Penrose and WLC did a show on unbelievable together…close as you will get. Remember the scientists in the video are not really responding to the fullness of the arguments of the kalam just certain point or question as posed to them from the people who produced the film.
Would be nice but I suspect if they were willing to go on record in a video designed to take superficial pot shots at Craig’s work instead of submitting actual written responses in a peer reviewed journal, I suspect they’d be unwilling to be cross examined by craig in person or on a live video conference. The fact they’ve had to make a video production shows the unwillingness to actually engage in academic debates either in writing or in person with Craig.
@@androcracy I believe the makers of the video would have no issue with a face to face with WLC. Not certain if Craig would do so? Phil (one of the makers of the video) has appeared and debated on the show unbelievable (more of a conversation than a true debate as unbelievable follows a discussion viewpoint not a debate format) for example on issues of cosmology. Bear in mind Phil has unique access to many of the top physicists and chooses to make videos for the interested lay people in matters of cosmology and different models. I don’t believe he entertains a desire to write and submit articles to peer reviews journals….
With all the noise of the day whether geopolitical or global health peddled nightly by MSM, it is this material articulated and presented by Dr. Craig that will have lasting and eternal consequences today and for all eternity. Thanks
Thank you Dr. Craig for your replies. I regret that I don’t quite accept all your arguments. For me, a primordial beginning point does not automatically necessitate a “God”. (There are non-God models of a universe with a beginning point.) Conversely, an infinite or eternal universe does not rule out a “God” either. Couldn’t a Supreme Creator create that too? Just my view.
Frankly, as I watch these responses, aside from some of the more technical theoretical cosmology discussed in the 2nd half of this video, Dr Craig’s responses are fairly simple and predictable, because the objections he’s addressing are quite bad.
I find there may be a bizarre radical way BOTH Dr. Craig’s view and skydivephil’s position may be paradoxically true at the same time. Our Local Bubble “observable universe” may have had a beginning origin point, expanding in the future out to infinity. Yet the grander “Cosmic Multiverse Landscape” in the larger background may prove to be infinite and eternal. Just thoughts.
The fact is that A theory of time is not unscientific any more than B theory. The perfect reference frame is just "not useful" to the equations but it is useful in the metaphysical debate about the nature of time. In quantum mechanics ironically, there ARE simultaneous events, giving some support to Craig's debate. But ultimately the nature of time plays little role in the Kalam arguments.
What is most striking about this part of the critique is the persistence in treating general relativity as wrong, just to eliminate the idea of an initial singularity. But if they have no qualms about postulating infinity or the B-theory of time, then what's the problem? I wonder how these scientists would respond to the anti-realists' objection that no physical theory is really true... after all, one can always say, for no reason, that the standard theory will be falsified by a more accurate one. A healthy scientific realism must always consider the currently proven theory to be true unless the alternative ontological picture satisfies the mathematical description. To say that there is no beginning of the universe is not to posit an alternative picture that satisfies the mathematical description of the singularity, but rather to eliminate mathematics itself from the theory altogether in favor of a speculative paradigm.
@@monsenrm Because a sound argument must be valid (which KCA is) and _all_ of its premises must be established to be true, either by axiomatic concession, or by logical inference of previous established facts following the Rules of Logical Inference. The first two premises do not meet this criteria. Neither can be demonstrated to be true.
they don't deny the possibility, they deny the assertion. The Kalam can only prove there is a cause. It does nothing whatsoever to delineate what that cause is. WLC does that so it matches his conception of god, but there is no proof of that god. At present we don't know enough to say what the cause was nor are we able to understand or make predictions we can test about the earliest universe. Penrose makes an interesting argument about time beginning with the creation of mass which would have happened during cosmic inflation, and that time will eventually cease to exist when all matter is converted to energy.
@@theoskeptomai2535 1. everything began to exists need a cause 2. universe began to exists then universe has a cause which premise do you mean is not sound? and why?
I don't not understand what is meant by time is relative and so has a relative direction. Time is metaphysical concept that applies to even consciousness. Imagine if it was said that it was infinite meaning, no beginning and end, then things coming into being and going out of existence would just be an illusion and nothing would move from point point a to be b because everything is infinite including space. no person would reach a desired point, space itself would be infinite . No one can think and arrive at decision because units of thoughts would be difficult to skip. This is crazy.
