PHILOSOPHY - Religion: Cosmological Argument #1 [HD]
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- Part 1 of a pair. Timothy Yenter (University of Mississippi) lays out a classic argument for the existence of God, called 'The Cosmological Argument' -- roughly, the idea that something has to explain why the world is the way it is, and that something is God. He distinguishes two versions: the Beginnings Argument, and the Modal Argument. He covers the Beginnings Argument.
See part 2 here: • PHILOSOPHY - Religion:...
Help us caption & translate this video!
amara.org/v/ErgY/
![PHILOSOPHY - Religion: Cosmological Argument #2 [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mBMAMIFw9n4/mqdefault.jpg)
![PHILOSOPHY - Religion: Cosmological Argument #2 [HD]](/img/tr.png)
Or a better rebuttal to the "scientific" evidence for the kalam cosmological evidence is that the big bang theory doesn't state that the universe began to exist, but that at some point in "time" all the matter in the universe was condensed in a singularity.
Yeah which means that this "at some point in time" had a beginning because the universe consists of MATTER. What is the universe without the matter? Nothing.
@@aybb1965 or you could read what I wrote- the matter was there, but in a condensed state. So the big bang doesn't describe matter coming in to being, but matter changing state from a singularity to a plurality.
The universe is about 13 1/2 billion years old so 15 billion years ago where was the universe there was none no one says what you stated
And you're right neither are scientific arguments.
@@LordYon13 Theists don't say 'big bang indicates a begin of all matter, so all matter has a begin'. We don't depend on scientific statements (they are not always reliable). In Kalam (islamic philosophy) we use logical arguments to prove that anything that occupies space (jism/matter) is finite. This can be used when we talk about the contingency argument (to prove that material entities are contingent beings). When we are the cosmological argument we use the argument from the contradiction of infinite regress (called tasalsul in islamic philosophy). Infinity can't be divided by definition. Since time (definition of time is crucial) can be divided, time isn't infinite (past-eternal). Therefore time is finite (when we talk about past). With this said, we can say that all mater began to exist (they all are within space and time). And we can say that (with the cosmological argument) a non-material necessary being that isn't within space and time.
My own opinion is that the contingency argument is better than this argument, because it doesn't have any a posteriori statement in it. It would be good if you have a look on the contingency argument (it could change your perspective). You can read the book Burhān of Mohammed Hijab. Or can watch one video of Thought adventure podcast
Something that proves God exists, is his creation, everything from small as an atom to big as the universe, is made to perfection, its impossible for nothing to make everything, because if it was nothing it would stay nothing, when you see a building it proves that theres builders , when you see a painting it proves that theres painters, if we follow logic, a building cant make it self , in the Quran it says "Do they not look at the sky above them?- How We have made it and adorned it, and there are no flaws in it?" When you see the sky , its perfect and couldn't have been any better, because all Gods creation is made to perfection
Why must the cause be god? Specifically the god of the bible, why not any other monotheistic or polytheistic god(s). Why not a group of technologically advanced aliens. This is assuming, that the argument holds up to this point, which it doesn’t.
First off, Jesus Christ existed historically and we are able to prove His divinity, and second off, prove to me that it is the aliens and not God.
"The Big Bang Theory shows us that the universe had a beginning" [5:30]
Wrong. It only tells us that in the past the universe was hot and dense, NOT that it began to exist.
+3DMint The concept of space and therefore time did not exist before the big bang so therefore you could not say that there was time before what we call the big bang.
+TheHanspeter8 The fact that our concepts of space and time break down at the point of the big bang does not mean that they do not exist at that point of time. The burden of proof lies with those claiming that the big bang was actually the beginning of the universe, and that assertion cannot be proven with the scientific data that we have collected thus far.
+zacool64 space time theorem
zacool64
Actually, Vilenkin says that our space-time universe did begin to exist. He says that ALL of the evidence points in that direction.
FALSE BVG has mathematically proven the universe has a beginning and if expansion can be demonstrated in a universe, it had a beginning. 3D you are full of poop.
I don't see any inconsistency about an actual infinite existing physically. In math, a function or set of functions can fill an actual infinite, and physicists seem to agree all physical reality can be described in terms of perhaps a single mathematical function.
Or it could be the big bang is the true beginning of everything and physical reality is a ray function. Either way is mathematically sound.
Xander Patten the problem I've heard with this is that, while an infinite series is perfectly conceivable, some series cannot be infinite, like the chicken and the egg.
You seem to be arguing that this isn't that kind of a series though, so your argument may work if it's defensible.
There is a distinction between a potential infinite and an actual infinite. A potential infinite wouldn't be an actual infinite if described as x or y. If you can divide the infinite, it would not be half an infinite. However, if half an infinite is an actual number, the other half would also be a limited number, hence not infinite. The proposition that you can count from the present and into the infinite, still doesn't imply something infinite (as there will always be a countable limit), and the same goes for negatives. Even if the idea could be expressed, it would still only be a potential infinite.
