Arguing God from First Cause | Episode 112 | Closer To Truth
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 бер 2022
- Does everything need a cause? Everything in the universe surely does. But what about the universe as a whole? And what about God - assuming God exists - does God need a cause? Featuring interviews with William Craig, Quentin Smith, Alister McGrath, David Shatz, Charles Harper, and Peter van Inwagen.
Season 1, Episode 12 - #CloserToTruth
Archive episode. First aired in 2008.
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
"If God exists then it is a logical necessity for the universe to exist" is not logical. That would mean that the universe would be an intricate part of God, which is basically a position of defining what God can and can not be in order to support one's argument.
That's not the complete statement of his arguement, so . . . yeah
@@LoraxChannel it is a foundationall part of his argument. If a position has flawed foundations then the conclusions can not be valid.
Clearly a tautology.
God is the universe. We are the universe. We are God.
@@teepot4539 so you can do miracles can you? Whether God exists or not is not the issue. It is the illogical foundations used to reach a conclusion that is completely invalidated because of those illogical assumptions.
It's high time those God/gods show up and speak for themselves.
Said no preacher, ever, as he passes the donation bucket...
Thank you for including a cosmologist on this topic.
Good apetite.
Great topic. Thank you for going there!
A very fascinating piece. I did not follow everything but I found it fascinating and illuminating. Love and peace. Tim
Why wasn't randomness mentioned in this video? If you believe in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics which supports true randomness, then the first cause argument is not a problem because the first cause would then be something which was random. Assuming that quantum randomness exists, why would "God" also need to exist? It doesn't. If quantum randomness exists, then that's just another part of science, not magic.
quantum mechanics properly understood.. is actually magic :D
Whole episode day = a good day!
I think Quentin Smith's infinite regress countering the Cosmological Argument ends at the plank length.
Plank length is just the smallest measurable length of space. It can continue to be divided infinitely
Everything within time needs a cause. Reality as a whole does not....but is based on principles.
The story so far:
There exists an A such that A could not exist without A existing, a priori, to any point cited for A's existence. Therefore, A is eternal (i.e., infinitely encompassing all the past). Let A be God by definition.
There is an infinite regress in putting it this way, but it's not clear why the definition should fail just because of that. It's also interesting that neither theist nor atheist can consider themself an aAist. For theists, A is a trivial part of their doctrine, though they also want to add properties (like sentience) to whatever A is, which is not trivial. For atheists, such as quantum/classical physicists, the A affirmation is irrefutable for the same reason the conservation of matter and energy is irrefutable (i.e., a transition from nothing to mass/energy is fundamentally disallowed; so, there must have always been something, which is mass/energy, that could be causally transformed and conserved. Or do I have it wrong?). So theist and atheist differ only in the additional properties that an A could have from bare existence. Theists impute human-relatable properties and atheists impute physical properties. Both standpoints are "revelatory", but the theist standpoint is more chaotic, requiring an abrupt intervention/communication from God to get a standpoint stoodup. Science, on the other hand is more continuous. If the revelation were not a continuous one (i.e., eternally borne out), it's just not worth thinking about.
Actually, most physicists admit that the big bang says little about what existed pre big bang. They will theorize, but when pushed will admit it's most speculation. The other tact then take is often when asking what existed before the big bang, theybreply it's a nonsensical question, because space and time didn't exist. I've heard a few compelling theories regarding why something exists rather than nothing, but even that isn't really a "beginning" arguement.
All a matter of FAITH.... Brother James
Is cause not just a cause regardless of the nature of the causer. I find it very difficult to come to terms with what Quentin said about cause being different when we refer to God.
Suppose we accept the notion that god exists. Then we are faced with another question: How on earth did god come into being? What made god, so to speak? And why stop there? What's god's god's god? And the iterations continue on endlessly until infinity. Until we ask ourselves whether there is any meaning to this line of questioning anymore? The simple fact is we just don't know or god simply doesn't exist at all because the simplest explanation may often be the truest. God, notion of god, or any reference to any supreme beings are simply products of human imaginations. Was and still is.
Read Plato's second take of the argument of the participation of the One to the notion of time, in the second half of his dialogue Parmenides.
'God is cause' implies that 'effect' is not God.
But, God is all inclusive. Our mind creates an illusion that we are separate from God.
Every creation has a creator.
As the day passes it is getting more evident Human intellect have limitations and boundaries.
i think the point to start with, if universe has started on its own then it cannot be so very disciplined with all of its balances and imbalances.
Philosophy and Modern Science is trying to understand the universe based on laws, discovered on earth. Humans have traveled thousands of miles in space but beneath the surface of earth, the achievement is just 27 miles. i think it is because, space is empty therefore its easy and we humans discuss about it more. on the other hand, Earth is unexplored because as we go down the pressure is way to high for humans to handle.
Every theory has its own weaknesses. Cosmologist have come up with two major theories, String and Inflation. Both have been criticized by physicists and mathematicians as many have argued it to be true. Both theories do not have the predictive power.
"Every creation has a creator."
Who says the universe was created? Only people who believe in a creator seem to insist it is. By asserting their wish as a fact, they hope to avoid providing actual, credible evidence for their chosen god. You are playing a word game.
As for the rest of your post, it is riddled with factual errors and non sequiturs.
@@con.troller4183 word game, hahaha
Factual theoretical errors of science and philosophy are, indeed seems absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing.
@@con.troller4183 why is it so that physicist/mathematicians/philosopher try to explore the universe, which is not measured yet. Quote "Within the reach of our observable Universe", observable.
it is easy to look at distance by using some aligned magnified optics. Science does not have not reached to the level or capacity to handle and explore approx 1,083,206,916,800 cubic Km of the planet.
And they love to theorize / speculate about "observable universe".
@@mohammadsamer9151 "And they love to theorize / speculate about "observable universe"."
Says the guy who swallowed a book of woo woo in its entirety.
@@con.troller4183 and you have swallowed................... hahahahahahahahahaha
Can contingency of cause and effect come from a necessary existence?
Have you explored the Buddhist argument that something that is unchanging cannot be a cause and hence there cannot be an unchanging first cause
_Changeless_ or simply in a state that is not undergoing change? It is evidence that something changeless cannot change -- this is true by definition. But if it is simply not undergoing change, then I would like to see the argument that it cannot change.
