WOTMQ: Kalam Destroys Christian Theology
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 жов 2024
- Christians can't have it both ways. Genesis or Science? Pick one!
For ad-free videos, become a patron at...
/ mrdeity
For one-time donations...
venmo.com/Brian...
or simply @BrianKeithDalton on the Venmo app
paypal.me/MrDeity
The Carroll/Craig Debate:
• William Lane Craig and...
Or use the tip jar on my channel page:
/ misterdeity
To purchase my kindle e-book called, "Atheist Fundamentalist":
www.amazon.com/....
Other links...
/ mrdeity
/ mrdeity
www.skeptic.com
I prefer the Shazam Coprological Argument. Say the magic word and it's bullshit all the way down.
So no turtle and elephant shit ?
Sean Carroll's debate with WJC was brutal. Every atheist should watch that.
CA: *Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.*
Me: "Ok."
CA: *The universe began to exist.*
Me: "Er, I don't know if we can prove or disprove that-"
CA: *The universe has a cause to its beginning.*
Me: "Okay I guess if I _grant_ you premise #2 then your conclusion kind of makes sense-"
CA: *And that cause is the omnipotent being described in this specific manuscript written over 2,000 years ago and He has these characteristics inJesusnameAmen!*
Me: "Now wait HOLD ON A SECOND!"
The irony is that their argument uses the name of the Buddhist sutra telling you not to believe anything without investigating and verifying. It is called the _Kalama Sutra._
I always thought that Kalam was the Arab word for speech, and Kalama was the name of an Indian group of people that the Buddha visited (hence the name of the sutra), so: no connection...
But maybe I’m just putting the Buddha’s sutra a bit too much in practice...😅
@@slicker67 You are correct, but I still find it ironic and funny, especially considering that many Indians would pronounce the place name as Kalam.
And of course Kalama Sutra tells you not to believe something just because it is in a holy book, or it is a tradition, or something a holy man teaches. The exact opposite of WL Craig and company.
@@RustyTube I prefer the kama suthra
You get a colander. And you get a colander. And you too. We all get colanders !
"not even Betty White"
ok, I'll give ya that... but how about Keith Richards?
Checkmate atheist!
We need to be thinking about what kind of world we are leaving for Keith Richards.
And Queen Elizabeth II...
@@nonsensepoem The Rolling Stones didn't need an Unmoved Mover. They were already rolling when they formed. It's in the name.
Not quite sure about Pat Robertson though.
Can’t believe you don’t have more subscribers..... I have followed you for years and love the work you do. Come on people let’s get the word out and get the internet aware of the talent here. !
Right?!!! WTF?!!! Thanks, my friend!
@@misterdeity hi. If I were seeking validation (I am) I would say I subbed to Mr Deity about 10+ years ago.
I paid him a small fee through PayPal every month, and he emailed me a dirty picture of himself one day.
Good times.
Good to see I’m not alone or mistaken. I just checked and I subscribed in 2006 on a road trip to Pennsylvania as an electrician and UA-cam was my only enjoyable distraction for a 84 hour week. I only wish I could do more. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. ; )
Glad I had the time for this quickie.
Correction to a key premise: the universe in its present form had a start date, as it were. We don't know what it was like before that. If we conclude that it was always there in some form or another, we can say goodbye to the necessity of a deity.
Remember, a god who "exists" in a timeless, ethereal void exists nowhere and never.
That last line is spectacular!!! I am so stealing that!!!
_"If we conclude that it was always there in some form or another, we can say goodbye to the necessity of a deity."_
We can say goodbye to the necessity of a deity to start with. Do we have an example of a deity? Of the necessity of a deity? Do we know anything about the physics of a deity? Do we know if the existence of a deity is even possible? No, we have nothing. Deity is not on the table as an option, just like ghosts aren't an option until we can show them to exist or at least be possible and we haven't.
We know that physics is an option and for now it's the only option we have and should consider, regardless if the universe had a beginning or not. If we start including things as options that we can't show to exist or be possible, there's no end to that and we have to include everything that any human in our entire existence can come up with _and_ everything we can't come up with, haven't come up with, or won't come up with. Good luck testing infinite "hypotheses".
"Consider the impasse of a One-God universe. He’s all knowing, all powerful, he can’t go anywhere since he’s already everywhere, can’t do anything since the act of doing something presupposes opposition. His universe is irrevocably thermodynamic, having no friction by definition. So he has to create friction, war, fear, and death to keep his dying show on the road." -- William S Burroughs
@@stylis666 Those are some pretty good thoughts. For what it's worth, I said "necessity of a deity" only with respect to its alleged necessity within the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I don't see the need for one.
