COSMIC SKEPTIC DEBUNKED
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 июл 2020
- To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
To purchase Cosmic Skeptic merchandise: cosmicskeptic.teemill.com/
-------------------------VIDEO NOTES-------------------------
Three years ago I made a video supposedly 'debunking' the kalam cosmological argument. Since then, I've done a lot more investigating, and even spoken to the man who gave that argument its name, and concluded that my old video is a bit of an embarrassment.
It's always exciting to change your mind, and I try to record whenever that happens to me on my channel. I haven't changed my mind about the kalam entirely, but now see it as posing a much stronger challenge than I once thought.
-------------------------------LINKS--------------------------------
r/Vegan ask me anything: / coming_soon_ama_with_c...
My subreddit: / cosmicskeptic
My Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Original video: • The Kalam Cosmological...
Podcast with William Lane Craig: • William Lane Craig and...
Frank Turek, 'From the Kalam to the Biblical God': • From the Kalam to the ...
---------------------SPECIAL THANKS-----------------------
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
Itamar Lev
Evan Allen
Faraz Harsini
James O'Neill
John Early
Austin Chiappetta
Sveline
Teymour Beydoun
J.Jay Berthume
Julia Albrecht
Hans
Isaac Medina
Adam Gray
----------------------------CONNECT-----------------------------
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Cosmic Skeptic Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
---------------------------CONTACT------------------------------
Business email: cosmicskeptic@gmail.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who has it right? 1080p Alex or 4K Alex? More importantly, who has the better hair?
Check out the r/vegan AMA on Wednesday 8th July: www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/hiq2v6/coming_soon_ama_with_cosmic_skeptic_alex_j/
CosmicSkeptic great video! I admire your willingness to criticize yourself and people like the Hitch, it really shows your honestly and your trustworthiness
I LOVE the fact that you used this opportunity to remind people to always think critically, even of those we respect.
I like your hair now, to be honest...
Tbh, I kinda like your current hair.
Most men are growing stronger in this stage of their development. Alex has halted his physical progression with highly dysfunctional and regressive ideas about who he is and why we have morals.
Def this hair suits you better, you look crisps.
I see what you did there: even when people search 'Cosmic Skeptic Debunked', they still end up on your channel
Lol
Perfect marketing! XD :D
Jenius
LOL
IQ infinite.
2025 : "Debunking my debunking video"
2030: Debunking my debunking of my debunking video.
@@alexandertownsend3291 2035: "Debunking the debunking of my debunking of my debunking video" -coming soon
That's the delusion of high atheistic sophistry. lol. Not very helpful and Humble approach against God.
@mujtaba shanan Not sure if this world will still exist in 2040
@mujtaba shanan 2050: de: bunking
I can't wait to hear 18 year old Alex's response to this!
Debunked my future self
it was obvious strawman
18 year old alex has been real quiet 🤔
@@rauhahirvonen9624 it will be probably more thorough.
I can't take these Homestuck shenanigans anymore, please stop ;-;
People: Fail to successfully debunk Alex.
Alex: Fine, I'll do it myself.
XD
Underrated comment
@@emilyl3952 I hate this kind of comments
Alex debunking his cognitive dissonance video:
didn't the whaddoyoumeme channel made a 30 minute response already
Alex:
"I've opened a TikTok account."
You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become a villian.
If you think that I presume you’re on the wrong side of tik tok lol
@@meagan4545 tell me, how do I get to the good side of TikTok? I had the app downloaded for a month, but it was awful. At least the for you page was awful, and I didn't find recommendations useful at all
@@patrickchoque7720 my tik tok for you is so good, so many gold memes lol
@@meagan4545 Tik tok is a horrible app designed to collect as much information on you as possible. Your phone's hardware, your interests and habits, your deleted and current apps, your text message frequency, location, sleep patterns, EVERYTHING. You may argue that all social media are like this, but nothing comes even close to the level of tracking and collection as tik tok. It's a data collection app that's thinly veiled as a social app. It's a Chinese Spyware app. It's been reverse engineered to prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Delete it. Tell your friends to delete it.
@Sher Ali is it really a "conspiracy" if it's been proven? Even if you think I'm exaggerating, the fact is that it's an application designed to gather information, and it does that very well.
It's been reverse engineered. Anonymous group hacked the code and now warns users to delete ASAP. It's banned in multiple countries, and also an entire fucking continent.
I can't stop you from using tik tok. But don't pretend it's an innocent social app. It's stealing your data and selling it to corporations, which has much bigger implications than most people realize.
We are now officially watching a man argue with himself
Across time, not really the same man anymore is he?
Quarantine has really gotten to everyone, I guess
Quarantine has been hard on all of us lol
@@rewrose2838 If we muse ourselves with the ship of theseuis (or the woodsman axe theory), it could apply to this and therefore, allow people to debate one side or the other lol
@@jaysunredacted6842 I was thinking about that too 😂
The fact that you're making a video debunking yourself means you're more intellectually honest than the vast majority of people. Congrats.
you have a strange way of judging honesty
yes
most should be like this as it improves knowledge.
Al-Ikram Chowdory so have you been honest and made a video of you debunking yourself?
@@SamD-th5tg you obviously missed the whole point
Felis Catus which was?
Alex 2017: makes a video
Alex 2020: I’m about to end this man’s whole arbitrary first mover
I laughed really hard at this. Like, harder than I ought of. Good on you, mate.
@@Heatsaber Me too!
Vastly, vastly underrated
*spider men pointing at each other*
🕷️👉🏻 👈🏻🕷️
@14:40 Alex mostly accurately summarizes the key argument for the personhood of the cause, but he’s still using the wrong terminology...
Alex asks how a finite universe can come from an infinite cause and wonders, if the infinite cause is sufficient, then why isn’t the effect likewise infinite.
When applied to the universe, “finite” and “infinite” are mathematical concepts, but “infinite” is NOT mathematical when applied to the cause, so there’s some unintentional equivocating going on here.
WLC puts it like this: if the cause of the universe is timeless and permanent, then, if it’s also sufficient, why isn’t the effect likewise timeless/permanent? It’s all about a temporal origin from a timeless and sufficient cause. WLC asks us to imagine an beginning-less past wherein the temperature has always been below freezing. In this case, it’s silly to think that water would begin to freeze. Any water that was around would have been frozen from eternity past.
WLC, following earlier Islamic and Christian philosophers, argues that the only way out of this dilemma is to suggest that the timeless cause in itself isn’t sufficient; its free decision to create is sufficient. Similarly, WLC, asks us to imagine (for sake of clarity and not literalness) a man sitting down timelessly and willing to stand up. The choice to stand makes the beginning of time.
Alex nevertheless manages to communicate the basic gist of the arguments, but his use of “infinite” here is a bit sloppy because he’s applying it to both the universe (where it’s mathematical) and the cause of the universe (where’s it’s qualitative rather than quantitative).
Also, Alex STILL hasn’t explicitly acknowledged that Aquinas did NOT argue for a beginning of any universe. Alex does say that he misstated Aquinas but doesn't explain how.
@22:45 This is partly mistaken. It’s true that WLC’s primary arguments for the finitude of the past are philosophical rather than scientific.
But WLC also DOES argue that contemporary cosmology strongly points to an absolute beginning even if there’s a multiverse or cyclic model. See his chapter on n kalam (coauthored with a physicist) in the 2009 Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, or his 2014 debate with Carroll (where both men failed IMO), etc.
I appreciate Alex’s intelligence, honesty, and kindness, so please pardon me if I’m nit picking.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns Contemporary cosmology can only study our universe, nothing outside it, so it's silly to say that contemporary cosmology points to any "absolute beginning" even in a multiverse/cyclical model unless you're ONLY talking about our universe. It would also be silly to talk about any timeless state, which the pre-universe probably was, as having an "ultimate beginning." In the Carroll debate, the only evidence Craig points to is the Borde/Guth/Vilenkin paper that states our universe had a beginning to its expansion, and Carroll correctly pointed out the limitations of that paper, especially in its exclusion of quantum mechanics. I don't recall Craig saying anything about an absolute beginning even with multiverse/cyclical models, of which there are many.
The ability to criticise ourselves is severely lacking these days - brilliant video :)
Definitely not, who doesn't critizise themselves?
Dark Wolf443 - I think you are thinking of it in a different way to me, yes we criticise small things like our appearance or stupid things we have said in the past, but I was more getting at the idea that a lot of people don’t like challenging their views or changing their mind on bigger things like politics, morals, religious beliefs etc.
@@TheHollyChronicle They do it all the time, but yes politics are harder to change because that actually seems to have biological reasons for it, but I have changed my political opinions many time.
Dark Wolf443 - I find it fascinating how biology can play into mindset so much, I too have dramatically shifted my political views, but I don’t think it’s common, I think the type of people to watch Alex’s videos are much more likely to be critical and logical about their beliefs.
@@TheHollyChronicle I don't know, I don't watch Alex that often, because I wouldn't call myself a New atheist and I'm not a vegan, and I have my own problems with life which I more often spend time listening to Jordan Peterson who I respect.
