A and B Theory of Time and the Kalam Cosmological Argument (William Lane Craig)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 лис 2024
- reasonablefaith... - Dr. William Lane Craig explains the A and B Theory of Time in relation to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Dr. Craig defends the A Theory of Time.
This is part of the "Defending the Cosmological Argument" series: www.youtube.com...
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonablef...
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Add Reasonable Faith On Facebook: / reasonablefaithorg
Here in 2022, saying hello to everyone in 2012 since you are still equally real!
XD
@@drcraigvideos What would you say if one proposed that the B-theory of time is accurate but that time had a beginning? So, God exists sans the universe and he creates space-time. At the moment of creation, the B-theory comes into effect so that everything exists at the same time but it still had a point when it came into existence. If one held this view of B-theory with a beginning, could they still use the Kalam as an argument?
@@Kristian-ql8zw Good question! Dr. Craig has said that it may be possible to run such an argument based on the universe's having a "beginning" represented by the front edge of the space-time block. He cites Andrew Loke as one who has attempted to defend such a view. But Dr. Craig's own view is that the A-theory is true and so hasn't spent any time on formulating or defending the argument on B-theory. It should also be noted that the Leibnizian argument from contingency is compatible with just about any preferred theory of time. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos I also believe that the A-theory of time is correct. I just wanted to know if it was possible to defend the Kalam on the B-theory of time. I'll check out Loke's work and see how he goes about explaining it. Thank you for the response.
@@Kristian-ql8zwThis is also my intuitive reaction to Dr. Craig defending A-Theory, which by my reading is compatible with a Panthiest view, B-Theory with a Judeo-Christian framework.
"For the people in 2020"
How did you know 2020 was gonna be a disaster?
Answer : b theory he saw it coming o_o
Except no one did see it coming, that’s why B is false lol
Brilliant from Craig ✝️
Kalam = words in numbers
T.V. = Time Vision
Time I.S. a Vision
Timing I.S. Realistic Illusions's
thanks
The B theory of time is complete garbage. There can’t be the illusion of sequence; there needs to be an actual sequence in order to experience sequence, if there’s no sequence one cannot perceive one instance apart from another instance. But if sequence is real, then that’s literally what time is. The moment you experience as being in the past is no longer happening, if it we’re happening you’d still be experiencing it as happening. You can’t have a sequence if everything is happening at once. In other words, the B theory is holding contradicting claims: it is literally saying that time is not real only eternity since everything that ever has or will happen is happening all at the same moment, but also time is real because there is sequence within a single moment which is void of sequence.
I have yet to see a convincing argument fixing the tension between relativity and the A-theory of time. They’re incompatible
@@lebecccomputer287 Einsteins theory of relativity presupposes an A theory of time
@@gioe2835 no it doesn’t, it’s in complete contradiction. You can’t have disagreement of simultaneity or a black hole singularity on an A-theory of time
its still happening the reason you don’t experience it as happening is because you dont have memories of the future, and why cant it all happen at once?
There is sequence in b theory of time
Yahweh as Time exist and no exist 010
Dasani!!!!!
Yahweh /Timing/Creation
Yahweh is 'THE WORD'
No Time no Yahweh
No Yahweh no Time
n0 word
silence 010
Literally every respected scientist has rejected the a theory of time in case you guys were wondering.
Most scientists have never even heard of the various theories of time, so this is a wild exaggeration. Moreover, scientists often deal with time merely instrumentally, without making evaluations on the ontology of time. So, their opinions on various theories of time tend to be naïve. This is why the real question is what *philosophers* of time think. And the answer is that there are about as many philosophers who affirm the A Theory as affirm the B Theory. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos the theory of relativity states that a two simultaneous events from one frame of reference can appear as sequential for another. If from one frame of reference, two events occur in the present, then they both exist. But from the other frame of reference where the two events appear sequential, one event would not exist. That’s a pretty clear contradiction so if unless you’re suggesting that the theory of relativity is wrong, you cannot believe in the a theory of time.
@@Name-pb8mw Note the wording in your explanation, that according to the theory of relativity, two simultaneous events from one frame of reference can "appear" as sequential for another. These "appearances" may merely be epistemological and not ontological due to the effects of motion. For this reason, a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of relativity which affirms absolute simultaneity is just as empirically valid as a Minkowskian 4-dimensional interpretation, which Einstein adopted only after trying (unsuccessfully) to generalize his theory.
This may be surprising, but Einstein's formulation of special relativity *presupposed* the A-Theory of time, with 3-dimensional objects undergoing temporal becoming. And general relativity is characterized by an absolute, frame-independent cosmic time. - RF Admin
Lol its funny how atheists can pull fake facts straight out their ass
@@drcraigvideos Hi, a quick question. How exactly do you decipher this 'absolute frame of reference?' Why should it be privileged over other frames of reference? The laws of physics work just as well regardless.