elmo Oh look, I found the scientific illiterate.
Your math checks out Kyle.
Elmo neither did he. He is calling you scientifically illiterate. Maybe you misread it because you’re also just the regular kind of illiterate?
Jim Hawkin - Treasure Island !
Elmo Stephen Hawking did host a party for time travellers, and in fact no time travellers showed up.
Do you think that’s the only thing he’s done? Do you think that’s how he became a famous scientists? Do you think that’s why he’s considered one of the greatest minds in human history?
Clue: ‘s not.
I agree so wholeheartedly with you!
And when he said "Something cannot come from nothing" I wanted to interject and ask "Can you prove that?" immediately.
Keep up the great work!
It does not need to be proven because it's what we call a properly basic truth. For instance, 16 ounces equals a pound. One needn't prove such a claim. It's truth value is properly basic or self evident.
Likewise, the claim -- 'a thing cannot come from no thing' is a properly basic truth since the only alternative is that a thing CAN come from no thing, which is a brazen violation of the logical law of non-contradiction:
'Came from' necessarily denotes origin
'Nothing' necessarily denotes NO origin
So the very language 'Came from nothing' requires that the thing it describes has origin and no origin simultaneously which is logically self-defeating.
The only way one can truly support Mr. Woodford's rebuttal to Dr. Craig's position is if one throws out the laws of logic completely. And that, good sir, is pure foolery.
Funny thing is he has accepted the BS that his god became out of nothing while debating with Hitchens...So his god is unbelievable even to his own self.
@@jesserochon3103 You made a critical error within your argument. If something that has no origin - like nothing - cannot be the cause of something else your god-belief is on very shaky grounds. If god had an origin this would mean there must have been a point when god was non-existent. If god was then caused by nothing then the universe could also have been caused by nothing.
If god had a cause then you would fall into that infinite regress that theists are desperately trying to avoid.
Actually you must also acknowledge that RR and I never stated that something could actually come from nothing. I only said that one cannot prove this to be true. Since this is the case the only reasonable answer is i don't know whether nothing could cause anything. And therefore, any argument that has this expression in its premises falls apart as the fact that we do not know is passed on to the conclusion.
And also I must warn you from assuming properly basic truths when they are in fact not properly basic. The reason 16 ounces equal 1 pound is that those units are defined by exactly that expression. And in logic definitions are always true; therefore, the truth value of the expression "16 ounces equal 1 pound" is properly basic.
The law if non-contradiction is not violated either, since nothing itself does not have an origin, yet we do not know whether nothing can be an origin to something else. Please be careful here.
I appreciate the response and that you want to have a discussion since we all - and I hope you too - want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
@@jesserochon3103 Furthermore I would argue that one can't make claims about properties of nothing like "nothing cannot cause anything" since nothing has no properties. Thus also I don't claim the inverse "nothing can cause something". Actually the only thing that we can say is we don't know and that may be unsatisfying for some but it is often the only sensible answer.
Did you read a goddamn thing I wrote?
"Something cannot come from nothing." Except for your god, right, Craig?
But Craig doesn't claim God came from nothing, owing to the eternality of the first cause to which He is identified with.
Super God: Let there be god.
@@SerendipitousProvidence Yes, he claims that the universe didn't come from nothing. He also does not claim that God came from nothing.
@@cagedgandalf3472 Ex-nihilo does seem impossible from all we know. Justified claim if you ask me. At least with a magician you have a magician and a hat. Without God, nothing.
Regarding God not coming from nothing, that's just how God is defined as. To copy paste my previous post:
_Let there be[create/cause] [Uncreated creator and uncaused cause]?_
_Who painted the painting? Painter. Who painted the painter? Exactly, the painter is not in the category of things painted. What does blue colour smell like? Exactly, blue is not in the category of things that have smell._
@@SerendipitousProvidence Regarding the Universe not coming from nothing, that's just how the Universe is defined as.
Its interesting that we think things have cause without acknowledging that our minds are what begin to understand things.
This is a weak argument. Re-wording it isn't helping. Lots of Kalam worshippers out there.
Name one book you read by William Lane Craig.