@ChipArgyle _"I said "necessity of a deity" only with respect to its alleged necessity within the Kalam Cosmological Argument."_
Fair enough. I'm not known for having patience with the Kablam Combofallacy horseshit argument, so I just ignore it and think about the things I do wonder about like: necessity of a deity. Especially the why, because it's quite evident that it's at least very necessary for any loving god to not exist in a world like the one we live in, even if it's just to restore the wildly offset power dynamic within the relationship between the god and us, and it should be even more evident that love isn't compatible with the requirement and encouragement of relying solely on wishful thinking and arguments from ignorance, rationalized with more compounded and convoluted fallacies, so at the very least there is no present loving god and no correct religion. Well, maybe expect Islam; it's fundamentalists don't really argue for Allah to be loving, just a merciful strongman when he let's you live and convert to Islam.
That would at least explain why we have exactly this much intelligence and not a little more so we can break loose from the shackles of religion more easily by following the evidence and aim for more well being and less suffering.
But that would also be explained by evolution. We are just not smarter than necessary. It's more important to stay alive long enough to have children and after that, well, nature just doesn't give a crap what happens then :p It's all down hill from there :p Pretty much. Luckily there's more to life than survival, which is also a necessity for an intelligent social species.
And then the question arises: can a universe come into being by a different means than by a god? Well, yes, it can.
Then we're done.
But it still nags me that god was even a consideration without any evidence that it's even actually possible for a god to exist.
The Kablooey corpomorphological argument assumes philosophical possibility and then it's entirely possible that you will never read this because Darth Vader stabbed you to death with a unicorn.
I just can't take any argument for any god seriously. If we do, there's no reason to dismiss literally every other thing that hasn't been shown impossible yet, including but not limited to everything we can and cannot think of.
So, the corncob chasmophilogenetical argument should begin a little like this:
Premise one:
Everything that begins to exist, or transitions, or is beamed into this reality from another, or [etc.], has a cause, or not, or something in between, or beyond, we don't really know, but we damn well will continue speculating on this unless we already have a conclusion in mind, then we can limit the options a little, [etc., something infinitum or whatever; I'm shit at Latin, sorry]...
Oh, and tell Vader he's an asshole for stabbing you with a unicorn. #unicornwellbeingmatters
I'm not sorry for him killing you, because you know, maybe you rise from the dead stronger and happier, it's not been shown impossible.
"I'm not bitter" Okay, this one is a pity thumbs-up!
That is where I laughed aloud.
I always thought Kalam was the recipe that the Kanamit used to serve man.
Alright so I can concede to the Kalam argument.
Clearly the universe as we understand it was created when Muspelheim and Niflheim collided and the steam from that meeting created Midgard from the body of Ymir.
Which is, ironically, more consistent with what we actually know about the universe than the Bible story. Especially because Ymir was an ice giant and space is really fucking cold!
You left out the giant cow that licked Midgarde, the Earth, out of a giant block of ice.
The Kalam doesn't even use the word god in any of it's premises, it's not even an argument for the existence of a god, the god stuff is piled on top of it by dishonest apologists like WLC.
@@brettbrewer6091 then what is it arguing for?
@@NerobyrneIt's an assertion about the universe having a cause, nothing more.
@@brettbrewer6091
Its a claim that the only answer to the Kalam is a god because people like WLC and Thomas Aquinas define a god as the only correct answer. Using terms like Necessary, because they say its necassary for the cause to have the properties they define as being needed. Which are the same properties they define as being a god, even though the god of the Bible is frequently shown to NOT have all the 'necessary' properties.
"The Kalam" always sounds like the name of a villain from Highlander or some such sword-and-sorcery franchise.
or a secret assassins organisation...
"There can be only one."
And now we wait for Craig to answer!
Damn! I'm so excited!
And you just can't hide it!
@@pdoylemi exactly! Hahahha
I'm so sick of the Kalam argument, begging the question bullshit, pfff
He won't, he'll either just say "that's just silly", or ignore it entirely, which is what he always does when he can't bluff his way out of the corner his opponent has just painted him into
@@nrellis666 guess so, maybe he'll do a response with Capturing Christianity
Hahahhaah instead of just replying here, which I would love to see that happening!
@@manolisworld he already did a lot of apologetics in response to getting his a** kicked by Sean Carroll.
Right off the bat I like you. You presented the idea that everything has a beginning as the premise, or assumption, that it is, rather than as a fact, as most people do. 👍👍👍
Thanks for the belly laughs, Mr D! In fine fettle today
There's no way that I'm the only one who immediately recognized the Culture Club lyrics from the song Time. I laughed out loud.
