Does Dr. Craig Have an Inconsistency From Nothing?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- For more information visit: www.reasonable...
Alex J. O'Connor, aka. (The) Cosmic Skeptic, points out what he thinks might be a contradiction in Dr. Craig's view of something coming into being from nothing.
You can watch the entire interview here: • Cosmic Skeptic & Dr. C...
#Time #Cosmology #Kalam #WilliamLaneCraig #CosmicSkeptic
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonablef...
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains many full-length videos, debates, and lectures: / reasonablefaithorg
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Page: / reasonablefaithorg
It’s been heartening to see Alex’s growth, openness and humility over the years. I really hope he comes to Theism, I really do.
I hope God makes him pay for it first, however.
He won't, but I wouldn't be surprised if he settled on some type of agnostic view. It's not easy for a student of philosophy to overlook the many ungrounded assumptions of Atheism any more than it is to have faith in some of the more intangible aspects of Theism.
Humility? He started a RUclips channel explaining philosophy... in his teens. Before he he had studied philosophy beyond 6th form. He only seems humble by comparison with other RUclips atheists.
@@20july1944 why? If he comes to Christ before it's too late then why wish punishment on him.
@@ojpickle5923 I have 2 reasons for hoping the little shit suffers even if he converts:
1. the deliberate mockery of God
and
2. potential harm to others he caused.
I want there to be a cost for mocking my King.
Alex has grown to be a genuine and honest man, it seems, a truthseeker. I really respect him for that. Of course i hope he ends up joining "camp christian theism."
Btw WLC is the GOAT❤️
Is Alex Muslim?
This was a great conversation
Alex is one of those thinkers that you can’t help but respect and his dialogue with Craig was fantastic!
I share the full video from which this is a segment often. It is a great example of Alex engaging in good faith.
Alex even made a video after the encounter with Craig where Alex debunks an earlier younger version of himself addressing points that Craig had made regarding the Kalam.
In the full video,
"William Lane Craig and CosmicSkeptic Discuss The Kalam Cosmological Argument"
here are a few occasions that I found interesting with a few words of explanation.
WLC being concessionary - 56;40, 1;00;30, 1;03;40, 1;05;33, 1;06;09
At 1;02;00 Alex admits it is “a strange line of thought”
At 1;02;50 Alex says that he has learned “how radical”his view is and that “he (WLC) is probably right”
At 1;03;25 Alex says that “is a really interesting radical implication of my view that I’ll give some thought.”
At 1;04;17 Alex says that “I guess the implications are more radical now that I think about it”
At 1;06;43 Alex ponders why don’t things come into being without a cause all the time outside of the universe.
At 1;08;15 Alex says that what he is about to say, “it seems absurd on the surface”
At 1;10;50 Alex again concedes that what he is suggesting “sounds absurd”.
At 1;11;03 Alex laughs and says, “it sounds strange”
At 1;11;18 Alex says, “that I suppose what I am trying to do is make at least a far-fetched case”
At 1;11;38 WLC says, “Let me commend you for your method Alex. Because, by pushing these questions, what you help the atheist to see is the intellectual price tag of his atheism.” Alex seems to totally accept this, or at least totally without any rebuttal.
I wish that one thing that Alex learned from this experience, (namely that when you give Craig an opportunity to defend his position against what Alex had thought beforehand was a sufficient rebuttal things may go quite differently than Alex would have predicted) would be applied to other instances where he critiques Craig's position. I'm thinking specifically of CosmicSkeptic's video, "Christianity's Biggest Problem".
In a discussion with Craig, Craig may very well concede that he did err, or like in this video, Alex may see that Craig's position has more to commend it than he previously thought.
Alex has over the last while at least, taken to referring to himself as a non-resistant non-believer. Wouldn't such non-resistance demand that he expose himself to what had previously affected and altered his beliefs regarding the Kalam in further areas on which he and Craig currently dis-agree now?
Regardless, Alex' exercising good faith here is very much appreciated.
Excellent work!