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco The Buddhist argument is that in order to effect change, the thing causing the change has to also undergo change. And this is the main argument behind there being no 'unchanging creator'
❤ Very good 👍🏼
I just don't understand why it is difficult for everyone to understand about the very reason for having a first cause. Am I not correct that the first cause comes to being existence when we seek out answers for our curious mind ? Is it not an integral part of our thought process in order to survive and continuously seeking for a cause for every event. The idea of causality- scientific or non scientific, collapse the moment we depart from the body. Now, what type of causality out there after life we may encounter, is just an absurd question!
Every time I think I have a complete handle on what I believe (between believing in a creator and not believing in a creator) your program throws these beliefs out the window! Perhaps Bertrand Russell’s “brute fact dismissal” is indeed the answer.
I doubt brute fact dismissal will satisfy for long its too simplistic life is so complex
Here are the possibilities
1.Universe came from nothing
(This is absurd because nothing is the absence of something. 0+0=0)
2. The universe created itself
( absurd because you're saying something exist and not exist at the same time. Example is the mother who gave birth to herself)
3. The universe was created something else that was created, perhaps a chain of multiverses. ( here you run into infinite regress fallacy. You can't have creators creating creators add infinitum. There has to be a termination point, a first mover, a necessary foundation or a being otherwise the creation wouldn't be here.
4. The Universe was created by something uncreated. This what we call Allah .
1.Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “He is Allah-One ˹and Indivisible˺;
2.Allah-the Sustainer ˹needed by all˺.
3. He has never had offspring, nor was He born.
4.. And there is none comparable to Him
Also can point out another Universal religion besides Islam which has uncorrupted book where in the book God claims he is ONE, Eternal being. Who created everything. And clearly tells why he created them.
@@YMe-hp7hi This is what WHO "calls Allah"?
I don't call the Creator God "Allah."
@@20july1944 What if the universe came from a White hole? It has the same hypothetical staus as a God that being it has no evidential intelligence data.
@@ministryofarguments3525 Even with the white hole you still fall into the infinite regress argument. Think of the universe as a hyperboloid torus i.e. donut shape you still need a center starting point.
There is more to understanding God and the cosmos, than linear thinking, or logic based conclusions built on a reductionist based, framework - both of which have their limitations.
Although higher truth can align with observation and theory, the unlimited and unfathomable need not be boxed in by the limit of man's capacity to conceive or notate.
Human consciousness contains aspects of not only thinking, but feeling or emotion. Envy is one of humankind's less productive emotions, in most cases. When someone with a science degree or anyone for that matter, has a vehement, knee-jerk reaction to the very concept that something more powerful than themselves could have a hand in the laws of nature and or of creation itself, such a reaction is an emotional one, revealing a type of God-envy in the heart. This subtle emotional heart-blockage, will not allow for possibility of powers of intellect and creation which dwarf humankind's intellectual capacity to understand.
We have no idea where our universe ends, which may induce some to believe in the concept of the infinite, and infinite possibilities. We theorize the ingredients of the cosmos appeared from nothing, and exploded into something. Hmmm.
In the realm of infinite possibilities which some say allows for chaos to become ordered, the possibility of a higher order of consciousness must be included in the set of infinite possibilities.
Some can see the hand of a higher power in the order of the universe such as Einstein, while others cringe and shutdown at the very possibility. This is a personal/emotional problem - to presuppose a greater power than what man can perceive, simply cannot exist.
So little is understood about the universe which is our own body, what to speak of the cosmic manifestation, that to vehemently declare opposition to even the possibility of higher forces and consciousness - which may be inconceivable to one's limited mind and perceptional abilities - is actually a bit shallow and unhinged, if not revealing a God-envy emotional bias.
The ancient Sanskrit Vedic texts offer to hints help conceptualize, that which is ultimately immeasurable and mostly inconceivable: There is continual creation of destruction of the material universes, which expand and contract similar to the breathing of life giving air in the lungs, on a cosmic level.
This is supported by an all-pervasive and connected energy which is non-material - which not made of the material elements that we observe, namely earth, water, fire, air, and ether, or their permutations. Consciousness enters into the cosmic manifestation from the non-material plane, to support the cosmic body, as in the case with one's physical body. Very simply, one can observe the main difference and symptom of a dead body compared to a living body, is that consciousness is no longer present in a dead body. It is consciousness on various levels which animates the physical body, and the universal body.
The purpose of creation, is to give a chance for the individual conscious being, to re-unite with the Source of all consciousness, which is also the Source of all matter, spirit, and the ability to express love. Perhaps I somewhat digress here, because the purpose and meaning of one's life, is rarely addressed in cosmology or astrophysics. Too personal or unscientific?
Lacking such purpose, those void of spiritual vision, mostly contend with the competition to exploit the material nature and their fellow humans in the quest to be an all-controlling mini-creator god while - inhabiting a body one did not create - a conception which is ultimately defeated at the time of death. A pretty harsh conclusion, right? But is it any more harsh than the reality of how humans have tormented each other with endless wars, economic exploitation and other types of physical, mental and emotional slavery over thousands of years and up until the present moment? Apparently the modern scientific mind is not concerned about this, or worse, science has been co-opted by by the few to control and manipulate the many.
As much as one has the right to vehemently deny or dispute the existence of a creator God to anyone who will listen, those with a more inclusive vision of infinite possibilities, have the right vehemently deny and dispute that purpose of life and the universe, is to endlessly speculate about the nature of a reality where God cannot exist - while a hell on earth is constantly fueled by an envy-driven mentality by which the strong exploit and abuse the weak, all for temporary gain.
The essence of the Vedas, considers the inconceivable conception, thatat God is all-pervasive energetically, yet has a personal presence in each heart and, which is open for dialog. That energetic conscious presence is even functioning at the sub-atomic level, and is the non-material energy which connects all other grosser energetic manifestations, upon which they rest.
Anyone can vehemently reject the idea of a God/creator or not, but that vehemence alone does not define any reality, other than their own mind-box. There are other options to consider, if one is not intimidated by the bluster and bluff of God-envy.
We make up such cool stuff...