Yeah RIGHT!? me too.
The Carrol/ Craig debate is absolutely epic, the entire debate can be summed up by highlighting a single Carrol response to Craig....(paraphrase) “I’m not sure how to respond to an incredulous stare”
Yep, and when Carroll destroyed him on physics he tried to turn to philosophy. But when he debated philosophy Ph.D. Shelly Kagan, Kangan mopped the floor with him there on philosophy. He's gone running to Plantinga's Properly Basic Belief apology as it is the only punt he has. Too bad Herman Philipse has properly refuted Plantinga. Bad luck there, Billy
@@lreadlResurrected Note to self: add Shelly Kagan and Herman Philipsse to reading list.
@@RustyWalker The Craig/Kagan debate is here: ua-cam.com/video/Rm2wShHJ2iA/v-deo.html
Have fun.
Phiipse's book is "God in the Age of Science?"
@@lreadlResurrected Thanks.
@Frances Snowflake The Craig Kalam is a valid argument. It is not sound. That's why Carroll's schooling on modern physics is destructive of it. Coincidentally, youtuber TMM just posted this regarding Billy and his pet. ua-cam.com/video/I2JvaexmLF0/v-deo.html You may find it enjoyable.
have you seen capturing cristianity talk about how WLC didn't lose the debate with Sean Carroll? :D
I've seen only first half hour of it, I don't like listening to people lie.
It was pretty funny watching WLC try and tell the Carroll, the world class physicist, that Carroll was wrong about his theories, without once showing us where the mistakes were in the differential equations. WLC "best" argument was quote mining Hawkins.
That’s because Cameron falls for the pandering WLC is well known for . WLC says a bunch of delusional unproven nonsense that many Christians like Cameron believe, so of course he gonna be arrogant enough to think he proved Carroll wrong.
christian gonna christian
The problem is always the same. Thiests know where they want to end up before they start so they have to engage in a series of contortions to get there. It is quite often excruciating to witness. Scientist don’t know where they’re going to end up so they’re free to change and adjust and modify.
My thirst always knows where it's going to end up, too, so maybe my thirst is a theist?
Do you mean your first thirst or your worst thirst? My first thirst is usually the worst first so that thirst must be the theist thirst first.
@@Dwayne_Bearup 🤣🤣 damn autocorrect.
They can sing Kumbaya all they want. I'm going to cue up some Shostakovich, myself.
_Spasibo!_
Shostakovich managing to musically critique Stalin furtively and surviving gets a thumbs up in any possible world!
Everything has a first cause.*
*Except my God.
How convenient.
@Frances Snowflake So are unicorns.
@Frances Snowflake It is true.
@Frances Snowflake God does not exist by definition.
@Frances Snowflake Any of them.
@Frances Snowflake Of course unicorns are uncaused by definition. That's why they are the rulers the universe, and created the Yahweh story to amuse themselves.
If they won't give you a Nobel Prize I'll make one and send it to ya 😆
I do think we should submit an application
Uh, doesn't the prize also involve $1,000,000 dollars?
@@feathermerchantI have already given him a Noble Prize by subscribing.
I'll chip in.
Not a physicist, but this argument is pretty basic. I was taught in physics 101 (and I have been assured it is still taught) that energy can be neither created or destroyed. Einstein's equation still holds true: E=mc^2, energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. That is, energy is mass moving really, really, really fast. Conversely, mass is energy moving really, really, really slow. Since energy is and always has been, mass has also always been. Unless you are willing to pretend god is energy, god is not necessary for the universe to exist.
You’ll need to go to Oslo, Norway, for your Peace Prize. Glad I could help.
I think you can get it on Zoom now :p
Don't end up in Oslo, MN.
Kalam has a shelf life of about 3 minutes of thought... But WLC bought in bulk and the more he serves, the more stale it gets.
Yeah because their invisible sky wizard according to them proofed everything into existence using an incantation spell. Abracadabra =I will create as I speak.
"no documentation has been found to support any of the various conjectures."
-actual etymologists talking about the origin of "Abracadabra"
@@Nerobyrne citation needed please. And there's absolutely no evidence that an invisible sky wizard conjured a whole universe out of nothing.
@@grapeshot what do you mean "citation needed"?
the fact that there is no etymology for this term IS the citation.
Considering the word is of unknown origin, we cannot know where it came from, therefore there is no citation.
It appeared out of nowhere in the second century in a work by a Roman intellectual, therefore it has no known etymology.
People love to speculate, but they have no evidence for their speculation.
@@Nerobyrne citation needed please I need to to know where you got that from because I just checked out credible definitions and that's what they say Abracadabra means. And people love to try to say something doesn't mean something it means because they disagreed with it.
