The Cosmological Argument
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 січ 2025
- To help support this ministry click here: / inspiringphilosophy
Also known as the Contingency Argument, I feel this is the strongest of the cosmological arguments. Showing more than the universe has a transcendent cause it directly leads to the existence of a necessary being.
Sources:
"Blackwell's Companion to Natural Theology"
"An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding"
"The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory"
• The Experiment That De...
"Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system"
www.newscientis...
"Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution"
"Modern Physics and Ancient Faith"
"Many Worlds in One"
• Video
• Quantum Physics Proves...
Leibniz's "Monadology"
www.reasonablef...
*If you are caught excessively commenting, insulting, or derailing then your comments will be removed. If you do not like it you can watch this video:
• For the Censorship Whi...
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
Never said this was a scientific argument, it is philosophical. It is about the most logical inference from the evidence.
Very informative. Thanks for sharing, Lord-Jesus-Christ com
Can u explain why cant multiple supstances that didnt begin to exist just by natural proceses united and created a universe
@@anasavic1901 because if multiple beings created the universe, that means they are dependent on each other in some manner. The independent being cannot be dependent.
@@anasavic1901 And just “happened” to produce the coherent, finely tuned, universe we find ourselves living conscious lives in, does that truly seem reasonable to you?
@@Toxstxr if multiple beings created the universe, though, that would mean that one being did not create it and therefore the creator wouldn't be an independent being. So aren't you only saying that the definition of multiple creators is not the definition of a single creator?
Yes! And cells are subject to event causation. They create because of another event, which created another event, etc. It is event causation and needs time.
It is possible our universe is a rearrangement of pre-existent material from the multiverse, but that just pushed the question of the first cause back further. Further back to the creation of time, something cannot be subject to event causality in the absence of time, so it has to act on itself to create space-time, so agent causality.
Sure if we just willy nilly assume creation without any evidence and mountains of evidence to the contrary!
You have no idea how happy I am that I found this channel.
This is the argument that made me a theist.
I think u were always a theist but never believed it now you do I think 😊
Oly Olu no, I wish I could say I was. I don't know what I believed before I started studying philosophy but once I found this argument it made it almost impossible to believe that god does not exist. Still possible but very hard to square away.
Joseph Tattum mmm i do agree the argument is a little hard to dismiss
Okay but, are you now a Muslim? Or a Christian? An Orthodox Jew like me, or are you just a non-religious theist?
John S. Butler an armchair xtian
Heisenberg: Why is there something instead of nothing?
Love: Because I Am.
How do you know that there isn't nothing?
Why would there be a god rather than nothing?
@@GaudioWind you would have to ask God.⚖🕳
@@eje4794 So that means you don't know. Then why would you think that we should know the answer for why is there something rather than nothing?
@@GaudioWind for the same reason einstein was right, "God doesn't play dice with the universe" because "the Most High" has already won. All we can do is follow in the wake! ⚖⬆️
Great respectful, cogent and well reasoned presentation. Well done.
Mathematician, philosopher co discoverer of Calculus.
An eternal universe would not need a reason for its existence.
This argument was formulated by Al-Ghazali, the famous Islamic philosopher. It's wrong to attribute it to Leibniz. William Lane Craig does it right. He attributes the argument correctly and builds on it.
@@theoskeptomai2535
scientific evidence proves the universe isn't eternal..conclusion: you're in denial...like an alcoholic
@@simclimie6045 Bullshit. Cite _any accredited scientific study_ which concludes that our universe is excluded from being an eternal realm.
Don't feed me your ignorance or lies. Provide such a citation including the title, authorship, year of publication, and name of annal, journal, or periodical in which such a study is presented.
You are outright lying when presenting such an unsubstantiated claim knowing of its falsity.
I look forward to your excuses as to why you won't or can't supply such a citation.
I have to say that I'm glad I found this channel. I still like to be skeptical on all things like to see both sides of any argument. Which I see you do too. But I really appreciate that you still debate your beliefs and reasoning to people posting on your videos.
Thanks :) I am very flattered.
***** I just have to repeat the comments above.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond the comments and arguments.
This channel has helped me in so many ways. Be Encouraged, and well done.
Travis Dempster Thanks :)
@@InspiringPhilosophy
Well done great channel! All the best to you and your family and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis ❤️
@@InspiringPhilosophy Can you explain why you believe that "everything that exist needs an explanation" is applicable outside of the universe, without knowing what is outside the universe?
Also the 2nd premise assumes that a necessary being exist and then your conclusion is that the necessary being exist - that sounds way too circular.
Then if we put as condition that god does not need a cause, but everything else including the universe needs one, isn't that a black swan fallacy, and if true doesn't this argument also disprove free will? And if you allow free will to exist you trigger the black swan fallacy, thus you can just as easily claim that the universe itself doesn't require a cause, maybe it has different explanation, like lets say Penrose's conformal cyclic cosmology, which unlike the god idea is mathematically possible. And due to Occam's razor, this is hypothesis is far more likely than the existence of creator, because a creator would be a very complex being right?
My head hurts.
Beastinvader exactly. this is the same reason why your head sometimes hurt when you think too much and try to realize stuff too much. conciouscnes is a fucked up thing
How humble of you, friend.
Try Taoism then. The world 🌎 is made of 👧need and 👦ness
Children don't know anything of reason
@TJordan14 Hi
And there is also the violation of Leggett's inequality (2007), and the confirmation of the Kochen-Specker theorem (2011), and the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment which says all forms of realism must be abandoned (2012). And Antoine Suarez paper showing MWI is local and not valid.
And again, with all these experiments lending support to the orthodox view, and the MWI still suffering from the division problem, it is ad hoc and violates Occam's razor.
Ok "Metalogic: An Introduction to the Metatheory of Standard First Order Logic" Logic is true in all formal theories, including ones that do not apply to the natural world. Logic is necessary for all formal systems like physical laws. To say they are the same makes no sense.
If you want to, I would be glad to help. You can always send me a private message and I can see if I can help you reconcile these things.
Thank you so much for sharing this video, needed help with my Philosophy homework. Thank you! :) p.s Great video!
I am glad this could help. God Bless!
I just want to say something, this comment section is the most peaceful one in the history of youtube videos on god/religion/philosophy etc, everyone is trying to discuss rather than debate :) ahhhh so soothing
Excellent video, thank you! Amazing that it has so few views. Truly, are people that uninterested of the thing that deserve ultimate concern?
There was no before, yes, but absence of time doesn't exclude something from existing in a timeless state. It also doesn't exclude it from the laws of logic, as the laws of logic transcendent the physical world.
And this doesn't show that space-time is eternal. It shows that time began to exist in the past.
Thats awesome. I am glad I can be of service.