Table of content
Not using the so convoluted term "God", and if it is right to say that a cause of something cannot be this something itself -- it must be outside of it -- then the cause of everything cannot be explained with the relative attributes of something, but must necessarly be without attributes -- as it is the outside cause of something's existence -- existence itself. Now, still a highest being could be conceived in the relative existence described by attributes, but it could not be the cause of itself. The cause of everything must be void of attributes but would still exist -- while words lose their meaning describing what in essence cannot be described.
How does necessary produce contingent?
Why would cause and effect still exist without the universe? That's what this argument requires you to assume- that you can just intuit the laws external to the universe.
It's ok to accept that we don't have enough information to make a conclusion about this.
Mr. Smith, the 2nd guest sounds nuts.
It seems that according to Quentin Smith logic every day also don't have a first moment since you can always subdivide any moment in many different smaller moments.
ever heard of a cantor set ?
@@quantumgravity92 Yes, I am not denying that a finite amount of time can be infinitely divised in smaller portions of time, what I am denying is that we can use it to explain the beginning of the universe.
Otherwise, why not to say that the universe began in 03/22/2022?
We still would be able to explain each moment by it's previous moment without ever running out of moments to use (as long as each moment gets smaller and smaller).
We would never need to use any event that happened before 03/22/2022 do explain what is happening today.
I think the question is wether we are willing to believe that intelligence comes in shapes and forms with (super) natural intelligent forces in nature being a possibility.
@Artificial cocoon intelligent being
I was mainly thinking of intelligence in humans vs. intelligence in animals and what else sort of intelligence is out there. For instance the refining/sublimation process of the universe could be viewed as a intelligence being at work. Since there is refinement/sublimation we humans getting more intelligent over time in various ways, why would a dumb natural proces exclusively being responsible for that?
We know that huge animals in the dinosaurus era had tiny brains. In case there there is a (super) natural force involved in the coming into being of the universe there is likely huge intelligence involved.
@Artificial cocoon intelligent being I see the universe as a sort of (super) natural world holodeck sort of thing. I think there is like human collective which make large groups of people movie in a certain direction..and there you have a sort of big dumb brain.
What I have never understood is: Why is the the first cause a being? Why has there to be a desire to create a excistense?
The frst cause (inteligent and creation agent or entity) must be a personal being as the universe began to exist and coyld have been diferent (there are infinite alternatives for the universe to be) and only personal beings make choices. The creation (universe) was a possibility but not a nessecity for God. He created the universe so that he could have a personal relationship with free personal beings.
@@juanpelaez5435 What I take from you response is that there may/could've been other alternatives for our existence. That still doesn't tell me if there was a creator. I'm sorry to question the allmighty, but surely there were better options? Do we really need zunamis and hurricanes and other natural disasters, babys dying of cancer etc. I think it's lack of imagination if there are INFINITE possibilties. Being all mighty and all?
- The universe can't begins from absolutely Nothing .
- The universe can't begins from a materialistic physical matter because it need a cause.
I think of it this way. There must be non materialistic beginning of the Universe .
So there is a being beyond our ability to comprehend something more like a secret spirit so mysterious was there without a beginning and caused everything else to exist.
The first cause argument and the design argument are one and the same. Which is easier: that infinite numbers of small fluctuations in the nothingness allow God's consciousness to exist and then He creates laws that bring order to His fluxive thoughts so that a universe can arise in the flux and eventually beings in His self-aware image; or that far more powerful fluctuations occur in the nothingness so that the universe is generated and orders itself (organization principle) against its own chaotic tendencies (entropy) to generate life that randomly evolves into an intelligence?
For me, the intellect is simpler to generate with fluctuations over a vast scale in the nothingness than massive fluctuations in the nothingness generating the universe and the intellect arising afterward on an extremely finite scale.
How might contingency, such as cause and effect, come out of a necessity, such as existence?
There's no reason to assume that there was a first cause, or if there was, there's no reason to think it was gods and goddesses who were the first cause.
1. Time or anything being infinite is logically impossible
2. God isn’t a man in the sky it is the cause of existence that is spaceless timeless and matterless and that is exactly what is pointed to by logic and observation
@@samiverson2496
By your logic:
What is the difference between Nature and God?
Is god all loving/caring? Does god answer my prayers??
Lol, you not having a reason, nor needing one, are not limitations on reality. There is a reason the cosmological arguement is still around, and you not seeing the point is not equal to you understanding it better than everyone in history who has explored it.
@@LoraxChannel It's an argument that proves nothing. The fact that you don't understand that is irrelevant. You'll need to provide evidence of gods and goddesses. This flimsy argument offers no proof, and never has.
@@orver1 You made the claim that there is no reason to believe God exists. I think that's an irrational position. You need to provide evidence your extraordinary claim is true
18:00 The Inflaton field is not supposed to be the cause of the *existence* of the universe, for the field is part of the universe. Rather, the decay of this scalar field (which releases a huge amount of energy) is responsible for the _expansion_ of a patch of space. But something had to exist in order to expand; non-existence cannot expand. And this "something" is space.
To ask for a cause of the universe, therefore, is to ask for what brought that very field into existence -- if it came into existence at all.
He didn't say it is, just made a suggestion at what may be at play at the very start or prior to the universe: This comes to mind:
"It is very likely that an explanation of the origi-
nation of the universe should involve a quantum theory of gravity. In such a theory,
space-time at the Planck-scale would not have a causal structure since it would not be
represented by a continuous and differentiable manifold endowed with an affine con-
nection"
New remarks on the Cosmological Argument
-Gustavo E. Romero
(Astrophysicist)
Daniela Pérez
(Astrophysicist)
31 January 2012
The Vedas describe the Creator as an energetic personality and Source of all cosmic and spiritual manifestation; God which is defined as "Having no other source, and is the prime cause of all other causes" Those that reject the possibility of a Creator/God, happily seem to entertain the idea that the ingredients of the cosmos, causeless-ly appeared from nowhere, and causeless-ly exploded into something with natural laws operating it. For some, there seems to be causeless unwillingness, consider there could be powers, forces and consciousness beyond one's capacity to understand - for them a God just causeless-ly off the table.
