Fixing the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Dr. Craig interacts with recent UA-camrs who attempt to "fix" the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
For more resources visit: www.reasonable...
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonable...
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains short clips: / drcraigvideos
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Fan Page: / reasonablefaithorg
![[UA] Eternal Fire проти NAVI | EPL Season 20 Malta](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/chvlsDygrZM/mqdefault.jpg)
I didn’t realize the Kalam was even broken 😂
I vehemently disagree with the second premise. As someone from a Soviet culture (now an immigrant in the USA), I think it's obvious that matter can only move and change but it can't pop out of nowhere, you learn before you're one year old that that is nonsense! In other words, matter is obviously eternal and that is the only way it can be, ditto for time space, motion, change, causality, laws of nature, etc. - pillars of reality! And I mention an explicit example of a viable model with eternity of matter (contrary to Craig's claim that they don't exist) in the oldest comment in this comment section.
@@valinorean4816if matter is eternal then you have to reject the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics & accept the absurdities of infinite events
Dr Craig is right, the objectors haven't thought their responses through very well and don't have sound objections.
I vehemently disagree with the second premise. As someone from a Soviet culture (now an immigrant in the USA), I think it's obvious that matter can only move and change but it can't pop out of nowhere, you learn before you're one year old that that is nonsense! In other words, matter is obviously eternal and that is the only way it can be, ditto for time space, motion, change, causality, laws of nature, etc. - pillars of reality! And I mention an explicit example of a viable model with eternity of matter (contrary to Craig's claim that they don't exist) in the oldest comment in this comment section.
@@valinorean4816 Regarding BGV theorem, in his book Many Worlds in One, Vilenkin writes:
“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” (176)
@valinorean4816 You can claim that but it's based in a much evidence than that it did. That's simply how it is.
@@valinorean4816the claim that the universe came from nothing is from atheists (Stephen Hawking & Lawrence Krauss, Dennett etc...)
@@valinorean4816matter is not obviously eternal. That is overwhelming false. You'd have to reject the 2nd law of TMD. I don't know how to justify an infinite amount of events (infinite regress) this is just old Soviet doctrine/religion.
Poor kid. He suffers from the same presuppositions as many atheists. Namely That only “intellectually honest” people will conclude that material causes are all that we can reasonably conclude. God is ruled out prior to any argument being presented.
I vehemently disagree with the second premise. As someone from a Soviet culture (now an immigrant in the USA), I think it's obvious that matter can only move and change but it can't pop out of nowhere, you learn before you're one year old that that is nonsense! In other words, matter is obviously eternal and that is the only way it can be, ditto for time space, motion, change, causality, laws of nature, etc. - pillars of reality! And I mention an explicit example of a viable model with eternity of matter (contrary to Craig's claim that they don't exist) in the oldest comment in this comment section.
@@valinorean4816 which just have a fundamental disagreement on the nature of matter. You say it is “obviously” eternal but all scientific and philosophical evidence suggest otherwise. All of these alternative models (steady state, oscillating, etc.) fail. The scientific literature on this is clear. The universe began to exist. Now if you would like I can cite some literature on the topic.
That being said none of this “proves” that God exists. It is a matter of inference to the best explanation. Bertrand Russell took your approach though. “The Universe just IS, and that’s that”. I want to know why you think that is the case.
@josephtattum6365 material causes are the only things we can reasonably test. That is why science is based on methodological naturalism. If you have an objective test for non material things let’s hear it. God is ruled out until you provide objective evidence for God, as are aliens and magic. I’m open to all possibilities, but not so open that my brains have fallen out.
We all have presuppositions, but you cannot presuppose the thing you are trying to “prove” or substantiate.
Ahh, look at that smile. Craig is aging well in grace.
Wow!! terrible objections to Kalam. What a superficial thought... I can almost see the neurons dying of those poor atheists...
They’re actually valid objections. Craig is the one whose understanding of cosmology is superficial.
@@zelmoziggyin all sincerity how could you ever possibly conclude the objections are “valid”. The argument is logically sound in every way. You have to disagree with either premise but neither premise is in any way controversial. Otherwise you descend into mereological nihilism.
@@josephtattum6365 I disagree with the premise that everything that begins has a cause because the premise is based on a well-known logical fallacy known as proof by example.
I disagree with the premise that the universe began because there are models of the universe that are past-eternal. Craig is being extremely disingenuous when he dismisses Guth’s statement that the universe may be past-eternal as merely a description of Sean Carroll’s model-the fact is that Guth is working with Carroll on a paper about that model and has said that it represents his current thinking. Vilenkin has proposed that our universe could have come from “nothing” via quantum tunneling.