I'm getting there :) But I need to set the stage first. My next two videos will do that and then I'll do something like that called the introspective argument as a good prelude. Stick around :)
I think this argument, like the Ontological Argument, can be made a lot simpler:
P1: Everything that exists has a reason for existing.
P2: The universe's reason for existing is not found in itself.
C: The universe has a reason for existing outside itself.
And then you unpack what it would mean to be the explanation for all of physical reality. I think simplifying it this way makes it clear how QM is irrelevant.
So, what exists OUTSIDE of the universe? Answer: nothing. If you don´t agree, then you have not properly defined the universe as EVERYTHING in existence.
you basically turned it into the Kalam arguement
robheusd Well, what if I just defined the universe as "that space-time reality that was created by God" instead? The universe, by definition, is then a creation of God! And therefore God must exist!
See what happens when you go for shallow semantic victories like that?
robheusd By outside the universe we mean the universe is emergent from it. According to Quantum mechanics space-time is not fundamental.
Why would you accept premise 1?
It's good to be heard again.
I get super busy at times and the first thing I cut out of my time is social media .. lol ... with YT being the first cut.
Keep up the great work love the vids =)
Actually this is my favorite argument because it doesn't have the weaknesses of the kalam and was teached by the church fathers, with other words of course
The Kalam and Leibnizian cosmological arguments are both cosmological arguments but are different in a sense. So they are not exactly reiterations of the same argument but different arguments that iterate the same point, the God exists. But to me, personally, I prefer the Kalam Cosmological argument because it was the first argument that I heard as a militant atheist that made me think a bit more about my unbelief. Then, I gave my life back to Christ. God bless.
Both arguments originated from the Muslims, Christians just appropriated it.
@@----f Not exactly. John Philoponus, also known as John the Grammarian or John of Alexandria, was an influential Christian philosopher and theologian who lived in the 6th century CE. He is well-known for his critiques of Aristotelian philosophy and his defense of Christian doctrine.
One of Philoponus's most significant contributions to philosophy was his argument for the idea of a finite universe with a beginning in time, in contrast to Aristotle's view of an eternal universe. Philoponus's arguments against the eternity of the universe were based on theological and philosophical grounds.
Philoponus argued that the universe had a beginning and was created ex nihilo (out of nothing) by an omnipotent God. He employed logical reasoning and metaphysical arguments to challenge Aristotle's concept of the eternity of the cosmos. Philoponus's position anticipated later developments in cosmology and laid the groundwork for discussions about the nature of time, causality, and the origins of the universe in medieval and early modern philosophy.
His critiques of Aristotle and defense of the Christian doctrine of creation were influential in the development of Western philosophical and theological thought, particularly during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. In his own time as well as after his death, his works were translated to Arabic and were studied and refined by the Muslims leading to an early version of the Kalam cosmological argument by Al-Ghazali.
Al-Ghazali argues that the universe cannot be eternal or self-existent because it is composed of contingent beings, i.e., things that depend on something else for their existence. He maintains that an infinite regress of causes is untenable and concludes that there must be a first cause, which he identifies as God.
Al-Ghazali tried to show from his work "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" that the Greek philosophers were wrong in thinking that the universe had always existed. This is exactly what John Philoponus did before the Muslims. The Muslims did a great job on refining the argument, but John Philoponus was the first to try to refute the idea that the universe is past-eternal as the Greek philosophers (Aristotle, etc.) taught.
All cosmological arguments are equally silly , they are based on an assumption without a scrap of evidence
The assumption that the universe ever did not exist, the assumption that there are plausible alternatives to the known universe, the assumption that the universe ever could not exist , all of these assumptions are baseless and inspired by nothing more than religious mumbo jumbo
It is one of the weakest arguments for anything based on pure assumption
I asked Chatgpt about quantum vacuum and fluctuations and said to me that it's not cause of the universe, it exists within the universe.
Thanks :) It is good to hear from you again!
Gee, then I can just say "Whats absurd is your blatant favoritism". Again, is Vilenkin's speculations a coherent theory and a probable model? Or is just a hypothetical? If so, then how is it the best inference when it is not even metaphysically possible, let alone logically possible (since we are unsure if all its equations)?
That doesn't address what I said. A blind force needs to be lucky by chance. It cannot willingly do something. A theistic worldview takes away this assumption by just saying the substance is conscious.
*P1 major objection*: Once again, as with other ontological or cosmological arguments, the rules that commonly apply within the universe (WTU), don't necessarily apply in a scenario where the universe does not exist (OTU). "Anything... has an explanation" is one of those rules that we can't assume applies.
*P1 minor objection*: The word "explanation" to me means "a literal account in the form of a rationalization as to the cause of...", but that phrasing is a lot less precise than "a cause", for instance.
*P2 major objection*: Really? It "must be conscious" in order to "do something"? There are natural processes that "do" plenty of stuff. If you mean that there has to be a "moment of action" from where there was no prior action, you are forgetting that we are very likely talking about a timeless environment here (at least outside our own time) and outside time, things don't happen the way we're used to. So, rules that apply WTU, didn't apply OTU. Implicational terms like "being" can't just be thrown in like that.
*P2 minor objection*: So "eternal" and "changeless" are prerequisites for necessity? Give me some examples of some things that fit this description (not God).
*P3 major objection*: How is "infinite regress"even a thing outside space and time?
*P3 minor objection*: You do know "Atheists believe the universe came from nothing" is one heck of a strawman? But hey, if it makes your friends laugh then what's the problem, right? Also, can you point to an actual "nothing" that you can think of?
In closing, I believe, when Vilenkin said something like "we can explain the universe using scientific principles", he didn't actually mean that *the principles themselves* went up and created the universe. As you say, they describe things in reality and that's what he must have meant; something outside our universe, yet contingent, yet outside space and time (which means "uncaused" in that nothing happened "before" it occurred). But that's just my guess.
bonkoboy cool
Excellent counterpoints
If the universe doesnt exist whatever necessary thing created it does, and dont try to say nothing created everything.
also the ontological doesnt make any of these assumptions as it really boils down to if a maximully great being exists than he must exist in all possibilities and if he is possible is he necessary. and it talks about if they created the universe yes but it still apllies to if they didnt create it. anyway just thought id apply late. also also again even if the OTU we can say in a possible reality where it is OTU the maximally great being still exits.
@@somebodysomewhere5571 Could you rephrase your first statement, please?
A so-called "maximally great being" is just a concept, it doesn't necessarily refer to anything in reality. A "maximally great being" is by definition a being that is as great as it can be, or as reality would allow (not to mention that greatness is inherently subjective). It is also quite possible that the very nature of a "being" is necessarily defined by the environment it exists in. So, just because we can imagine a God, it doesn't have anything to do with whether one does, or even can, exist in reality.