@@LogosTheos
That is completely irrelevant to the apologetics Craig is putting forth in this video. Your comment is a non sequitur.
@@LucivarDiablo yeah
@@LogosTheos Name one book by William Lane Craig that is not based on fallacies.
@@JGM0JGM How do you know if you never read it?
Around 7:15, it was mentioned that microscopic come into being by causation from old material.
I agree with you on that. However, the material of this universe did not exist until the Big Bang. Therefore, we asked how did the material of this universe come into being.
If you say the material of this universe came into existence from previous materials, then you have to ask what caused that material to come into being. You can't go back infinitely into the past of causation. All objective, verifiable evidence of physical existence shows there is a starting point of existence. Eventually, you have to ask at what point when the materials first came into being in order to cause the events of things coming into being from previous materials.
Craig says that something cannot come from nothing, then how did his god create everything from nothing? And if he claims that his god did, then his god is the magician of which he spoke in his presentation.
The whole micro vs macro debate regarding evolution already showed us years ago that creationists don't have the capacity to think in a nuanced way.
So why would they suddenly be able to take both of those terms into account when it comes to theoretical physics?
@Joshua Opell I agree, but fundamentalists won't.
They won't even admit that humans are the same as animals, they think they are an exception created by god to rule over everything else.
Your take is way too nuanced, religious nuts don't get anything outside of black and white thinking.
So, by introducing the conclusion verbatim into the first premise, it's somehow more 'modest'?!?!?
When you start to really look into all of these "philosophical" ideas of him, and most theologians, you quickly realize they're all based on a bunch of logical fallacies strung together with other random facts and ideas thrown in to appeal to common people. Begging the question, special pleasing, argumentum ad populum, circular reasoning... you name it.
@@DeusExAstra Your life is a logical fallacy. Rationality Rules said that at the quantum level the law of non-contradiction no longer holds. I have an idea. Let's make a compromise and agree that God exists and doesn't exist at the same time.
I am still amazes at the jump from a Deistic "God" to "Therefore the Bible was written by this God and his name is Jesus."
@@michaelsayad5085 I have a better idea. How about you go fuck yourself with a crucifix and let the grown ups decide how we describe reality. Quantum weirdness does not imply that every baseless claim of every idiot like yourself is suddenly plausible.
The assertion "something cannot come out of nothing" is just as valid as "something CAN come out of nothing" since we have yet to observe nothing. You can't assign a property to things you have not observed.
Never trust a deist to explain science to you.
Leave it to an arrogant human to be absolutely sure that the universe was made for him by his Dad.
Everytime i hear a Godly argument i keep Rationality Rules on speed dial
Craig's new first premise is merely a dishonest ploy to hide the underlying equivocation with "begins to exist". Everything we observe that supports the first premise has both efficient and material causes, yet Craig wants us to ignore that his own argument demands that the universe stands alone in requiring only an efficient cause. And despite this unprecedented distinction, we can remain confident that the requirement for an efficient cause remains, even though he claims his god is exempt from this requirement!
The whole thing is an embarrassing clusterfuck that any honest philosopher would distance himself from immediately. But "honest" and "William Lane Craig" are not on speaking terms.
Craig's invocation of "nothing" requires supporting evidence. Did nothing exist before the big bang? When could it? There was no time. Where would it? There was no space. "Nothing exists" is an oxymoron. But Craig wants us to believe nothing DID once exist... Plus God, of course, who apparently existed in no place at no time. Hmm, maybe he's got a point there after all.
When has a Craig ever claimed that nothing exists, nothing existed, or nothing can exist?
@@SwangBley Craig believes in Creatio Ex Nihilo, creation out of nothing. For God to create something out of nothing, Craig must assume that at some point, there was nothing. Otherwise, if there was always something, he would believe in Creatio Ex Materia, creation out of existent material, or Creatio Ex Deo, creation out of the being of God. Since he believes in Creatio Ex Nihilo, he must believe in "nothing," a state where nothing existed absent God. But this leads to the question of where and when could God exist alongside this state of nothingness where no time, no space, no matter, no energy existed? In a "supernatural" realm? But even that realm, if it exists, is something - not nothing. And who created that? And on and on it goes.