@@josephtattum6365 There is an explicit example of a token consistent past-eternal model on the rationalwiki page about William Lane Craig, in the reference [18] after the sentence saying "Before the expansion started, the universe existed in a low-entropy nonexpanding state eternally."
@@josephtattum6365 I vehemently disagree with the second premise. As someone from a Soviet culture (now an immigrant in the USA), I think it's obvious that matter can only move and change but it can't pop out of nowhere, you learn before you're one year old that that is nonsense! In other words, matter is obviously eternal and that is the only way it can be, ditto for time space, motion, change, causality, laws of nature, etc. - pillars of reality!
Hey Dr. Craig, I admire your work, thanks for all you do, i was wondering, could you engage with the kalam objections of Joe Schmid, from the majesty of reason youtube channel?
Here is the patience of the saints, those who can deal with overconfident internet atheists who haven't thought deeply enough about an argument, because they are too biased to seriously consider it.
I vehemently disagree with the second premise. As someone from a Soviet culture (now an immigrant in the USA), I think it's obvious that matter can only move and change but it can't pop out of nowhere, you learn before you're one year old that that is nonsense! In other words, matter is obviously eternal and that is the only way it can be, ditto for time space, motion, change, causality, laws of nature, etc. - pillars of reality! And I mention an explicit example of a viable model with eternity of matter (contrary to Craig's claim that they don't exist) in the oldest comment in this comment section.
@@valinorean4816 I agree with you, but when you copy and paste the same post on every comment that's called Spam.
@@Tinesthia spam is commercial promotion, this is called on-topic engagement
I would love to see Craig interacting with Daniel Linford and Joe Schmidt’s criticism to the Kalam. I think they have raised the most interesting objections I have seen.
"I would love to see Craig interacting with Daniel Linford and Joe Schmidt's criticism to the Kalam. I thieve they have raised the most interesting objections I have seen."
Have you seen the Andrew Loke vs Linford debate and Loke's analysis afterwards?
@@nemrodx2185I saw the debate, but not the analysis. I’m a proponent of the Kalam, but I don’t know why Craig has not interacted with them.
@@paulovitorsiq "I saw the debate, but not the analysis. I'm a proponent of the Kalam, but I don't know why Craig has not interacted with them."
The analysis is very good: ua-cam.com/video/BacyZoXNb98/v-deo.html
As for the rest, WLC has interacted with Malpass and Morriston in written form and has debated with Malpass... I don't remember with Linford. I would like more interaction, however, with the gigantic task of writing his book of systematic theology and the content from Reasonable Faith, I don't even know how he has time to breathe, much less to respond to the 3-hour videos that Schmidt releases and the chains of video responses and blogs that come after.
@@paulovitorsiq I vehemently disagree with the second premise. As someone from a Soviet culture (now an immigrant in the USA), I think it's obvious that matter can only move and change but it can't pop out of nowhere, you learn before you're one year old that that is nonsense! In other words, matter is obviously eternal and that is the only way it can be, ditto for time space, motion, change, causality, laws of nature, etc. - pillars of reality! And I mention an explicit example of a viable model with eternity of matter (contrary to Craig's claim that they don't exist) in the oldest comment in this comment section.
@@nemrodx2185 I vehemently disagree with the second premise. As someone from a Soviet culture (now an immigrant in the USA), I think it's obvious that matter can only move and change but it can't pop out of nowhere, you learn before you're one year old that that is nonsense! In other words, matter is obviously eternal and that is the only way it can be, ditto for time space, motion, change, causality, laws of nature, etc. - pillars of reality! And I mention an explicit example of a viable model with eternity of matter (contrary to Craig's claim that they don't exist) in the oldest comment in this comment section.
The scientism is very strong with this one.
I vehemently disagree with the second premise. As someone from a Soviet culture (now an immigrant in the USA), I think it's obvious that matter can only move and change but it can't pop out of nowhere, you learn before you're one year old that that is nonsense! In other words, matter is obviously eternal and that is the only way it can be, ditto for time space, motion, change, causality, laws of nature, etc. - pillars of reality! And I mention an explicit example of a viable model with eternity of matter (contrary to Craig's claim that they don't exist) in the oldest comment in this comment section.
Do you know what scientism means? They’re not putting blind trust in science, but nuancing their discussion by leaving their options open. Dr. Craig is an intelligent man, but he has his mind made up and fosters an overconfidence in pop science to prove his point.
I just can’t resist…..
P1): Regarding the Kalam Cosmological Argument, Grayson doesn’t know what he is talking about.