All physical reality can not simply be discovered by physics, so I am not sure why this is relevant. If you assume the universe to be all of reality, physicists can figure this one out, but this is far from conclusive. In fact, the very idea of nothing seem to be incoherent. If causality is necessary for a beginning, it would only seem logical to me that nothing is incoherent, as ex nihilo nihil fit.
an infinite existence is a contingent existence, meaning it must depend on something in order to exist. There are two types of existence, necessary and contingent. Contingent being it must depend on something to exist, and necessary being it doesn't depend on something else to exist. So, if we have a series of existence which is dependent on something to exist (contingent), then an impossibility would occur, because there must be first a necessary existence to be present in order to create a series of dependent things. Existence would not be possible without a necessary existence
I’m high af on some weed and took Adderall earlier for an exam... look where I find my self now
I can debunk al the objection, this is a valid argument for god, you forgot to talk about the other argument like hilberts hotel paradox. As an actual infinite is absurd due to contradictions
wrong it all breaks down at the planck length and time where the creation of time first occurs in our universe ,,....
The cosmological argument is very weak. It assumes the universe has to have a cause, but no one has ever managed to prove this.
Ozzyman200 ءevey cause has a causer and universe itself is cause because it begun to exist.
It makes sense that every thing came for a reason. Look at the food Chain and photosynthesis!!!!! 🤓
@Ozzyman
The universe needing a cause is essentially proven or at least inferred by all observable effects having causes in Perpetua..... we are following cause and effect both forwards and backward in time to have one supremely intelligent conscious being be the first cause and the final effect.....
Do you believe your body, life, family and the ground you get to walk on are all a gift or something else? If you believe it is something else then what do you think it is then?
A war was started in heaven over property rights, namely, the right to own excessive wealth, is it greater then the right of the starving to stay alive. And so, the cause for our Universe being created is to allow the one billion most intelligent to starve to death the one billion least intelligent and for the 6 billion most indifferent to seek all pleasure and avoid all pain.
Correct.
without God, nothing would make everything. yeah, nothing can't make anything at all. Facts!
If an infinite series of events has happened up until now, then
1. everything which could have happened has already happened.
If everything is contingent (is not necessary), then
2. it is possible for nothing to exist.
If at some point nothing ever existed, then
3. nothing could exist now, since nothing can come from nothing (everything needs a cause).
So, we must reject either 1 or 2 (3 is self-evident).
Reject 1, that the universe is an infinite series of causes which already happened:
Then the universe came into being at some point and requires a cause. This cause we call God.
Or, reject 2, that everything is contingent:
Then, there must be some being which exists by necessity, and this we call God.
Therefore, God exists of necessity.
QED
Jared Dembrun there is issues with your 3. P everything need a cause they imply god would need a cause then
Just be careful of your wording
The assumption was that everything is contingent. If this is the case, then everything needs a cause.
If everything is not contingent, then something is necessary. That necessary thing is God (and doesn't need a cause, since it's necessary).
As for your second premise, there would never have been an obsolete "nothing" in the first place if there were an infinite regression. Meaning something has had to always exist or existed prior.
The nature of G_d provided by Moses Maimonides is that of Divine Simplicity. G_d's essence and existence is absolutely united together and cannot be divisible. What his attributes are, are innately perfected in that unity of essence and existence, Only such an entity can be a necessary being for existence. This whom we as Jews call G_d. Since Thomas Aquinas made a similar claim for Catholics it is likely that the Jewish G_d and the Catholic G_d are one and the same because at a metaphysical level at least they claim the same entity as G_d.
Jared Dembrun very good argument indeed I agree with you also well explained deep thought analysis my friend
The argument is obviously brain dead because, firstly, it has not been established that "everything must have a cause", and secondly, if it was true, gods would have to have a cause, too.
It is easily demonstrable that if something began to exist then it had a cause. And, for the record, no, God needn't have a cause.
Aquinas never said that, He says, "every thing that begins to exists needs a cause.
then he concluded that there is a Uncaused caused.
Can someone\something Caused the Uncaused caused? that's a childish question and it doesn't makes sense.
@Jakkoa
God is the first cause and final effect, we know the universe is an effect started by a cause because we observe all effects around us having a cause, so the universe having a cause is proven or at least inferred by this phenomenon.....
Do you believe your body, life, family and the ground you get to walk on are all a gift or something else? If you believe it is something else then what do you think it is then?
Effect can come before a cause though, as quantum physics has shown time & time again.
Isn't retrocasuality kind of a fringe science? Like it isn't something that has not been generally accepted?
