If it were me, I'd be more "struck" by Craig trying to discredit any science that doesn't do the heavy lifting for his God 🤷♂️ There's a whole world of science and ideas around this that are exciting and challenging... Craig wants to convince his audience that the easiest answer is the correct one.
@@philosophicaltheist7706 7:38 supports Mike’s claim. Dr. Craig simply writes off these classes of models as “unreasonable” despite them being quite reasonable. His argument is fundamentally circular: The universe must have a first cause because it cannot be infinitely old.
I have never seen a scientist say the universe did not have a beginning. This just seems like 3 amateurs trying to disprove God by denying most secular science, because they have an odd obsession with Dr. Craig, and are trying to find ways to defeat his views, no matter how silly it makes them seem. It can be possible for the universe to start randomly, as my college Astronomy text book put it, "Nothing is unstable, so something was created out of nothing," and many people seem to have such a view who deny the existence of the creator. This appears to be some people projecting their own misuse of Science on Craig, without the self awareness that they are actually misusing science. I'd have much more respect for them if they just tried to answer scientific questions while assuming there is no creator than to take this rout of, we need going to counter every thing Dr. Craig says because we can't handle disagreements. Why such the obsession over one guy?
@@mikeambs You could have given names of prominent, scientists, or even addressed my other more meaningful points, but instead you just said "goggle it" in a condescending manner...well done.
@@ji8044 You can be a jerk about it if you want, but I never heard this notion all through College when I was not christian but a full believer in Science. It was always taught the universe had a beginning. But stay classy, but it is not going to get me to consider your ideas and change my own, as much as being a human about it would.
It is good. BTW I see your flag. Ukraine is losing thousands and thousands of men per month. KIA, injured and desertion. They really could use your help. Have you considered voluteering?
I really think it would be beneficial for Dr. Craig to be shown these responses in their entirety, despite their length.. With clips selected for his viewing it seems like each of these responses are only talking past the rebuttals that Joe and his guests have been offering, as they have taken their time to respond to each of Dr. Craig's points. It may end up more lengthy, but I think that Dr. Craig sitting through the entirety of these rebuttals would be more constructive for both sides.
☝️☝️☝️ Exactly... I don't think it's the intent here to keep Craig in some kind of bubble here, but it's certainly the result. It's unfair to his audience to deprive them actual info vs the bumper sticker length arguments that he (clearly) feels more comfortable rebutting.
@@imabeast7560 Only two options here. 1) Craig has never followed general relativity to its natural conclusion... and he's intentionally avoiding it, or 2) he's still aware that a "personal" God is not needed to kick off a new instantiation of space-time... and is being knowingly misleading. Which is it? 🤷♂️
@@mikeambs Could you explain the two things mentioned in your comment further? 1) What is the natural conclusion of general relativity? 2) What can initiate a new instantiation of space-time?
@Nitroade24 Yes, that science should be used in a certain way. Some might say it was "designed" to be used in a certain way. And others will tell you you are misusing science.
@@WhatsTheTakeaway I don’t think it’s necessarily that Craig is using science for something against its telos, just that he’s making unjustified scientific inferences.
@Nitroade24 I don't buy that. In that trivial sense, everyone is probably making a misuse of science, including Schmid and Lindford, just due to our epistemic limitations and overall fallibility. I take it that Schmid, at least initially, was trying to make a stronger claim that had an ethical dimension to it. As if Craig was knowingly misleading people about science.
@Nitroade24 I get what you are saying, I just don't get that impression from their video. It really seemed that they believe science says what THEY think it says and if anyone implies anything else from the evidence, then it's "misuse." I think atheists need to take a step back if that is what they believe.
But that's the problem, Joe is not a "sophisticated" philosopher. He's an utter joke. I challenged him in the comments section of a previous video he did, arguing again against Dr Craig's claims - I can't remember which argument now - and he gave me compartmentalised responses and just refused to engage in the overall picture. Needless to say, it sounds the same here. Not understanding your opponent's argument well enough and misrepresenting them is the worst thing you can do, in such debates. And that while the classic models support a more viable physics that explains the universe we observe, there's no consensus which one is true, but at least that's a better class of models than the beginningless models, which are utterly untenable when it comes to our universe.
*"Alexander Vilenkin - Did Our Universe Have a Beginning?"* by Closer To Truth ( ua-cam.com/video/hNCJAtAkOf4/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared ) Low Bar Bill never disappoints in being always fully committed in displaying his total ignorance of the current science and the data, that we have currently, and what the current experts of the field think actually of it currently.
What's the alternative to a beginning, an eternal universe without a beginning? That's just posing a brute fact universe that has no cause for all the structure it has. That sounds improbable. It seems the only way to account for all the laws of Nature being consistent everywhere is to pose a common cause of the whole universe, which is what a beginning means.
Wouldn't God be somewhat of a brute fact as well? It just seems to kick the cosmological can down the road, so to speak. Why not just posit the initial state of the universe as a brute fact, if indeed there were such a thing.
Consider the integers. There is no first integer. There need not be anyone to create the integers. As long as you accept the axioms on which they are based, they are inevitable. It’s my belief that the universe exists in a similar way. We may be part of a large scale mathematical construction that follows logically from its rules, with no need for a creator.
@Ashriel_bruh God's existence wouldn't be a brute fact. Something is brute if it has no explanation, but God's existence does have an explanation, namely, he exists by the necessity of his own nature (he is self-existent). You might want to ask why you can't say the same thing about the universe; why can't the universe be self-existent? The problem is that there is nothing about the universe that would explain or entail it being self-existent. If it were to be self-existent, then it's self-existence would be a brute fact, which just kicks the bruteness from "the universe exists without explanation" to "the universe is self-existent without explanation". And neither of those views is acceptable since neither of those views explain anything. The same isn't true for God, however. As a perfect being, God must be self-existent, as self-existence is necessarily entailed by what a perfect being is. I am actually currently working on an argument for God's existence that talks about all of this. I call it "The Ontological Contingency Argument" as it incorporates aspects of both the ontological argument and the contingency argument.
@@Jack-z1z What you seem to be doing is replacing “greatness” with “perfection”. Both are arbitrary metrics that you can define at your whim so that God is the maximal solution. Then, you define an existent entity to be “greater” or “more perfect” than a nonexistent one. That is, you’re circularly defining God to exist in a way that distracts from that circularity.