Than you haven't done much searching my friend. Read Necessary existence by Joshua Rasmussan and Alexander Pruss and you won't be dissapointed. Mind you evidence for "a god" doesn't equate evidence for Jesus per say.
Let me ask a doubt, i don't what i am saying is right, According to Noether's theorem, for every continuous symmetry of the universe there exist a conserved Quantity, we know that time is the symmetry for energy, but energy of the universe is not conserved, so doesn't it means time is not symmetric 🤔🤔 Nb i don't have a bachelor's in physics
@@ryeclansen7371 Yeah, that's a great video from Science Asylum. But I guess, that he has a different opnion on this discussion about the Kalam Cosmological Argument: *"Can Infinite Time Fix The Big Bang?"* by The Science Asylum ( ruclips.net/video/nwfFdbNskYs/видео.html )
Craig, while I respect him more than most of his ilk... is absolutely wrong and misunderstands relativity at its basic level. I have to say I'm surprised at his ignorance of this subject..... And his surprise at science changing its mind given new evidence baffles me? He seems like he values long-held beliefs simply because of their history of always being what people thought was true. Rather that change one's opinion given new evidence.
Doubtless you are the people, and wisdom will die with you. Job 12:2. Though agreeing with William Lane Craig against his detractors. Arguing for an infinite universe must be based in what is not known currently as an expanding universe must have had a finite beginning in some point in the past. One of the main problems I see in this presentation in all those arguing for an infinite progression of cosmic time, matter, space, energy is not only that it is inconsistent with what we now observe physically in the universe but theologically as well as philosophically it assumes that the initial cause of the finite universe is of the same substance of the known universe. If as the Bible teaches God is Spirit and the source of all that is - no appeal to any Scientific model is going to explain the beginning of the Universe! If the universe is finite - which seems to be the only reasonable conclusion from assimilating all the current scientific theorems then what was before the finite universe will not be explicable using the same logic. If the Universe is finite then there was a time that the Universe was not the same as we see now. No amount of appeal by William Lane Craig or any other scientist can explain what was before what now is arguing from what no is! The Kalam argument cannot establish a valid beginning to the universe from physical evidence if the universe is finite. The Spirit of God is the beginning and it is not of the substance as the known universe. God is the source of all known physical matter. Of course this is unreasonable to those who hold to the false premise that the physical universe is all there is, all there has been and all there will be. I am avoiding reference to the foolishness of the great intellects of Physics or any any other scientific field deliberately even though I know what they also know. "I have a mind as well as you; I am not inferior to you. Who does not know all these things?" Job 12:3. It is foolishness in God's eyes to argue that the Universe had an infinite source without assuming an infinite source. That infinite source is not of the same substance of the material universe.
It's hard to believe that the video he's responding to was at all a good-faith attempt at discussing Kalam. I was seeing some tell-tale signs that they had already predetermined what the takeaway was supposed to be for the audience, and it was just a matter of making the soundbites fit. It's not at all uncommon in some docs and short docs, it's almost an art-form in reality tv. I'd say if they were to promote the responses WLC made, then continue the conversation or retract certain parts where they misinterpreted him (if they didn't have the resources for another video), then they pretty much will have showed their hand with all of this.
There was quite a lot of buzz surrounding the video when it came out. But I couldn’t get through 15 minutes of it because of how bad it was. It really does seem that the producers of the video intentionally mislead the viewer.
But WLC does the same thing when he asserts the properties of the cause. The Kalam says nothing about the properties of the cause. WLC asserts these properties to match his conception of god. However, given the randomness and apathy of the universe, those properties hardly match the creator of such a universe.
@@johnelliott5859 I think you’re a little confused. WLC doesn’t just assert the properties of the cause, it’s through conceptual analysis that he elucidates what properties such a cause must have.
@@mjdillaha assuming that cause is WLC's god. An argument based on the nature of the universe, can just as easily be made for a capricious or apathetic god.