I enjoyed this. I have just focused on Aquinas's Cosmological Argument and the Kalaam. I think I do like how this it argued a bit better. It addresses a "necessary being," which if I'm not mistaken helps in the understanding of the Ontological argument.
I would disagree. This still tries to force the necessary being into the picture by dismissing any other possibilities with demonstrating they can’t be.
It also does what many do-the constant “from nothing” dishonest description of another idea for the universe. Almost no scientist says the universe came from nothing, what they say is we don’t know. The “nothing” is a place holder for our lack of understanding and vocabulary.
@@guyjosephs5654 There is a difference Guy between what scientists say in their papers and what they say in public and private gatherings. You will never see a scientist call evolution "fact" in their scientific papers either but it doesn't really mean anything that they don't. In other gatherings they are more then willing to say otherwise. The same goes for "from nothing". Of course in scientific papers you will never find this claim. In other gatherings you find a wide range of opinion stated. Some are as you say. They just say "I don't know." Others like Lawrence Krauss write entire books on "from nothing" positions. Many others appeal to an eternal universe of some type such as the various multiverse theories.
"Nothing" is much more then a place holder for it comes straight from general (or is it "special"? I always get them confused) relativity. It posits that as you back time up all space, matter and time is compressed to the infinite which is just another way of saying "nothing." Philosophically thinking, infinite pasts run into some real problems. Those that hold to it do so, more or less irrationally, and justify doing so by appealing to the unknown rather then a good argument for it.
Any one of our arguments can be nitpicked apart either rationally or irrationally in order to cast doubt, but I think numbers speak for themselves. Whereas, the materialist simply appeasl to an infinite unknown the theist is blessed with a plethora of observations that suggest a "first" something. From contingent beings to explanations of existing things, to contingent facts, to overlapping types, to cause and effects, to necessary parts, to composite objects, to beginnings, to complexity, formal verse objective reality, to a number of modal arguments and a few scientific ones. All point in one direction. This, at least, makes it entirely rational to believe in God.
Does this mean I'm saying that I can prove God exists. Heavens no. There is still to much that we don't know. All the evidence though suggests that He does. Due to that uncertainty, you may wish to hold out or wait for more information. I respect that but in the mean time, it is as rational, if not more rational, to take the position I do.
God bless. I pray that your desire is to know the truth rather then to maintain an opinion that is comfortable to you. I pray the same prayer for myself.
@@blusheep2very well put, brother. Atheists will go around playing word games, questioning everything it themselves. I do pray that their hearts are opened like mine was. I used to be an atheist until I suddenly realised what I believed. It's true that atheists believe that, ultimately, something appeared randomly out of nothing. Whether they wanna put it in a different way, it is the truth. Like how they will tell us we believe in a sky daddy, or a flying magic wizard. We tell them we don't, and that no one has ever said that, and they say same thing. Truly, as Newton said, atheists are interesting creatures. Jkjk. The Lord wishes for everyone to come to him.
Both arguments originated from the Muslims, Christians just appropriated it. The trinity obviously violates the logic of this argument, so really all this proves is a necessary being
@@----f The first Cosmological Argument we have on paper actually comes from Plato and predates both Islam and Christianity.
The Trinity hardly violates the logic of the argument, if you understand the Trinity properly. There are not three beings/gods in the Trinity. Just one. The Kalaam leads to a first cause that is itself uncaused. This works for an Allah as well as a triune God, because in both cases God is still 1. God in His ontology does not have to be simple. God can still have thoughts... there is a reason behind the thoughts. God can be good and merciful.... there is a reason for the action. God can be three persons yet one being.... there is a reason for the persons.
All the reasons for these things are found within what the Kalaam would say is the First Cause which we still arrive at through the Kalaam's correlaries.
No you are being ad hoc. It may be impossible is not an argument. Dr. Craig points out we can use possible world semantics to show how the the consistency between agent causality and timelessness. We can also see the possibility of cause and effects existing together, such as a light from eternity illuminating a lamp.
Am I the only one that facepalms when an atheist responds to the philosophical definition of nothing by saying "we don't know if that kind of nothing can exist"?
Yea they always say "I don't know" not realizing that I'm asking about your belief, not knowledge.
YexaC - your prejoratives really strengthen your argument. You should try a few curse words, too. That’ll really put it over the top.
(You might want to tuck that in - your misotheism is showing.)
All people deserve respect. _All people._ Even you.
-------------------------------------------------------------
YexaC - " ... one's beliefs have no impact on objective reality."
Everyone's beliefs - world-view - strongly affect everyone's interpretations of evidence and reality. Individuals beliefs have extraordinary relevance. Objectivity is an idealistic concept that does not exist in reality, except for one person, and it ain't you. No-one is objective. No person has ever been able to put their thump down firmly on reality and truth. When you realize that, you will be a bit closer to objectivity.
My Christian world-view teaches me that all people are created in God's image, all people are corrupted, and all people are offered redemption because God loves those whom He has created. This leads me to feel that all people deserve respect. Ideally, this world-view is centered on altruism.
Atheism seems to me to teach that people are simply sophisticated animals, part of a predator/prey system that rewards the fittest with survival (though all die). Respect is irrelevant in this world-view except as it helps one to survive and increases one's ability to reproduce. Ideally, this world-view is centered on selfish self-centeredness. Ayn Rand would be proud.
These two opposing world-views have a deep impact on how science is conducted and how evidence is interpreted.
My Christian world-view teaches me that the world and universe are designed specifically for humanity and that they are well ordered and work very well. I spend a good deal of my time developing my understanding of the complexities, elegance, and beauty of the Earth, the universe, and Life. The more I learn in the areas of physics, astronomy, biology - as well as theology and mathematics - the greater appreciation I have for myself, those around me, my world and my Creator. For me, the clearest evidence of a creator is the fact that I awaken each morning and achieve consciousness. One my earliest thoughts each day is a thankfulness for this state. The beginning of my faith and my science is teleological.
My perspective of an atheistic world-view (on which I am certainly no authority) seems to me to paint a picture of reality - the Earth, the universe, life, morality, mankind, consciousness - without a purpose. Atheistic scientists and philosophers seem to spend as much time exploring the 'why' as they do exploring the 'how'. They also spend a great deal of time trying to explain the 'how' without a 'cause'. How does all of this somethingness come from nothingness? How does order arise from disorder? How does life come from non-life? How does intelligence come forth from thoughtless randomness? How does morality develope from purposelessness? Why is there a universe instead of nothing at all? Each further step they take down the rabbit hole seems to require more fantasies - dark matter, dark energy, inflation, a multiverse, abiogenesis, life on other worlds, the universe is a simulation (really?).
(Please, don't bring arguments about vacuum fluctuations. Those are bait-and-switch arguments. Those are red-herring arguments. Like a container without contents, space-time with active fields but void of material is a _lot more_ than _'nothing'._ Is not the container something?)