@@Jack-z1z I could do the same for any entity I wanted. For instance, Greg the Goblin satisfies maximal blargness. Furthermore, an existent entity is more blarg than a nonexistent one. Therefore, Greg the Goblin exists by definition.
The idea that the universe requires a beginning is false AMF is the operational version of Godel incompleteness. As are having a VISIBLE universe , a boundary of resolution at both ends. I suggest that time is a compact dimension. This is why there is conservation. Why there are limits. . Having limits and distance creates a gradient. The gradient from minima to maxima, from Lambda to event horizon, we call gravity.
Craig doesn’t have the time. He is in his 70s and is working on his largest body of work. He cannot really devote the same hours Joe Schmidt gives to the videos. There is both an age and time commitment factor. I love both WLC and Joe and I wish WLC spent more hours doing the responses but it’s not going to happen and not as a result of malicious intent
"The evidence rules out pretty decisively beginning-less models" (12:57 - 13:02). Sorry Dr Craig that is incorrect. Certain interpretations of the evidence rule out such models. The evidence itself does no such thing.
William Lane Craig dances between science and his own vision of philosophy so frequently and so quickly that it is very difficult to take him seriously. Every discussion in science includes a clear validation of the reliability and accuracy of the hypotheses, and it is clear that we have no information on the reliability or accuracy of the hypotheses regarding what happened before the Big Bang, if you can use the word "before" in this context. But Craig decides, just because he is Craig, that we know what happened at that moment, and that his claim is scientific. This is on the very border of fraud.
If science deals with physical explanations, then science has nothing to say about what caused the beginning of the universe. Thus, a metaphysical explanation is required. This is precisely why Dr. Craig, who has studied both cosmology and philosophy, is well-equipped to speak on the matter. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Craig might be good at philosophy but he is by far an amateur in cosmology. He pretends to both use and contradict what true cosmologists say, so you can be sure his opinions on cosmology are useless. By your own definitions, the science of cosmology has nothing to say about what caused the beginning of the universe, so Craig, with his studies in cosmology, has nothing to say either. According to the partial consensus of actual cosmologists, time as we know it also started with the beginning of the universe, so there was never a time when the universe did not exist. This means that if Craig accepts what he has studied regarding cosmology, then there was no beginning of the universe and his Kalam argument is moot. He can renege on the cosmology that he has studied and make his Kalam arguments or he can accept the model proposed by any true cosmologist, including the fact that the beginning of the universe, if it existed at all, is far too complex for his simplistic Kalam.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg This is very telling. You don't know what "caused" the universe... hell, you don't even know that a "cause" is required or part of our universe's past. I dare you to address Penrose or black hole universe theories... but you can't 🤷♂️ you would simply dismiss and misrepresent them in under 15 seconds... anything to avoid your audience actually learning something about this beautiful and complex world we find ourselves in.
@@andresvillarreal9271 //He pretends to both use and contradict what true cosmologists say, so you can be sure his opinions on cosmology are useless.// Cosmologists often step outside their field of expertise into philosophy when they opine on the implications or entailments of their models and data. For example, you have people like Stephen Hawking defending ridiculous positions like ontological pluralism, or claims like "Because there is a force like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." This is why someone like Dr. Craig, who is familiar with both the cosmology and philosophy, is better equipped to provide coherent explanations. //According to the partial consensus of actual cosmologists, time as we know it also started with the beginning of the universe, so there was never a time when the universe did not exist.// Right. Time had a beginning. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Thus, time has a cause. Since the cause cannot be part of the universe itself (self-causation is impossible), the cause of time must itself transcend the physical universe. //This means that if Craig accepts what he has studied regarding cosmology, then there was no beginning of the universe and his Kalam argument is moot.// Imagine someone saying "Because I was running throughout the entire race, I never began to run." You would rightfully say that's absurd. It's the same with the beginning of the universe. You admit that the whole universe began a finite time ago, but deny that the universe requires a cause for its existence. This just is to deny the causal premise, the alternatives to which are either that something can come into existence uncaused or is self-caused. Which are you going with? //He can renege on the cosmology that he has studied and make his Kalam arguments or he can accept the model proposed by any true cosmologist, including the fact that the beginning of the universe, if it existed at all, is far too complex for his simplistic Kalam.// Most models today include an absolute beginning in the finite past. The ones that don't generally lack empirical support or contain massive internal problems. Dr. Craig surveys (with plenty of citations of the work of top cosmologists) the major families of these models in his books Reasonable Faith and The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. If you've never read his work on the subject, we highly recommend you do. - RF Admin
@ReasonableFaithOrg Because an already existing thing expanding is different to something coming into existence..... It's the difference between blowing up a balloon, and magically bringing a balloon into existence.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg wow, an actual reply from the RF team. Didn't think you guys ever looked at the conversations these videos kick off. And yes, Craig is 100% misrepresenting (conflating) the "beginning".
@@somerandom3247 Any universe which has, on average, been expanding has an absolute beginning. This was proved by the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem in 2003. It provides a spacetime boundary past which the universe does not exist and which constitutes the universe's first moment of existence. And this is just one line of scientific evidence. The philosophical arguments against an actual infinite are sufficient to demonstrate that the universe is not past eternal. - RF Admin
Yes. And he also misuses logic. His favorite "Cosmological Argument" is based upon obvious fallacies. Whether or not there is a God is not a conclusion that can be arrived at by using Craig's "reasoning."
@@user-sq9ec1fz7o For example, he accepts as an axiom that there cannot be an actual infinite regress of causality. And, in fact, there are so-called "proofs" that such a thing as an "actual infinite" cannot exist. BUT it is JUST as easy to "prove" that actual infinites MUST exist. And, in fact, the "proofs" on both sides of that argument merely depend upon limitations of human thought. And as an interesting addendum that I just thought of: His "proof" assuming that there cannot be an actual infinite of causality would work just as well as a "proof" that a soul cannot possibly "live forever."
@@steverational8615 See my reply to the other person with the same question. You might not get a notification for it. (And you might need to set the "sort" to "newest first" in order to see it.)