As a kid, I wasn't satisfied when my local church authorities really had nothing to say regarding my innocent question, "Who is God's father" We learn we come from our father and mother, so wouldn't everyone including God have a cause? I learned later that if one accepts the definition of God as having inconceivable attributes, including "having no other cause, and being the prime cause of all other causes" such a premise helps clarify the question.
If one cannot accept the premise of inconceivability, then one is left to swim in the ocean of speculation, waiting for absolute truth that can be mathematically demonstrated. It hasn't happened yet, and the very idea of consciousness, by which we evaluate reality, is something we don't fully understand.
Life and finding meaning, include both the intellect, and the heart and it's finer emotions. The beautiful thing about the mystery of consciousness, is that if one consciously seeks to know something, asking from the heart and mind, the conscious universe with respond. It's an individual process, and as a sovereign individual, no one needs approval or permission experience their own life's journey. There so many willing give their vehement opinions, who are totally lost to themselves.
If you do not look down on eastern philosophical knowledge, according to them time is cyclical not linear, there are no numerically countable one, two or twenty creators available at disposal. Well, they also dabled first into heaven and hell, then progressed to say these pipes were giving too much smoke 😀
What would you change the name of the show to if you arrive at the truth?
Convenient to stop the argument where the table comes from at the factory, blueprint or wood, more accurately would be from someone’s consciousness that decided to make a plan and turn wood into a table for the purpose to dine at, consciousness seems to have been conveniently forgotten.
What if I could convince you that, using logical fundamentals, the answer you seek is logically inaccessible? It took me many years to get here, but I can now say confidently that I'm comfortable knowing that, if there is a Gd for any logically valid definition of same, that Gd concept MUST lie outside logic, and also outside any logically reasonable search or analysis. But so far, I haven't been able to explain it to anyone except myself, let alone convince anybody!
The corollary is that I find atheists and theists trying to formulate logical bases for their arguments somewhat futile. I label myself as an ex-atheist FWIW.
@@FelixBat no. I am not a theist either. I'm just utterly convinced by what seems to me to be a logical path that leads to a self-consistent basis for the 'existence of existence' that is itself in a sense fundamentally iterative, and thus inherently impenetrable to further logic. It neither requires, nor excludes, some Gd entity. It does require that if such exists, then it is necessarily 'beyond logic'. So believe or don't, but you will never ever be able to construct a rational basis for your belief either way.
Science can only investigate so far. No matter how small you go, there's always something smaller. It never ends. Orr, at least, it hasn't ended yet. And there's always the same wall that science hits, where what happens can be observed but it can never be known how what happens happens. For instance: natural selection. We can observe how all the data points to an evolutionary algorithm that we call natural selection but we have no idea how that algorithm was programmed or written (or why). In other words, we can describe the rules of the universe, in human terms, but we can't say how those rules came in to being. That's where a superior power comes in.
And we can never know, by necessity, what that supernatural power is. If we did then what would be the point of being here. It's like playing a game. To really enjoy the game you need to be all in on the game. We couldn't be IN life if we knew what was on the other side. We wouldn't need to or want to be here.
And your belief is faith based as well. It cannot be proven. So we are all in the same boat really, whether you are an atheist or a believer in a higher power.
Is existence necessary, and is God necessary for existence?
Is cause and effect contingent?
He should have a show on nde
He does have a very interesting episode about ESP of which NDE's are a part: ua-cam.com/video/CKq6xRLdzP8/v-deo.html
Would a grand unified theory / theory of everything be a necessity by not requiring an explanation, while explaining everything?
I don't get it: The Universe began to exist, therefore God. How does Craig get to God? How about saying we are still trying to understand causal relationships? There is no reason to add a God into this.
How do you get to something from nothing? Talk about believing in miracles.
@@larrylucid5502 Believing in miracles is the solution for those who give up being interested in finding out the truth.
The way I see it is that I believe that *SOMETHING* ... Not necessarily god... But that something whether it's a force/entity/whatever caused the big bang. But whatever caused the big bang, I can always ask "What caused that" ? I can ask that question an infinite number of times. But the moment you say "Well this first cause here is the uncaused cause" is the moment you contradict the way in which we understand everything. Which to me suggests that there is *something* (or everything) out there that is infinite. Whenever I hear people talk about this they ALWAYS say "or else you get the infinite regress" in a tone of voice that sounds mocking. What's so wrong about infinity? Please tell me. What is so wrong with infinity? The other thing that I think people forget is that causality *is not* a law/principle that exists like F = MA is a physical law that exists. Therefore causality is not *necessarily* bound to time and space like all the other physical laws are. If you're gonna argue that the Big Bang had no cause then you're essentially arguing from the *exact same* logic that religious believers use when they say that God is the uncaused cause. I cannot accept that.
Ultimately I think I do believe in God but I disagree with most (if not all) the common interpretations I've heard of God. In my conception of God, God is NOT all powerful, is NOT all knowing, is NOT omnipotent. God is just pure infinity. For the time being we get to experience a finite portion of that infinity.
What caused the infinity then? :) Your answer would be "it always existed because its infinite, its eternal, etc." so you are actually agreeing with the first cause argument that you think you are arguing against. And for the record, I am not religious.
In other words: the infinite regress of contingent things (your infinity) is in itself contingent on something. That something has to be eternal and uncaused, the first cause of everything.
"The way I see it is that I believe that SOMETHING ... Not necessarily god... But that something whether it's a force/entity/whatever caused the big bang. But whatever caused the big bang, I can always ask "What caused that" ?"
I believe the "SOMETHING" you refer to is Energy or more specifically Chaos (random quantum fluctuations at plank scale). Energy such as it is said about God can not be created nor destroyed, Chaos is the fullness of ultimate potential because it has the ability to create forms for completely no reason at all that in turn produces reason itself (Logos). The Logos is the seed pattern that forms the fabric of the universe and everything in it according to a certain logic or pattern (Logos). The Big bang is simply the moment of nucleation where the seed pattern takes hold and grows much like a crystal grows in a saturated solution (cosmological inflation). Primal Chaos is the only "thing" that needs no prerequisite to do anything, no rules, no limits. It can cause without being caused... notice the similarity between the words (chaos and cause)... i wonder if there is a relation?