Side note: your hair honestly looks great this way
AnnaFloran I love how his hair pushed itself out of his face as the video moved on.
yup
read articles/books on how religion becomes Took stolen from Egypt .. Its based on been hidden far to longwww.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_piso03.htm
1
Jachin and Boaz
m.ruclips.net/video/pzh59xLMV34/видео.html
2
Two Babylons read this first all ancient religious all of them go back 2 Babylon period
www.pdfdrive.com/two-babylons-e57848486.html
3
Book review The Works of Josephus
m.ruclips.net/video/F5OJAwxD_60/видео.html
0
Use text to speech listen instead of reading long book! Iisten to this first
www.ultimatebiblereferencelibrary.com/Complete_Works_of_Josephus.pdf
1 this where it started
Click and read
The True Authorship of the New Testament
en.calameo.com/books/0003960783d74fafd42e5
archive.org/details/ariuscalpurniuspisothetrueauthorshipofthenewtestament/page/5/mode/2up?q=The+true+authorship+of+the+New+Testament
Authorship new testament in black white
www.ivantic.info/Ostale_knjiige/TrueAuthorship.pdf
www.ivantic.info/Ostale_knjiige/Pisos_further_writings_Vol1.pdf
1.1
Authors Of The Bible: PISO
Numberolgy
m.ruclips.net/video/TM2FcpC7DEQ/видео.html
1.2
The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross www.pdfdrive.com/the-sacred-mushroom-and-the-cross-e187729704.html
2.0
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth
b-ok.cc/book/5331711/7a035f
2.1
Shamanism Christianitys Pagan Roots www.pdfdrive.com/astrotheology-shamanism-christianitys-pagan-roots-e49196428.html
2.2
Allegros interview
m.ruclips.net/video/mOu9tV6uy2E/видео.html
www.pdfdrive.com/food-of-the-gods-e190137424.html
Eleusis and Eleusian Mysteries
b-ok.cc/book/5010462/ea2ff2?dsource=recommend
www.pdfdrive.com/persephones-quest-entheogens-and-the-origins-of-religion-e176028504.html
www.pdfdrive.com/mushrooms-and-mankind-a-brief-introduction-to-ethnomycology-e33803.html
www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicklas_Failla/publication/268224513_The_Origins_of_ReligionA_Dissertation_upon_the_Divine_Manna_of_the_Ancient_Jews_and_the_Eucharist_of_the_Catholic_Church_the_Blood_and_Body_of_Christ_as_Reference_to_Psilocybe_Mushrooms/links/54666f670cf25b85d17f6227.pdf
www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicklas_Failla/publication/277142396_THE_ORIGINS_OF_RELIGION_AS_REFERENCE_TO_SACRED_MUSHROOMS/links/5563a70808ae6f4dcc98b98d.pdf?inViewer=true&disableCoverPage=true&origin=publication_detail
www.reality-entertainment.com/realitypress/images/RealityPress.pdf
Click and download ww. the-eye.eu.
duckduckgo.com/?q=john+jay+harper+PDF+shamans+of+the+21st+century+&t=brave&ia=web&iai=r1-6&page=2&adx=prdsdc&sexp=%7B%22v7exp%22%3A%22a%22%2C%22sltexp%22%3A%22b%22%2C%22prodexp%22%3A%22b%22%2C%22prdsdexp%22%3A%22c%22%2C%22biaexp%22%3A%22b%22%2C%22wiadrk%22%3A%22b%22%2C%22langexp%22%3A%22b%22%2C%22liapm%22%3A%22a%22%7D
________________________
b-ok.cc/book/5255289/822a76
b-ok.cc/book/5322067/6d256b
Epub to pdf convter
pdfchef.com/epub-to-pdf.html
________________________
www.amazon.com/Mystery-Manna-Psychedelic-Sacrament-Bible/dp/0892817720
www.romanimperialcult.org/divine_emperors.html
_____________________
1 Intro
Way before 3rd i and texts
m.ruclips.net/video/AOVO2fTFEEU/видео.html
2
Nature And How They Understood All Is One
m.ruclips.net/video/ChOCpKrNJNc/видео.html
3
The Sun Is God In Every Religion W Been Lied To
m.ruclips.net/video/Way3WHplfEE/видео.html
creed Of Constantine Or The World Needs A New Religion
archive.org/details/creedconstantin00tichgoog/page/n16/mode/2up
Emperor Worship and Roman Religion www.pdfdrive.com/emperor-worship-and-roman-religion-oxford-classical-monographs-e184335964.html
Divus Julius
b-ok.cc/book/5010478/d84b23
www.pdfdrive.com/the-jesuits-the-history-and-legacy-of-the-catholic-churchs-society-of-jesus-e194668419.html
________________
The Roman Cult of Mithras The God and His Mysteries
www.pdfdrive.com/the-roman-cult-of-mithras-the-god-and-his-mysteries-e157304946.html
Mithras Mysteries and Inititation Rediscovered
www.pdfdrive.com/mithras-mysteries-and-inititation-rediscovered-e166081679.html
www.pdfdrive.com/the-mysteries-of-mithras-the-pagan-belief-that-shaped-the-christian-world-e157840761.html
getbestbooks.com/pdf-epub-psychedelics-and-spirituality-the-sacred-use-of-lsd-psilocybin-and-mdma-for-human-transformation-download/
_____________________
serapis
b-ok.cc/book/2726484/96c373
www.pdfdrive.com/serapis-by-georg-ebers-391-page-850-kb-pdf-file-e33525586.html
3 Dont read this yet
Caesar Messiah The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus Flavian Signature Edition
archive.org/details/caesarsmessiah.theromanconspiracytoinventjesus.flaviansignatureedition?q=Caesars+Messiah+The+Roman+Conspiracy+to+Invent+Jesus.+Flavian+Signature+Edition
Interview with Joseph Atwill The Roman Creation of Christianity
m.ruclips.net/video/g40Eck6gW7U/видео.html
_______________________
4 dont read this yet
Jesus Was Caesar On the Julian Origin of Christianity An Investigative Report
www.pdfdrive.com/jesus-was-caesar-on-the-julian-origin-of-christianity-an-investigative-report-e158432835.html
6
1 vol
www.pdfdrive.com/the-pagan-christ-is-blind-faith-killing-christianity-e161043877.html
6.1
2 vol
www.pdfdrive.com/the-pagan-christ-is-blind-faith-killing-christianity-e183803761.html
7 JC
Jesus Never Existed www.pdfdrive.com/jesus-never-existed-e186635940.html
__________________________
The Gospel According to
www.pdfdrive.com/the-gospel-according-to-acharya-s-e158534356.html
The Christ Conspiracy the Greatest Story Ever Sold
www.pdfdrive.com/the-christ-conspiracy-the-greatest-story-ever-sold-e156812888.html
Christ in Egypt The Horus Jesus Connection
www.pdfdrive.com/christ-in-egypt-the-horus-jesus-connection-e98033468.html
Did Moses Exist
www.pdfdrive.com/the-myth-of-the-israelite-lawgiver-e60762364.html
Suns of God Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled
www.pdfdrive.com/suns-of-god-krishna-buddha-and-christ-unveiled-e157339673.html
Who Was Jesus Fingerprints Of The Christ
www.pdfdrive.com/who-was-jesus-fingerprints-of-the-christ-e193196053.html
__________________________
18th and 19th
witness of the stars bullinger archive.org/details/witnessofstars00bull/mode/2up
Religion In Heavens Or Mythology Unveiled book
The Astrology of the old testament or the lost word regained by karl Anderson
www.pdfdrive.com/astrology-of-the-old-testament-or-the-lost-word-regained-e186031567.html
The Origin of All Religions Worship archive.org/details/originallreligi00dupugoog/page/n2/mode/2up
The Apocalypse unsealed
www.pdfdrive.com/the-apocalypse-unsealed-e55893576.html
the worlds sixteen crucified saviors Kersey Graves
archive.org/details/theworldssixteencrucifiedsaviorskerseygraves
www.pdfdrive.com/the-book-your-church-doesnt-want-you-to-read-e14980164.html
archive.org/details/godmanwordmadefl00carerich/page/20/mode/2up
archive.org/details/wondershumanbod00caregoog/page/n24/mode/2up?q=The+Wonders+of+the+Human+Body
Christianity At The Cross Roads
archive.org/details/ChristianityAtTheCrossRoads/page/n13/mode/2up
Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other
archive.org/details/biblemythstheirp1910doan/page/n11/mode/2up
The Restored New Testament
archive.org/details/restorednewtest00prysgoog
The Christ myth
archive.org/details/christmyth00drew/page/8/mode/2up
b-ok.cc/book/945363/9af4c5
The worship of Augustus Caesar, derived from a study of coins, monuments
archive.org/details/worshipaugustus00margoog
___________________
(Astrotheology)
Gospel and the Zodiac The Secret Truth about Jesus
www.pdfdrive.com/gospel-and-the-zodiac-the-secret-truth-about-jesus-e157793070.html
multi dimensional !
Thats what the people of the past where doing was difficult to explain and express themselves where what is based on..
Inner Christianity A Guide to the Esoteric Tradition www.pdfdrive.com/inner-christianity-a-guide-to-the-esoteric-tradition-e176319697.html
TheMystery religions A Study In The Religious Background Of Early Christianity archive.org/details/TheMysteryReligionsS.Angus
That Oldtime Religion The Story Of Religious
archive.org/stream/JordanMaxwellQuotes2FDOCUMENTSANDSOURCES36/JordanMaxwell
__________________________
Dean Dudley
archive.org/details/historyfirstcou00dudlgoog/page/n124/mode/2up?q=+History+of+the+First+Council+of+Nice%3A+A+World%27s+Christian+Convention%2C+A.D.+325++with+a+Life+of
James Chrystal
archive.org/details/authoritativech01chrygoog/page/n14/mode/2up
Eusebius
www.pdfdrive.com/greek-ecclesiastical-historians-of-the-first-six-centuries-of-the-christian-era-volume-2-eusebius-ecclesiastical-history-to-324-ad-e156631266.html
___________________________
Archaeology
Read
eraoflight.com/2018/02/07/the-symbol-of-the-swastika-and-its-12000-year-old-history
archive.org/details/swastikaearlies00musegoog/page/n22/mode/2up
archive.org/details/TheSwastika/page/n47/mode/2up?q=Thomas+1832-1902+Wilson+and+1+more+The+Swastika%2C+the+Earliest+Known+Symbol%2C+and+Its+Migrations
Artifacts temples tells different history hidden
www.thehiddenrecords.com
Keep on learning Egyptian The Origin of Cross m.ruclips.net/video/AU5FwcEBCrE/видео.html
Osiris The Egyptian Christ Major Archaeological Discovery m.ruclips.net/video/AU5FwcEBCrE/видео.html
Christianity in Ethiopia m.ruclips.net/video/K9mqPKyGCpA/видео.html
Ashra Kwesi Explains the Origin of Adam & Eve Story
m.ruclips.net/video/Dxilks2HNQ8/видео.html
Ethiopian Ancient Architecture Documentary
m.ruclips.net/video/WhdV6kiwZ1w/видео.html
Christianity Stole Everything From Ancient Africa
m.ruclips.net/video/2mqVTxq67Tk/видео.html
Kemet & Maat before Judaism, Christianity
m.ruclips.net/video/d3p87YVqljk/видео.html
Stolen from Kemet EGYPTIAN Origin of Christianity
m.ruclips.net/video/mYmiCBGB2jY/видео.html
________________________
Rome
Ancients Behaving Badly
m.ruclips.net/video/GyYYi5QDSj0/видео.html
The last days of Julius Caesar
m.ruclips.net/video/T_uuh3rUwBo/видео.html
Vespasian Was Rome Emperor
m.ruclips.net/video/r72X5oUPTwM/видео.html
Deception of Constantine
m.ruclips.net/video/TY1_sYnr0gE/видео.html
Julius Caesar 1950 film
m.ruclips.net/video/sjo6FG_4M7g/видео.html
Julius C 1953 Film
www.veoh.com/watch/v17354563FNzKEefb
JC 2002 Film
m.ruclips.net/video/tKX4eMx_V6Q/видео.html
_______________
Articles
beyondallreligion.net/2012/01/21/how-christianity-was-invented/
www.unrv.com/forum/topic/16068-monotheism-from-the-ashes-of-julius-caesar/
reformedreader.wordpress.com/2014/06/21/tertullian-on-honoring-caesar/
_______________
Julius C
ahayahyashiya.blogspot.com/2013/02/jesus-is-pagan-god-name-given-to-us-by.html?m=1
historystop.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/a-man-of-the-people-julius-caesar-and-his-manipulation-of-the-crowd-in-rome/
pristinesearch.blogspot.com/2013/01/origin-and-history-of-word-bible.html?m=1
www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_93.htm
Julius divus
sabbathcovenant.com/doctrine/hesus_krishna.htm
thechroniclesofx.tumblr.com/post/615601139144097792/the-origin-of-jesus-christ-ptolemys-rule-was-to
www.cointalk.com/threads/caesars-comet.347829/
ehrmanblog.org/the-god-julius-caesar/
www.treasurenet.com/forums/printthread.php?t=341795&pp=15&page=1
ifpeakoilwerenoobject.blogspot.com/2011/01/romans-never-crucified-way-we-think.html?m=1
_______________
Serapis
www.stewartsynopsis.com/jesus-serapis-christus-horus
www.seawapa.co/2015/10/historical-evidence-that-proves-jesus-Christ-Never-Exixsted.html?m=1
www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends-africa/serapis-god-fertility-and-afterlife-united-greeks-and-egyptians-004084
www.forumancientcoins.com/moonmoth/reverse_serapis.html
mcillleejest.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/white-jesus-is-serapis/
indigobrothers.wordpress.com/who-is-it-that-we-call-jesus/
crazyhyve.blogspot.com/?m=1#
Serapis bey
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serapis_Bey
Serapis Bey think outside of the box !