@@ThatBoomerDude56 your objection is the same as Dr Malpass, but he does not actually show that a beginningless past is possible. Your equating an infinite past with a potentially infinite future. You are conflating them as equal which they are not. You can have a beginning and also have a potential infinite. Also the thing you tacked on at the end, you did not think of, it’s actually malpass who first coined the objection of the infinite soul. It’s not easy to prove infinites exist, there are simply contradictory arguments that are put forth for actual infinity. Also he doesn’t accept as an axiom that there can’t be an infinite regress. He simply says any argument that tries fails due to contradictions mathematically and physically. It also depends on which theory of time a person takes. I’m not an A theorist, and yet I do not find an infinite regress convincing just because someone says so.
Why discuss the origins of the universe? Genesis is not a science or history textbook. Georges Lemaitre the Belgian priest who first proposed the Big Bang Theory asked for a meeting with Pope Pius XII when he learned the Pope intended to more or less assert that it proved the Bible. What was said between them was not recorded but the Pope changed his speech after the meeting and said the following in the new text: “Will the path, undertaken by the spirit of man, which so far has been to his undisputed honor, later be open indefinitely to him and followed incessantly until the last mystery the universe has in store is solved? Or, on the contrary, is the mystery of nature so vast and hidden that the human spirit, for its intrinsic limitations and disproportions will never fathom it entirely? The answer of robust minds that have penetrated more deeply into the secrets of the cosmos, is rather modest and reserved. We are, they think, at the beginning; much ground remains to cover and it will be covered tirelessly; however, is there not some chance that even the most brilliant investigator will never be able to know, or even less to solve, all the mysteries contained within the physical universe?”
You are being dishonest as usual! The panel on Schmid's podcast has responded to all these points, and simply reuploading what you said before addresses nothing. There is no physics consensus about which model is likely correct, and backtracking to "a class of models" is not helping your case because there is no consensus on that either! As far as the physics consensus is concerned, there is no plausibly correct "class of models," whether with a beginning or with no beginning, that is held as plausible. Misleading your listeners with this gimmick on "class of models" only reinforces what the panel on Schmid's video said-that you are guilty of a misuse of science and your desperate argument should be considered refuted.
It is also inconsistent to claim that God can somehow exist timelessly 'sans' creation but in time from creation, while saying that the same cannot be true of the universe because the universe is "physical." I don't even understand where you acquired the arrogance to think you can know how physical reality on a grand scale could behave or that models in which time is an emergent feature of the universe (i.e., in which the universe could exist without time as we know it) must be incorrect. Why make such a special-pleading argument for God, a literal ghost with zero positive evidence at all, when you refuse to entertain the possibility of making it for physical reality, an entity we are pretty much confident is physically present but very difficult to understand because of its sheer grandeur and our limited tools and methods? This is nothing but hubris taken too far!
@@jaydon225 The Lambda-CDM model (the current standard big bang model) + initial singularity, and without inflation, is an extremely plausible model where the universe has a beginning. The H-H approach is also good if interpreted instrumentally. Thermodynamic arrow reversals without a multiverse (where there are actually two universes arising from a common point in time) are also candidates in principle. Therefore, it is patently false that there is a symmetry between models with and without beginnings in terms of plausibility. The reason God can have both timeless and temporal phases is that God is not subject to the laws of physics. Of course, you can always assume that the laws of physics we know break down at some point (for example, perhaps the laws of physics that governed the universe before its first 380,000 years are completely unknown, and we can't describe anything before that point on the basis of GR and QFT). However, this is not what cosmologists (unanimously) think. And why don't they think so? Because the skepticism of induction that follows from the rejection of the fact that the laws of physics are uniform over time would, if applied consistently, end up destroying the science of the natural history of the world. Of course, we can be wrong about which physical laws are fundamental, but if science says anything about the world, we must establish a limit to which we are approaching. As George Ellis says, there will almost certainly be only two paradigm shifts in theoretical physics at most. The underlying reasoning of some laws of physics, more specifically, has held true throughout all time. paradigm shifts under different applications (which include physical laws about the fact that motion is fundamental and essential to the universe). Furthermore, we know that no intelligible application of the theories that claim to replace the current paradigm foresee the possibility of a timeless static state. Is it better to bet on the possibility of a totally unimagined, unknown and never thought of model and physics? Why not say this about, for example, a supposed hidden mechanism of geology having caused the natural and random production of fossils, instead of concluding the evolution of species? Indeed, if the universe is not essentially temporal, why did it become temporal in the first place? No, there is no symmetry between God being timeless and the universe being timeless.
@caiomateus4194 your first comment is wrong. Inflation is a very plausible explanation of events prior to the Big Bang, so you can't say that the Lambda-CDM model "without inflation" works when we know that inflation is a fairly successful theory. Discarding a successful theory in such an arbitrary fashion to favour a less successful one because of your ideology is precisely the misrepresentation of science I have been complaining about. "The H-H model is also good if interpreted instrumentally"? Even if true, Craig cannot do that! He can't say that science is merely an instrument; he has to say it correctly tells us the way the world is. Otherwise, he would have to forfeit the fine-tuning argument, for example. Thermodynamic reversals do not imply the absolute beginning that Craig needs because, as Prof Sean Carroll explains, that divergence happens in the middle of the progression of physics, not at the beginning. A thermodynamic beginning is not an absolute beginning! Also, there are several beginningless models that are no less plausible than models with a beginning. Relying on the opinion of just one scientist (Vilenkin) is an appeal to authority fallacy. What we need is a consensus view, and as of now, none of the models (whether with a beginning or without) are taken to be viable by the consensus of cosmologists, and several other cosmologists, including colleagues of Vilenkin such as Guth, Aguirre, Ashtekar, etc think that some eternal-universe models are plausible. To your point on God being subject to the laws of physics… You said we can always "assume" the laws of physics break down at some point but "this is not what cosmologists think." I'd like a list of the cosmologists you know who believe that the laws of physics we have today existed before the Big Bang, or that the laws of physics we have today are somehow eternal and necessary. I cannot think of any cosmologist or physicist who believes this! You've basically just made that up! There is no reason, beside arrogant hubris, to assert that we know for sure that whatever existed prior to the Big Bang must resemble or conform to our local conditions. Moreover, we can ask the same questions about God. Is it better to bet on the possibility of a totally imaginary, unknown, and never-proven spirit as the creator of physical laws? Why not just say this about an initially unknown set of principles that go beyond the scope of our instruments and skills for now, and wait until we find better tools and have better skills and insight to uncover them? Indeed, if this never-proven spirit is essentially timeless, why did it become temporal in the first place? So, yes, there is plenty of symmetry between the God hypothesis and the eternal universe hypothesis. You just fail to see it for whatever reasons are best known to you! And before you give your usual conjectural answers to these questions, just know that I also have responses and further questions to those answers, and ultimately you will bottom out at some brute fact. God is not a solution. God is not an explanation. God is imaginary! The Kalam cosmological argument remains refuted!