@@grapeshot Where did you get that because it doesn't exist ^.^
"Credible definitions", where? From your local pagan blog?
I'm quite confident that if the linguists working for the OED can't find a source for it that explains what it means, you can't either.
Does your source predate 2nd century AD?
Big fan of quickies.
Thanks again. If communication was a category, I sure would put your name up... with a few others, like Julia Galef I discovered last night. She gave a great lecture about scout and soldier mind set. I can only recommend :)
Take care and Keep fighting!
Julia Galef is absolutely amazing!!! I love her SO MUCH!!!
@@misterdeity I just discovered her last night. Yes, she is amazing, somehow made me think of Sapolsky: clear reasoning :)
@@a.randomjack6661 I should probably make a video about the people I like. She’s at the top of that list. As is Bob. That’s what I call him. 😉
@@misterdeity I second that idea.
Kalama Lama,
Huh
Rama rama rama ding dong
Baby huh
You put the
Ooh mou mou
Oh oh oh oh
Back into my smile, child
What could be weaker than an argument whose premises cannot be shown to be true, and points only to a conclusion of SOMETHING that cause the universe to begin as an argument for a particular god?
Apologetics: when you fail physics and philosophy, you can always find a more credulous audience you can convince.
Let's not talk about the character flaws that are required to do that. Let's just say I wouldn't wish religion on anyone.
@@stylis666
PT Barnum would have made a great apologist...
I'm currently watching how Earth was created, the webcam of the Icelandic webcam. It's quite exciting to see how Earth looked over 4 million years ago.
"A genuine kalamity"? Ok, unlike some people, I like a good pun. Or a bad one.
Brian, I think you need to go to Sweden to collect a Nobel. Unfortunately, which one are you aiming for? Physics, Chemistry, Peace, etc.?
Edit: It is Oslo, Norway for the Peace prize.
I'll stipulate that a god created the universe 13.8 billion years ago if Christians will stipulate that that god no longer exists (and therefore does not answer prayers, cause miracles, etc.)
@misterdeity
If you look for official recognition: You must start your own church of Kalamism. You must set aside a day in which your followers will gather together in your designated temple and read from a Canonized version of the Book of Kalamity etc. You must invent special clothing, hymns, and traditions + cuisine.
Mike Spilligan. When you're wanting to win the debate and be smarter than the Author of Life. I prayed to the God who does whatever pleases Him. Show me what I'm rescued from for over 18 months. Missionary called folk when they had shared their heart to go to N Africa, this fear which turned to terror just increased and I couldn't sleep eat find a whisper of peace, it was as if I was in a million pieces yet aware of this is what separation from sound thought is. It was a Friday morning and I understood that prayerful labour is tough. For I'd had a hunger for the Word of God and His favour. But I had asked continually what I'm saved from! I hadn't been able to even look at the Bible but that morning I read 'You are blind and foolish and have forgotten you've been cleansed from your past sin.". Then I was at peace once more. My subjective experience trumps your rationale! As former Moslem former unrepentant guys and lasses, and folk who were good living but unforgiven. As C S Lewis pointed out. Some don't have to repent a lot! "The grace of God is free but not cheap!" Martin Luther
Interesting as ever
I frequently put up a link to Billy Preston’s hit.
Do you think Bill will Kalam up when he's Kalamed down?
Great song reference. Nothin from nothin leaves nothin...
All I know and all I have is time and time and tide is on my side.
Craig has this weird idea that time could never be endless because we wouldn't have enough harddisks to store all the information on...
If the apologists are going to pick and choose selectively what, and how to refer to in the bible. With very creative interpreting to justify their positions, I have no illusions that they won't engage in the same behavior with some logical arguments.
If they're not applying good arguments for their religion, I have no expectations they will do better with logic in general.
I'm not sure if discounting the first few chapters of the bible would destroy Christianity. As Christianity can be very amorphous, with such varying characteristics that we can find different denominations that might as well be different religions. Something first has to be defined before it can be totally discredited.
To quote Lt.Cmdr Deanna Troi: "Don't argue with me about time! We don't have the time." (she said while 300 years in the past at a missile silo in central Montana)
I'm not so sure Keith Richards hasn't been around for billions of years but otherwise, I loved the video.
There is a non-Biblical belief often claimed that Adam and Eve would have been immortal if they had not eaten the Fruit, however Genesis 3, 22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Indeed !! Checkmate christians !!!
Agreed. It’s pretty clear that Genesis 3 account envisions gods (Elohim is plural) as basically immortal humans. They walk, talk and breathe just like Adam and Eve do.