Science cannot by any means be divorced from philosophy. Until most recent decades, the terms 'scientist' and 'philosopher' were nearly synonymous. The present attempts to separate these two tightly interwoven concepts have caused a great deal of confusion and added to the animosity among people.
I hope you have read this thoughtfully. I do not expect that you will be changing your world-view, but if you will present well thought out arguments for your world-view in a respectful manner I am certain I and others can learn many things from you.
Blessings to you :)
YexaC -
It is a waste of time responding to you, except for the sake of others following the conversation.
Your contempt toward others and toward any search for truth is the kind of attitude that brings about wars and hatred and all manner of evil in this world. There is no place in a good world for the -kind of opinions- intolerance you've expressed in this discussion. You have presented no arguments to consider but only your hatred for God and others and, perhaps, for yourself, as well. It is said that from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
You have my best wishes for you in this life. I have prayed for you. I think you are very much in need of a miracle. I hope you get one.
Since I think your actual intentions are to be a troll, I will most likely not respond to you again. If I am wrong, you will have to demonstrate otherwise. Good day to you, sir.
YexaC
Lol Atheism gay.
Argument fails at premise 1. The fact that you quoted David hume, the one who claims that we simply cannot know the ultimate nature and principle of the world(which is what the principle of sufficient reason) in the sense of being able to bring forth reason for it is already ironic. The fact that the non acceptance of the principle undermines science is true in some sense but not a strong argument since that's just one which is made out of practical reason rather than speculative. As I said earlier hume was the one who formulated the first argument against those kind of dogmatic metaphysical claims, that since our reason uses nothing more than empirical data to abstract one cannot go beyond the empirical and assert an all grounding principle since empirical data only provides what happened now and has happened not what pertains to the future which is needed for such an absolute necessity. The only way to safe the principle of sufficient reason is either accepting it as some kind of regulative principle to all knowledge but not constituve, so that the principle is more of a postulate than anything to which we should act upon for practical purposes or to go non rationalist speculative claims like fichte for whom the principle of sufficient reason applies to anything than the absolute I which sets itself as the divided I opposed to the non I. I would like to know what is considered to be sufficient, it seems it needs to be equivalent to "causes" to not succumb to mere ambiguity of the term sufficient But that's just a side remark.
PSR is a metaphysical principle and here are some arguments to prove it:
1) Intuition (the skeptic has the burden of proof to show that intuitions are wrong)
2) Inductive argument
3) The fact that we do not see numerous violations of PSR. and
4) that no difference can be seen between the facts that would be relevant for the explanation
5) that the violation of PSR leads to extreme skepticism that would destroy the whole of science and even the whole of life.
@@kenandzafic3948 1.The sceptic doesn't need to prove that intuition is wrong for it is initiation that asserts a truth while the sceptic should hold an agnostic position. Simply because something is intuitive it does not mean it is true, that is to say that the fact correlates to something external. Intuitions also are a lot of the time wrong so is the PSR also a lot of the times "wrong"?
2. Inductive arguments cannot be necessary formally since they hold truths of only the past and present. Before any event i can a priori never exclude any possibility of the outcome of said event (this is at least the position of the sceptic).
3. See point above. You're making an appeal to observations so point 2 still applies.
4. The point is irrelevant to the degree of truth of the PSR. Simply because the facts corelate to the empirical matter.
5. Here i actually agree with you but the way to assert the coherence of the world is via some sort of transcendental philosophy which goes into the kantian/post kantian tradition of philosophy or something similar, which almost always drops the PSR for the law of causality which are both very different at the level of abstraction. Fichte of course is here an exception but for him it is the self positing of the I which is absolute not God.
You simply cannot ignore the sceptics formal complaints for their inability to be applied to everyday life since they are regardless of that true and any person who isn't mentally blind must Adress their points.
Are you also agnostic on other logical laws like the law of non contradiction
9:19-11:24 - I encountered a response to this which I'd like to see your response to (I summarized it myself, it isn't an actual quote):
If a necessary thing A can explain a contingent explanandum B, then there has to be some kind of contingent explanation C along with A which explains why contingent effect B was explained rather than another contingent explanandum D. C, if we are to accept the principle of sufficient reason, has to itself be explained by explanation E. If E is contingent, then E itself has to be explained by explanation F. If F is contingent, then F itself has to be explained... etc. At some point along the line, C has to have an explanation grounded in a necessary thing G, and the original problem arises. So the only two options we have is to either reject the principle of sufficient reason in favor of some kind of contingent fact that has no explanation, or we have to believe that every fact is necessary.
Hello, I'm also interested as to how IP plans on responding, but I think I'll give it a shot myself. What it seems to me is that for something like free will to be explained by some other external fact would be to deny the whole concept of *free* will. If proposition X can be explained by X itself, must we necessarily say that X must *necessarily* explain X in all possible worlds? It doesn't seem like it.
Well I agree with immaterial, also I went into how Pruss responds to this at the end of the video.
iImmaterial
Well, then he'd say that free will violates the PSR then.
Christopher Johnson perhaps I ought to call *****. He might explain it better.
Christopher Johnson Does it though? There is reason for our actions in free will. We do not do things without reason or without a cause.
I love Inspiring Philosophy. But I HATE the constant music in the background of this (and other) videos. It is distracting. (Maybe it's just me).
Pease at least make it lower. It's too loud. I can't even listen to this video without stopping it every once in a while to take a break from the mind-numbing music.
Thanks for spreading it :) That is awesome.
Again, If i said what you think I said then yes, and I didn't just refer to that. I can even give more. In 2009, physicists at the university of california demonstrated quantum entanglement between two aluminum chips, big enough to be seen by he naked eye. In 2010 the largest object ever was put in a quantum superposition a small metal paddle. Kofler and Brukner showed you cannot separate the macro from the quantum using what physics tells us. That was all I was saying.
'The no boundary proposal isn't an alternative, the Hartle-Hawking model has a beginning to the universe, just not at a point of infinite density.'
That doesn't appear to be true.
Great video! What a great argument indeed, it will keep me working for a while. I wish the music was a little less loud, it is difficult to stay focused, but overall great info, thanks!
Literally one of the weakest arguments ever for anything, the first premise : assumption without any evidence
It is not about proof, but the most logical explanation. You can remain agnostic but that doesn't show a better inference.
The fact that it doesn't necessitate the possibility of anything popping into existence supports that PSR is is true. It is about the most logical explanation.
When someone says the universe is eternal they usually mean that space-time is infinite in the past. This is clearly not the case.
Having no time before the big bang doesn't exclude the possibility of something existing timelessly.
This is strange, the universe could easily be infinite, as we see no evidence for the universe ever not existing, god doesn't even come into the picture, as we see ZERO evidence for creation or any other alternative to the known universe
Ugh man I'm inconsistent with my UA-cam surfing. The video I watched right before this one was on why animals have buttcheeks. How did it bring me here?