@@caiomateus4194 your first comment is wrong. Inflation is a very plausible explanation of events prior to the Big Bang, so you can't say that the Lambda-CDM model "without inflation" works when we know that inflation is a fairly successful theory. Discarding a successful theory in such an arbitrary fashion to favour a less successful one because of your ideology is precisely the misrepresentation of science I have been complaining about. "The H-H model is also good if interpreted instrumentally"? Even if true, Craig cannot do that! He can't say that science is merely an instrument; he has to say it correctly tells us the way the world is. Otherwise, he would have to forfeit the fine-tuning argument, for example. Thermodynamic reversals do not imply the absolute beginning that Craig needs because, as Prof Sean Carroll explains, that divergence happens in the middle of the progression of physics, not at the beginning. A thermodynamic beginning is not an absolute beginning! Also, there are several beginningless models that are no less plausible than models with a beginning. Relying on the opinion of just one scientist (Vilenkin) is an appeal to authority fallacy. What we need is a consensus view, and as of now, none of the models (whether with a beginning or without) are taken to be viable by the consensus of cosmologists, and several other cosmologists, including colleagues of Vilenkin such as Guth, Aguirre, Ashtekar, etc think that some eternal-universe models are plausible. To your point on God being subject to the laws of physics… You said we can always "assume" the laws of physics break down at some point but "this is not what cosmologists think." I'd like a list of the cosmologists you know who believe that the laws of physics we have today existed before the Big Bang, or that the laws of physics we have today are somehow eternal and necessary. I cannot think of any cosmologist or physicist who believes this! You've basically just made that up! There is no reason, beside arrogant hubris, to assert that we know for sure that whatever existed prior to the Big Bang must resemble or conform to our local conditions. Moreover, we can ask the same questions about God. Is it better to bet on the possibility of a totally imaginary, unknown, and never-proven spirit as the creator of physical laws? Why not just say this about an initially unknown set of principles that go beyond the scope of our instruments and skills for now, and wait until we find better tools and have better skills and insight to uncover them? Indeed, if this never-proven spirit is essentially timeless, why did it become temporal in the first place? So, yes, there is plenty of symmetry between the God hypothesis and the eternal universe hypothesis. You just fail to see it for whatever reasons are best known to you! And before you give your usual conjectural answers to these questions, just know that I also have responses and further questions to those answers, and ultimately you will bottom out at some brute fact. God is not a solution. God is not an explanation. God is imaginary! The Kalam cosmological argument remains refuted!
@@caiomateus4194 your first comment is wrong. Inflation is a very plausible explanation of events prior to the Big Bang, so you can't say that the Lambda-CDM model "without inflation" works when we know that inflation is a fairly successful theory. Discarding a successful theory in such an arbitrary fashion to favour a less successful one because of your ideology is precisely the misrepresentation of science I have been complaining about. "The H-H model is also good if interpreted instrumentally"? Even if true, Craig cannot do that! He can't say that science is merely an instrument; he has to say it correctly tells us the way the world is. Otherwise, he would have to forfeit the fine-tuning argument, for example. Thermodynamic reversals do not imply the absolute beginning that Craig needs because, as Prof Sean Carroll explains, that divergence happens in the middle of the progression of physics, not at the beginning. A thermodynamic beginning is not an absolute beginning! Also, there are several beginningless models that are no less plausible than models with a beginning. Relying on the opinion of just one scientist (Vilenkin) is an appeal to authority fallacy. What we need is a consensus view, and as of now, none of the models (whether with a beginning or without) are taken to be viable by the consensus of cosmologists, and several other cosmologists, including colleagues of Vilenkin such as Guth, Aguirre, Ashtekar, etc think that some eternal-universe models are plausible.
Yes. He does. This even he knows. All this waffling and yapping about philosophical nonsense isn't going to get him from fraudulence, denial, misrepresentation of science to his God of choice.
@@nunya2076 I am not 👏 and neither is Craig. And when I listen to people who's entire career hinges on this topic they have no hesitation in calling Craig out for misrepresenting (to put it kindly) the science here. I mean, good Lord, Craig just sneaks in "personal" to his theory and we're all supposed to take that as a serious statement? 🙃
@@mikeambsWell then I'm just gonna assume listening to your thoughts on this is also like listening to an evangelical explain Judaism and not take you seriously either. I'm not a theist by the way.
I am struck by how Schmid uses two cosmologists with shared views to claim that they are the voice of all physicists on the origin of the universe.
If it were me, I'd be more "struck" by Craig trying to discredit any science that doesn't do the heavy lifting for his God 🤷♂️
There's a whole world of science and ideas around this that are exciting and challenging... Craig wants to convince his audience that the easiest answer is the correct one.
@@mikeambswhat exactly is Bill wrong about in your estimation?
@@philosophicaltheist7706 7:38 supports Mike’s claim. Dr. Craig simply writes off these classes of models as “unreasonable” despite them being quite reasonable. His argument is fundamentally circular: The universe must have a first cause because it cannot be infinitely old.
@@philosophicaltheist7706 Also, 11:11 makes this even more clear.
I understand that Linford is not a cosmologist but a philosopher and I'm not sure if Halper is a cosmologist.
I have never seen a scientist say the universe did not have a beginning. This just seems like 3 amateurs trying to disprove God by denying most secular science, because they have an odd obsession with Dr. Craig, and are trying to find ways to defeat his views, no matter how silly it makes them seem. It can be possible for the universe to start randomly, as my college Astronomy text book put it, "Nothing is unstable, so something was created out of nothing," and many people seem to have such a view who deny the existence of the creator.
This appears to be some people projecting their own misuse of Science on Craig, without the self awareness that they are actually misusing science. I'd have much more respect for them if they just tried to answer scientific questions while assuming there is no creator than to take this rout of, we need going to counter every thing Dr. Craig says because we can't handle disagreements. Why such the obsession over one guy?