selftransform.net/AscencedMasters.htm
divinerealms.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/the-ascended-master-of-light/
eraoflight.com/2018/01/13/serapis-bay-ascension-flame/
_______________
m.ruclips.net/video/zeLdyQ_zQpk/видео.html
Serapis worship
m.ruclips.net/video/IvWMcgC8eus/видео.html
Jesus serapis doc
m.ruclips.net/video/cErwI5938ns/видео.html#menu
_______________
Caesar Borgia
newlewi.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/the-creation-of-jesus-the-christ
criticxxtreme.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/this-is-not-jesus-but-cesare-borgia/
Julius
m.ruclips.net/video/-7Q4qTZBBm4/видео.html
C Borgia
m.ruclips.net/video/eltepCCHG5c/видео.html
watch this Documentaries
0
Ancient Greece History Documentary The Oracle of Delphi
m.ruclips.net/video/KvYLaD10MwU/видео.html
1
Delphi: The of the Ancient World
m.ruclips.net/video/wBnOs8GmYHk/видео.html
2
Cannabis in Ancient Greece Smoke of the Oracles?
m.ruclips.net/video/sTFCNEiugRM/видео.html
3
Moksha Medicine The Transformative Power of Psychedelic Mushrooms psilocybin documentary
m.ruclips.net/video/uGns6azUHCk/видео.html
4 dont watch yet read book
CAESARS MESSIAH
m.ruclips.net/video/zmEScIUcvz0/видео.html
5 dont watch yet read book
The Gospel of Caesar
m.ruclips.net/video/gvga-98x6Nk/видео.html
6
The Council That Created Jesus Christ Creed of Nicea
m.ruclips.net/video/QqFtpV4i4zs/видео.html
7 dont watch yet
Psychedelic Messiah
m.ruclips.net/video/RbfIahuI_vM/видео.html
2017 Alex: arbitrary first mover
2020 Alex: I'm about to end this man's whole career
So Alex... are you *retracting* it?
Laughed a little too much at that
@Sher Ali timestamp please kind sir
Some bloke said Alex made a claim. After hearing said claim, Alex said it wasn't his claim, and the bloke misunderstood. Tried to explain several times and the bloke just repeatedly kept saying ' So you retract?'
The debate was a thoroughly entertaining shambles.
I admire people who can admit that they have changed their mind. If we are so focused on proving that we were right all along, then we are much less likely to make irrational decisions when new evidence comes along. Never trust a politician who claims never to have make a U turn.
Matthew Short People are more interested in ‘winning’ their argument, so they usually don’t listen to the other side. They’re simply waiting to respond. It’s no way to have a dialogue. I think people equate changing their minds with weakness, when it should be the opposite. It takes courage to realize that closely held beliefs you have maybe aren’t as cut & dry as you once thought. If more people were willing to take this mindset, maybe so many folks wouldn’t be backed into their ideological corners right now..
I agree
“Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.”
- J. K. Galbraith
And unfortunately it's almost considered a crime for one to change one's opinion, especially when it has been voiced publicly.
“We all change, when you think about it. We are all different people all through our lives and that’s okay, that’s good you’ve got to keep moving so long as you remember all the people that you used to be. I will not forget one line of this,not one day, I swear. I will always remember when the doctor was me.
-Doctor who (Matt Smith)
As a muslim I've been watching you for a fair amount of time now. You are a respectable person and your humility is something I find so beautiful. You have a good day, and your thirst for knowledge is great and something everyone should have.
This guy is insulting your god an prophet and you find him respectfull ? Is this what we have become ?
@an oroc His notion of respect is absurd and one-sided, whereby he made free speech which he considers being rude and insulting others is a part of free speech . He has really made free speech holy and his god. To us insulting those who we love more than our mothers hurts deeply, this is unrespectful.
@an oroc So how can we sit here and love and respect him. Are we so consumed and caught this inferiority complex. Imagine someone insulting your mom and then you go and love and praise him.
@Nath Krishna He is just trolling ... performing an ' If you are with them, then, you are against us' ... 'If you are against Us, then, you are not one of us' ...
He could be another atheist performing a fundamentalist Muslim , just to prove that Moderate and tolerant Muslims can behave as 'radical fundamentalists' when the moderates contradict the scripture ... and next, a radical can put the moderates into a radical Islam framework ...
Or If He is a Muslim, then, He is just giving a bad representation of what a Religion of love, peace,and tolerance should be ... Making of Islam a nonattractive choice in the religious markets ...
his nickname seems to have a reassembled to 'cortisol' ... the hormone of jealousy, envy, anger, nd hate ...
If not a Muslim, just a troll...
If a Muslim, Just a Troll ...
@Nath Krishna Maybe, but that behavioral pattern is not a Muslim's exclusive behavioral pattern ... The General Term related to that behavioral pattern could be called "Tribalism" ... Humans embedded in Tribalisms tend to show that pattern .... and People don't have to be affiliated to a Religion to become involved in Tribalism's behaviors.
Example, Sports Fanboys show tribalism ... Nationalists show tribalism ... Scientism shows tribalism ... Politics show tribalism ... Atheism, too ...Theism, Elitism, too etc, etc ...
The thing is that Religion can deploy a tribalism that goes beyond Nationalism .... Then, we know that Nationalism + Patriotism is required for deploying Big Wars between Apes ....
Next, because Religion tends to be a bigger Tribalism, then, Tribalists tends to think/believe that Religion is required for more bigger wars or perpetual tribalism conflicts ....
"God knows what else I've gotten wrong."
"I've opened a tic tok account"
Oh, Alex, You're a smart guy! - You were supposed to fight evil, not join them !
Still not sure what tic tok is.
@@aztraeuz5560 spyware for the Chinese government by all accounts. If you haven't you should familiarize yourself with the recent revelations from its reverse engineering.
@@DerBärator
Ru a Chinese spy?
me- Avengers endgame is gonna be the most ambitious crossover.
.
.
.
.
cosmic skeptic- hold my drawer
I'd edit it to say "ambitious" and not "best" (that's the more popular version ;p)
@@neotsz3286 do you want me to change..lol
Me: Ok
Europe: *songalong*
"Humans have a desire for truth. Or they have a desire to believe that what they know is the truth.
In other words, the actual truth comes second to that desire. Be mindful of what is the truth and what is a lie. In other words, always doubt yourself".
U cant always doubt urself... Try it when u're walking, think if u're walking right, pay too much attention to it and u may find it hard to walk so freely for a while. Doubting urself too often may lead to you being unable to make a step towards anything in fear of moving in the wrong direction, ull become paranoid and unable to make any decisions, even if they would be wrong, u still need to move forward. So, there must be some kind of a golden middle, where u believe in urself and ur decisions, and also have a room for doubt and change of ur opinions and decisions.
As a theist, I highly respect this video, I found myself making the same refutations you were Alex, great stuff
I’m sure you did chap
Quinn Smith ye bruv innit xx
Quinn Smith well they’re not particularly hard refutations to make if you’ve seen any decent apologetics. You can probs find my comments on some of Alex’s videos.
@EJ Aru And in the same way it's also surprisingly easy to refute videos and claims made by theists. There will always be uninformed and/or irrational and/or "not thought-out" arguments and claims on both sides.
Mohammed Hijab will dig that title 😂😂
"Atheist admits Allah exists"
He’s like, “Why didn’t I think of this first?!”
😂
*_"So you retract it???!!!"_*
@@dihs5246 "Atheist retracting his atheism"
"Atheist debunks another atheist who looks exactly similar, proof of Allah?" - MUST WATCH
The only one who could successfully debunk Alex: Alex.
Hard to debunk a person who does their best to align their views with the truth.
ask yourself
Not true. With my relatively inferior 142 IQ I was able to debunk the 2018 version of Alex easily, even as he was speaking, with the same points that he only recently discovered. And I am sure folks even dumber than I could and did debunk Alex as well - because his arguments were SO non sequitur. It just goes to show how a strongly ingrained bias can blind you to the truth, or to at least faulty conclusions. Kudos to Alex for seeing his error. Now, unless he can debunk the Kalam from a completely original angle, Alex's assertions regarding determinism will surely fall - it's "only a matter of time."
@@moonandstars1677
He makes too many presumptions to align with truth. Some of his views are quite radical.
@@kennethknott9138 Your whole comment is absolute gold. It's like you just created the perfect copypasta. I don't think you're wrong though.
This may be the best video by an internet atheist I have ever seen.
Amen
13:30
How does “has a beginning” imply “finite”? The natural numbers have a beginning (depending on who you ask, 0 or 1, with most mathematicians going for 0 and most highschool teachers going for 1), but there are infinitely many of them. It can also be infinite spatially even if it only has a finite amount of time. Similarly, something can be timeless but still finite.