"Nothingness" doesn't exist (if it does exist, you cannot call it nothing). If you imagine and think about "it"; that nothingness in your mind is not nothing. Because the thought of that 'nothing' is already contaminated with your 'mind' or your 'thought' which not nothing because it has existence, Your mind or thought is something.
Mathematical proof
1 plus zero equals One. ( one represents you mind and zero represents 'nothing')
1:25 "why wouldn't a horse pop into being" and Cosmic Skeptic sneaks in: "into my living room".
The point is that a horse or anything needs an efficient cause.
WLC has mentioned "in my living room" sometimes in his example of ex nihilo, so it isn't an absolute "ex nihilo" quote.
@@20july1944
His second sentence still holds.
@@samdg1234 I agree, I wasn't supporting Cosmic at all, merely being fair about the "in my living room" phrase
@@20july1944
ok
And a material cause so far as we have any evidence for whatsoever.
Thank you for opening this up to comments.
AJO is an intellectually honest skeptic. I respect that!
I think it’s about time cosmic skeptic admitted that theists philosophy is the more logical worldview
My favorite 2 on the subject
Alex did a poor job in this debate even if it was just a conversation more pushback was needed
Fair point lol I didn’t think of this
When particles come from a quantum vacuum, there is no increase in the amount of matter/energy; this doesn't defy our understanding of thermodynamics, mainly the first law. The universe supposedly coming into existence from where there was no physical reality prior would defy the first law of thermodynamics. A horse popping into existence would also require defying this law.
the universe obeys rules while it exists - not while it does not exist
@@samdg1234 There can't exist a natural cause of nature. That would be suggesting nature created itself. Nature would both have to not exist in order to be created while simultaneously existing in order to do any creating int he first place. It's plainly absurd.
@@LawlessNate
*"There can't exist a natural cause of nature. That would be suggesting nature created itself. Nature would both have to not exist in order to be created while simultaneously existing in order to do any creating int he first place. It's plainly absurd."*
I'm 100% totally convinced that this is true.
It was this sentence from your first comment, *"The universe supposedly coming into existence from where there was no physical reality prior would defy the first law of thermodynamics."* that lead me to the idea that you were proposing the opposite. Or at least that the universe coming into existence in this way would "break" a law. As far as my limited understanding, the laws of physics are restricted to a realm of physical reality and have no bearing whatsoever and what may have preceded it.
@@samdg1234 "... laws of physics are restricted to a realm of physical reality and have no bearing whatsoever and what may have preceded it."
That's true, and the point you were making is perfectly valid, but the point I was making was more akin to "Even by the laws of physics we understand that would be impossible."
@@LawlessNateactually that’s just an assumption. There are physicists and philosophers who regard the laws of physics as having a kind of platonic existence and apply even in the absence of a universe.
Like a boss
I find this video rather strange.
It seems to me that in the explanation of a rather trivial distinction between 'nothing' and 'no thing', you've merely highlighted the incredible presumption made by Craig in the Kalam - ie that the Universe begins to exist. Craig admitted here that our local universe has a material cause, and so God isn't required. Which pushes the problem back to the Cosmos - or whatever Quantum field produced our local universe. Craig must now assert that the Cosmos began to exist. To my knowledge he has never defended that assertion with any justification that cannot simply be dismissed on grounds of lack of logical or empirical evidence.
if the universe comes from the quantum vacuum therefore the universe doesn't come from nothing, so the universe doesn't need a supernatural efficient cause, therefore the KCA unsounds
The quantum field is still a physical state of affairs. We could just rephrase the argument; instead of "the universe," use "physical reality" or sometbing like that. All of the philosophical arguments for a finite past would still apply, as would the causal principle.
What do you mean by "the quantum vacuum"?
Is "the quantum vacuum" a quantum field itself, or the absence of any quantum fields?
Inspiring Philosophy addresses the possibility of that theory here -> ruclips.net/video/_ie9musGEqQ/видео.html
You would still need to explain from where the quantum vacuum came. All you've done is added another step
@@jamesreilly3679 that's just "turtles all the way down. Where do you get the quantum vacuum from?
This craig o w talks like f scammer ✊🤛🤜👊
Did you have an actual objection? - RF Admin