You might want to go look into this topic then 😬 just cause you haven't heard it doesn't mean it's not out there.
@@mikeambs You could have given names of prominent, scientists, or even addressed my other more meaningful points, but instead you just said "goggle it" in a condescending manner...well done.
@ Roger Penrose is certainly a wonderful speaker on this topic.
"I have never seen a scientist say the universe did not have a beginning"
So you've never heard of Albert Einstein? .
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
@@ji8044 You can be a jerk about it if you want, but I never heard this notion all through College when I was not christian but a full believer in Science. It was always taught the universe had a beginning.
But stay classy, but it is not going to get me to consider your ideas and change my own, as much as being a human about it would.
Wow. Great video. I need to spend more time on the Kalam and these models.
It is good. BTW I see your flag. Ukraine is losing thousands and thousands of men per month. KIA, injured and desertion. They really could use your help. Have you considered voluteering?
I really think it would be beneficial for Dr. Craig to be shown these responses in their entirety, despite their length..
With clips selected for his viewing it seems like each of these responses are only talking past the rebuttals that Joe and his guests have been offering, as they have taken their time to respond to each of Dr. Craig's points.
It may end up more lengthy, but I think that Dr. Craig sitting through the entirety of these rebuttals would be more constructive for both sides.
☝️☝️☝️ Exactly... I don't think it's the intent here to keep Craig in some kind of bubble here, but it's certainly the result. It's unfair to his audience to deprive them actual info vs the bumper sticker length arguments that he (clearly) feels more comfortable rebutting.
100%
Trust he is well studied on all the arguments and probably has not heard anything new in years.
@@imabeast7560 Only two options here.
1) Craig has never followed general relativity to its natural conclusion... and he's intentionally avoiding it, or
2) he's still aware that a "personal" God is not needed to kick off a new instantiation of space-time... and is being knowingly misleading.
Which is it? 🤷♂️
@@mikeambs Could you explain the two things mentioned in your comment further?
1) What is the natural conclusion of general relativity?
2) What can initiate a new instantiation of space-time?
It seems to me that the notion of "misuse" implies a sort of telos to science.
They just mean that he infers invalid scientific conclusions based on the evidence.
@Nitroade24 Yes, that science should be used in a certain way. Some might say it was "designed" to be used in a certain way. And others will tell you you are misusing science.
@@WhatsTheTakeaway I don’t think it’s necessarily that Craig is using science for something against its telos, just that he’s making unjustified scientific inferences.
@Nitroade24 I don't buy that. In that trivial sense, everyone is probably making a misuse of science, including Schmid and Lindford, just due to our epistemic limitations and overall fallibility. I take it that Schmid, at least initially, was trying to make a stronger claim that had an ethical dimension to it. As if Craig was knowingly misleading people about science.
@Nitroade24 I get what you are saying, I just don't get that impression from their video. It really seemed that they believe science says what THEY think it says and if anyone implies anything else from the evidence, then it's "misuse." I think atheists need to take a step back if that is what they believe.
The answer to the headline question is NO
But that's the problem, Joe is not a "sophisticated" philosopher. He's an utter joke.
I challenged him in the comments section of a previous video he did, arguing again against Dr Craig's claims - I can't remember which argument now - and he gave me compartmentalised responses and just refused to engage in the overall picture.
Needless to say, it sounds the same here. Not understanding your opponent's argument well enough and misrepresenting them is the worst thing you can do, in such debates. And that while the classic models support a more viable physics that explains the universe we observe, there's no consensus which one is true, but at least that's a better class of models than the beginningless models, which are utterly untenable when it comes to our universe.
Joe's a good philosopher! Certainly more open-minded and keen on steelmanning his opponents than Craig is, without a doubt.
No cosmological models incorporate a "beginning". At most they incorporate a past boundary. That's not the same.
*"Alexander Vilenkin - Did Our Universe Have a Beginning?"* by Closer To Truth ( ua-cam.com/video/hNCJAtAkOf4/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared )
Low Bar Bill never disappoints in being always fully committed in displaying his total ignorance of the current science and the data, that we have currently, and what the current experts of the field think actually of it currently.
@@zsoltnagy5654 Craig is aware of videos like this but still keeps quoting Vilenkin wrongly. This should tell everyone that he is being dishonest.
@@jaydon225☝️☝️☝️ exactly.
Is this a reupload? Joe had the video 3 months ago and responded to this very video a month ago.
You really need to read paragraph 2 on page 107 of my treatise Kevin!
This is the state of the people they're cranking out of modern universities today
Creationists are the state of people they're cranking out in high schools these days.
What's the alternative to a beginning, an eternal universe without a beginning? That's just posing a brute fact universe that has no cause for all the structure it has. That sounds improbable. It seems the only way to account for all the laws of Nature being consistent everywhere is to pose a common cause of the whole universe, which is what a beginning means.
Wouldn't God be somewhat of a brute fact as well? It just seems to kick the cosmological can down the road, so to speak. Why not just posit the initial state of the universe as a brute fact, if indeed there were such a thing.
Consider the integers. There is no first integer. There need not be anyone to create the integers. As long as you accept the axioms on which they are based, they are inevitable. It’s my belief that the universe exists in a similar way. We may be part of a large scale mathematical construction that follows logically from its rules, with no need for a creator.
@Ashriel_bruh God's existence wouldn't be a brute fact. Something is brute if it has no explanation, but God's existence does have an explanation, namely, he exists by the necessity of his own nature (he is self-existent).
You might want to ask why you can't say the same thing about the universe; why can't the universe be self-existent? The problem is that there is nothing about the universe that would explain or entail it being self-existent. If it were to be self-existent, then it's self-existence would be a brute fact, which just kicks the bruteness from "the universe exists without explanation" to "the universe is self-existent without explanation". And neither of those views is acceptable since neither of those views explain anything.
The same isn't true for God, however. As a perfect being, God must be self-existent, as self-existence is necessarily entailed by what a perfect being is. I am actually currently working on an argument for God's existence that talks about all of this. I call it "The Ontological Contingency Argument" as it incorporates aspects of both the ontological argument and the contingency argument.