@@johnelliott5859 You're technically right about the second part of the second comment, and based on what I gathered over the years, WLC would probably agree with you. Kalam is restricted to an argument in favor of the existence of a god and a challenge to naturalistic belief. The god could be a capricious god, could be benevolent, could be malevolent, could be deistic, but it'd be a god nonetheless. His examination into who or what that god is and determining that it's the the God of the Bible isn't justified by Kalam, it's justified by a whole host of other evidences.
WLC argues that from nothing, nothing comes. The problem is that *nothing* is logically impossible. Suppose for contradiction that there exists nothing. Then, there does exist something, namely the concept of nothing. Hence, we have contradicted the assumption that there exists nothing. This proves that the proposition -- from nothing, nothing comes -- is a vacuous statement predicated upon self-contradictory terminology. There always exists something.
I don’t think nothing is logically impossible but I do agree that it is realistically impossible. So what Craig is saying is that if the universe had a beginning then it had to come from nothing if it wasn’t created by an agent.
Nobody is saying that "there exists nothing". This would mean, as you say, that "nothing" is "something". Rather, one would say no thing (=nothing) exists. This is the negation of the proposition something exists.
When watching this, I get the overwhelming feeling that Dr. Craig should interview some of those physicists (like Vilenkin, Guth, Wall, etc.)
Agreed
Penrose and WLC did a show on unbelievable together…close as you will get. Remember the scientists in the video are not really responding to the fullness of the arguments of the kalam just certain point or question as posed to them from the people who produced the film.
Would be nice but I suspect if they were willing to go on record in a video designed to take superficial pot shots at Craig’s work instead of submitting actual written responses in a peer reviewed journal, I suspect they’d be unwilling to be cross examined by craig in person or on a live video conference. The fact they’ve had to make a video production shows the unwillingness to actually engage in academic debates either in writing or in person with Craig.
@@androcracy I believe the makers of the video would have no issue with a face to face with WLC. Not certain if Craig would do so? Phil (one of the makers of the video) has appeared and debated on the show unbelievable (more of a conversation than a true debate as unbelievable follows a discussion viewpoint not a debate format) for example on issues of cosmology. Bear in mind Phil has unique access to many of the top physicists and chooses to make videos for the interested lay people in matters of cosmology and different models. I don’t believe he entertains a desire to write and submit articles to peer reviews journals….
Dr Craig is always ready and prepared to respond to issues and questions with clarity and succinctly, and respectfully. Kudos to you Dr Craig!
Outstanding! Thank you Dr Craig for responding with such substance and clarity.
Dr Craig simply needs to have his rebuttal recited by a woman with an intelligent sounding British accent.
With all the noise of the day whether geopolitical or global health peddled nightly by MSM, it is this material articulated and presented by Dr. Craig that will have lasting and eternal consequences today and for all eternity.
Thanks
Thank you Dr. Craig for your replies. I regret that I don’t quite accept all your arguments. For me, a primordial beginning point does not automatically necessitate a “God”. (There are non-God models of a universe with a beginning point.) Conversely, an infinite or eternal universe does not rule out a “God” either. Couldn’t a Supreme Creator create that too? Just my view.
Frankly, as I watch these responses, aside from some of the more technical theoretical cosmology discussed in the 2nd half of this video, Dr Craig’s responses are fairly simple and predictable, because the objections he’s addressing are quite bad.
Yep, I wish they were able to provide more interesting or stronger objections, but unfortunately, most of the objections are shallow.
Solid stuff. Thank you so much Dr. Craig.
I find there may be a bizarre radical way BOTH Dr. Craig’s view and skydivephil’s position may be paradoxically true at the same time. Our Local Bubble “observable universe” may have had a beginning origin point, expanding in the future out to infinity. Yet the grander “Cosmic Multiverse Landscape” in the larger background may prove to be infinite and eternal. Just thoughts.
Waited for this 🍿
Very precise! Thanks, Dr. Craig
The fact is that A theory of time is not unscientific any more than B theory. The perfect reference frame is just "not useful" to the equations but it is useful in the metaphysical debate about the nature of time.
In quantum mechanics ironically, there ARE simultaneous events, giving some support to Craig's debate. But ultimately the nature of time plays little role in the Kalam arguments.