There may also be more than one type of God. One type is the God of the plank scale (underworld, feminine) which would be an Energy/Chaos god, the other would be a God of order and reason (heaven, masculine). Our intelligence about this subject should be comparable to how the Eskimos have different words for different types of snow. Snow is one material with many forms and so the concept of "God" may be of a similar nature in this respect. Perhaps it is why there is much confusion.
@@ironl4nd No. My answer *WOULD NOT* be "it's always existed because it's infinite". You're not really understanding what I'm saying. To ask "What caused infinity"... That's too general. When you ask "What caused infinity" you make it sound like infinity is a singular thing and you're grouping everything together with certain causes that did not necessarily cause certain events. Lets say the Big Bang was caused by event A. Now lets say event A was caused by event B. Event B was caused by event C and so on and so forth. The string of events goes on for infinite but each event themselves (A, B, C...) is not themselves infinite. I'm not here to argue what the true nature of reality is. Only to clarify my own personal beliefs however wrong they may be.
You said to me:
In other words: the infinite regress of contingent things (your infinity) is in itself contingent on something. That something has to be eternal and uncaused, the first cause of everything
This right here indicates to me you're not grasping the concept of infinity. I would not say "The infinite regress of contingent things is in itself contingent on something" But just to entertain you for the moment lets say that "The infinite regress of contingent things" is caused by event A'. You then said to me "That something has to be eternal and uncaused, the first cause of everything" I disagree and would say that A' is caused by event B'. That would mean that A' *IS NOT* eternal or the first cause of everything. That would just mean that A' is contingent on B'. And B' is contingent on C' and so on and so forth. Just to reiterate I would not say "the infinite regress of contingent things is itself contingent on something" Because phrasing it like that makes it sound like infinity is this 1 singular thing. You make it sound like you're grouping everything together which indicates to me you're not understanding the concept of infinity. Infinity is not this 1 singular thing that had this 1 singular cause. You can say that event A is caused by event B but when you ask "What caused the infinity"? By using the word "THE" you're making it sound like infinity is just another thing or another event. So if you're saying infinity is just another event P, I would say that it too was caused by some other event P1. Otherwise I have no idea what you're saying and would say you're confused about the meaning of the words: {infinity, event, cause}.
A cause is something existent therefore it can't be the cause of existence since existence is the basis of cause. A cause is just existence in action, so existence is the cause of a cause causing an effect and since the effect would have to take place in some reality existence or reality can't be caused. because existence or reality is where all events take place.
Being that a cause is just existence in action there can't be an infinite causes causing infinite existences since existence is the stream where all causes would be acting out there drama.
Could existence be the reason for a universe? There is a universe because there is existence?
You're speaking of existence as if it's a substance
"Must be personal"? Why must it be personal?
Doesn’t Smith’s counter argument against “first cause” of God flippantly, and more, illogically discount choice?
Wouldn’t an omnipotent being have choice?
Secondly, doesn’t the Bible explicitly state that at one point - or points - that the physical universe did not exist in “current” form. If God had no choice but to make the universe as it is, why was there any delay?
Wouldn’t the “appearance” of God instantly co-create the universe?
By way of counter point, isn’t there equal room for a non transcendent first “state” of reality?
Regarding the infinite regression issue, seems to me is whether it is a convergent series or not.
Frankly, I find rational axiomatic arguments do not lead to certainty regarding the existence or non existence of God.
Seems to me that irrational - or intuitive - thought is necessary to give a personal yes or no to the existence of God.
That doesn't make sense. If God revealed himself to me and proved he existed, I would have to accept this to maintain rationality. It would be irrational to adopt any other position. Therefore, it can be proven it is not necessarily irrational to conclude god exists. Holding the position that it is necessarily irrational is itself necessarily irrational
Probably there is a coherent physical counter argument for this but, as far as humans know, there is a law of conservation. No energy is lost in the universe. Only converted.
Therefor energy is eternal.
No need for god.
Only something that would convert the energy to mass or cause it to change. But if the primal state of energy is unstable to begin with, than a universe emerging from energy is necessary.
As far as physical and cosmological arguments go, it seems like the only interesting question is if the laws of physics (or physics itself) is finite and why it is what it is.
Since as far as evidence go, the first agent with a mind and some sort of a will has emerged via evolution a few million years ago, than any complexity on earth before it was a result of physics. Nothing more.
And since there was a remarkable complexity up until the point of the first agent, than we know for a fact we dont need agents for the appearing of complex things. And statistically, 99.999999% of all complex things ever made is a result of physics. Not agents. Not minds.
Therefore, the most probable assumption is that the answer to how things come to be is "not an agent".
an omniscient being wouldn't have choice. why do we care what the bible states?
@@louiscyfer6944 i dont get it. Why would an omniscient or omnipotent deity unable to chose not to do something it can?
This does follow, as far as i can see.
The Vedas indicate the universe has no beginning, but alternates between manifest and unmanifest states. This still requires a cause.
Why does existence need a cause? That's just an assertion.
@@con.troller4183 The cycle of change between unmanifest and manifest would not happen without being caused. The sufficient cause, according to the Vedānta-sūtras 2.3.30, is desire in the absence of defect.
@@PaulHoward108 "The cycle of change between unmanifest and manifest would not happen without being caused. "
And you know this how? because of words in a book?
@@con.troller4183, The Vedas are the words of the Personality of Godhead. Reality is made of His words.
@@PaulHoward108 OK - if the pieces of paper with words on them say so I guess it's true.
I very much like your Rabbi.
Was this the last one?
Contingency of universe might have a contingent cause?
" Some Truths about God exceed all ability of human reason... But there are some truths which natural reason is also able to reach. Such as God exists." Thomas Aquinas. For me personally I found the Answer in The Cross which for me exemplifies Gods Love for me and for the whole world. Many of the deeper philosophical, cosmological, first Causes questions etc.will be answered when I leave this beautiful creation for a higher reality which some call paradise. Also I am informed by God through His Son that that paradise will exist on earth for a thousand years according to the words of the Lord Jesus Christ. Praise God and Bless His Holy City Jerusalem. JB
There is no such thing as God. "God" is just an imaginary friend for adults which they created to deal with things they don't understand as well as their fears.