@@Jack-z1z What you seem to be doing is replacing “greatness” with “perfection”. Both are arbitrary metrics that you can define at your whim so that God is the maximal solution. Then, you define an existent entity to be “greater” or “more perfect” than a nonexistent one. That is, you’re circularly defining God to exist in a way that distracts from that circularity.
@@Jack-z1z I could do the same for any entity I wanted. For instance, Greg the Goblin satisfies maximal blargness. Furthermore, an existent entity is more blarg than a nonexistent one. Therefore, Greg the Goblin exists by definition.
Joe et al replied to this
The idea that the universe requires a beginning is false AMF is the operational version of Godel incompleteness.
As are having a VISIBLE universe , a boundary of resolution at both ends.
I suggest that time is a compact dimension. This is why there is conservation. Why there are limits. . Having limits and distance creates a gradient. The gradient from minima to maxima, from Lambda to event horizon, we call gravity.
Craig needs to adjust the straps on his orthopedic hat.
No. William Lane Craig just out and out lies about what the science is.
He's not even trying to hide it.
What has he lied about? - RF Admin
Comment for traction
Why doesn't Craig answer the video in full? Come on. He never does.
@@dazedmaestro1223 he's keeping his audience from actually learning anything 😑
Craig doesn’t have the time. He is in his 70s and is working on his largest body of work. He cannot really devote the same hours Joe Schmidt gives to the videos. There is both an age and time commitment factor. I love both WLC and Joe and I wish WLC spent more hours doing the responses but it’s not going to happen and not as a result of malicious intent
This is sadly the fruits of Craig's labor ua-cam.com/video/p9g9EKaY6gc/v-deo.htmlsi=uTKgdVLobxkNRir4
"The evidence rules out pretty decisively beginning-less models" (12:57 - 13:02). Sorry Dr Craig that is incorrect. Certain interpretations of the evidence rule out such models. The evidence itself does no such thing.
William Lane Craig dances between science and his own vision of philosophy so frequently and so quickly that it is very difficult to take him seriously. Every discussion in science includes a clear validation of the reliability and accuracy of the hypotheses, and it is clear that we have no information on the reliability or accuracy of the hypotheses regarding what happened before the Big Bang, if you can use the word "before" in this context. But Craig decides, just because he is Craig, that we know what happened at that moment, and that his claim is scientific. This is on the very border of fraud.
If science deals with physical explanations, then science has nothing to say about what caused the beginning of the universe. Thus, a metaphysical explanation is required. This is precisely why Dr. Craig, who has studied both cosmology and philosophy, is well-equipped to speak on the matter. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Craig might be good at philosophy but he is by far an amateur in cosmology. He pretends to both use and contradict what true cosmologists say, so you can be sure his opinions on cosmology are useless. By your own definitions, the science of cosmology has nothing to say about what caused the beginning of the universe, so Craig, with his studies in cosmology, has nothing to say either.
According to the partial consensus of actual cosmologists, time as we know it also started with the beginning of the universe, so there was never a time when the universe did not exist. This means that if Craig accepts what he has studied regarding cosmology, then there was no beginning of the universe and his Kalam argument is moot. He can renege on the cosmology that he has studied and make his Kalam arguments or he can accept the model proposed by any true cosmologist, including the fact that the beginning of the universe, if it existed at all, is far too complex for his simplistic Kalam.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg This is very telling. You don't know what "caused" the universe... hell, you don't even know that a "cause" is required or part of our universe's past. I dare you to address Penrose or black hole universe theories... but you can't 🤷♂️ you would simply dismiss and misrepresent them in under 15 seconds... anything to avoid your audience actually learning something about this beautiful and complex world we find ourselves in.
@@andresvillarreal9271 //He pretends to both use and contradict what true cosmologists say, so you can be sure his opinions on cosmology are useless.//
Cosmologists often step outside their field of expertise into philosophy when they opine on the implications or entailments of their models and data. For example, you have people like Stephen Hawking defending ridiculous positions like ontological pluralism, or claims like "Because there is a force like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." This is why someone like Dr. Craig, who is familiar with both the cosmology and philosophy, is better equipped to provide coherent explanations.
//According to the partial consensus of actual cosmologists, time as we know it also started with the beginning of the universe, so there was never a time when the universe did not exist.//
Right. Time had a beginning. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Thus, time has a cause. Since the cause cannot be part of the universe itself (self-causation is impossible), the cause of time must itself transcend the physical universe.
//This means that if Craig accepts what he has studied regarding cosmology, then there was no beginning of the universe and his Kalam argument is moot.//
Imagine someone saying "Because I was running throughout the entire race, I never began to run." You would rightfully say that's absurd. It's the same with the beginning of the universe. You admit that the whole universe began a finite time ago, but deny that the universe requires a cause for its existence. This just is to deny the causal premise, the alternatives to which are either that something can come into existence uncaused or is self-caused. Which are you going with?
//He can renege on the cosmology that he has studied and make his Kalam arguments or he can accept the model proposed by any true cosmologist, including the fact that the beginning of the universe, if it existed at all, is far too complex for his simplistic Kalam.//
Most models today include an absolute beginning in the finite past. The ones that don't generally lack empirical support or contain massive internal problems. Dr. Craig surveys (with plenty of citations of the work of top cosmologists) the major families of these models in his books Reasonable Faith and The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. If you've never read his work on the subject, we highly recommend you do. - RF Admin
You misrepresent the universe beginning to expand with the universe being created where there was nothing prior.
Why do you think it's a misrepresentation? - RF Admin
@ReasonableFaithOrg
Because an already existing thing expanding is different to something coming into existence.....
It's the difference between blowing up a balloon, and magically bringing a balloon into existence.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg wow, an actual reply from the RF team. Didn't think you guys ever looked at the conversations these videos kick off. And yes, Craig is 100% misrepresenting (conflating) the "beginning".
@@somerandom3247 Any universe which has, on average, been expanding has an absolute beginning. This was proved by the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem in 2003. It provides a spacetime boundary past which the universe does not exist and which constitutes the universe's first moment of existence. And this is just one line of scientific evidence. The philosophical arguments against an actual infinite are sufficient to demonstrate that the universe is not past eternal. - RF Admin
Yes.
And he also misuses logic.
His favorite "Cosmological Argument" is based upon obvious fallacies.
Whether or not there is a God is not a conclusion that can be arrived at by using Craig's "reasoning."