Also, “timeless” does not mean “has existed for infinite time in the past”. Your arguments are still assuming some sort of time during which this “change in sufficiency” can happen.
@R.J.J- El ganador None of what you just said follows. This is roughly what WLC's position seems to be as he suggests that since actual infinite cannot exist and most scientists accept the Big Bang, the universe began to exist out of the will of some first mover who made a choice to bring it into existence and has a mind and so on.
The problem with that line of thinking is that it really doesn't make any sense. WLC could have stopped at saying that the universe cannot have been infinite and saying that it come from "nothing" makes no sense, but that's not where the Kalam argument stops and that's why WLC uses it. It's a specific argument to prove that the creation of the universe implies the existence of God in some manner.
Again, it's nonsense. The argument relies on you accepting that God has existed infinitely, which seems convenient, or that God hasn't existed infinitely, which places the burden of proof on you to explain where God came from, so you're just passing the buck. If God has existed infinitely, then why not afford that same description to the universe. The universe may have existed infinitely in one form or another and the Big Bang is just one form we were able to witness.
If God began to exist at some point, then when and how? I think WLC wants to claim that God existed outside of time and chose to create the universe which then gave us the reality of time, but that's again more nonsense. Nothing supports the idea that things can exist outside of time and even if we accept that assumption, existence out of time is similar to ACTUAL infinity in the sense that the ability to make choices and changes does not exist. Choice is a temporal concept that relies on cause and effect. Making a choice to create the universe means that at T1 the universe did not exist and at T10000 God made a choice to create the universe and there it began. Without the concept of time, there is no difference between T1 and T50384475 or T47 or T84937155859. It's all happening at the same time at all times. Therefore, if God exists out of time, he was always creating the universe. In other words, nonsense.
WLC is sneaking in an ACTUAL infinity in the form of God without any justification or reason.
Why don’t you start a channel or something?
@@louisdrouard9211 Did you imply that we created the infinites in maths? Discover=/Invent. Your statement was "Also, why would actual infinites like I know them in maths be impossible ? After all, we did "create" them in this reality, didn't we". Well if you meant the term "infinity" then you would be correct I suppose we did create the term but not the actual thing itself, if you meant the actual thing, then you would be wrong, did not create infinity.
@@louisdrouard9211 We discovered infinity, didn't create it nor invent it.
@R.J.J- El ganador If the universe begins but never ends never ends, there can indeed be an infinite number of days after the beginning of time. If you say it's not possible, you should back it up with why you think the universe will also end.
But since time is not discreet, if you take any two moments in time A and B, there is always a moment in time C between those two. There is also always a moment in time D between A and C and an E between A and D and so on in an infinite regression. Therefore there is an infinite number of moments in time even within a day. A day is just a convenient measure based on how we humans observe time.
It's like with decimal numbers, between 0 and 1 there is 0,5 and between 0 and 0,5 there is 0,25 and between 0 and 0,25 there is 0,125 etc.
Therefore an infinite number of moments have already passed since the universe began. In order to debunk this, time has to be proven to be discreet, meaning there is a definite minimum unit of time in between which nothing can happen.
Infinity only makes sense if you also specify the unit. Something can have a finite size but exist for an infinite amount of time. Is that thing finite or infinite?
Admiting he was wrong about something he previously said, this is what having BALLS means, people! This is integrity! I'm a theist, Cosmic Skeptic, you've become my favorite youtube atheist. We might disagree but you've earned my respect. (:
Alex felt a cosmic shame
Really random and irrelevant, but the messy hairdo does seem to suit Alex better.
I agree! The messy hairdo and facial hair make him look cuter.
Hell yes!!
AGREED
Not irrelevant and not random, but rather important. The more he truly searches, the more he will come to realise that reality itself is actually pointing to the Christian God.
Chike Egbuike no
As a Christian theist, I thank you for your honesty and intellectual charity. That is all too rare these days. You are an example of what we all should be doing. What you are doing helps to facility conversations between theists and atheists in a healthy and productive manner.
“Anything worth doing, is worth doing poorly, until you learn to do it well” - Zig Ziggler. I love how you started out sharing what you knew, and how you’ve grown and progressed as a result of opening your mouth, and now you can come back and build, and correct on what you previously stated. That’s really awesome. Most of all, I’m amazed that I was able to follow the logic of this video. I had only heard child-like versions of the Kalam argument, and having you explain it now has greatly informed me to the credibility of it. Thank you for your growth. I enjoy growing with you!
Kudos to the humility, maturity, and growth reflected in this intellectual self-reexamination.
I'm Muslim and I started to like your content. You are really honest.
DJ-RocketMan Maybe watch David Wood vs Mohammed Hijab. Its true, the truth is important.
@@dj-rocketman8545 He's not an honest man. Even James White refuted him. I wonder if he thinks he'll get to paradise with his consecutive mockery for the past 10+ years due to "money". If you want someone to dismantle him there's Farid Responds. All David does is try to bring down Islam and it works against him when you realize the allegations are false, but it's actually what he stands on. If you want another debate with this fraud since ^ mentioned Mohammad Hijab. There's also Zakir Hussain vs David Wood.
Be careful who you go to for knowledge.
Guy's lets be friends!
And gals
Probably one of your best videos. I find myself believing in arguments that have shaky ground simply because I haven’t gone back to reinvestigate the belief. I think this shows how beliefs can change and that it’s necessary to reevaluate beliefs with new tools and perspectives. I’d love to see this again, fantastic!
*_"sO yOu ReTrAcT iT?!¿"_*
Edit: Changed the text from the original all caps after @Setekh 's suggestion.
Not nearly enough likes. People, do something about that!
Aw shit, edit: maybe you should have typed it like: _"sO yOu REtrAcT iT?!"_
That seems to work :p
@@stylis666 Done 👀
The ¿ really makes this work.
“ A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali
Or maybe he took the right decisions at twenty in order to not become a fickle person at fifty.
@@iloveutubesince3207 Thats called stubbornness and intellectual dishonesty.
@@mr.stealyourgirl1779 you people are just crazy.
@@iloveutubesince3207 people are not meant to stagnate... changing your opinion over 30+ years of learning and growing as a person, accumulating more knowledge and wisdom, is not being fickle. In fact, it's almost the complete opposite, as fickle implies a frequency. 30 years is not frequent. Every 20 year old thinks they know everything, and guess what, every last one of them is wrong. And so are you.
@@iloveutubesince3207 You sound like a 20 year old with a complex of never being wrong. Keep projecting kid
@22:45 This is partly mistaken. It’s true that WLC’s primary arguments for the finitude of the past are philosophical rather than scientific.
But WLC also DOES argue that contemporary cosmology strongly points to an absolute beginning even if there’s a multiverse or cyclic model. See his chapter on n kalam (coauthored with a physicist) in the 2009 Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, or his 2014 debate with Carroll (where both men failed IMO), etc.
I appreciate Alex’s intelligence, honesty, and kindness, so please pardon me if I’m nit picking.
I find your argument after 13:34 not convincing, first you agree that the cause of the universe exists outside of time, yet then you say 'at one point' it was insufficient and then changed to be sufficient.
Rather, I agree more with Stephen Hawking in his book Big answers to the big questions, where he states that our understanding of time breaks down near the big bang, just like how it breaks down inside black holes. We really don't know if the universe had a beginning. Since time is a property of the universe, we can't say if there is a before the universe. In a sense, it could have always existed. Maybe time starts going in loops at the big bang, or maybe it dissolves completely, taking causality, and the need for a creator, with it.
"We dont really know if the universe had a beginning". So have you heard of the BGV theorem?
Well I've heard that most of the scientists now have accepted the big bang theory which would mean that the universe had a beginning which means that whatever created it must have been outside of time as we know it and also outside of space as we know it.
@@karldaren1048 exactly...but atheists know exactly what this implies so they resort to saying things like...well it came from "nothing" lol
The Big Bang is not claimed to be the beginning of the universe by scientists who actually study it. It is actually just a change of state from the singularity to the universe. This isn't necessarily the beginning of the universe though. The universe may be a constant eternal thing but just changes its form. Maybe like OP said, it loops with the Big Bang just a point on the circle. We don't know. The difference is that some of us are willing to say we don't know while others have to invent an answer to avoid it.
Sam Spade like I said before these are obviously just beliefs, no one can prove that god exist or doesn’t nor can anyone prove atm if the universe had a beginning or not but what we can do is say what we think is more probable and that would be that universe had a beginning for the reasons I mentioned before(2nd law of thermodynamics, accelerating expansion etc.). The Big Bang theory is the most accepted scientific theory in regards to explaining the origines of the universe, I wonder why it’s the first time I’m hearing about your loop theory... so If I understood correctly you believe that the universe goes from being a singularity to a universe back to singularity eternally? You think that is the most logical answer?
Mohamed Hijab be like: „Ahaha look, Cosmic Skeptic accepts that God exists“
Lol
:DD
😂😂Muslims capitalize on everything. They're never honest.
He does. He says 26.25 "god knows what other videos I've gotten wrong"
Derek Allen
Meaning no real person.
I love when folks heavily engaged in philosophy do videos like this. If atheistic thinkers (and anyone in general, really) are to be intellectually honest, then past mistakes and ignorance must be acknowledged. I think this is ESPECIALLY true when these mistakes were presented as "slam dunks" against opposing ideologies. In my opinion that's one of the main differences between an ideology and a dogma. There should always be room for reevaluation, correction, and new ideas.
Agreed.
Personally, going from theist to atheist I had to admit I was wrong on a subject and changed my mind.
It was be silly of me to not continue that pattern when I come across other areas where my thinking about a subject wasn’t correct in the future.
Wait how did you comment 19hrs ago when the video is 6 min old
@@thewindgamer2607 It was probably up for patreon members
@@thewindgamer2607 She is the un-caused cause, outside of time and space.
@@thewindgamer2607 Patreon peeps got it a day early.
Alex looks like he got the idea for this video in his dream, just woke up and started shooting with his hair situation 🤣
I've noticed recently that I have a difficult time actually listening to the words you're saying because I'm entranced by how you say them
I'm a theist and CosmicSkeptic is probably my favorite atheist at the moment that I love the most and I enjoyed this unbiased video a lot! :)
In welke god geloof je dan?
Great too see people who like watching other opinions. Pretty rare this days especially in politics and religion.
Same.
I'm a Muslim and I like the Alex sincerity and search for the truth!
Billion Burns indeed
Glad you published this before I filmed my next video! It added more to my insight on these subjects. I also really liked the bit at the end of the video where you remind us to do our own research and hold more loosely to what we know to be true. I've grown the most when I've listened more and been willing to adapt when better evidence is presented.
You have a new sub!