@@irrelevant2235 Totally Agree!!! Belief in God just breeds ignorance and fear!
All concluding there is a need for a first cause can give us is some unknowable first causer. It never leads to any human conception of a god.
And you've missed the point. Existence and conception are different. You could conclude a God is necessary without being able to conceive of God.
@@LoraxChannel God is NEVER a rational conclusion. That anthropomorphism is a silly fiction that no rational person would accept as an answer to anything.
Arguments for the existence of God only work if you already believe in God.
Many people who were atheists and agnostics come to believe in God through these arguments, like the Philosopher Ed Feser. Also, arguing from a belief, instead of to a belief, has nothing to do with whether the belief is valid or the argument is sound.
@@tedgrant2
Ed Feser was an atheist from his teens into adulthood. He was a philosophy professor who was still an atheist and although he had to teach the classical arguments for theism, he thought they were not good. Until he started thinking about them and reading about them more. And he began to realise they were very convincing. Thus he became a theist.
To say that because he was raised a catholic as a child that means his atheism was invalid just shows your bias and the fact that you're intent on believing something regardless of the evidence.
@@tedgrant2 Oh my, I just read your second and third comment and wow, I really feel sorry for you. Especially because of that third comment. I mean that sincerely. Please, I mean this genuinely, I think you should take a break from the internet especially UA-cam and social media if you have it. I'm not sure of your age, I would guess a teenager but regardless too much internet and lack of social connection can harm everyones mental health.
I really hope you start feeling better.
@@garyboulton2302
Jesus is the son of God.
@@garyboulton2302
The Bible is all true.
The premise God being omnipotent means he must bring existence without any series of cause is false premise. There is no definition of omnipotent that supports the premise. Rather omnipotent actually reject the premise because omnipotent means all capable even in series of causes.
(5:10) *RLK: **_"Anything that exists must have a reason for it's existence."_* ... The universe absolutely has an origin. Our galaxy has an origin, just like our sun, our planet, and everything on it has an origin. However, an _infinitely existing_ God does not have an origin by definition, so this is either a _"unique existential anomaly"_ or a concept that cannot be supported via reason. The concept of God becomes circular when the *reason* for God's existence is to facilitate existence.
The truth is that the entirety of "Existence" has an origin point. The *"Five laws of Existence"* regulate what can or cannot exist and the duration of whatever seeks existence. Whereas the _1st law of Existence_ serves as the gatekeeper to existence, the _5th Law of Existence_ determines the fate of whatever passes through the gate.
In regard to "reason," consider the following: If we all lived on the surface of Mars, ... then no inventor would have ever brought a _lawnmower_ into existence.
@@FelixBat *"Who created the 5 laws of existence? As in what guy told us them."*
... They are a priori laws. Nobody ordains, enacts, or scripted these laws, but rather when you break down "Existence," you'll find these five laws operating at its core. In other words, without Existence and these five laws, ... _then there is no Existence._
On the flip side, "Nonexistence" is also a priori, but operates by no laws.
If you want to know more about how these laws operate, they are detailed in my book titled *"0"* on my channel's "about" page.
Could contingency emerge from necessity?
Maybe existence without universe, no universe without existence? Existence could be brute fact (God?)
God is Life itself (I am the Life!) (able to pull itself even out of the nothing) and the point in far far future where Life will have fully realized itself (I am what I will be!). The One in the end is the same who was in the beginning! But empirical science can never see that Living, it is its tool for self intervention for reason of self transformation and realization! God is the point in far far future, spoken with Pax Planck, where science and religion will meet - at their common goal! 😉
That real question to ask is why or how does energy become matter! Secondly, to speak of a God, we must first clarify what is God; for obvious reasons God couldn’t be a physical being, unless God exists in his own separate real outside this one we live in.
God is the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. It was Christians who developed & perfected the Sciences & the scientific method, and are still the majority of Nobel prize winners. And the God of the Jews & Christians .... always existed ... is perfect, can only do good, is Love but also Just .. and of course ALMIGHTY.
We know all that we need, to fully explain the origin of the Universe & Life.
Purpose, reason, rules, properties, design, laws ... thoughts, ideas, beliefs, opinion, theories, logic, ethics, morals ... data, information, knowledge are all ABSTRACT CONSTRUCTS from the mind of an intelligence. Fact 1.
There are only two known existences: PHYSICAL (ie Universe) & ABSTRACT ( ie domain of the mind of an intelligence). Fact 2.
These two simple facts fully explain the origin of the Universe & Life.
Anything that has a purpose, reason, properties, rules, design, INFORMATION ... that can be extracted & used by an intelligence (ie Man) ... must be made by an intelligence ( ie God ).
Man extracts information from the physical existence ... to process in the Abstract existences.
Man takes information from the Abstract existence ... and transfers it to constructs in the Physical existence.
Everything in the Universe including Man ... is an abstract & physical construct .... of an intelligence.
The Universe was clearly made by an intelligence ... for an intelligence.
And only Christianity identifies the intelligence that made the Universe & Life ... and the REASON why?
God is an intelligence with a mind & free will to create things.
God made Man in His image, to live forever with Him
But Man is not God, but has free will, and the moment Man sinned is the moment he started to die and the rest is the History of Mankind.
The Universe we know today ... began ... after it had been made in 4 days and Adam & Eve sinning. It was CREATED in an unnatural System with no laws of physics.
The Universe is an FINITE isolated Thermodynamic System with increasing entropy ... that began & is expanding in ... an INFINITE Unnatural System. But the Universe was originally ... the INFINITE Unnatural System until Mankind sinned.
See. You only need the facts about the Physical & Abstract existences ... and Chapters 1- 3 of Genesis written 3400 years ago.
It was never a Big Bang ... but a Bright VAST sphere of Light containing the matter & energy of the Universe God completed the Universe on Day 4. Inflation/formation was over 4 days not a fraction of a second.
Day 1 God created instantly ... the infinite unnatural space(first Heaven) and the Earth covered with water. The God said, "Let there be light."
Day 2 God created the Atmosphere( second Heaven) for the life to come, and telling us that there is no life in the Space( first Heaven).
Day 3: Land & seas formed and all the flora
Day 4: Stars were stretched out in the skies, ... then God made the Sun, moon, planets and set them in orbit with the Earth for the days, months, years and seasons.