@@allgodsmyth7318"Craig believes in Creatio Ex Nihilo, creation out of nothing. For God to create something out of nothing, Craig must assume that at some point, there was nothing."
Creation Ex Nihilo does not mean that God created out of something called nothing as if there were ever some stuff called "nothingness" for God to act on. To the contrary, it merely means that God did not create out of anything at all. Or more precisely, God did not create by educing new forms out of something pre-existent. The phrase carries a totally privative sense.
"Otherwise, if there were always something, he would believe in Creatio Ex Materia, creation out of existent material, or Creatio Ex Deo, creation out of the being of God."
There is nothing inconsistent about something always existing and God creating out of nothing. All it would mean for both to be true is that God did not act on whatever it was that always existed to create the universe.
@@SwangBley So, are you saying that Craig (and you) believe there was "something always existing" in addition to God? If so, then there was always "something" that God did not create. If not, then there was absolutely "nothing" prior to the creation of the universe. No space, no time, and no realm for God to exist.
Hmm, I got a notification of your reply, but it's not showing up on this thread. Did you delete it?
WLK's argument falls apart on so many levels that I am amazed he keeps embarrassing himself with such regularity. He claims that his god existed 'before' the universe, where he claims there was 'nothing' except god of course which is something!!! He then states that something cannot come from nothing. So the burning question is 'Where did god get the matter and energy from to make the universe'? Magic?
He then 'creates hundreds of billions of Galaxies each containing hundreds of billions of stars just so he could have a personal relationship with a bunch of superstitious carbon based primates on some insignificant lump of rock circling a nondescript star. It is just so sad that his mind is so confused.
Great video. Paulogia is also doing a fine job of debunking WLK.
Did you not go with "debunked" just out of modesty?
@Gadi K lol
@RetroMan there was nothing to debunk. Craig essentially debunks himself by having to constantly rewrite the original so that science cant be an argument
Love the explanations of each of the logical terms. Thanks again for another great video, my friend.
I visited al-Gazali's grave and played the video, then I heard some loud voices coming out of the ground, what do you think that means?
"[...] If you base the design of rockets on science they reach the moon. It works ... bitches!"
Dr. Richard Dawkins
ruclips.net/video/rj3rAJUVrGQ/видео.html
nothing like Craig's tactic of starting with 2 premises that cannot be supported then adding on more unsupportable assertions and claims that lead to his preconception. Its hard to dig through all that crap in order to counter it properly without being buried in garbage.
Doesn't the doctors argument fall at the first hurdle? Does God exist? If yes then what created him? If he always existed then not every thing that exists needs a cause. His argument will be that God had no beginning. Which admits that there are things that have always existed. In which case how do we know the universe didn't always exist?
6:09 No, Craig said "if you deny premise one".
Claiming "universe ab aeterno" is also an option is not denying premise one. Premise one is a statement about what follows logically if the universe is not ab aeterno.
THAT the universe de facto is not ab aeterno is his next business, not something he smuggled in into the premise one, despite your shoddy analysis of argument.
What makes more sense? think about it and be honest to yourself; the universe always existing and coming up with perfect conditions for all the matter to exist as we know it, all the perfect stars, perfect galaxies, perfect planets, perfect genetic information to start life and launch evolution, or an intelligent being always existing who came up with all those things?
You make the glaringly incorrect assertion that everything in our universe is “perfect”. And if the universe has always existed then it has literally forever to get the conditions right for the way things are as we see them now, which may be why we exist in this particular time anyway.
Easily one of my fave channels. Thank you for the content.
Most welcome. Thanks for the kind words.
You love transphobes?
@@chanding are you serious? You're not transphobic if you think that trans athletes might have an advantage over non trans athletes. It's a very reasonable position. And yeah he fucked up with his first video but it's an enormous leap to then say he's transphobic because of that.
You could argue that way if he were to do such things all the time but he hasn't. He even took the exact opposite position in most topics regarding trans people. You have absolutely no valid basis for this accusation.
@@op-physics nope. Watch Kevin Logan with the ACA walkouts and EOT videos, all RR replies are showing that he is not an ally of trans, therefore he is not interested in human rights, he'd rather create a rotten Church. Do you your research... or do you prefer to fall in line with the Bible?