Hey thanks!
Excuse me, but That makes my day!
Love this type of video, it's helpful to see real-world examples of errors one might make in an argument, and exactly why they are inaccurate as opposed to the 'in a vacuum' fallacy examples.
Hey Alex, I think you should create another video on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I would like to see your current objections and thoughts on it.
In the section where you explain why the cause could be personal, your argument is implicitly time dependent (with the cause being insufficient before some time and sufficient after some time). This assumes that time can be applied outside of the universe which needs justification as this is by no means obvious when considering our current understanding of relativity and cosmology
Actually,
Time exist everywhere. Time is infinite, and is literally everywhere. Considering space is also infinite, then that would imply in order for the universe to exist, it must be inside of something else. You simply cannot have anything without it being or existing inside of something else. So if you could teleport to the outside of our universe, you would discover time is also there. Time is everywhere. Right now, you and I are on Earth, but just because we cannot reach the outer limits of our universe, does not mean time is not there......because it is. Where there is Space, there is time. .....before you comment back with some rude or mean comment, understand I was neither mean or disrespectful to you.
Exactly my thought. At the very least we have absolutely no idea if time existed before the Big Bang (if there is such a thing as "before the Big Bang", that is). So if that's not the case, how is it possible for anything to "change" or "make a decision" or do anything at all without time? How does personality work without time?
@@grownman1017 I think you're assuming that the "cause" I mentioned is material. The Kalaam argument requires that it isnt as it defines the universe as all material existence. Space-time is part of the material universe therefore the cause implied by the kalaam must exist outside of it, or at least it did(/does) at the point of creation at it creates space-time itself. Also I'd be interested in any justification for the claims you made
I guess an argument for a personal cause could be made in a similar way, however. From my understanding of the argument in the video, personality is being argued from apparent bias of the cause from the choosing of a specific point to create the universe. The could be reconstructed into an atemporal one if we assume that the creation of the universe breaks some symmetry which would introduce a bias to some states of being over others, again implying some personal element to the cause. I'm definitely not smart enough to make that argument coherently though
I was thinking the same thing, especially when he led with the cause being indeed immaterial and timeless. Perhaps it’s merely a function of our limited language but the logic in that part at least seemed to be time-dependent in a way that is inconsistent with a supposedly timeless cause.
This level of humility at such an unripened age is warming.
I’ll keep myself from long windedness here and suffice it to say that I can’t describe how impactful this video was for me. You, genetically modified skeptic, rationality rules, Matt dilihunty, and many others have taken a lot of my ear/headspace this past year to much of my own enjoyment and acquired knowledge, but here I learn humility and the exciting nature of admitting our own biases, mistakes, and shortcomings encountered in our pursuit of truth. Thank you.
These are all things I thought of when watching your video, so it's great to see the improvement in your understanding of the argument more recently. Your more recent takes have been incredibly thought provoking. Good job Alex!
"A good debater/skeptic is the one who is criticizing his own argument"
-Some wise guy.
@First Name Last Name and look what that commie bastard ended up doing, bruh created one of the most oppressive regimes in history.
Debunking yourself is an admission that you were a reckless thinker
@@junacebedo888 at the time, sure. But one point being slightly incorrect doesn't mean everything you say is wrong.
@First Name Last Name yes, I know
@@galarstar052 If I commit a mistake, like Alex, I will do a damage control
Timeskipping through your puberty is like seeing someone find The One Ring.
This is so good. I first came across his old videos and thought "standard internet atheist stuff, not sophisticated" but he's really grown intellectually, and has a humility that's uncommon in this youtube genre. Bravo
How can you say any atheist or agnostic has humility?
@@SamD-th5tg because some do
@@internetenjoyer1044 how can you say some do, when they are not humble enough to admit their sin?
@@internetenjoyer1044 Funny enough, SA kind of demonstrates where your generalization about humility is backwards: humility is admitting that you don’t always know everything or have all the answers, which is what the atheist position largely encapsulates (I.e. not knowing if there’s anything beyond nature and not having the audacity to positively claim one way or the other; rather, admitting that there simply isn’t enough information to make a determination). Theists, meanwhile, positively claim the supernatural proposition and thus think that they have detected what many of them admit to being empirically undetectable.
The honesty, sense of irony and self reflection in this channel is immensely refreshing. Keep it up!!!!
13:50 "If the cause never changed its nature, never did anything, never 'made a choice'... then why was this cause at one point insufficient to bring the universe into existence, and at another point sufficient such that it did bring the universe into existence?"
I'm a little confused by this. If we're talking about something that's existing outside of time, there wouldn't be different points, at some of which it didn't cause the universe to come into being, and another point where it did. There would only be the single (eternal) point at which it did. I wouldn't think non-time and non-space would have different points in it. Am I wrong?
I think what Alex is saying is that if the cause is timeless and unchanging, then there can't be a transition from a state of affairs in which the necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of the universe do not obtain, to a state of affairs in which the necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of the universe do obtain. Without such a transition then there can't be a state of affairs (even an a-temporal one) in which the universe didn't exist, which means the universe would have to be infinitely old. This is a problem for any proposed explanation that invokes a timeless, unchanging cause to explain a finite effect.
I don't see the need for such a transition. Even if we assume that the universe had a beginning, there was never a point at which it didn't exist. Therefore, there was never a time at which it had not yet been brought into existence, and no need for the "first cause" to change.
@@EpsilonIsGreaterThan "Even if we assume that the universe had a beginning, there was never a point at which it didn't exist"
Right I agree but that's only necessarily true if by "point" you're referring to a point *_in_* *_time._* I wasn't referring to a point in time when I talked about an a-temporal state in which the universe doesn't exist. If you don't believe that such a state can obtain then what does it even mean to say that God caused the universe to exist? How can something come into existence if it never ceased to exist in the first place?
@@chad969 "I wasn't referring to a point in time when I talked about an a-temporal state in which the universe doesn't exist."
Well, if the point wasn't in time or space, I don't really know what you mean. How can an "a-temporal state in which the universe doesn't exist" be thought to exist? Isn't it by definition something that never existed?
I apologize if I'm making a newbie mistake in my thinking here - my training is in physics, not metaphysics.
"How can something come into existence if it never ceased to exist in the first place?"
Here it's interesting to see the game that WLC plays in his definition of what it means to "begin to exist." He doesn't define it as "first didn't exist, then did exist," but as "existed at some point and points forward." But is it really sensible to say that something that existed at every point in time "began to exist?" It might be more sensible to say it "always existed," since there is no point at which it didn't exist.
@@EpsilonIsGreaterThan "Well, if the point wasn't in time or space, I don't really know what you mean. How can an "a-temporal state in which the universe doesn't exist" be thought to exist? Isn't it by definition something that never existed?"
I understand the confusion and I don't know how to make total sense of it, but I think of it like this. Darkness is the absence of light and so it would be false to say that darkness exists, but we probably wouldn't conclude that therefore there couldn't be a state of darkness. In the same way, a state of timelessness wouldn't strictly speaking exist, but it could obtain, the way a state of darkness could obtain. I tend to think the confusion over non-existent things “existing” is due to a fundamental limitation of our language, but I could be wrong about that.
_______
“He doesn't define it as "first didn't exist, then did exist," but as "existed at some point and points forward." But is it really sensible to say that something that existed at every point in time "began to exist?" It might be more sensible to say it "always existed," since there is no point at which it didn't exist.”
Yeah I agree. That’s interesting though, I didn’t know Craig used that definition. But notice how the descriptor "existed at some point and points forward" could just as easily apply to a state in which there is an infinite past and time is moving in the “forward” direction. I know that Craig has a variety of arguments against an infinite past, but what does it say about the clarity of his definition that it could just as equally apply to an infinite past? Idk I suppose Craig could play the "limitations of language" card that I just played, but it just goes to show that philosophers still have a great deal of work to do in this area. I’m not particularly confident that philosophy can derive any reliable conclusions about these types of difficult questions anyways.
I can't wait to see your progress in the next 10 years!
The way this is going, He might probably be a Christian by then😂. God said in the sriptures in proverbs 8:17 that anyone that ever truly looks for him will find him. He is on his way.
@@ckay_real2765 Hahaha
Well, that's possible but so unlikely to happen. I hope to find GOD one day too.
I don't think he'll affirm to any particular religion, but I can feel that he would become an agnostic. I was in same position as him a while ago. Now I'm an agnostic following some aspects of Buddhism, Christanity and Paganism. I don't intend to become religious because I'm not still convinced that religions are true. However, I believe there are some aspects of religions which are useful to the world.
@@morbidgirl6808 He already is Agnostic.
@@ckay_real2765
I am seeing the same trend in Alex.
First, although greatly admiring Christopher Hitchens, he decides to shed light on some of Hitch's sophistry.
Then the conversation with William Lane Craig.
And now this.
Reminds me of the rivals falling for C.S. Lewis.
Here is a quote from him,
“You must picture me alone in that room in Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England. I did not then see what is now the most shining and obvious thing; the Divine humility which will accept a convert even on such terms. The Prodigal Son at least walked home on his own feet. But who can duly adore that Love which will open the high gates to a prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance of escape? The words “compelle intrare,” compel them to come in, have been so abused be wicked men that we shudder at them; but, properly understood, they plumb the depth of the Divine mercy. The hardness of God is kinder than the softness of men, and His compulsion is our liberation.”
Everyone Alex debates from now on is gonna attempt to discredit him for changing his mind
I was just thinking this.
Which is actually a really positive characteristic so more fool them
Which is ironic - because it just proves how crap these other debaters were at their job - they were unable to make Alex change him mind, but Craig was.
Nope, they would take him more seriously, because he is honest and mature enough to go for the truth rather than petty debates.
@@sadshitpoorpoop The point is that they are not mature enough to realise that it's honest and mature to be able to change your mind
Alex just gets better and better. I'm sure he's about 25 going on 80. Always entertaining, always provocative. A brilliant young man
Really loving your content these days Alex--from a theist.
Agreed
Yep! Me too! Christian who loves Alex.
The most likeable atheist lol
I agree (as a Christian)
Don't get too excited. He still dismisses the Kalam.
I refuse to use Twitter, from what I've seen there is little to no conversation of value to be had there and much angry shouting witticisms.
Yep, basically. And it’s design and algorithm pushes people into Echo Chambers. One could easily argue it’s better than Facebook, but that doesn’t say much.
@@Avenger222 I would readily argue that it's worse than Facebook (the platform not the company) on all measures. Why do you think it could be better?
@@garret1930 Facebook is absolutely better both as a company and a medium for discussion. Virtually all social media is a plague our species badly needs to exorcise, but twitter is its single worst incarnation.