@@mrmaat One of my first "do you know the Bible" questions I ask of theists is 'why were the Elohim glad Adam and Eve were evicted from the Garden'
Well, you see, what happened was, Adam and Eve were _already_ eating from the tree of life and were immortal for as long as they continued to do so.
But when God had a massive hissy fit when they sinned despite not knowing good and bad, he said, "No more fruit salad for you two!"
@@RustyWalker Fruit Nazi?
I think Dr Craig accepts some from of guided evolution and old earth. This would also mean death was around a long time before humans. Thanks for these points that I had never considered before
I've never understood these philosophical arguments for a god (that suddenly becomes the Abrahamic god, because . . .). Surely, to argue your point you need to provide proof of your argument. Saying "god did it because god did it" just shouldn't cut it in the 21st century.
Have to say it, I'd truly love this god to prove its existence (if not its worth, for that's a game long since lost) just so I could advise it in the gentlest terms (before it turns me into a tower of salt) to attempt what us humans are anatomically incapable of doing (edit: comfortably).
When someone says "Godidit" is an explanation to something, ask, "How is saying a being you can't show exists did [insert claim here] by a process or processes you can't identify nor describe supposed to be an explanation of _anything?"_
More like "kalam chowder", amiright...
Craig is the guy with the bumper sticker: Kalam I like 'em... (pronounced like salam aleikhem)
well...the god of the bible came out from the dark by creating light and the sun (apparently in that order).
so he essentially “came out from where the sun don’t shine.”
that makes soooo much sense.
I had a Muslim argue that the "beginning to exist" refers to the nature of reality, and he explained it thus (clarifying he wasn't a theologian):
Quick version - look up Achilles paradox.
You cannot divide any smaller at some division of distance, and a moving object vanishes and reappears at the new location.
Reality is constantly being destroyed and recreated, and it's *that* which is being referred to by "begins to exist" in the Kalaam.
He's referenced Al Ghazali but I haven't read it yet.
This was one of Zeno's paradoxes, and there's already a response to it by Socrates that is adequate. None of the infinite divisions of a distance have to be actualised in order to move between two points. There's no reason to grant the foundational premise.
But don't you know Brian? If people want to believe there is a deductive argument for the existence of God, they'll happily ignore the science, history, and special pleading of their own argument.
"If there exists a greatest argument for god, then obviously it would be a correct argument for god."
-The ontological argument for the existance of the perfect ontological argument for the existance of god
What " Dr" Craig conveniently ignores is that the Kalam doesn't even mention a god anywhere in its premises or conclusion.
Premise One: Everything that began to exist had a cause (We've never seen anything just begin to exist. Everything we've observed being 'created' has been a restructuring of prior existent matter/energy)
Premise Two: The universe began to exist (debatable, the whole concept of began to exist implies a time before existence, aka time before time, which is nonsensical)
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe had a cause (requires the demonstration of premise two, which can't be demonstrated as we can't go back further than time=0 in order to check what was there before)
Where is God in that argument? Sure you can claim that God exists outside of space and time, and thus was independent of it in order to create it, but then you have to demonstrate why God gets the free pass from premise one, which results in either a special pleading fallacy, or infinite regress of God being created by Super God, who was created by Mega God, who was created by Ultra God, who was created by Optimus Prime God,……and on and on and on and on it goes.
Oooah, got it right in the rebuttal he did!
No sir, they don't like it up there they don't.
I’ m me as well, I guess we all are. Well argued sir.
Interesting argument - I like it! I haven't had Kalam thrown at me in a while, but I'll remember your response for the next time. "That's good. That's good. Did you just come up with that, or is that material?" (Mr. D, Ep2)
If Sean Carroll is your friend, ask him about the implications of QFT (quantum field theory)? Have you read "The Big Picture?" In order for anything in our natural world to take place, you've got to push around fundamental particles, mostly quarks and electrons, and as Carroll says, we know everything that can do that. There are no unexplained interactions with the fundamental particles (vibrating fields) that we are comprised of. That means there are no god, devil, soul or ghost "fields" interacting with us, or we'd know it, and they wouldn't be supernatural any longer. Alternatively we'd still have unexplained interactions. Carroll says particle accelerators confirm there aren't any. That's not to say there aren't other particles out there - billions of neutrinos flow through us constantly, but they don't interact. If you're going to have a religious "experience" you've got to fire neurons, which ultimately means pushing around quarks and electrons. Same thing for walking on water, turning it to wine or rising from the dead. You've got to push around quarks and electrons. There is nothing outside the natural world that is interacting with our quarks and electrons or we'd know it. Carroll gives it more attention in his book, but touches on it in this great video: ua-cam.com/video/ew_cNONhhKI/v-deo.html
To me, QFT is the most deadly nail in the coffin for personal, interacting, theist gods, or any other supernatural mumbo jumbo, than anything else. The disrupting power of evolution is nothing compared with what QFT does to the gods..... I have two white papers by Carroll, one on the immortality of the soul, and the other on telekinesis, that I keep in tabs in my browser, as quick link sources for the irrecoverable damage that QFT does to these things. Call your buddy. Ask him about this.