@@chanding go fuck yourself. You're the one being religious, treating opinions on transsexuality as a gospel that he has blasphemed against by daring to think for himself. You are the problem parading as the solution and it's disgusting.
We should start a go fund me and use the proceeds to hire a qualified physicist to follow around WLC and politely correct him every time he misrepresent physics that he's not qualified to be speaking about.
I'll donate to a gofundme for that! Would be hilarious.
Thanks for your videos! Has anyone else seen Scott Clifton's response to Craig's Kalam?
I enjoy listening to your message. As a Christian I see your logic. Science works, man's continuously seeks understanding.
For (me) I see the universe to be a master piece, created by a creator to hold time. Everything beautifully in chaotic order.
One of my favourite atheist RUclipsrs
Second, for your refutation to work, you would need to demonstrate that quantum mechanics does throw classical causation out of the window. Affirming is not the same as demonstrating.
I might be more inclined to doubt quantum than to doubt God.
I appreciate that you've returned to your non political videos.
The reason you can't claim the universe has existed forever like God is that God exists beyond time. If the universe always was, then that would mean an infinite past and so we would never reach the present. If you watch the video between Dr. Craig and CosmicSkeptic this is explained. I would like to see your response after seeing that video.
After all the ‘kick ins’ he took from the Hitch. I’m surprised he’s still going 😂
Agreed, he was also humbled by Sean Carroll in a big way as well.
Ah you see in order for a kick in to take affect you need to be less dense than a black hole.
S T.S i personally think that sean caroll did the best job out of anybody exposing his arguments for the garbage they are. Dont get me wrong, hitch and stephen both did a phenomenal job, particularly at exposing the philosophical flaws, but sean caroll exposed just how utterly out of his depth WLC is when making claims that trespass overtly on our scientific understanding of the cosmos
@@filipjackowski1066 again agreed,
S T.S can someone explain to me how Hitchens gave Craig a kick in the butt? Admittedly tho I haven’t yet watched the whole debate.
I can however see exactly how Sean Carroll not only gave a colossal kick in the ass to Craig but also embarrassed him with the science and philosophy in a church. A relative new comer in the philosophy circles, Carroll handled himself more than adequately versus Craig who only has philosophy to draw expertise from.
Many people find it hard to believe in the weirdness of the quantum world, yet easily believe in a magical grandpa.
Didn't he also put the conclusion inside premise 1? If so Dr. Craig is begging the question
Thats exactly what he did.
I thought so too yes as far as I can tell you might as well just have the first premis and nothing else
Which version of the Kalam are you referring to?
The two versions Craig presents look something like this:
1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
2. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Version 1. has the following form:
Every B is that which is a C
A is that which is a B.
Therefore, A is that which is a C.
A= the universe .B= thing which began to exist. C= thing that has a cause.
This a perfectly valid argument, and it is not question-begging. "A is that which is a C" is different from "Every B is that which is a C." The two propositions have distinct meanings.
Version 2. has the following form:
If P, then Q.
P.
Therefore, Q.
P= the universe began to exist. Q= the universe has a cause.
This argument has the valid form of Modus Ponens. Moreover, the proposition "If P, then Q" doesn't mean the same thing as "Q." So, this version of the argument isn't question-begging either.
sites.cs.ucsb.edu/~pconrad/cs40/lessons/logic/modusPonensModusTollens.html
@@SwangBley
Both premises are false claims. Yes, they may follow rules of rational reasoning but it's like writing a code without paying attention to semantics.
@@jebemtigolaz Very well, though I wasn't trying to convince anyone that the argument is sound, I was just pointing out what I thought was a bad objection.
I am hopeful that you are still intending to do more of these. I had some intuitions about the "Stage 2" argument from the Kalam series, and was hoping your videos could help me mature them.
Anyone else think William Lane Craig resembles the aged David Lee Roth?
Its amazing because I always watch these calm collected videos. Very light and easy going. And then you scroll down and its like world war 3 sometimes. Trolls and sweaty keyboard debaters.