What are the fallacies?
Name one fallacy in his argument ?
@@user-sq9ec1fz7o For example, he accepts as an axiom that there cannot be an actual infinite regress of causality. And, in fact, there are so-called "proofs" that such a thing as an "actual infinite" cannot exist.
BUT it is JUST as easy to "prove" that actual infinites MUST exist. And, in fact, the "proofs" on both sides of that argument merely depend upon limitations of human thought.
And as an interesting addendum that I just thought of:
His "proof" assuming that there cannot be an actual infinite of causality would work just as well as a "proof" that a soul cannot possibly "live forever."
@@steverational8615 See my reply to the other person with the same question. You might not get a notification for it. (And you might need to set the "sort" to "newest first" in order to see it.)
@@ThatBoomerDude56 your objection is the same as Dr Malpass, but he does not actually show that a beginningless past is possible. Your equating an infinite past with a potentially infinite future. You are conflating them as equal which they are not. You can have a beginning and also have a potential infinite.
Also the thing you tacked on at the end, you did not think of, it’s actually malpass who first coined the objection of the infinite soul.
It’s not easy to prove infinites exist, there are simply contradictory arguments that are put forth for actual infinity.
Also he doesn’t accept as an axiom that there can’t be an infinite regress.
He simply says any argument that tries fails due to contradictions mathematically and physically.
It also depends on which theory of time a person takes.
I’m not an A theorist, and yet I do not find an infinite regress convincing just because someone says so.
Why discuss the origins of the universe? Genesis is not a science or history textbook.
Georges Lemaitre the Belgian priest who first proposed the Big Bang Theory asked for a meeting with Pope Pius XII when he learned the Pope intended to more or less assert that it proved the Bible. What was said between them was not recorded but the Pope changed his speech after the meeting and said the following in the new text:
“Will the path, undertaken by the spirit of man, which so far has been to his undisputed honor, later be open indefinitely to him and followed incessantly until the last mystery the universe has in store is solved? Or, on the contrary, is the mystery of nature so vast and hidden that the human spirit, for its intrinsic limitations and disproportions will never fathom it entirely? The answer of robust minds that have penetrated more deeply into the secrets of the cosmos, is rather modest and reserved. We are, they think, at the beginning; much ground remains to cover and it will be covered tirelessly; however, is there not some chance that even the most brilliant investigator will never be able to know, or even less to solve, all the mysteries contained within the physical universe?”
You are being dishonest as usual! The panel on Schmid's podcast has responded to all these points, and simply reuploading what you said before addresses nothing. There is no physics consensus about which model is likely correct, and backtracking to "a class of models" is not helping your case because there is no consensus on that either! As far as the physics consensus is concerned, there is no plausibly correct "class of models," whether with a beginning or with no beginning, that is held as plausible. Misleading your listeners with this gimmick on "class of models" only reinforces what the panel on Schmid's video said-that you are guilty of a misuse of science and your desperate argument should be considered refuted.
It is also inconsistent to claim that God can somehow exist timelessly 'sans' creation but in time from creation, while saying that the same cannot be true of the universe because the universe is "physical." I don't even understand where you acquired the arrogance to think you can know how physical reality on a grand scale could behave or that models in which time is an emergent feature of the universe (i.e., in which the universe could exist without time as we know it) must be incorrect. Why make such a special-pleading argument for God, a literal ghost with zero positive evidence at all, when you refuse to entertain the possibility of making it for physical reality, an entity we are pretty much confident is physically present but very difficult to understand because of its sheer grandeur and our limited tools and methods? This is nothing but hubris taken too far!
@@jaydon225
The Lambda-CDM model (the current standard big bang model) + initial singularity, and without inflation, is an extremely plausible model where the universe has a beginning. The H-H approach is also good if interpreted instrumentally. Thermodynamic arrow reversals without a multiverse (where there are actually two universes arising from a common point in time) are also candidates in principle.
Therefore, it is patently false that there is a symmetry between models with and without beginnings in terms of plausibility.
The reason God can have both timeless and temporal phases is that God is not subject to the laws of physics. Of course, you can always assume that the laws of physics we know break down at some point (for example, perhaps the laws of physics that governed the universe before its first 380,000 years are completely unknown, and we can't describe anything before that point on the basis of GR and QFT). However, this is not what cosmologists (unanimously) think. And why don't they think so? Because the skepticism of induction that follows from the rejection of the fact that the laws of physics are uniform over time would, if applied consistently, end up destroying the science of the natural history of the world. Of course, we can be wrong about which physical laws are fundamental, but if science says anything about the world, we must establish a limit to which we are approaching. As George Ellis says, there will almost certainly be only two paradigm shifts in theoretical physics at most. The underlying reasoning of some laws of physics, more specifically, has held true throughout all time. paradigm shifts under different applications (which include physical laws about the fact that motion is fundamental and essential to the universe). Furthermore, we know that no intelligible application of the theories that claim to replace the current paradigm foresee the possibility of a timeless static state. Is it better to bet on the possibility of a totally unimagined, unknown and never thought of model and physics? Why not say this about, for example, a supposed hidden mechanism of geology having caused the natural and random production of fossils, instead of concluding the evolution of species?
Indeed, if the universe is not essentially temporal, why did it become temporal in the first place?
No, there is no symmetry between God being timeless and the universe being timeless.
@caiomateus4194
your first comment is wrong. Inflation is a very plausible explanation of events prior to the Big Bang, so you can't say that the Lambda-CDM model "without inflation" works when we know that inflation is a fairly successful theory. Discarding a successful theory in such an arbitrary fashion to favour a less successful one because of your ideology is precisely the misrepresentation of science I have been complaining about.
"The H-H model is also good if interpreted instrumentally"? Even if true, Craig cannot do that! He can't say that science is merely an instrument; he has to say it correctly tells us the way the world is. Otherwise, he would have to forfeit the fine-tuning argument, for example.
Thermodynamic reversals do not imply the absolute beginning that Craig needs because, as Prof Sean Carroll explains, that divergence happens in the middle of the progression of physics, not at the beginning. A thermodynamic beginning is not an absolute beginning!