As best I can tell, there is only one response to this, but it makes God look very bad. It makes him a lying, deceiving, two-faced, con artist. It also means that it really is angels that are guiding the planets on orbits that just coincidentally line up with the physics. Which of course is always possible, but such a lying, cheating, deceptive god is unworthy of worship in my view. Could be a good role for Mr. D though.... :)
They, the apologists, use arguments from either Deism or ignorance to invoke their version of Theism. Ask: assuming we accept that a God or Gods made everything, why should we assume that it is *your* God and not somebody else’s who have (practically) the same creation story as you do?
That'll stump them every time I've found... they clam right up with that one.
They often pretend not to hear it or act like it's beneath them to answer it... I think Bill O'Reilly did that to Dicky Dawkins.
Love it. Use their own straw-men against them.
If we give that the universe had a cause, a beginning, it doesn't mean that the cause of it is eternal. It could have been a temporary thing, a catalyst, that no longer exists and has long since decayed.
WLC vs David Lee Roth of the 2000s is what I kept thinking during that debate...
My jam is David Lee Roth, circa 1978 - that's when I first saw him live!
@@misterdeity I was 6 back then. My older sister played Jamie's Crying until the vinyl wore on that song.
@@cyberjism I was only 13. I had the most negligent parents.
What the Kalam does so well is beg the question: "If everything that exists has a cause, and you say God exists, then he must have had a cause. What was that cause Dr. Craig?" (infinite regression is the end result of the Kalam argument)
Nope. Because they’ve defined it as, “whatever BEGINS to exist.” And then, they’ll claim that God doesn’t have a beginning - entirely without evidence! The whole argument is without grounding.
@@misterdeity But, if it NEVER BEGAN, then how does it exist?! That doesn't make sense to me.
@@elainejohnson6955 Our space and time began to exist in its current state 13.7b years ago. But that does not mean all matter and energy began to exist then. Science, as I understand it, does not suggest all matter and energy in our universe came into existence at the Big Bang. So the question remains - what caused it to be as is? We don’t know. Therefore, this is ultimately and argument from ignorance disguised as knowledge.
@@misterdeityThanks for answering me. I guess I didn't explain myself very well. Please let me try again. I meant, how can theists claim that their God never had a beginning in their claims to end the regression? If their God NEVER BEGAN to exist, then it doesn't EXIST. What doesn't begin to exist, by definition doesn't exist. I am not sure if that explanation is any clearer or if my head is just going to explode from thinking in circles?!?
@@elainejohnson6955 Cool jujitsu word maneuver. I like it !
The Uncaused Cause. The Undefecated Dhogg Dhoo.
Stunning!
The Kalam is Special Pleading.
Agreed. Kalam argument is garbage. It's ok to say I don't know when that's the honest answer.
And more than okay - it's the only decent thing to say. Thanks for commenting.
Intelligent Design rules out the xtian god
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause."
How many items are on that list, I wonder...? It surely is more than just one, because that would constitute special pleading.
Before Edwin Hubble most people thought the universe was eternal. Even after Hubble top astrophysicists clung to an eternal universe with the Steady State theory. But what if we _had_ found the universe to be eternal, with no sign of an "In the beginning"? Would Xians now be admitting that as evidence _against_ God? No! They'd be crowing about how an eternal universe is actually evidence for their eternal god. Win/win for them.
Yeah, it’s always “heads I win, tails you lose.” I keep challenging them to do the things that Jesus told them they would be able to do as followers, and when they can’t, it means absolutely nothing. #Unfalsifiable
The whole so-called "fine tuning" argument wouldn't exist if it weren't for the findings of science ! Aquinas would be doing his nut !
Sir, who is your target audience,certainly not me ,I’m in the choir?
Everything that begins to exist? OK, but the universe didn't begin to exist. It always existed as a singularity and that singularity simply expanded into what we call the universe. The singularity caused the singularity to expand and the Kalam argument falls apart.
Check and mate, mate!
In an agnostic atheist, however i think you're wrong about what the kalam argument is trying to prove in its deduction. It's trying to show there is a first cause and not that a God or a God of any specific religion exists. I think the kalam has other issues with it .