What is most striking about this part of the critique is the persistence in treating general relativity as wrong, just to eliminate the idea of an initial singularity. But if they have no qualms about postulating infinity or the B-theory of time, then what's the problem?
I wonder how these scientists would respond to the anti-realists' objection that no physical theory is really true... after all, one can always say, for no reason, that the standard theory will be falsified by a more accurate one.
A healthy scientific realism must always consider the currently proven theory to be true unless the alternative ontological picture satisfies the mathematical description. To say that there is no beginning of the universe is not to posit an alternative picture that satisfies the mathematical description of the singularity, but rather to eliminate mathematics itself from the theory altogether in favor of a speculative paradigm.
They’ve conflated two disciplines. Mathematics and Ontology.
Very interesting. The Kalam deniers are believers, they believe there is no way God could have created the universe.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not a sound argument.
@@theoskeptomai2535 Why?
@@monsenrm Because a sound argument must be valid (which KCA is) and _all_ of its premises must be established to be true, either by axiomatic concession, or by logical inference of previous established facts following the Rules of Logical Inference.
The first two premises do not meet this criteria. Neither can be demonstrated to be true.
they don't deny the possibility, they deny the assertion. The Kalam can only prove there is a cause. It does nothing whatsoever to delineate what that cause is. WLC does that so it matches his conception of god, but there is no proof of that god. At present we don't know enough to say what the cause was nor are we able to understand or make predictions we can test about the earliest universe. Penrose makes an interesting argument about time beginning with the creation of mass which would have happened during cosmic inflation, and that time will eventually cease to exist when all matter is converted to energy.
@@theoskeptomai2535
1. everything began to exists need a cause
2. universe began to exists
then universe has a cause
which premise do you mean is not sound? and why?
3:19 “…Universe, tho finite in the past, has no boundary.” Huh? That crucial claim needs clarification.
The beginning is integral to Kalam.
I am pretty sure all these guys on skydive phils video are atheists
1 was a Theist philosopher i think
I don't not understand what is meant by time is relative and so has a relative direction. Time is metaphysical concept that applies to even consciousness. Imagine if it was said that it was infinite meaning, no beginning and end, then things coming into being and going out of existence would just be an illusion and nothing would move from point point a to be b because everything is infinite including space. no person would reach a desired point, space itself would be infinite . No one can think and arrive at decision because units of thoughts would be difficult to skip. This is crazy.
I have never encountered any credible evidence or sound argument that suggests the existence of a god.
Than you haven't done much searching my friend. Read Necessary existence by Joshua Rasmussan and Alexander Pruss and you won't be dissapointed. Mind you evidence for "a god" doesn't equate evidence for Jesus per say.
@@tsrs6983 1) How did you determine how much searching I have done my friend?
2) What credible evidence have I overlooked or not considered?
You can't fool Dr Craig.
?????? I think it is because he is living in his own delusionary world.
@@ryeclansen7371 It's just as well what you think counts for nothing.
Let me ask a doubt, i don't what i am saying is right, According to Noether's theorem, for every continuous symmetry of the universe there exist a conserved Quantity, we know that time is the symmetry for energy, but energy of the universe is not conserved, so doesn't it means time is not symmetric 🤔🤔
Nb i don't have a bachelor's in physics
Energy is not always conserved. Science Asylum has a good you tube video on this ruclips.net/video/cnGYMe6GBeQ/видео.html
@@ryeclansen7371 me too having the same doubt, so don't it mean time is not continuously symmetric
@@ryeclansen7371 Yeah, that's a great video from Science Asylum.
But I guess, that he has a different opnion on this discussion about the Kalam Cosmological Argument:
*"Can Infinite Time Fix The Big Bang?"* by The Science Asylum ( ruclips.net/video/nwfFdbNskYs/видео.html )
Craig, while I respect him more than most of his ilk... is absolutely wrong and misunderstands relativity at its basic level. I have to say I'm surprised at his ignorance of this subject..... And his surprise at science changing its mind given new evidence baffles me? He seems like he values long-held beliefs simply because of their history of always being what people thought was true. Rather that change one's opinion given new evidence.