Yeah, it is slightly worse than RUclips comments. And RUclips comments are pretty freaking toxic.
Thank you for responding to him Alex , could you do live debate with each other? 😅😅🥰🥰
I think this Kalam argument may be onto something
Aquinas never claimed that the universe had a beginning. He wrote an entire book trying to prove the opposite.
All his arguments work regardless of the finitude or eternality of the past.
He did think the universe had a beginning but he didn't think you could prove the beginning of the universe with natural philosophy, which is why his arguments don't have such a premise.
They also fall short on nearly every account...
Sebastian LaPlume You sure about that? I’d advise you to was Edward Feser debate Graham Oppy on the issue... the argument might be more compelling than you think.
Human reasoning alone can prove: the existence of God; His total simplicity or lack of composition; his eternal nature (i.e., He exists outside of time, as time is held to be a part of God's created universe); His knowledge; the way His will operates; and His power. However, although St. Thomas felt that human reason alone could prove that God created the universe, reason alone could not determine whether the universe was eternal or actually began at some point in time. Rather, only divine revelation from the Book of Genesis proves that.
@@junacebedo888 If you believe god has a plan then go down to a busy highway and close your eyes and cross it. If it isn't your time to die, you won't. If however, you keep your eyes open and use reason to get across, then you will know which world view is true. Reason evolved as a survival tool, we wouldn't have any need for it if only things that god has planned happened.
How could the cause change? Because time is part of the universe, we established that the cause would have to be timeless. Yet the concept of “change” requires having different states at different points in time. Wouldn’t change be impossible for a timeless cause?
Both sides need to be careful when saying "time" and "timelessness". Like gravity, people talk about time like it's a thing. Noone really knows what "it" is. Because spacetime is relative (requires something to measure against), timelessness means something like: time can't be measured, not necessarily that nothing can change. In the theist model, the ability to measure "time" comes about at the big bang when there was something to measure against. There is no absolute time either "before" or after the big bang.
@@detached Indeed, this is a big problem with these discussions. People seem to take for granted what "time" is, but in a fundamental level there are many open problems about its nature. I should note, however, that what Dyl Picle said is still very relevant even in view of what you said.
Yes, from Relativity, it is true that time can only be proposed from the point of view of a fixed "observer", so that one can't talk about an absolute time. However, the same goes for our understanding of what a "change of state" is: we can only talk about it once time's in the game. Without time, it is still senseless to speak of a "change of state", since such assertion is contingent to time. Without time, multiple different states may only coexist "simultaneously" and cannot be separated in a linear fashion (since this would imply the existence of some kind of time). So by proposing that there had to be some kind of change in a timeless existence, theists really aren't being sound (from what I can tell).
youre absolutely correct. Thats why the cause has to be endowed with FREE WILL because 'free will' can initiate causes with no predetermining conditions.
@Sisyphus So I'm thinking of Physicist Sean Carroll's book From Eternity to Here. In a sense, our universe is just as "timeless" as the cause of the universe. It's just that we have things to measure against so it seems like time exists. Essentially, time as a thing is an illusion. The idea then is that change does not require relativity only the ability to measure it. The concept is very tricky to encapsulate with language.
@@EvilMatheusBandicoot Both sides need to explain this though. The math indicates a beginning. Physicists don't like it because that beginning is infinite. In science, Infinity is the essentially the same as zero since they have nothing definite to work with. We can't throw cause and effect out the window just because we don't know what to do with our conception of time at the big bang. Philosophically, this implies that our conception does need some sort of revision, otherwise we risk adopting a philosophical absurdity such as something came from nothing. If we do that, science and philosophy fall apart.
Excellent video Alex!
On a lighter note, what did it feel like to watch an old video?
You have grown so much!
26:23 "God knows whatever else I've gotten wrong in my four years on RUclips"...
“In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.”
― Carl Sagan
@@anahata3478 How many would you estimate?
edit: o.k. it's been several hours now, no answer- how about this, name me 1, just one?
14:00 "why was the cause at one point insufficient to cause [the universe], and at another point sufficient."
This is a nonsensical statement, since time is considered to be part of the universe. There literally was only one point in time when universe could've been caused* and that is its beginning. Timeless does not mean eternal - it means lacking time.
*actually not. You cannot cause time to begin to exist, because there is no possibility of change without pre-existing time. Time is an exception to the first premise of Kalam. It can either be eternal or begin to exist without a cause. BTW, that also gives you energy and matter for free due to Noether's theorem, so the only thing that Kalam could possibly explain is the existence of space.
Hmmm... but is it possible to define space without time?
@@ksgill95 It is not, as Einstein proved with the theory of relativity. Objects which exist in space affect time, and time affects objects in space. Two observers of an event traveling at different speeds observe the same event at different times, even if they are equidistant from that event.
Gravity also affects time, the greater the gravity the slower time passes. If one lived a 100 years in a black hole, millions of even billions of years could pass on the outside. Living in the center of a supermassive black hole would essentially make one timeless, although not eternal.
"Timeless does not mean eternal - it means lacking time."
But if it's lacking time, we can't talk about change, states,..., 'cause all of that would imply a form of "time", even more a linear form of "time". If not, every state would exist "at the same time", meaning the Universe exists and does not exist.
@@SpeedKatMcNasty actually every scientist before Einstein showed that it is possible to define space without time. Relativity is only valid in this universe and only when quantum effects are not dominant. Metaphysically it is not unreasonable to define space without time.
@Joost Van Rens
False. Most physicists pre 1900s simply did not associate space with time; they never defined space without time. Their ideas were shown to be incomplete as illustrated by Einstein’s relativistic breakthroughs.
Secondly, space time is the fabric of our universe so obviously relativity is only valid in our universe. Similarly, any property of space time is defined in context of our universe. Hence any definition of spacetime sans a universe is unreasonable and assumptive at best.
If you do more videos like this, I would like you to end them with your updated arguments (or updated position entirely). I enjoyed you pointing out where you've learned better, but was left confused as to where you stand now, especially *after* the debate. What would be your arguments against it now? Or for it? In order to appreciate the actual change, we need a solid end point to compare the beginning to.
Staring at that 10,000 sub plaque, I'm so proud and excited to see how far you've come.
dang, seeing Old Alex sent me back to my theist days. I found this channel in the middle of a christian-centered teen years, and this guys' videos were the first things that made me realize its okay to question things, and its healthy to change your opinions. thanks for continuing to make thoughtful, engaging content xo
26:31... YES PLEASE, please keep such videos coming.
I really think such videos can particularly be helpful for your channel's long time viewers. These videos will show us what are the "mistakes" that we could have picked, maybe in fact should have picked with a bit of research on our part.
. _"the universe" means everything material that exists, so anything material outside of it, would still be part of the universe, and therefor what caused it must be immaterial"_ you say (or words like that). Do you not see how this is begging the question and special pleading too? (btw: we have a name for _everything,_ including that which may lie outside of our local universe; it's called _the cosmos,_ and though it's called the COSMOLOGICAL argument, it's second premise clearly limits itself to our local UNIVERSE, having a beginning. We don't know anything of the sort for the cosmos, though. Just so I might understand you better: could you give an example of something immaterial, existing on its own (so not as an emergent property) ? And if you've done so, could you say why this immaterial thing cannot exist inside of our universe? (or cosmos, even?) And aslo: what does: outside of everything that exists (the cosmos) even mean, if cosmos means _everything there is_ ? Thanks in advance!
(ps: I hope my questions make sense; English isn't my first lingo (obviously ;) and seems to be failing me somewhat, lately)
we can't give an example and for the kalam argument to be true, you don't have to give an example. the argument is that if the first and second premise are true, then therefore the universe had a cause (and by the word "universe", like Alex explained, what is actually meant is everything material, not just our local universe, not just all universes or the cosmos, but Universe with a "U', that is to say everything material) and so it follows that the cause itself must be immaterial because otherwise you run into the "infinite regress" (Alex talks about this too in the video)
@@nightfighter95 Has that immaterial something always existed? And, if so: why doesn't that run in the the same "infinite regress problem" of yours?
Why, for instance, can't the cosmos have always existed in some form or another?
There's this channel I just ran into; it's called _theoretical bullshit_ and one of the topics there are about the kalam (debunked), you should look it up, if you're interested.
@Golden Arm You talk about _"The immaterial"_ as if it is something. What is it exactly, and what's your evidence for your claim that it has always existed?
@Golden Arm Yeah; it's why I called the whole thing circular reasoning; begging the question and special pleading fallacies. That's what happens if you include your conclusion in the argument itself. It's fallacious.
And _Dark Energy_ and _Dark Matter_ are called such _because_ we know little to nothing about what it is (YET!! Which isn't the same as saying "we CAN'T know about it").
If you listen to Craig, defending this argument a bit deeper, you hear him include his conclusion in the premises.
And when you talk about _"outside of time"_ are you talking about that, which started at the moment of expansion of our local universe? Cause, really: how can anything exist for zero seconds?
Anyway: _"the evidence for the claim is inherent to the argument and are it's conclusions"_ isn't how science (or even rational thought) works: If you've made an argument for the existence of something, your work has just began. The _EVIDENCE_ for it, ACTUALLY existing, has then yet to be presented.
Then there's the problem with Craig's premises: _"everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause"_ for instance. If there is nothing yet (except for Craig's immaterial god), what exactly is there to have any effect on? (cause and effect) Or, in other words: what was it that god effected into the universe as we know it, if there wasn't anything there to have an effect on?
Or: let's say _wood, carpenter, table_ When did the table begin to exist? And how could it exist if there was a carpenter but no wood?
Anyway (and again, in short): an argument isn't evidence, other than that you can argue for something. The actual evidence for that something, is data that points to that something, actually existing. Data like: the expansion of our universe isn't slowing down, but actually accelerating, is pointing to a force to account for that (and because we don't know anything about that YET, let's call it Dark Energy). Now: what's Craig's data for the existence of his immaterial unmoved mover, causing/effecting on nothing to become everything? And how does that even work: having an effect on nothing?)
@Golden Arm sorry, but you brought up _'evidence'_ and Craig switches between _'just a philosophical argument'_ to what actually, demonstrably (must) exists too, so I thought to nip that in the bud.
To be clear (edit): I reject the premises of the argument too. (and thus the conclusion as well)
Dr Craig uses a Muslim argument but then says a Muslim concept of God is flawed bc God is all about love, love, love for everybody. Maybe he should read the Bible again.