Day 5. Water & bird fauna
Day 6.. Land & Man
Day 7. Rest. Day dedicated to God.
Again. God is Almighty and could have created everything in a blink of an eye .. but he chose 6 days with the 7th being God's day.
There is a reason ... why the greatest & most influential man in all of history ... is a Jew called Yeshua(Salvation) who said he is the promised Jewish Messiah & the Son of God.
The New Testament was written 1900 years ago and prophesied that Jesus will return for a 1000 year reign before Judgement day .... after Man has ruled the Earth for 6 x 1000 years. The Jews reject Jesus as their Messiah, but believe they are now living in end times when their promised Messiah will come to bring everlasting peace. The Jewish Year since Creation is ... 5 782. Hmmmmm? Jesus returns Year 6 000 ... and Jews expecting their Messiah soon.
Anything ... that has a purpose, rules, information ... is made by an intelligence ... for an intelligence.
Man was made in God's image to dwell with Him forever.
infinity does not compute ,
Therefore , the first cause is still more plausible than No cause .
Our life experience suggests that our Reality has a first cause , That's the default setting , Therefore it is more plausible .
infinity backwards in time Beyond the Big Bang is also not possible because We know our universe has a limit called the Planck Time , similar to the limit in size which is the Planck length .
Does God require necessity?
In this explanation of the universe having a cause therefore God lacks the most important point, one that natural arguments for the existence of the universe must have, and that is a mechanism. From a fraction of a second after it universe began to today, science has a rough idea how the universe was formed, the agencies involved, the length of time it took and the eventual outcome, a unified theory that squares with observations. Some of our understanding may be wrong but the basics will probably not change. On the other hand God has no mechanism. There is no time table, there are no known agencies involved, no mechanism to explain our observations, nothing. God is an explanation that does not explain.
When he talks about his assumption he didnt even state it is a assuption. He speak like he know it 100% sure what if things always be things and it was no start
Love is blind but reading is blue stand for cause*
I’m still waiting for some philosopher to argue against the claim: “Nothing comes from nothing.” So many people accept this premise without question, even though we have so little experience with nothingness. It sounds reasonable, but I’d say it’s only intuitive; and humans have a bad track record applying our reasoning to things outside of common experience (relativity, quantum theory, etc.).
that is an assertion that needs to be demonstrated.
A Nothing can be thought of as either being empty, or being full. Both are without attributes. I assume this mystery of existence can never be solved by thought processes. But we are it. Only, we are not aware.
You don't need to to a philosopher to tackle this one. If nothing comes from nothing, where does God come from? Does God come from nothing and therefore he would logically be nothing as per the rules of this statement? Does God come from something and therefore have a cause? The statement is irrational and self defeating if one is making an argument for the existence of an uncaused cause.
@@Nephilymn3356 Depends who/what is God. If there is such a being then it is created and comes from what it is not. The impersonal nature of God is not the personal God. The Nothing can be full of everything or void of anything. We cannot differentiate since it is without any attributes. (I assume that this is the Nirvana in Buddhism or the Brahman in Veda.)
"we have so little experience with nothingness". What does that mean?
Something that self existing and self explanatory must have mind because of same infinite regress because infinite regress rule out any non mind explanation or possibility. And I can prove it.
Everyone believes that the god mythology of their culture just happens to be the right one. A self-reinforcing illusion of absolute certainty that has no foundation in reality. Since popularity and belief has never provided any credibility.
But as we have seen time and time again over our history, it does create a dangerously false sense of righteousness. Where individuality can't exist.
That's the genetic fallacy. Why someone believes something or how they come to believe it, has nothing to do with whether what they believe is true or not.
@@garyboulton2302
I think it should be a verifiable truth first. Especially, if you are going to build your entire world view from it. Having faith in it being true isn't enough.
@@thomasridley8675 How does your statement have any relevance to what I said?
@@garyboulton2302
Why someone believes something...has nothing too do with it being true or not.
All I am saying is that what you believe being true or not does matter.
We see people who believe things because the narrative is convenient to their world view or their pocket book. (I deserve too be saved because I have accepted this particular theology as a fact and reject all the rest as heresy.) How convenient can it get. That they somehow have the correct message that everyone else also calls a heresy because but it doesn't match their interpretation. Leading to theological splits that are all too common in religions.
@@thomasridley8675 Does why people believe something have an effect on whether what they believe is true or not?
Whether god exists or not there is one thing certain:
Believers in, and talkers about, god do exist. And they divert our attention from linking events to satisfy needs of beings. Hence a practically real nuisance.
An afterthought:
As I comment here that includes me too.
We create a simulation, we program Artificial intelligence, this God to manage the simulation and human consciousness, which is repeatedly downloaded into avatars and equally uploaded once the avatar has accomplished its destiny. Since we have no references either for existence or reality, anything remains on the table. The relevant question is who or what God is .
Perhaps we should begin by asking if both this existence and god are natural ( as we perceive this environment ) OR artificial. … is this someone’s digital construct or a actual physical reality. …. Which in it self still fails to determine what this is since references remain absent. For all we know ‘we created this prison, you have been found guilty of a crime , assigned to this program to do time as punishment. The possibilities are endless. A universal traveler in a state of hibernation / suspended animation being managed by the on board AI till you reach your destination. OR the universe is a living organism and we collectively all the ‘cells’, form this structure - like our bodies ….. your body too is a universe and you the god.
@Artificial cocoon intelligent being I have been weaving some thoughts into what consciousness entails - at the end it becomes the ‘living memories and expression of being’ - a record of self which many NDE’s claim. Dualism, the mind and body relationship may suggest that consciousness is data which is uploaded at ‘death’ back to the source from where it once was. There could me more than this physical reality we are so attached too, considering that there are no references, anything goes …… a permanent state of being in the ‘quantum realm’ may be where all consciousness resides . The question is, is this a natural phenomenon or is this advanced technology at work and why so.