P.s. the buttcheeks video I understood with only one veiwing. This video.. took more veiwings..and still don't have it. Uhhhh and I have this obsession with defeating challenges. Guess I'll be here awhile.
Ok... I am made of questions right now
Lamster66 why animals have buttcheeks? You’re doing a debate over wether or not a person watched that type of video?
Lamster66 umm ok?
It's not you , it is the argument, which is incredibly weak , the foundation is an assumption with zero evidence, the assumption is that the universe at some point did not exist and therefore began to exist , however we not only lack any evidence of this but we have mountains of evidence to the contrary and we are constantly accumulating more evidence
For an actual infinite, yes. Hilbert write "On the infinite" and Kasner and Newman wrote "Mathematics and the imagination."
An infinite regress of explanations is different though.
Great job IP, love the vid! I was expecting to hear that the "Necessary Substance" might also happen to be levitating spaghetti. The rationale you used for comparing the Necessary Substance to Necessary Being seems to also lend itself to refuting the FSM. At least, that's how I like to go about laying the smack-down on the ubiquitous, yet fallacious, pasta analogy.
May God bless his soul and give him eternal paradise for leading many into Christ’s arms. Jesus lives
So what law describes how something can come into existence from nothing? And how is that more reasonable than a necessary substance?
Great video and very strong argument ! Good job!
Premise One: that the 'necessary being' exists yet does not have an explanation for its being. This argument is weak right out the gate and one of the reasons very few philosophers take the Cosmological Argument seriously. (While apologists will say God is eternal and requires no explanation, this merely means that at least one thing is eternal. There may be more, like the universe itself.)
Premise Two: False dichotomy. There is nothing that says an eternal universe cannot change. Heisenberg's Principle is also misrepresented.
You would think that if God's existence were obvious, these kinds of mental gymnastics wouldn't be necessary to 'prove' that existence.
@ 5:20 We don't know for certain if the universe is open or closed, so there may in fact be a Big Crunch and another Big Bang, with an eternal universe being cyclic.
"To do something by itself it would have to be conscious." Um, plainly false.
The explaination for the existence of the neccesary being is in the necessity of it's being it is not contingent/dependent.
Huh? There is no concrete explanation for quantum mechanics? Where did I say that?
And if quantum mechanics is in line with "an observer" then agent causation follows, not event causation (determinism).
Thanks again for this video IP, the Contingency Argument is in my personal opinion the best of the arguments for God (much more so than Craig's Kalam).
However I do think that the main bread and butter of the argument lies in the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Looking at the comments it appears that most of these objectors don't fully grasp it, or now of its arguments. Now this can be understandable since the PSR is mostly a pure philosophical tool and not a scientific one (not directly anyway). It seems like a video specifically dealing with the PSR, as well as what are the differences between "necessary vs contingent entities", would be needed to help people fully appreciate this one.
I was thinking of doing that, jut not sure when I'll get to it.
I agree. I actually prefer the Leibnizian argument to the Kalam argument.
*****
I also would like to say a few things regarding this argument and a discussion you had in the comments below.
First I noticed you had a debate regarding the possibility of a "non-event causation", and there was talk of "2+2=4" and stuff. I assume this discussion was talking about the possibility of causation existing outside of time...correct? If so I think a perfect example of such a thing you might have wanted to say would be Immanuel Kant's analogy of an eternal ball resting on a pillow.
Imagine a universe consisting of only a pillow being pressed down upon by a heavy ball on top. There is no time in this universe, thus everything is completely stationary. Now of course we can imagine that the fabric of the pillow is being bent and curved where the ball rests, as such the ball is the CAUSE of the top of the pillow being bent. Now there is no "event" in this universe since there is no time, however it is clear that the bending of the shape of the pillow is caused, or contingently dependent upon, by the ball resting on top of it. As such this would be an example of "non-event causation" since there is no event (because there is no time), yet there is still clearly cause and effect mechanism happening. The effect being the pillow being bent, the cause being the ball.
*****
The other thing I wanted to talk about was whether or not the Contingency Argument really is a version of the cosmological argument, or at least if it needs to be. Now i agree with your argument here, but I remember hearing some argue that the Contingency Argument can still be used even if the universe were held to be eternal. Thus since it would not rely on cosmology, it wouldn't be a cosmological argument.
I think this goes by reasoning that with the PSR being true, we would obviously name virtually everything in the universe to be contingent. However we can not ultimately explain everything to be contingent...since that would go ad infinitum. Thus we need to arrive at a "necessary entity" that would be the full explanation for why all other contingent things ultimately exists.
Now even if the universe was eternal, I think we can agree that it still wouldn't classify as "necessary". This is because the universe could obviously have been different, and we can imagine it being different, thus it does not logically have a "necessary reason" for why it is the way it is. Therefore it would classify as contingent.
Hence putting 2 and 2 together, we can say that the universe is "eternally contingent" upon a necessary entity. Now we simply pick up to your argument as to why this necessary entity is a mind, and not a substance. Since all the possible options we have for our necessary entities are: minds, numbers, axioms, logical absolutes, etc...ONLY minds have the creative and casual power to do anything (like sustain a universe). Hence the necessary entity that the universe is contingent upon...is a necessary mind.
THEREFORE an eternal universe still needs a necessary mind. Hence GOD EXISTS
Without resorting too much to cosmology and science, we still end up at the same conclusion. Or you think I missed something???
UncannyRicardo I think you make a good point. This is also what Swinburne points out.
The Lezbian Cosmological Argument.
hehe
davis3d lol
You savage you haha this made me laugh.
I can't understand what you meant.
Francesco Nesi He took out letters to make it Lezbian (lesbian, gay)
Lol.
That is because there is no evidence of a split other in metaphysical interpretations. One has to make more assumptions to assume a split. This is why I keep saying it violates Occam's Razor.
No, you assume it is in favor, but you can't observe the split, and the superposition fits right in with the orthodox view that collapse happens as measurement (Mathematical versus physical reality). That is what we know, we don't know of a split other than metaphysical possibilities.
"Craig claims that the universe is created ex nihilo." - I don't though. So this reasoning doesn't work on me.
6:32 Why does it have to be conscious? What if it's an unconscious substance with the sole purpose of creating?
I plan on using this argument, but I need to be able to explain everything about it.
Then I would simply ask how did this unconscious substance start going? What caused it?
***** I'll think about this. Thank you!
+InspiringPhilosophy what about the model that the Big Bang was caused by another black hole in another universe and that our black holes in our universe lead to other universes. How do you respond to this objection?
Kyle Alander CivilianName295 This is false, information on the event horizon of the black hole is preserved and not lost. This is why we have the holographic principle now. If black holes were creating other universe, the information swallowed up by them would be lost into a new universe, but the evidence shows it is preserved in the black hole.