P2): Grayson is unaware that he doesn’t know what he is talking about.
C): Therefore regarding the Kalam, Grayson continuously embarrasses himself without knowing it.
I noticed that he has some kind of DNA model behind him. Interestingly, the head of the human genome project, Francis Collins, is an evangelical Christian.
I feel like both have a sampling bias of who the overall scientists are that may or may not believe/acknowledge a beginning of the universe. Er... One of the two sides has a more credible sample than the other is the problem.
An example that comes to mind from recent times of sampling bias is about the relative dangers of COVID 19. There were a lot of experts on both sides... But man. I never saw as much death as 2020 and 2021 in my decade long career as an emergency room physician.
Anyway. I feel like this is a light warmup jog for Dr. Craig before writing books...
Kalaam argument is logical, but premise one is not yet completely clear.
If everything starts to exist has a cause, what does that mean by starts to exist? If it starts to exist means as a chair or a desk or as you or me as Craig says then there's always something before it starts to exist as whatever it is. Which is aligned with the first law of thermodynamics, energy is not destroyed or created but change its energy form. So its not starts to exist from nothing. You and i started from the mother's egg, single cell, and the father's sperm. And when they meet it started to exist as you or me. It splits to two, four, eight and so on. Extra materials or resources came from the mother, and the food she ate. Nothing from nothing.
And so as the BB, it started to exist as the universe from Singularity, not from nothingness. Where did the Singularity come from to started to exist as Singularity? We don't yet know. But it was there, whatever it was, that was equivalent in energy to the whole universe.
As for materials and immaterial, the universe is material. So the universe (material) didn't start to exist as the universe from nothing logically.
Q: What is the difference between an atheist and a flat earther?
A: What they deny.
Is it not strange when you change the argument the argument fails.
I have never heard of such academic dishonesty.
When you change why the points where.made.in the first place you fail to understand sthe actual argument presented.
Wow.
I vehemently disagree with the second premise. As someone from a Soviet culture (now an immigrant in the USA), I think it's obvious that matter can only move and change but it can't pop out of nowhere, you learn before you're one year old that that is nonsense! In other words, matter is obviously eternal and that is the only way it can be, ditto for time space, motion, change, causality, laws of nature, etc. - pillars of reality! And I mention an explicit example of a viable model with eternity of matter (contrary to Craig's claim that they don't exist) in the oldest comment in this comment section.
This guy is a clown.
That answer clarifying the confusion between efficient and material causes, just wow!
Yeah, it’s good. Two of Aristotle’s four types of causation.
Also I would respond to this objection by Grayson that he is confusing a thing with what it is made of.
Yeah....oh man...that was just painfully excruciatingly bad. The claims he makes....it's like is hanging out in the multiverse.
Space-Time Nature
"Since it's impossible to extend space-time through a singularity to a prior state, the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems implied the absolute beginning of the universe. Reflecting on the impact of this discovery, Hawking notes that the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems 'led to the abandonment of attempts (mainly by the Russians) to argue that there was a previous contracting phase and a non-singular bounce into expansion. Instead almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.' Dawkins apparently labors under the delusion that a singularity does not form a boundary to space and time." (cited in Craig, William Lane, "How Do We Know God Exists?, editor D.A. Carson; Lexham Press, Washington; 2022.: original Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton University Press, 1996), 20.)
PCW Davies: "the coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science ... Is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization... Upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing"("In the Beginning: In Conversation with Paul Davies and Philip Adams" (January 17, 2002), www.abc.net.au/science/bigquestions/s460625.htm.)
In fact, you don't need the universe to start for a cosmological argument to work, you just need the universe to not be its own cause, ie contingent. Leibniz' version can handle this.
If the Universe didn't begin, it doesn't have a creator, so no, at best you can say Leibniz's argument implies that there is a Creator and therefore that the second premise of the Kalam is true. But the question does boil down to whether matter or God is eternal - it's one or the other, either-or, whatever else might be true.
@@valinorean4816 Thanks. I don't think your first premise is right: I think things can be created eternally or outside time. But I do think the universe began
@@grantbartley483 Like a flute eternally playing music, then music has no beginning yet is created by the flute, I get it. But here, we have a clock ticking on its own, and the question is whether it was originally created by a Watchmaker or it has simply been ticking on its own in eternity with no special events.
@@valinorean4816 That's a nice metaphor
@@grantbartley483 Scientist also think that the universe began but, they don't think that it came from nothing or that there ever was a literal nothing.
The Kalam is just a poor attempt by a non subject matter expert to explain a complicated subject. As often happens non subject matter experts don’t realise that they do not realise the extent of their ignorance. There’s a one in a million chance that Craig knows as much on the subject as an expert.