I’ll agree that being a former Philosophy major makes me abnormal. 😜
Normal people annoy me. Billy studied philosophy, I think, and he turned his back on integrity and abuses fallacies to fool normal people. Now, I don't want to give Billy a free pass and blame the victims, but if we taught critical thinking skills to children, they'd at least be less vulnerable to abuse and scams from people like Billy and worse, so I _can_ and do blame everyone who isn't advocating for that.
What I find so annoying about those "normal" people is that they run into obvious and predictable problems. I feel sorry and annoyed for their inability to have seen the bleeding obvious in advance and their failing to do something about it and for their living in a society where we focus so hard on the freedom to believe whatever, that we fail to see that we could give everyone the tools to better protect them from making horrible mistakes like joining a cult or falling for scams. I'm very fucking sorry that we are fucking stupid, don't take our responsibilities to give people the necessary tools, and that we fucked up, and continue to do so, knowingly and actively, and giving people tools does not infringe on the right to freedom of thought and belief.
Christians can very easily just say that sin existed on the earth, but not in the garden of Eden where God walked with man.
In fact, if the whole earth was perfect, it doesn't really make sense why there was a garden of Eden (Eden literally means Oasis).
"Nailed" it again. 👈
So his name is WIll, eh?
I'm not bitter... Me too...
I'm not sure I understand how using the Kalam presupposes an old earth and throwing away genesis, _however_ it would seem that anybody who rejects the genesis story as literal will have issues reconciling original sin....
Idk I haven't heard a lot from Christians who accept evolution regarding how genesis worked and when that happened.
And then there's virtual particles.
We can argue either that VPs are created from nothing or that arise from and retreat to the chaos of the quantum from we call space.
There's no reason to believe the conditions that existed before the universe preclude the beginning of "something" from "nothing" or that a singularity couldn't arise from any number of "somethings."
The KCA uses the premise that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" which is arguably wrong because 1. virtual particles (which exist arguably without a cause), 2. theologians ASSUME God has always existed and 3. this premise is a black swan fallacy.
What I mean by black sway fallacy is it is assumption that nothing can begin without a cause based on the lack of evidence (ignoring virtual particles) for the existence of things that begin without a cause. This is basically the "You can't prove a negative" argument.
But (steel man-ing here) the laws of thermodynamics are reliable enough that we can pretty much assume this is actually the way the universe works.
If the Kalam read "Whatever begins to exist IN THE UNIVERSE has a cause," (again ignoring virtual particles) that would be... acceptable.
However, we cannot assume that the way the universe works is the way the pre-universal environment worked (or works).
Within the universe we don't seem to have a lot of universes popping into existence.
Perhaps this is because the preconditions for universe creation don't exist within the universe.
Without knowing what those are it's basically a guessing game.
It could be argued this is special case pleading but it's a lot less special than a disembodied omnipotent intelligence.
And most assuredly I say unto you, as little as we know about the universe we know less about conditions prior to, or outside of the universe.
So I might call myself a Kalamite? (pronounced Kalamitee) I hope I'm not mistaken for a Catamite.
I think you must debate HAMZA Tzortzis
"ie: Normal people" Oh yeah that's a like.
Surely having a "cause" is different than "caused" by something. The universe was caused by something and science is getting closer to the answer day by day.
As many have noticed over a long time, Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1.
But as it clearly states in the Bible...
Deuteronomy 23:1 ESV
No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.
Now what do you have to say for yourselves?
Premise 1: Absolutely no-one actually knows the origins of the universe.
Premise 2: W L Craig says it was god.
Conclusion: He's making shit up.
Mr.Deity, and it doesn't seem to matter that the kalam, if I'm not mistaken, was made up by an imam. Lol, every time I type kalam, my phone corrected to Kalamazoo! Proof. LMAO All apologists keep using it, why wouldn't it apply to the god? Oh yeah, he didn't have a beginning because he doesn't exist. So the universe did not come from nothing, which is the creationist position, not ours. They say it did. Ok, I guess they believe it came from a wish. A wink and a nod? You look and sound great. Kumbaya! 👍🥰✌😷🎃🤗😆
Heyyyy I know you 😆 Good points. And I too love Mr. Deity ❤️
@@GrrMania 🥰🤗✌
@@shriggs55 Hi! I just think it is funny that apologists think this says anything about their god. It really doesn't even make a case for any god. 🥰🤗✌
Hi Laura. I keep bumping into you. :)
@@bdf2718 I know, and I'm supposed to be stalking, the bumper, not the bumpee, lol. Of course, I don't mind bumping around, it's fun. 🥰😘
Worked in the Culture Club to thwart Christianity...nice!
i had a christian just last week try to use the kalam, when he got done. I said he is right a god did create this reality. i choose janus. he really did not like that, he asked has janus been timeless, yes i replied, he was thee at the beginning and will be there at the end. i doubt he will try that argument again. but he is also a young earth and does not believe in evolution.