Also, there are several beginningless models that are no less plausible than models with a beginning. Relying on the opinion of just one scientist (Vilenkin) is an appeal to authority fallacy. What we need is a consensus view, and as of now, none of the models (whether with a beginning or without) are taken to be viable by the consensus of cosmologists, and several other cosmologists, including colleagues of Vilenkin such as Guth, Aguirre, Ashtekar, etc think that some eternal-universe models are plausible.
To your point on God being subject to the laws of physics… You said we can always "assume" the laws of physics break down at some point but "this is not what cosmologists think." I'd like a list of the cosmologists you know who believe that the laws of physics we have today existed before the Big Bang, or that the laws of physics we have today are somehow eternal and necessary. I cannot think of any cosmologist or physicist who believes this! You've basically just made that up! There is no reason, beside arrogant hubris, to assert that we know for sure that whatever existed prior to the Big Bang must resemble or conform to our local conditions.
Moreover, we can ask the same questions about God. Is it better to bet on the possibility of a totally imaginary, unknown, and never-proven spirit as the creator of physical laws? Why not just say this about an initially unknown set of principles that go beyond the scope of our instruments and skills for now, and wait until we find better tools and have better skills and insight to uncover them? Indeed, if this never-proven spirit is essentially timeless, why did it become temporal in the first place?
So, yes, there is plenty of symmetry between the God hypothesis and the eternal universe hypothesis. You just fail to see it for whatever reasons are best known to you!
And before you give your usual conjectural answers to these questions, just know that I also have responses and further questions to those answers, and ultimately you will bottom out at some brute fact.
God is not a solution. God is not an explanation. God is imaginary!
The Kalam cosmological argument remains refuted!
@@caiomateus4194 your first comment is wrong. Inflation is a very plausible explanation of events prior to the Big Bang, so you can't say that the Lambda-CDM model "without inflation" works when we know that inflation is a fairly successful theory. Discarding a successful theory in such an arbitrary fashion to favour a less successful one because of your ideology is precisely the misrepresentation of science I have been complaining about.
"The H-H model is also good if interpreted instrumentally"? Even if true, Craig cannot do that! He can't say that science is merely an instrument; he has to say it correctly tells us the way the world is. Otherwise, he would have to forfeit the fine-tuning argument, for example.
Thermodynamic reversals do not imply the absolute beginning that Craig needs because, as Prof Sean Carroll explains, that divergence happens in the middle of the progression of physics, not at the beginning. A thermodynamic beginning is not an absolute beginning!
Also, there are several beginningless models that are no less plausible than models with a beginning. Relying on the opinion of just one scientist (Vilenkin) is an appeal to authority fallacy. What we need is a consensus view, and as of now, none of the models (whether with a beginning or without) are taken to be viable by the consensus of cosmologists, and several other cosmologists, including colleagues of Vilenkin such as Guth, Aguirre, Ashtekar, etc think that some eternal-universe models are plausible.
To your point on God being subject to the laws of physics… You said we can always "assume" the laws of physics break down at some point but "this is not what cosmologists think." I'd like a list of the cosmologists you know who believe that the laws of physics we have today existed before the Big Bang, or that the laws of physics we have today are somehow eternal and necessary. I cannot think of any cosmologist or physicist who believes this! You've basically just made that up! There is no reason, beside arrogant hubris, to assert that we know for sure that whatever existed prior to the Big Bang must resemble or conform to our local conditions.
Moreover, we can ask the same questions about God. Is it better to bet on the possibility of a totally imaginary, unknown, and never-proven spirit as the creator of physical laws? Why not just say this about an initially unknown set of principles that go beyond the scope of our instruments and skills for now, and wait until we find better tools and have better skills and insight to uncover them? Indeed, if this never-proven spirit is essentially timeless, why did it become temporal in the first place?
So, yes, there is plenty of symmetry between the God hypothesis and the eternal universe hypothesis. You just fail to see it for whatever reasons are best known to you!
And before you give your usual conjectural answers to these questions, just know that I also have responses and further questions to those answers, and ultimately you will bottom out at some brute fact.
God is not a solution. God is not an explanation. God is imaginary!
The Kalam cosmological argument remains refuted!
@@caiomateus4194 your first comment is wrong. Inflation is a very plausible explanation of events prior to the Big Bang, so you can't say that the Lambda-CDM model "without inflation" works when we know that inflation is a fairly successful theory. Discarding a successful theory in such an arbitrary fashion to favour a less successful one because of your ideology is precisely the misrepresentation of science I have been complaining about.
"The H-H model is also good if interpreted instrumentally"? Even if true, Craig cannot do that! He can't say that science is merely an instrument; he has to say it correctly tells us the way the world is. Otherwise, he would have to forfeit the fine-tuning argument, for example.
Thermodynamic reversals do not imply the absolute beginning that Craig needs because, as Prof Sean Carroll explains, that divergence happens in the middle of the progression of physics, not at the beginning. A thermodynamic beginning is not an absolute beginning!
Also, there are several beginningless models that are no less plausible than models with a beginning. Relying on the opinion of just one scientist (Vilenkin) is an appeal to authority fallacy. What we need is a consensus view, and as of now, none of the models (whether with a beginning or without) are taken to be viable by the consensus of cosmologists, and several other cosmologists, including colleagues of Vilenkin such as Guth, Aguirre, Ashtekar, etc think that some eternal-universe models are plausible.
Yes. He does. This even he knows. All this waffling and yapping about philosophical nonsense isn't going to get him from fraudulence, denial, misrepresentation of science to his God of choice.
Another ad hominem attack.
@@steverational8615 I seriously don't think you even know what an ad hominem attack means. Please don't embarrass yourself.
@@steverational8615 again... learn what this phrase means 🙃
Listening to Craig "explain" viable options on spacetime is... like listening to an evangelical explain Judaism 🤷♂️
Are you a physicist?
Please enlighten us poor mortals with your wisdom
@@nunya2076 I am not 👏 and neither is Craig.
And when I listen to people who's entire career hinges on this topic they have no hesitation in calling Craig out for misrepresenting (to put it kindly) the science here.
I mean, good Lord, Craig just sneaks in "personal" to his theory and we're all supposed to take that as a serious statement? 🙃
@mikeambs yeah I mean scientists are never wrong when they propose a theory right?
@@mikeambsWell then I'm just gonna assume listening to your thoughts on this is also like listening to an evangelical explain Judaism and not take you seriously either. I'm not a theist by the way.