+InspiringPhilosophy ok thanks because I've heard many atheist use this argument that the Big Bang was caused by a singularity from another universe and that black holes is what "created" the universes. But I guess black holes really are eternal prisons of information
And I pointed out the universe is not necessary in either way, so it's explanation is outside itself.
I know, it is hilarious. When science gets in the way, throw out science!
Hi Inspiring philosophy, another great video! Can you recommend any good books that look at the argument from contingency? Preferably something contemporary in light of quantum physics? Thanks, and keep up the good work!
Sure, look up Alexander's Pruss chapter in the Blackwell's companion to Natural Theology. With regards to quantum theory, I am not sure. That is all very very knew, but I do know one is being worked on now.
That is based on the assumption that space and time are necessary. However in theoretical physics they are building models where space and time need not apply. The Wheeler-Dewitt equation even says the wave function of the universe is timeless. So this idea that there was nothing before as there was no space-time is not true. There was information.
Denying that everything that exists has an explanation would not do anything to undermine science. In fact, as far as I know, science doesn't have an explanation for why anything exists. It's simply not what science does.The closest you could get to that might be things like "Energy can't be created or destroyed", which suggests that the natural world simply is(Although apparently, you're willing to reject this conservation principle that's the basis for all of physics due to speculations of cosmologists about big bangs that have no demonstrable application in the real world).
What science does is creating predictive models of change in the world. This has nothing to do with existence and everything to do with causality(The process of interaction between existing stuff).
+Gnomefro Science doesn't have a scientific explanation, no doubt, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have an explanation. However, if the PSR is not true then explanation in science cannot stand, that was my point. However, remember the PSR is in the subject of philosophy and logic, and that is where I am arguing from.
Richard Garnache You do realize LQG is not a complete theory or is meant to explain the origins of the universe? Hawking even says when we have a ToE it will not explain such mysteries. LQG is meant to rectify QM and general relativity into a unified theory. If LQG or M-theory is true it will not remove the question of contingency.
You need to do better research and not just through out a scientific theory. Read Lee Smolin: "Three Roads To Quantum Gravity"
It is dry at first but it gets better the more you read.
And again, I addressed your point why you through out Point Wave Theory.
Dear IP,
please let me know if you have a rebuttal to TheThinker reply to your argument:
Just because we can ask “Why?” questions, doesn’t mean it will have “Why?” answers. Ironically, science and philosophy are what atheists use to conclude that the universe has no purpose. Special Relativity tells us that past, present and future all exist. This is derived from Lorentz transformation[1], for which we have very good empirical evidence for.[2] Once you grant this phenomenon, the reality of past, present and future becomes undeniable because there will be numerous logical paradoxes that can only be solved by it.[3] The philosophical view of this is known as eternalism. If every moment in time exists eternally, then the universe as a whole is eternal and never truly came into being as it is colloquially described.
What this means is that time and the universe are not what our intuition tells us it is like. Therefore, any metaphysical arguments based on our intuitive sense of existence is based on faulty knowledge of it, and more likely to be wrong. We’ve seen this happen many times with Aristotelian metaphysics, and Newtonian mechanics. They were both wrong because they assumed human intuition was accurate, but all too often isn’t.
So we can say that an eternal universe (in the sense Special Relativity describes) need not a creator, since there never was a time that it didn’t exist. And our entire notion of necessary and contingent existence is flawed given the reality of this.
www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2534-LaplacesDemon-and-The-Thinker-the-existence-of-God
Love your video- the music is a bit distracting though.
Yes, the video was GREAT! I think the only thing that bothered me about the music, was that it repeats TOO SOON. If it repeated every 5 minutes, or so, that would be fine. But it looped far more frequently than that. Still a very informative video!
No, as Barrow and Tipler point out, "A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause." You still need a first cause, something to set all in motion, as they cannot go on fluctuating from eternity, as entropy would kick in.
very impressed by this video, you've done a good job. Any video on this needs to highlight and address Van Inwagen's point and Alexander Pruss really is the go to guy (perhaps with Steve Davies aswell). Big props on using the Blackwell companion article and the exact Q&A on craig's site I was reading just yesterday!
+Callum Savage Thank you sir!
+InspiringPhilosophy quick question, how successful do you see this argument in inferring the existence of God?
Callum Savage Pretty successful since no one can offer a better explanation or refute the logic of it.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Assuming the first premise based on an assumption with zero evidence in complete violation of Occam's razor..............
When the logic of the observable "Newtonian" universe can't be well applied to the workings of our universe on the smallest "Quantum" level, it would sure seem bold to assume our logic works outside of the universe itself. Makes me feel like a chess piece, trying to figure out how the rules of chess apply to the world outside of the chess board. :)
That logic applies to all of reality is inescapable. You can always make a logical statement about things not in the universe. For example: "There are things in the universe and not in the universe." All terms properly understood of course. Logic is necessary. The universe is not
This is what would happen if logic didn't apply outside of the universe: things that are outside of the universe would both be inside the universe and outside of the universe (the only thing stopping this is the law of non-contradiction), wich means that they would both opperate under logic and not opperate under logic, bc the would be inside and outside of the universe. If it opperated under logic it couldn't both opperate under logic and not operate under logic, bc that would mean it doesn't operate under logic, bc it would break the law of non-contradiction. However, it could also not operate under logic. If that were the case, then the fact that it didn't opperate under logic wouldn't mean it didn't opperate under logic (as that is derived from the principle of identity). Things outside of the universe could both exist and not exist, wich would mean logic would both apply everywhere and not apply everywhere.
That's what we do but we aren't in the universe
The failure of all cosmological arguments is the same , they are all based on the assumption that at some point the universe did not exist and this assumption is posited with zero evidence
I never said it couldn't. A necessary cause (if you mean by requirement) for the existence of the universe could very well be the zero point field. However, I'd invite you read Haisch's book "The God theory: Universes, Zero-Point Fields, and What's Behind It All". Don't think you have come up with an alternative :)
Hello IP, first off, thank you for doing all this videos, I totally find them very helpful and informative.
Your vid about Job blew my mind away so to speak. :)
Anyways, I'd like to thank you for at least clearing it up to me about why the uncaused first caused has to have the attribute of personhood or why it has to be a Being rather a Substance.
Since a 'substance' can't do anything by itself, like the number nine (or the number 7 if WLC had his way) then it can't be the uncaused first cause because it can't do anything by itself!
Thanks for the clarification!
No problem, glad I could help.
No, but experiments that have been do, and molecules have been used which are not quantum, being they are not subatomic. And I did not say Kofler and Brukner did an experiment. You really need to read what I said. I meant they demonstrated, using physics and mathematics, like how the Kocken-Spekcer theorem was before 2011 or bell inequality before 1982.