Nice.
When exactly did God relocate to the timeless void of nothingness? I mean he used to hang out in heaven, his abode up above the clouds, just above the firmament and the waters.
Not Nobel. Maybe Templeton
I never actually realized that before. But .. yea. In using the Kalam argument, they are refuting the premise upon which their religion is based.
Cool :)
As they use modern cosmology as Craig does.
@@misterdeity Indeed.
And that's an important point to clarify.
Some other huckster could use a modified version of Kalam that doesn't create the same problem;
like by using Ken Ham's Cartoon-Physics model.
But it's a catch 22 for Craig, because he sees himself as offering an ideological safety net for youth who don't want to "commit intellectual suicide" (Craig's own words) because:
(to paraphrase Craig's explanation):
Today's youth are getting a better education.
They are realizing that Darwinian Evolution is fact, and that our planet is billions of years old, and that the universe is many more billions of years old, and that humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years on this planet.
So Craig is trying to harmonize (adapt) Christian theology with science, so that he can talk a lot of young adults into staying Christians.
But like you've pointed out in this video,
he failed to make science and his religion compatible.
Even in Craig's modified theology, Craig is still debunking his own religion.
So now I'm wondering if he realizes that, and is just hoping no one else realizes it.
Or if it hasn't occured to him yet. ?
@@ApPersonaNonGrata Great points. I don't find him particularly intelligent. I've seen his kind before - I worked with one (Dennis Prager). He's full of bombast, but he's not particularly bright. In some ways, he can't be - look at the nonsense he believes. So, I'm not sure, but I would tend to believe it just hasn't occurred to him yet. I asked Paulogia about this and he thinks Craig is writing a book on this very topic. So someone may have tipped him off. It should be an interesting read if you're into bullshit.
Craig has jettisoned the first eleven chapters of Genesis as myth.
I'll just not that the Kalam was originally used to demonstrate the truth of Islam…
When God did his do-over on the human race, exterminating all bar 8 in the great flood, why cut corners? Grab a hand of dirt, wave a hand at a rib, and bingo! Adam and Eve mark 2.
Learn from his mistakes--> plant the tree outside the garden --> no original sin --> no crucifiction.
Dunce God.
I've always been mystified by the popularity of the Kalam. To me, it seems like one of the worst arguments for God that Christians or Muslims try to present... if for no other reason that, in its original form, it doesn't point to any god at all, and doesn't even mention any god.
When your apologetic needs mountains of _other_ apologetics to get anywhere near the desired conclusion, you know it sucks as an apologetic... and yet, people seem to think it should be absolutely convincing and the final word on god's existence. It boggles the rational mind.
Your last two words are the key, I think - where religion is concerned, believers set aside any rationality they may have. (I stopped trying to sway the people I care about away from religion when I realized the effort to rationalize the unrationalizable was corrupting their sense of rationality across the board.)
Nowhere does Genesis suggest that the universe is six to fourteen thousand years old. Misrepresentation of Scripture does not equal Scripture is wrong. The misrepresentation is wrong
You’re right. But why would it need to be anything more for an all-powerful Being who can do anything? Christians embracing such nonsense were certainly not wrong to add up the generations and affix a date - right down to the day and hour! That would make far more sense if such a Being actually existed. Rather than this Rube-Goldberg mechanism for creating a universe. Had NASA been like God, we’d have gotten a Saturn V a billion years from now.
@@misterdeity There are two books of God. The book of Scripture and the book of nature. God displays Himself in both. This is made plain in books of Scripture like Job
Why God would or would not do things a certain way is not an argument either. At best an observation at least a simple question
@@bungalobill7941 the bible is the big book of multiple choice
Gods name is not Will.
It is Hal - Our father who art in heaven Hal be thy name.
Hal's last name is Lode, in case you didn't know ;)
I stay away from such discussions. Using my common sense and my limited understanding, if the discussion doesn't make any reasonable sense and no one is capable of making it relatable to me, it's not worth haggling over when it comes to the discussion of whether a deity exists or not. Phew, was that a run-on sentence? :D Besides, deists always pull the special pleading card and I just say..."Okay. Let's make this easier and talk about your own faith. That will do much more damage." By the way, my observation has been that more deists are trying to use science to help bolster their beliefs. Ironic. Suddenly, now that their scriptures are woefully inadequate to explain the natural world, they are forced to use science. I did get the Culture Club reference.... 😀