The phrase begins to exist relates to creation ex nihilo ( from nothing) as distinct from creation ex material ( from pre- existing matter). The most we can say with our current understanding of the universe is that it appears to have expanded from a single point. We can speculate all we want about that point/ singularity.
For a cause to be a cause it has to act on something. If God is an uncaused cause, that is just special pleading. Without invoking magic how does a god create anything.
This comment merely begs the question against creation ex nihilo. But the argument shows both philosophically and scientifically that the universe had an absolute beginning, which entails creation ex nihilo.
Anyone who has read Dr. Craig's academic work on the subject, such as his chapter in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, knows that he is in fact well-qualified to speak on the relevant scientific aspects. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Is he a subject matter expert? Do other scientists quote his peer reviewed papers on cosmology?
Or does he try to use what other experts say without fully understanding how they reached their conclusions and the implications of those conclusions?
I'd love to see Bill react to the videos made by Majesty of Reason/Joe Schmid on the Kalam, he's always very charitable, and I believe he points out some notable flaws in this popular formulation of the Kalam!
I think most of Joe's arguments are held by Dr. Malpass. Craig had a very interesting debate with Malpass on those issues.
Yea he should cover them
The universe did not begin to exist it simply went through a change which is colloquially known as the big bang. It has always existed.
There seems to be a growing audience to the silence on the first law of thermodynamics in Dr. Craigs' Kalam Argument. How can we explain God's touch on matter and energy and its origin?
It's a silly argument that's why. Applying physics laws to the One who made the laws.
@@pitAlexx As soon as you introduce supernatural causes, you open a whole can of worms. Everything becomes unfalsifiable. All problems can be solved, and simultaneously none of them can be. So yes, you cannot apply physical reasoning to God, but by that logic, you also cannot use the Kalam as an argument.
There’s also Professer Dave Explains who has a five part series in debunking Creationism, love to see you guys go over those videos.
He's debunking young earth creationism. Craig doesn't believe in that
@@PhilosophyUnraveled Yeah I know but he also went over the Kalam Cosmology theory as well.
@MarkSide_ yea but he didnt really debunk anything. Forced his own ideas and beliefs in it.
Oppy denies 1. Daniel Linford denies 2. Next.
Dr. Craig has already responded to Oppy's fanciful metaphysical musings in an article. He has already confirmed that he will respond to Dan Linford about the "mentaculus" in his systematic theology as well (although I suspect he won't need much for that: Linford forgets that an entropy reversal is extraordinarily unlikely to be observed, so we should be somewhere else in the eternal universe, like Boltzmann brains, rather than in the low entropy region).
@@caiomateus4194 "Dr. Craig has already responded to Oppy's fanciful metaphysical musings in an article. He has already confirmed that he will respond to Dan Linford about the "mentaculus" in his systematic theology as well (although I suspect he won't need much for that : Linford forgets that an entropy reversal is extraordinarily unlikely to be observed, so we should be somewhere else in the eternal universe, like Boltzmann brains, rather than in the low entropy region."
Not to mention that Loke already debated with both of them and the result is quite evident. Certainly the analysis of both debates, especially by Loke, is very enriching.
There is an explicit example of a token consistent past-eternal model on the rationalwiki page about William Lane Craig, in the reference [18] after the sentence saying "Before the expansion started, the universe existed in a low-entropy nonexpanding state eternally."
RationalWiki is a polemicist joke
@@PhilosophyUnraveled the paper in question is not a joke
@@valinorean4816 is it the one just criticizing craig for when he supposedly uses fallacies in his debates
@@PhilosophyUnraveled I'm talking about one specific model, not the whole page
I finally found the article you attempted to discuss with me in another thread.
The idea of "Rube Goldberg Cosmology" isn't popular in the scientific community because it resembles Rube Goldberg machines, which are overly complicated and impractical.
Here are a few reasons why:
1. Simplicity: Scientific theories aim to be simple and elegant. Complex models are harder to justify.
2. Testability: Theories need to make clear, testable predictions. A complicated model makes this difficult.
3. Occam’s Razor: The simplest explanation is usually the best. A complex approach goes against this principle.
4. Practicality: Theories need to be practical and applicable to real-world observations. Overly complex models are impractical.
While Rube Goldberg machines are creative and fun, their complexity doesn't fit well with the principles of scientific theories in cosmology.
Edit: It also starts with a "eternally existing" universe as foundational, informs that entropy that doesn't change, yet waves of "something?" are traveling at light speed. This and other nonsense prevades this view.