Fancy way of saying, I can’t think of any other way the universe can exist so God.
You agree with the self defeating claim that everything can be empirically proven despite the fact this has never empirically proven to deny this claim is to also say that not everything can be empirically proven therefore believing God has been disproven is an entirely illogical thought process.
@@laszlokiss483 Hahaha you’re funny, I’ve made none of those claims thanks for putting words in my mouth. What I do claim is that there is no proof for God and therefore no good reason to believe the same way you don’t believe in unicorns or goblins or Allah
@@laszlokiss483 however the Abrahamic God is easily disproven with the Epicurean Paradox, the hundreds of errors and contradictions in the scripture, the immorality in the scripture like condoning slavery, the obvious plagiarism of mythology and religions that existed before
@@AT-mu6ov What do you think about how can universe exist? And about what cause it?
(I'm asking out of curiosity as I see we share some fundamentals.)
@@Darth-Mariner I don’t know. Might be that energy and fundamental particles have always existed in some form or another. Might be that the universe’s existence is a logical necessity or in other words that nothingness is impossible.
It might be that the sum of all positive energy and negative energy is Zero. In other words, the universe really doesn’t exist and what we perceive is a variation of nothingness.
Maybe the universe is causeless. Maybe many events are causeless but we just don’t perceive them in our tiny experience of reality.
Maybe there is a God or multiple gods
Maybe the universe is God
I don’t believe any of these propositions, by the way, because of the lack of evidence. And I’m ok with that. The universe doesn’t owe us any explanations and we haven’t evolved to understand everything. I think we live in an ultra complex reality and there is beauty in studying it to get closer to the truth rather than making comforting assumptions like God
What are your beliefs?
This argument does something that every logical argument for the existence of a god that I have ever seen does and in doing so it commits an equivocation fallacy. They only ever talk about the existence of a god or an MGB, the one that they define. By defining their entity they are describing a subjective version of their deity. They then go on to conclude that their deity actually exists. They are equivocating subjective existence with objective existence, which are not at all the same. All these arguments prove is that they believe that the god that define they exists in their mind. They do nothing to prove that any sort of god exists in objective reality. The argument is invalid because of this fallacy. There is no way to justify this. It is a clear, and I think deliberate, misuse of logic. It is a deliberate attempt to hide the fallacy inside a bunch of word salad. You can not make something objectively exist by defining it, that is simply not how objective reality works.
To show that something exists in objective reality, you need objective evidence that it does. The supernatural and the immaterial are not part of objective reality. They are both entirely subjective.
What are you even saying? This argument just shows that because the Universe is contingent the necessary being (who we call God) cannot have the contingent properties of the Universe. Basic logic.
@@dazedmaestro1223 It shows nothing of the sort. There is no evidence that anything it proposes the existence of is even possible, let alone necessary. Anything that is defined is subjective and any attempt to claim that anything that subjectively exists also objectively exists commits an equivocation fallacy. You yourself do it when you say "the necessary being (who we call God)". You can't show necessity, you can't show that a being is even involved, and by calling it god you are being decidedly subjective. The best you could ever hope to show is that you are sure that the god that you believe in exists in your personal subjective reality. There is no way to reach a conclusion that your god (a god that you can only define, not demonstrate) exists in objective reality without committing an equivocation fallacy, which renders any such argument logically invalid. Further the argument does not show that the universe is contingent, it only asserts that it is. Unless you can show how the universe actually began and what actually was around before it you cannot hope to show that it is either contingent or necessary. Also contingent and necessary are not mutually exclusive AND all encompassing. Something, like a god, can be both non contingent and unnecessary if it cannot be shown to objectively exist.
@@letstrytouserealscienceoka3564, wowow, hold on.
1. Can't I show necessity? It logically follows that the world in grounded on a necessary substance. What don't you accept about that.
2. In the argument, a being doesn't necessarily mean an agent.
3. The argument doesn't show that the Universe is contingent, you're right, but what the argument shows is that *IF* the Universe is contingent then God exists.
Now, in order to be necessary you must be eternal and couldn't have been different and the Universe is neither of those.
Proof against the infinity of time:
- impossibility of the infinitude of the past: if the past is infinite then today would have never arrived.
- other proof for the impossibility of the infinitude of the past: actual infinites don't exist (you can prove mathematically that infinity leads to contradictions); the past is an actual infinite contrary to the future; therefore past can't be eternal.
-evidence for the finitude of time: general relativity, expansion of the Universe, thermodynamics, BGV theorem, cosmic radiation, etc.
Proof against the determinism of the Universe:
- quantum indeterminism.
4. Contingent and necessary *ARE* mutually exclusive.
-Def of contingent: could or could not have been.
-Def of necessary: could not not have been.
They are two opposites.
@@letstrytouserealscienceoka3564
"Anything that is defined is subjective
-everything that you interact with, or even in principal could interact with is subjective.
and any attempt to claim that anything that subjectively exists also objectively"
-perhaps not, experiences are purely subjective, yet I can only assume that you believe that it is an objective fact that you are undergoing them.
Your comment won’t show up
Essential just means, "absolutely necessary; extremely important". Nothing in the definition says it has to be part of a bigger picture.
Yes essential is needed for something else, like something less than it that is contingent.
Completely bogus. Filled with unjustifiable assumptions.
Drop your doubting and believe
Edward Lavent oh because that makes sense
Belief> non belief
Drop your believing and doubt. Such statements are easy to make.
I did not say you had not. I said "Such statements are easy to make."
Normie
And 2+2=4 has an explanation necessitated in it's own conceptional existence.
Did you notice I gave, 3 reason as to why the PSR is backed up, always confirmed, intuition, and presupposed to do logic.
No, intuition on time has been shown to be incorrect, that is simply reasoning guilt by association, which is not an argument against the PSR.
This guy makes a lot of claims in his word salad.
He loves to tell what vilenkin guth means but doesn't seem to want to discuss what vilenkin or guth conclude from their own work.
Ah yes "word salad" the copout people use when they don't (or refuse to) understand.
@@kaj4life1😂
GOD thinks in many ways that we mankind sometimes cannot fully understand. HE can change everything according to HIS will even in the gravitational characteristic of the smallest atom. HE's the only ONE who can control if the infinity of the physical world may exist or not. science versus GOD? GOD is greater! Please don't disable this comment. Thank you for the kind consideration!
Sylvan Atup Preach and then ask not to be disabled. How.... .productive.
Good Morning (Philippine Time) Sir,Thank you very much for this heart warming message.
Outside of human thought and imagination, god does not exist. The only real world is the physical world, which is in no need of an explenation for its existence.. Its eternally existing and does not need a human mind to think it up into existence.....