Doubtless you are the people, and wisdom will die with you. Job 12:2. Though agreeing with William Lane Craig against his detractors. Arguing for an infinite universe must be based in what is not known currently as an expanding universe must have had a finite beginning in some point in the past. One of the main problems I see in this presentation in all those arguing for an infinite progression of cosmic time, matter, space, energy is not only that it is inconsistent with what we now observe physically in the universe but theologically as well as philosophically it assumes that the initial cause of the finite universe is of the same substance of the known universe. If as the Bible teaches God is Spirit and the source of all that is - no appeal to any Scientific model is going to explain the beginning of the Universe! If the universe is finite - which seems to be the only reasonable conclusion from assimilating all the current scientific theorems then what was before the finite universe will not be explicable using the same logic. If the Universe is finite then there was a time that the Universe was not the same as we see now. No amount of appeal by William Lane Craig or any other scientist can explain what was before what now is arguing from what no is! The Kalam argument cannot establish a valid beginning to the universe from physical evidence if the universe is finite. The Spirit of God is the beginning and it is not of the substance as the known universe. God is the source of all known physical matter. Of course this is unreasonable to those who hold to the false premise that the physical universe is all there is, all there has been and all there will be. I am avoiding reference to the foolishness of the great intellects of Physics or any any other scientific field deliberately even though I know what they also know. "I have a mind as well as you; I am not inferior to you. Who does not know all these things?" Job 12:3. It is foolishness in God's eyes to argue that the Universe had an infinite source without assuming an infinite source. That infinite source is not of the same substance of the material universe.
It's hard to believe that the video he's responding to was at all a good-faith attempt at discussing Kalam. I was seeing some tell-tale signs that they had already predetermined what the takeaway was supposed to be for the audience, and it was just a matter of making the soundbites fit. It's not at all uncommon in some docs and short docs, it's almost an art-form in reality tv.
I'd say if they were to promote the responses WLC made, then continue the conversation or retract certain parts where they misinterpreted him (if they didn't have the resources for another video), then they pretty much will have showed their hand with all of this.
There was quite a lot of buzz surrounding the video when it came out. But I couldn’t get through 15 minutes of it because of how bad it was. It really does seem that the producers of the video intentionally mislead the viewer.
But WLC does the same thing when he asserts the properties of the cause. The Kalam says nothing about the properties of the cause. WLC asserts these properties to match his conception of god. However, given the randomness and apathy of the universe, those properties hardly match the creator of such a universe.
@@johnelliott5859 I think you’re a little confused. WLC doesn’t just assert the properties of the cause, it’s through conceptual analysis that he elucidates what properties such a cause must have.
@@mjdillaha assuming that cause is WLC's god. An argument based on the nature of the universe, can just as easily be made for a capricious or apathetic god.
@@johnelliott5859 You're technically right about the second part of the second comment, and based on what I gathered over the years, WLC would probably agree with you.
Kalam is restricted to an argument in favor of the existence of a god and a challenge to naturalistic belief. The god could be a capricious god, could be benevolent, could be malevolent, could be deistic, but it'd be a god nonetheless.
His examination into who or what that god is and determining that it's the the God of the Bible isn't justified by Kalam, it's justified by a whole host of other evidences.
Min 6 why that man dancing 🙄🙄
Carlo Rovelli at 9:20 . That is nothing other than a complete lie.
WLC argues that from nothing, nothing comes. The problem is that *nothing* is logically impossible. Suppose for contradiction that there exists nothing. Then, there does exist something, namely the concept of nothing. Hence, we have contradicted the assumption that there exists nothing. This proves that the proposition -- from nothing, nothing comes -- is a vacuous statement predicated upon self-contradictory terminology. There always exists something.
I don’t think nothing is logically impossible but I do agree that it is realistically impossible. So what Craig is saying is that if the universe had a beginning then it had to come from nothing if it wasn’t created by an agent.
Nobody is saying that "there exists nothing". This would mean, as you say, that "nothing" is "something". Rather, one would say no thing (=nothing) exists. This is the negation of the proposition something exists.
@@dazedmaestro1223 What is a *thing* ?
@@justinbenglick, it's a semantically primitive term and so cannot be defined. It's literally the most general term possible.
@@dazedmaestro1223 Then the statements "There exists nothing." and "There exists no thing." are equivalent. Nothing is no thing.