Huh? Quantum eraser experiments showed that causality is irrelevant. The effect determines the past and present. Space-time is all block time, after big bang exploded. And every even that can happen will & could happen within the space-time block, arising from the collapsing the wave-function & quantum fluctuations. As how I understand it.
OnlineDater69 "Quantum eraser experiments showed that causality is irrelevant" are you sure that's what the eraser experiment says causality is irrelevant, are you sure the experiment perhaps only suggested our notion of cause and effect may be faulty? Look man I struggle hard to understand this stuff. I can sort of grasp the idea of collapsing wave functions and that perhaps the universe sprang from a quantum fluctuations. But I'm going to real with you man, I love science and philosophy more than anything. But still it is a challenge for me to jump to justifiable conclusions, particularly one as fundamental as the nature of causality, based on justified true belief like. I guess what I'm asking is, are you sure causality is irrelevant?
Thanks for inserting your qualifications into the argument/discussion lol Isn't causality just a way for us to process time as human beings? That is basically it. Time itself does not exist, it is proven to be tied in with space-time block dimension. It's just a measurement. I'm not saying here that I know everything lol "Reality" is a perfectly structured system created from "God" by "God" for "God" as in pantheism. It is being proved again and again by science, just because it is not generally accepted now does not mean it will not be in the future, as you know that's how science works in paradigm shifts. It is objectively irrelevant, but not irrelevant in a sense because it exists in reality haha Many quantum experiments have proven it to be "irrelevant". We don't know anything about anything in my opinion if you think about it.
Yeah sorry about that college bit,I meant to removed that before you got the wrong idea about what I was saying about me going to college. I meant to say I went to college and still feel like an idiot.
I reject your claim that quantum eraser experiments have actually proven a violation of causality. I did a preliminary search to see if the quantum eraser violated causality and the answer I seem to be getting is no. Don't misunderstand I'm not arguing from a position that I'm right, I'm simply saying I disagree with your original post that seems to suggest that causality can be violated. Again sorry for the college bit, I erased that.
It’s as if COSMOS comes from the root word “Cause” 😮
I’m sure the first people who came up with this title are far more enlightened than we are today 😂
If an infinity has occurred does it not then lose its infinity definition? Once something has stopped occurring it must be defined as finite, right?
+Chris Moseley No. Why would it. There are infinite numbers between 0 and 1. Just because it has a beginning and an end doesn't make it finite.
Can you argue that the infinite numbers between 0 and 1 have an end though? They have numbers on either side, that I would say are *outside* that infinity, but I wouldn't say they are the beginning and end of that infinite series.
[0,1] Includes 0 and 1 (0,1) doesn't.
@@SpionCTFT so would the infinite amount between 0 and 2 be greater than the infinite amount between 0 and 1?
@@ConsiderThis12 In a word: No.
What about the Aristotelian/Aquinas Argument from Motion?
Yesterday, atheists said " we don't believe in anything that cant be felt or seen " , and today they're shivering in their homes of some thing that cant be seen or touched (corona)
So weak. Please stop😅🖐🏼
The first two premises you mention may well be wrong. For cause and effect you would need the dimension of time, by definition. If time didn't exist prior to the big bang then there is no such thing as cause and effect. Also, we don't know if the big bang was the beginning let alone whether the expansion came from a singularity. You cannot prove a God or gods with these fallacious arguments.
Think I'll drink another beer
With all your so-called complex postulation it all comes down to FAITH; either you believe in God of you don’t. To try to explain or qualify the existence God is a fools errand at best.
God is Existence itelf. Existence is uncreated and Eternal.
I think even God would like if we used the gift of wisdom and knowledge and curriosity to come to know of Him that way. Especially when we are trying to evangilize and some people are not convinced without logic like this. But I do think someone who does not know of these can still be very Holy and theres nothing wrong with knowing.
I slightly disagree. I think the discussion of a god or godlike being is very interesting and can lead to some even more interesting thoughts. Even if I don’t believe god exist I can entertain the idea and branch off into philosophical notions that is at the very least fun for my brain.
Timothy yenter? Really?
The idea that in order for our universe to occur it would require "counting" through an infinite number of steps to get to that possibility is wrong. Infinity would contain an infinite number of universes exactly like ours, infinity doesn't make things impossible it makes them inevitable.
Hi Phookadude,
I don't think the video says that an infinite number of cause-and-effect events need to occur for our universe to exist. The videos says that this notion doesn't seem to make sense. The unlikelihood of the universe coming from an infinite series of cause-and-effect events is precisely the grounds for having the Cosmological Argument.
You also said "infinity would contain an infinite number of universes..." I don't quite understand what that means. Can you clarify?
The supercounter thing does not work because there IS a smallest unit of meaningful time, so in order to actually "count" you'd have to pause at least that amount of time to count again.