All the arguments around 14:30 assume that time as we know it and experience it exists outside of the universe as well, which I am definitely not sure about, on the contrary, I lean towards the possibility of time being an intrinsic property of the universe. You might address this later in the video, I have not watched the rest, I am just putting out my thoughts before I lose them. I love your content, keep posting such amazing videos!
No it doesn't. Craig's Kalam argues that time is a creation of the prime mover. And that the prime mover existed befo r and out of time
@@liampender but why would the cause need to change its state if it doesn't experience time? The word 'change' requires the existence of time.
@@liampender But the whole idea of "before" is a temporal concept. You can't conceive of a before except within the framework of a temporal world. Before does not exist outside of it. We lack a language to describe such things. And if I can not describe something I cannot understand it and my utterances about it are meaningless.
@@JanKentaur I'm not an expert on Craig, but I think his position is that the "change" occurs at the very first moment of time, i.e., the first action is simultaneous with the moment of creation, including the creation of time.
Time is a concept that we don't have a clear understanding of. When we define the passage of time we do not really define what it is. We define a year as one revolution about the Sun and we define a day as one rotation of the Earth on its axis and we define an hour as one 1/24 of that rotation, and etc., etc., etc. But this doesn't tell us what time is. However, if we define time in terms of the change in entropy of the Universe, then time, as is often stated, did not exist before the Big Bang and at some point will cease to exist because entropy will cease to change. To say that God existed before the Big Bang is to say that God existed before time. This becomes a case of special pleading and can be dismissed outright.
26:23 "God knows what else I've gotten wrong." lol
There is an issue with that idea of "something has changed therefore personality" argument. If the Universe's creation includes the beginning of time, there is no point discussing the "change", because there is no before or after ; from the point of view of the Being or creative force outside of the Universe, everything is overlapping, the Universe has always existed and has never, the "Mover" has and has not created the Universe, etc. That's paradoxical only because we cannot wrap our heads around a timeless state of being, but that's what the beginning of time and the creation force being outside of the Universe entails.
Great job, Alex. Keep thinking and changing your mind as you find your previous positions were not substantiated or “well thought out” as you said. Definitely like seeing this kind of video- would love to see more. Since you were public pretty early on in your thinking etc, there are quite a few opportunities for this I think :).
Something that bugs me a lot in this argument is talking about a "cause" that exists outside of time (aka is timeless) when the word "cause" itself, seems to imply that there is some sort of time-based relationship (for the lack of a better expression) between two things (the cause and the effect).
Will you make a video on this? Is there already some video of yours talking about it? Or am I just being stupid for not understading it?
you could think of ‘cause’ as logic making something happen. A is caused to be equal to C because A equals B and B equals C.
@@hiimjosh868 I think I see where you're coming from, but I dont see how that's the case with the argument, at least in the way it's presented in this video. Alex talks about the cause changing in order to "create" the universe which also seems to imply some sort of timeline, hence not timeless. Nonetheless, if we consider that "cause" here is logically make something happen in the way u describe and, correct me if Im wrong but, matematically it would be something of the likes of: A=B ^ B=C => A=C, in which case, wouldn't A and C need to have the same properties? Maybe I'm just misinterpreting what u said, in which case I apologize.
Cause is just a language Limitation. We don't really have a word for a being which causes something outside time
@@liampender maybe because that concept doesn't exist in reality?
At least you're honest to yourself, it's nice to know that the honesty is awesome, keep the good part of you Alex 👍
NOW THIS IS THE GOOD STUFF! I love the philosophy, and how you go back and challenge yourself! Love your content Alex, keep it up!
The Kalam and all other cosmological arguments are about establishing some rule and simultaneously breaking it. Properly analyzed they are just special pleading: "I assert a first mover/ creator / first cause that's different from everything else."
@Taxtro
* first cause that's different from everything else.*
And that is a problem, how?
Seems similar to the reality that I observe.
Everything I make is different from me.
Your humility is why I follow you. God bless!
Alex not only has better arguments now, but better hair.
Go to horny jail. BONK!
EliosMoonElios not horny, just true
Why does the change in the cause of the Universe have to be a "choice"? Things change all the time (the weather, the size of the Universe, the hotness of the sun etc.) without making a choice. Now, you might argue that these examples are all examples of material things interacting with other material things or with themselves. But I would answer: Well, of course they are. Since there are only materiality objects in the Universe and since I don't think that immateriality even works as a concept, I can hardly be expected to give any other examples. In any case, I don't see why "immaterial" things (at least in theory) should not change on their own too, without making any choice. If there is an infinite "quantum field" or something like that, why should that not change its property, so as to not cause the Universe at one moment and cause it at the next. In addition, as mentioned in the comments before, words like "one moment to the next", "change", and "choice" don't really make sense in timeless infinity anyhow.
What makes your channel so good is watching your growth and evolution as a philosopher!
26:23
Alex: God knows
me: wait that's illegal
No
@@frozenwolf8458 it's a joke lol
I know of little, perhaps none other persons who is as intellectually honest and interested in the truth than you, Alex. What I notice, when I watch your videos, is an extraordinary effort to understand the opposing side of the argument, as well as an honest criticism of ones own flaws. The temptation of strawmanning is strong, but it is too weak minded. The temptation of steelmanning is weak, but it is so strong minded.
Keep up the good work!
Would it be the time to point out that those that nodded along with your old argument and proceeded to call people like Ghazali an idiot should seriously reconsider what they think they know? What about me pointing out that Ghazali has some great psychological writings, that include the crucial understanding of ‘humility’ and its necessity for learning?
The *accurate version* of the standard KCA would be
1) Things that begin to exist (and everything within the universe apparently began to exist) always or almost always have
* *multiple,* complexly-interacting natural causes
* That are physical and exist in space-time
* from adjacent matter and/or fields *within their universe.*
* Development thru gradient stages
Not -Whatever begins to exist has a cause.-
2) our current instantiation of our local universe (not assuming that there have been other instantiations or that other universes exist) apparently had something like a beginning phase, but we have only one universe to examine and only indirect evidence about it’s beginning or lack thereof.
The idea that there was a beginning *instant* of the current instantiation of our universe is a bit outdated.
Starting at 28:00 in this SkyDivePhil RUclips video, “Philosophers and Physicists Reply to the Kalam…”
ruclips.net/video/pGKe6YzHiME/видео.html
3) Therefore.... no specific conclusion results from 1 and 2.
It would be consistent with #1 if our instantiation of the local universe had multiple, complexly interactive natural causes from things and/or processes in space-time, but to say “what is true of the parts is also true of the whole,” is an informal *fallacy of composition.*
People such as WLC use Kalam to claim that a powerful conscious being is able to exist without a preceding cause, but simple matter and energy cannot.
Similarly, “The universe caused itself,” may sound ridiculous, but less ridiculous than that a maximally powerful intelligent being “just exists” without a preceding cause.
I started watching your channel from december 2019 and I must say from watching your previous videos that your philosophical stance has improved a lot. I intitialy started watching for your atheistic point of view but as i dwelled into more philosophy on your channel,veganism made sense and i turned vegan despite me thinking previously that veganism is a joke. Thgank you for help me bring out a better person in me.Stay awesome
You are an intelligent young man. I love how you cross examine your thoughts. That takes a lot of intellectual growth. Keep it up Alex👍🏽
What if we thought about this “cause” as not existing for all of time infinitely, but existing outside of it, separately, and since we experience time linearly we can not comprehend what it’s like to be this creative cause outside of it when it comes to when the decision was “made” to create material things?
16:20 well, since the whole thing is happening on immaterial plane, where time doesn’t exist, infinite regress shouldn’t be a problem.
Heck, if time doesn’t exist, how can that immaterial cause even "act" or "choose"? These things requires time as they require some changes (and changes mean time)
[Note: I know infinite regress are regarded as logical impossibilities, but that's only when there's time involved ]
Sigh... "Immaterial, timeless cause" - what does that actually mean? What are the properties of the immaterial? Explain cause and effect outside of time. So many assumptions are being granted on the subject of the Kalam that all this supposed rigor sits on a house of cards.
It's essential to be self-critical at all times so I applaud Alex for that but the amount of leeway given to the Kalam argument in all of this is silly.
Y'all (Alex and William lane craig) basically haven't done any work to explain what it actually means to be immaterial and timeless which is only the ground floor for this whole discussion.
Yeah, this is where philosophy can't explain and resolve these questions on it's own
I think the point of this video was only to explain where he failed, i.e. he completely missed the core arguments. He probably never planned to actually explain what those arguments entail, why they might or might not be valid, etc.
In other words, he didn't do any work to explain what it means because that wasn't the point of the video at all. He just meant "I failed to consider that possibility"; that doesn't mean that possibility is the correct answer or is even valid, or anything, just that he missed the point of the arguments.
Realize that there are plenary of things that are spaceless, timeless, and immaterial that we already know of. I’m not going to go to in depth but things like Truth, Logic, Mathematicians, Love etc. are indeed immaterial, spaceless, and not bound to time. These are the “quarks” that make up the “properties” or “substance” of that immaterial, timeless cause.
Plenty*
@Golden Arm Condescension from someone that doesn't understand the point... I didn't say those are the assumptions. Many assumptions are being made in employing those terms. For one, our understanding of cause and effect is closely associated with time. What does it mean for 2 things to be causally linked without any reference to time? I don't claim to know if time is absolutely necessary for the idea of causation but people throwing around concepts of "timeless causes" have a lot of explaining to do still. I'm sure hard thinkers such as yourself will clear it all up for us simple folk.
My question is how can we even try to define any qualities of the immaterial/the nature of anything outside the material?
The thing is, "outside space" or "before time" don't even make sense as concepts. Space is required for position; if something is at a point outside of all positional space is to say that there is some positional space outside of all positional space. It doesn't make sense.
The same thing with time. To say that something is before something else in time requires there to be a temporal reference at both points. To say something was before time is to require time before time. It doesn't make sense.
So an immaterial changing of states seems to me to be a nonsense concept.
Immaterial existence seems to be an oxymoron. Does it even make sense to say something exists without assigning it some material properties?
This a fantastic video dude - it takes a lot of humility and effort to note the problems with past thinking and showcasing how you now differ. Seriously, so much respect for you.
Well done! Always refreshing to see someone own up to mistakes and clarify things. You've got awesome and salient points in both videos.
14:14 "If the cause doesn't change, doesn't make choices, isn't personal, then because it never changes it must always have sufficient properties to bring the universe into existence."
There is a huge difference between changing and being personal. There is far, far more to being a person than merely being a thing that changes. Plenty of things change in this world, but we don't call them all people. So if we prove that the cause of the universe must have changed, then we've proven merely that. If we want to also establish that the cause must be a person, then we should argue for that in particular. We don't get it for free that just because it changed therefore it was making a choice and it was a person.