I try to find nice discussions or counter points and I usually do but then it usually gets ruined by others.
These comment sections tend to get pretty heated.
Even if I did agree with the argument it still does nothing to prove a god at all. All the argument says is something caused the universe to exist. He still has to prove that a god did it and that his description of that god is correct.
It would typically be followed up by something like: a cause has to be uncaused else infinite regression, timeless/spaceless/immaterial because it caused the Universe, have and be a mind because otherwise the conditions for there being a Universe would've been met infinitely ago and the Universe infinitely old
Every one of these points has been answered already, 8-15 years ago, literally.
The fact that he’s smirking as if he were hiding some sort of ‘ace of spades’ of an argument that he’s surprising everyone with is hilarious to watch 😂
It amazes me how people like "Doctor" Craig can make statements such as this completely oblivious to the clear and present fact that it is actually creationists who are the ones who insist that the universe poofed into existence for no reason at all other than because a giant invisible magic sky daddy wanted it to.
Oh, and my favorite part about Kalam(azoo) is that even if it’s right, it is completely information free in terms of knowing what that cause is. Personal being? Nope. All good? Nope. All powerful? Nope. There is literally “nothing” to be learned. See what I did there? This is the problem with everything having to do with God. We can know nothing. The “supernatural” makes any and all knowledge impossible as all things are possible, meaning nothing can be falsified. See my series, The God Distraction here on RUclips. #selfpromotingbastard
You have an incredible mind... I’m stumbling on all the information you share specifically related to science. I’m very skeptical of scientist. How can I know that scientist are not just as biased as Dr Craig? We put science and the information we are GIVEN by scientists on a pedestal as if they are actually morally, intellectually, and physically perfect or “better than we are”
I am humbled by the dynamics of my individuals existence and
often inspired by my curiosity of reality. Rationality Rules reflects
the mental value of expanding one's intelligence of the physical world.
Why are you so against Dr Craig's human right to participate in sports?
mental gymnastics
@Austin Martín Hernández
I mean, making fun of trans people is kind of transphobic. Would you make fun of someone for being black?
To be a bit pedantic here:
Quantum systems have been observed to violate conservation of energy
on very small timescales. This is a result of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
between energy and time. For a smaller time scale a higher violation of the conversation of energy is allowed.
As such virtual particles can be "created" without the needed energy as long as they disappear over a
timescale that is conform with the uncertainty of the system.
Regards from a german particle physicist.
it surprised me that you apply actual science into philosophy when craig only gives his opinion.
if you are ill you go to see a doctor, if you want to know about the universe you talk to an expertise of the subject.
People like you bring back my hope in humanity
I am an Atheist, but I hate to say *this video is terrible.* EVERY SINGLE objection you expressed is already answered by Craig an his minions. Not many... ALL of your objections.
BTW, it is obvious that you *do not even read* what you quote because you would know that NO ONE IS called *Stephen Hawkins.*
Having addressed an objection doesn't mean having answered it. William Craig's argument is just scientifically wrong and there is really no way to truly defend his argument against such objections as raised by Steve.
@G Will Oh, so you are fine if someone doesn't believe in God as long as they don't criticize God for being the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. How nice of you! :')
Nice work Stephen, This is what I come to your sight to listen too!
You are one sharp fella! Keep up on you studies.
Honestly, you have a conception of rationality that is very limited in scope and usually is restricted to deductive logic or logical fallacies. There's a huge literature in philosophy/cognitive science on this that makes your conception look cringy and reductive.
Empty, meaningless shit talk. What did he say that you feel is incorrect? You actually have to refute him, not pretend like you already have.
It is no measure of Humanities health and well being for so many to be well adjusted to the profoundly sick Christian Religion.
4:40 it was mentioned that causation is thrown out of the window in quantum theory. In addition, he played a video of Sean Carroll saying there are patterns between events at the particle level.
That doesn't do away causation. If there are a pattern of events, that means one event caused another event. In addition, particles didn't come into existence without a cause. The cause of the existence of the particle is a quantum vacuum. A quantum vacuum is something, not nothing.
The fact that people pretend to know what happened in a "time" no one has a clue about makes me furious.