But you can split that in half
Hi Phookadude,
Are you saying that an infinite number of cause-and-effect events will give rise to an infinite number of universes? Any version of the universe must exist, because there are an infinite number of them? Is that your thought?
Regarding Kalam: things actually never 'begin to exist'- they are transformations of pre-existing matter/energy. So the Kalam argument should actually lead us to conclude that the universe did not emerge from nothing, but was a transformation of preexisting stuff, thus undermining the theistic doctrine of creation ex nihilo!
Exept that, that "preexisting stuff" that caused the Universe is not bound by matter, nor bytime, nor byspace. You can argue those are concepts of phsical laws, but again the question how and why those abstract physical laws came into existance, arises. And how can laws of physics creates somthing with nothing (no matter, no space, no time, no nothing, just abstract laws) ? ...
@@h20taku60 Assuming your critique is correct, we can ask the same of God. What was it that caused God to create the universe? What was God doing before he created the universe and what caused him to decide to create it when he did?
And if actual infinities cannot exist (as you suggest), then God is finite. But I doubt that's something most theists would like to concede;).
It seems to me that there is nothing logically incoherent about the idea of ever-changing/transforming matter/energy having existed forever- e.g., as an endless and beginningless series of big bangs.
Things can't be infinite in a finite universe. Physics is like math but it is stuck in our universe so limits. Math and philosophy can exceed those limits and understand the whole of the multiverse
Depends on what you mean by "things". Do you mean concepts? If so, then they certainly can be infinite. For example, there's an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2. 1.1, 1.11, 1.111, and so on. However, if you mean physical, tangible things, then I happen to agree.
Stormfather k how did I find another Star vs fan here?
There is no such thing as a beginning. All events can always be traced back to something before.
and the point of Aquinas is simple, if there would be no beginning there can be no events now.
The suppression of the first Caused\Mover and\Necessary Being will lead to the suppression of subsequent Effects\Motion\and possible existence, that will lead to the suppression of Effects\Motion\and possible existence that we commonsensically experience now.
At the beginning of the Big Bang, time warps into a space dimension, so there is a beginning to our dimension of time, but that does not mean that the Big Bang caused the universe to begin to exist.
god was created by humans
Your brain is dead.
Dazed Maestro Well I think if he elaborated more on such a topic the logic for that idea isn’t too Far off. God being a man made construct to explain the unexplained. Then man widening that definition continuously until it becomes something that isn’t real because that tries to make it too real.
How do you get to the 2nd second? If you have to go through an infinite amount of "sup-seconds" first?
If you've ever taken calculus, you would know that the area under a curve is (essentially) found by adding infinitely small strips going from the axis to the function, and the sum of those 0 areas within a boundary give you the total area.
The reason is because an infinite sum of 0's is undefined. This is why any number divided by 0 is also considered undefined.
So to answer your question as straightforward as possible, the reason you can reach the 2nd second is because the sum of time among the infinitely small moments between the first and 2nd second is equal to 1 second.
In calculus, we would say that the derivative of time is 1 second per second (1 second passes every second). This would look like a flat line extending from y=1.
Therefore, the integral of this function (or the function for time itself) is y=x, meaning that the number of seconds that have passed is equal to the number of seconds passed times the rate of time passing (1 second per second).
In calculating the time between second 2 and 1, we would then simply subtract the value of the integrals. 2 -1 = 1 second.
All of this is, behind the scenes, adding up the infinitely fragmented time frames between the 2 seconds.
@@Nathan-tg4gu but that’s a conceptual way over a physical
3:20 yes, yes it does make perfect sense to speak about infinite causes. And the premise that "everything that begins to exist" is already completely unfounded because there is no reason to conclude that anything has ever began to exist. The first law of thermodynamics/law of conservation of energy states that nothing begins to exist or ceases to exist.
Well as the video pointed out, those are the kind of rules that apply within the universe. But we don't know if we can apply those rules to the universe itself.
Isn't it also a fallacy to consider the universe as a thing? Space, time and the whole of it, are tough 'things' to ascribe qualities to. Its just a question about how we should define it, not about what it is. (Because 'IT' isn't)
*God's blessings.*
👂👂
I think we can agree this is above our heads, whether you believe in God or not. It takes faith to be a religious believer OR an atheist! Lol. Just don't get mad an abusive, please. We all have emotions in this whether we admit it or not.
it takes faith to conclude a positive "god" out of this, It doesn't take any faith to not make any conclusion, or to disregard any conclusion that is made. No atheist I ever met claims he can be 100% sure there is no god, but it just makes about as much sense for god to be a first cause as for a leprechaun to be. Ask any atheist, and the answer you'll get is "I am technically an agnostic, but for all intents and purposes I am an atheist". In addition, if you use god as a first cause, you will be left with the exact same problem, since god would also have to have a cause if you use this premise.