This is just on-sided skepticism. Gödel's Incompleteness theorem shows we cannot have absolute certainty, which is not what I am arguing. I am arguing the conclusion is the most logical inference. And you simply assume it cannot be supported by logic. I gave reasons in the video, and did not just assume.
Utter bollocks, not one single valid point.
@@HagelBiscut Watch the video.
@@HagelBiscut Really?
@@HagelBiscut Good for you, can you give a time stamp where it says I have no counter arguments?
@@HagelBiscut The whole thing was bollocks, which bit of that do you find hard to understand?
Until someone proves the existence of that particular god then I don't need to go further as until that is satisfied there is no debate, hence it's all utter bollocks. I hope that's clear enough for you. Have a nice day.
@@HagelBiscut well a “necessary being” doesn’t exist does it? If there was you would be demonstrating it now wouldn’t you? The fact is you’re not because no such being exists.
So my point is it’s all bollocks. No one has ever said something came from nothing, nothing doesn’t exist.
And it’s up to me if I want to comment not you and I can say what I want, if you don’t like it - tough. Stop being a sanctimonious prick and understand that your god is nonexistent just like every other god.
No, listen to Barrow and Tipler from The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, "A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause."
Hold on, where did I say the universe came into existence ex nihilo? Nor do I believe that. So your objection is aimed at another target.
No, we can obverse brain functioning, but as Wilder Penfield said, "There is no place in the cerebral cortex where electrical stimulation will cause a patient . . . to decide”. We do not observe reasoning, just chemical correlations.
That should be obvious, because science is natural investigation. Philosophy, in this regards, investigates possible metaphysical implications of what science finds and infers to the best inference. Science is not a explanation of the facts, it is the natural facts. We all then philosophically infer to what we think is the best inference.
Didn't say that, I said it is affirmed every time, consistent with intuition, and necessarily to do logic. I am not resting on 1 thing. And if it is not universal then your reasons could just be subject to not having foundation. To deny the PSR is always true is to pick and choose when is applies. So i assume you are resting on faith that is applies for your arguments now...
No, the PSR is more general than causality. Even if something has existed for eternity it still has an explanation in its own necessity. So you do not need the idea of 'precede'. The PSR goes beyond that. All things have an explanation of their existence.
They are a formal system describing how something can work. Different physical laws doesn't get you to a violation of laws of logic, as different physical laws cannot pull a universe into existence out of a metaphysical magic hat. Laws just describe how something works, they do not pull something into existence.
Yes, and that is all I said when i referred to the holographic principle. Space-time isn't fundamental. Saying space-time is an emergent property is the same thing as saying it is an illusion. Here is a lecture where they point that out in the beginning: /watch?v=NsbZT9bJ1s4
Information would be fundamental if the holographic principle, as Herman Verlinde points out.
I said it was theoretical physics, but it is underlying string theory and essential, so no, it would not be more speculative, but are best shot at quantum gravity.
If there is no laws outside of the universe then you have opened the flood gate of possibility. But foremost, your argument the universe can come from nothing would then only apply to within the universe, since it relies on logical reasoning. So it is self-refuting.
I say the strongest cosmological argument. And you realize video responses don't exist anymore.
That is not what philosophers using modal logic refer to when the mean a 'being'. A being is a self-aware substance, consciousness. You are committing a equivocation fallacy by focusing on what someone means by "human being", not the general understanding of being in a possible world.
No, the orthodox interpretation of QM says agent observation is the cause. You are assuming only event causation exists. I don't agree with Craig on everything so stop assuming i do.
That is to assume realism, but this is not what quantum mechanics tell us. No particles exist independent of observation. They in fact come into existence from the collapse of the wave function and only exist prior to that as a wave of potentialities. My next video will be on this.
Cool! A fellow idealist, welcome! I became an idealist because quantum mechanics left me with no other options.
Could you please clarify? What do you mean " that doesn't really get to the core of the argument, the idea that the universe is fundamentally immaterial. You mean space-time as we perceive it right?" What argument specifically?
Quantum entanglement proved in 2022 got noble prize
Imagine making this video rebuild in 2023 by ip 🎉
No, as Barrow and Tipler say, "A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause."
No, the 1st premise of the Kalam (this is not what this argument says) is Whatever "begins" to exist has a cause, not Everything that exists must have a cause.
I know that is what you are saying, but the problem is how can it fluctuate without time, since that is an event. It needs time to fluctuate.
That is not what quantum physics is telling us. Information is fundamental and space-time is an emergent property, hence holographic principle and tests of non-locality.
The mind is not physical, the brain is. One can use modal logic and possible solipisist world, as Kripke did, to show the mental is not the physical. Using indiscernibility of indenticals we can see the mental is not the physical.
That is just mere speculation. It doesn't show it is the case from the evidence. The question of first cause still applies. What set things in motion to create contingent things?
Also principles like the PSR cannot be explanations of concrete things. I address this at the end of the video.
Didn't say that. Said he is putting forward possible speculative hypotheticals to get around the theorem, but they are no competing yet because thy still have problems, bouncing universes need to figure out re-expansin phases, which is incompatible with physics.
And how does epistemic skepticism refute anything I said. If you want to debate metaphysics, then you need a reason to a stem from, not a bare assertion of possible skepticism.
Unless General relativity is emergent and not fundamental and exists only as a macroscopic approximation, which is what quantum mechanics says about the macro-world. We are also finding warmer and wetter places where quantum state reductions are taking place. Also the paddle studied in 2010 wasn't entirely isolated either.
And that is not what i am doing, I am arguing why a necessary being must exist from evidence of contingency. I am not saying a necessary being exists because we don't know it not to be true. I am not saying that, and if you are predicting i am going to do that, then you realize you are talking me out of context.
No, one can use the Leibnizian argument to show a necessary being is metaphysically possible.
The problem is the universe is not. No evidence suggests that.
How does a non-conscious substance act on itself to cause something contingent to happen?
Not really, they have performed double slit experiments with atoms and molecules and are planning experiments using viruses and mid-sized proteins. Also Kofler and Brukner demonstrated you can't separate the classical from the quantum in "Macrorealism Emerging from Quantum Physics".
Sure if you want to look at it like that. But that has nothing to do with where I am arguing from. Space-time is still an illusion regardless. Plus, the HP only says the information could be stored on a 2D surface.
The problem is you are assuming there is a physical reality or that space-time is fundamental, which is not what the holographic principle is telling us. And to deny the abstract reality is to undermine mathematics. Are you really going to suggest abstract do not exist? If so then your arguments do not exist. Finally, there are several mathematical concepts which exist but not in reality, such as irrational numbers.
If a MGB is entirely beyond our comprehension then we could not talk about Him. A MGB is logically coherent and not beyond logic, as nothing is.
And obviously that is because water is not a first cause, it is already in time and subject to event causation. This is completely different from a first cause.