I think that what he's trying to say is that things within the universe change because of causality, they have an external factor which causes the changing; while the supposed immaterial and infinite cause that causes the universe/material existence couldn't have changed because of causality, but from an internal factor, that would be a choice.
@@gabrielalves5896 "The supposed immaterial and infinite cause that causes the universe/material existence couldn't have changed because of causality, but from an internal factor, that would be a choice."
But shouldn't the word "choice" be reserved for a decision made by a thinking process? A choice is what happens when we come to a fork in a road and pick one path over the other. A choice also happens when a computer executes a branch instruction based on the value in a register. But surely a mere quantum fluctuation would not be called a choice; it doesn't decide anything, it just randomly changes. A radioactive atom doesn't choose to decay; it just does for no reason.
@@Ansatz66 yes, that is actually what it is about. This immaterial and infinite cause, if it didn't have a choice in creating or not the universe, if it didn't decide to change something and cause something finite from it's nature, which is infinite, if that didn't happen, then the universe would either not exist, or exist forever; but it does not exist forever, it had a beginning. From this point, we could deduce that this cause has some kind of property that allows it taking decisions, allows it to cause changes, even in itself, voluntarily, without any external factor. Everything material works and relates inside the principle of cause and effect, otherwise time wouldn't have meaning as well. Even energy is about fundamental particles interacting with themselves, and, as you mentioned, they don't have any choice in this, they are contingent. (Just to take note, I'm an atheist)
@@gabrielalves5896 "If it didn't have a choice in creating or not the universe, if it didn't decide to change something and cause something finite from it's nature, which is infinite, if that didn't happen, then the universe would either not exist, or exist forever."
Why would it need to be a choice when we're already acknowledging that fundamental particles don't have choices in their behavior? We see things changing without making choices, so surely when people say that the trigger for the cause of the universe must have been a choice, that is just theism's attempt to find some reason why the universe could not have started without a mind.
@@Ansatz66 but that is the point, they change without a choice because they are contigent, they are part of the material world. The immaterial and infinite cause can't be contigent because it didn't have a cause to be able to exist, so it has to be immaterial and infinite; these properties are deducted from logic in order to avoid infinite regression from a material perspective, which is logically incoherent. We are talking about existence itself. The immaterial and infinite cause is not contigent, so it has to have made some kind of decision in some instance in order to cause the universe and everything in it, otherwise the universe wouldn't exist or it would be infinite, which is not.
Honestly I love stuff like this, encouraging that there's nothing wrong with a change of opinion. We should all be okay with changing our opinions if we find something more credible. Same with reflection on past thoughts. Awesome video Cosmic Skeptic.
Westerns just began to understand the philosophical arguments put forth by Muslim Ulama (scholars) in the 8th and 9th centuries. It is going to take some time. I really find it surprising that Dr. Craig did not claim AlGhazali’s argument for himself like many western “philosophers” including Descartes did with a lot of Muslim Ulama especially the work of AlGhazali and Ibin Taymiyyah. BTW, Ibin Taymiyyah had touched on almost every topic you talked about in this video Alex. Best r
Regarding the Kalam cosmological argument;
* Cosmicskeptic; “When the Kalam speaks of the universe, it doesn't just mean the observable universe or our universe, it means every material thing that exists.”
- I have a problem with this. First make the definitions clear. The word universe is our singular universe. Cosmos would include our universe and everything beyond our universe.
- Conclusions can be made about our particular universe based on the information we receive which is limited to our universe.
- But about the cosmos outside of our universe (such as the scientific speculations of a multiverse)? There could be things that we have not considered with the Kalam argument about the cosmos because we do not have access to the beyond our universe cosmos or don’t know anything in detail about this part of the cosmos (as speculated by some physicists).
* Cosmicskeptic; “If the Kalam is accurate and the universe does have a cause...”
- I think this is the wrong direction to go. I think the Kalam should be looked at more closely.
I’ll go through the original Kalam.
“1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.”
A. That "whatever", includes the hypothetical cosmos beyond our universe, which is almost completely unknown.
- Everyone on earth is almost completely ignorant of what exists beyond our universe.
- So, to rephrase # 1; almost complete ignorance of something leads to the conclusion that this something, which I am almost completely ignorant of, must have a cause.
B. Cause needs to be specifically defined. Arguments about mundane things in our universe, such as a car wreak, being caused to exist is a different use of the word cause.
- The word cause in Kalam means that nothing (no matter or energy) led something to begin to exist. That process (complete nothing leading to something) does not occur in our universe.
“2. The universe began to exist."
- There is zero evidence that the cosmos beyond our universe had a beginning.
“3. Therefore, the universe has a cause."
- I don't see why I need to believe that the cosmos outside of our universe, which is almost completely unknown, has to have a cause defined as nothing (no matter/energy).
* Cosmicskeptic; “whatever caused the universe must be immaterial”
* Even if I accept the Kalam premises;
- 1. As I said before, we know almost nothing about the cosmos outside of our universe.
- 2. We know nothing about what is outside the cosmos.
- 3. And now we are going to assign properties of what is material or immaterial to things which are inside the cosmos (beyond our universe) and outside the cosmos which we know absolutely nothing about?
- 4. There is nothing immaterial in our universe. We have no way of knowing what such an immaterial state is or was.
- Claiming that some unknown immaterial state was the unreal reality before the cosmos (beyond our universe) and that this immaterial state caused the cosmos makes zero sense to me.
* Cosmicskeptic; “if by definition anything that materially exists is part of the universe’
- First of all, you cannot know this because the cosmos outside of our universe is almost completely unknown.
- Second, it is possible that there is another cosmos which is completely disconnected from the cosmos which contains our universe and that this other cosmos will remain completely unknown.
- Therefore, it is possible that something material exists which is completely outside of our cosmos.
- Third, string theory and M theory have led to the concept of other dimensions.
- Considering that, it is difficult to know from a simple Kalam argument what all the material in the cosmos is and how all of that material would behave.
* Cosmicskeptic; “if time is a property of the universe, whatever caused it must be outside of time.”
- Here again the definitions need to be more clear.
- In our universe in science, time is defined as Planck time which began at the Big Bang.
- Therefore the cause of our universe was outside of what we understand as Planck time.
- Maybe there are aspects of the cosmos beyond our universe (a multiverse?) which are outside of time by any definition we know of but still have material/energy.
- It has been claimed that Einstein believed that time is an illusion. How can the lack of something which can be considered an illusion be assigned as a property to something outside of the cosmos?
- Again, the Kalam argument is trying to assign attributes as well as processes (which are not well understood) to something outside the cosmos beyond our universe which is almost completely unknown.
* Cosmicskeptic; “There actually are at least some properties of this cause which can at least arguably be assigned to it if it does exist”
- You say that “if it (this cause) does exist”. The cause being discussed is nothing, no matter/ no energy. It cannot exist because absolutely nothing is the absence of existence.
- Therefore, I don't agree with your conclusion. I think you got it right in your first video.
* Cosmicskeptic; “if the universe has a cause that cause must at least have some form of creative power too”
- I disagree. The butterfly effect is a phenomenon in weather systems on earth which shows that something without creative power as we know it, (and very weak in overall power) can cause massive effects.
- Second, something which does not exist (has no energy or matter) cannot have power because again this cause is nothing.
* Cosmicskeptic; “Universe caused itself or the universe was caused by something within the universe, as far as philosophical claims go these are quite sketchy ones right?”
- Maybe in philosophy class but I don't see these proposals as sketchy. Just completely speculative as with the Kalam argument.
- Same thing with the claim that the cosmos is everything material/having energy.
- This is the problem with philosophical premisses. Besides the fact that in history some of the most famous ones have been completely wrong, let's examine which claim is more sketchy.
A. The cosmos was created by something which doesn't exist (nothing); the Kalam argument.
B. The cosmos was created by something which does exist (something).
- And B is considered more sketchy than A? That's a strange conclusion. I don't agree with it.
* Cosmicskeptic; “it’s a bit messy and not a particularly compelling position to hold”
- Science is a bit messy compared with simple philosophy premises. And more scientifically accurate beliefs in the past have often not been a compelling position to hold.
- For hundreds of years the consensus philosophical view in Europe was that the sun orbited around the earth (Ptolemy). Galileo challenged this on several levels but his evidence was to put it bluntly, messy. So, he was put under house arrest.
- Instead scholastic philosophy was acceptable, such as that there was a hierarchy of angels which had no substance (Thomas Aquinas) which was not “messy”.
- I personally didn't want to play the philosophy game with the Kalam. Instead, I would rather say this about the Kalam argument.
1. It proves nothing.
2. As far as the origin of the cosmos or if it even had an origin?
My answer is; I don't know.
* Cosmicskeptic; “would be to adopt some strange, unprovable claims that the universe somehow caused it self”
- Unprovable? In philosophy?
- Hegel “proved" that there were only seven planets in our solar system. What was the value of this philosophical proof? Nothing.
- Did philosophers discover the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics? No.
- Did philosophers discover Einstein's theories of general relativity and special relativity? No.
** Instead the most important attribute of a “proof” promoted here is that it can't be strange and it can't be messy.
An example of that;
1. The time it takes an object or matter, moving in my direction, to reach me can be reduced if I move towards it.
2. The time it takes an object or matter, moving in my direction, to reach me can be increased if I move away from it.
3. Light is made from matter (Isaac Newton).
4. Therefore, the time it takes light to reach me can be reduced if I move towards it and the time it takes light to reach me can be increased if I move away from it.
- This explanation is not strange or messy.
- But is it true? No.
The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light is always constant (in a vacuum).
This result created a strange and complex (messy) understanding of our particular universe which Einstein would expand upon with his theory of special relativity.
- If the not being messy or strange, philosophy approach, can't properly describe something as fundamental in our world as light, how can philosophy be used to accurately describe fundamental aspects of the cosmos outside of our universe? I don't think it can from a scientific perspective.
** However, the video is not coming from a scientific perspective. It's about philosophy. I clearly understand that Alex is a university student who must take philosophy classes.
He must follow that system as directed by philosophy professors.
That is the academic world he currently must live in.
- But it is important to recognize that for people who look to science for knowledge, very often they are not going to tumble down the rabbit hole of proofs from philosophy.
* I'm not going to be as extreme as Stephen Hawking (philosophy is not literally dead) but I will quote him about the topic of proofs from modern philosophy & their usefulness to science/physics.
“Did the universe need a creator? Most of us do not spend most of our time worrying about these questions, but almost all of us worry about them some of the time. Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”