@Artificial cocoon intelligent being I find the subject of consciousness fundamental in understanding reality - level of awareness and self awareness in particular may guide us to the answers we seek. We need to reference our state of awareness to that of animals if we are to understand our place in nature. Conscious of being / Awareness as a verb differs to consciousness which in my theory stands as a state of being even as past tense - it is the uploaded and stored record of experience …. So you experience, the experience is uploaded and goes ?????? Best analogy to consider would be ….. I download my consciousness ( memories suppressed ) into the digitally created metaverse, I live and experience life in that realm , I don’t doubt or question this reality since their are no references, and at a elected time I am uploaded along with the adventures and new lessons learned /accumulated and return to my base self. I could do this repeatedly and indefinitely …. Multiverse or parallel verses too, if I choose to make copies of my consciousness into a digital form and spread simultaneously into multiple simulated realities, I can - that is the future or the future is now. Time is now relative in a multi dimensional construct - I have watched many NDE’s and there may be the answer we seek.
@Artificial cocoon intelligent being if I read you correctly and I will have to carefully consider your view , you are approaching this subject of Consciousness from a natural scientific understanding …. Evolution of life and adaptation by record …. I see it way differently, I suggest that that consciousness and awareness are not entirely the same - animals and all other life may be aware , our bodies too , but us sentient beings differed somewhat. Our consciousness is not local, did not come to be here at birth and without question is expelled from this form it possesses at death, it has merged with this form of animal ( humanoid) It is here in this physical for a experience …. It is an essence that has crossed realms …. Whether this is natural by design or chance OR technologically constructed….. it is a upload,at the end, ultimately the data of your experience. As the Christians who have it ‘your book of life’ consciousness is external it is the memory stick that is constantly uploading your adventures and then leaves once done leaving behind this physical realm .
@Artificial cocoon intelligent being DNA is in my view best explained as coded instructions or a program, like algorithms, who adjust and adapt, which hypothetically does suggest a a design and by by extension a designer ….. but all this only applies to the form/body/machine/avatar….. and how it adjusts in the environment, the consciousness is the driver and does not come to be out of consequence but by appointment …. Dualism in my view, at the very least in humans, must be fundamental. We may share a mutual design with the animal kingdom but there is a huge divide when it comes to consciousness. One seems eternally stagnant ( animals ) and the other ( humans ) appear to have a universal and eternal role. So did consciousness seek out the means to interact with the physical world - did the ‘quantum’ realm find a path into time and space and this physical realm we call reality. Is consciousness able to cross cross between the ‘seen and unseen’ . It may seem spiritual even religious in context but personally I believe it is all science yet to be discovered and understood - I wish you luck with your search for this elusive definition of consciousness - many are have given it a shot but none have hit the bullseye yet. Understand consciousness in all its form and you will have discovered the holy grail to the ‘ I AM ‘ therefore I think .
There is no first cause since one cause cannot produce many effects
If i slap my hand, that is a cause, yet the sound from and pain left on my hand are effects. One cause, two effects.
What is the cause of ‘God’ ?
I wish you would have an interview with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris on these type of topics
Ah, David, trouble is that those guys go mute (we might say dumbstruck) on "these types of topics"… being as they are materialists. They are fine within our material world, and happy to follow our physics wherever its laws, theorems and theories may lead, but dismissive of any transcendent, immaterial or supernatural possibility, which God necessarily is.
Why? Dawkins is a babbling moron who can't string together two ideas. Only those who like one liner thinking, care what Dawkins has to say.
If god Is first cause, what caused god?
I’ve generally believed that the universe IS god, so god was first cause, but I just had to ask myself the question above.
Now I’m not sure WTF…???
You have to stop at some point. If we say "what caused God?", then it is valid to ask "what caused that which caused God?". God caused everything. He always existed.
@@dnavas7719 That's a rather simple answer to a complex problem navas77. And your assumption of a God having a gender is rather disappointing. The universe does not need a God to happen. We know so very little about our universe never mind if there may be a multiverse with many universes we can not see yet. As science learns more the realm of God become becomes more and more less of an explanation of what is. You are free to believe what you want. I on the other hand have no faith that a God exists. I remember nothing of what I was before I was born. I will not after I die.
Why "first"? Why not infinity? After all, the theologians claim God's temporal existence, power, omniscience and beneficence is infinite. Then logically, why can't the Universe be infinite as well?
So, where'd god come from?
If you have faith or an innate acknowledgment of God, never allow anyone to discourage you, and rather acknowledge the step your at and seek the step ahead by coming to terms with humility and committing to growth.
These arguments all seems like a revolving door, or in other words modern science is very dissatisfying and tho I think science is important I have little faith in the modern acadamicians. What is full flling is cultivating thought in knowledge(light) and reaping what you've sown, the fruits of your labor being Wisdom. No real truth is ever had from an argument rather it should reveal the direction best to be engaged upon and discarding what is of no use holding you back.
You're not going to find God out there if you haven't recognized God herein.
You're stranded in the middle of ocean, going in any direction is your best bet to find land. However regarding God we're not looking for an element, so where do you go?
Metaphysics isn't good enough for some, and it's in the very enquiry the very engagement both mentally, physically, emotionally the forges something, such as the Soul, the lotus body that in regards of Reason is satisfying.
What is to 'prove'
Do you ever see people today go out of their way to prove somebody other than themselves right? No, the game of proving today is about proving others wrong so you can be seen as right and earn a grand noble prize; thinking this is achievement. It's not.
The sacred scriptures, if no scienctist seeks to prove why these dark saying are Right than they'll likely be in opposition to our sacred scriptures and are stuck in playing that tedious pedantry game they're all playing today.
If you exclude Theology from science or metaphysics from physics -- you lose so hard!
You want to come to understand God without understanding yourself or the laws we can work with or work against us.
You want to come to Know God while you cannot even come to know the problems of our planet, having no empathy for the unfortunate, do you think you have what it takes to come to Know God because ..?
I think starting with coming to know the man of difference, have empathy for the unfortunate, an innate respect for the virtues, a true good intention to act with Reason in all you say think and do, to work with mother earth and integrate in with nature so seeing her as biological living being that she is and deserving or respect and honor, the acknowledgement of mother earth who sustains us and the Sun who gives life, this is called Spirituality and it's not a thought or a belief it's and acknowledgment, a realization and a lifestyle. This is how how come to know GOD. This is God. And you're looking in all the wrong places and with all the wrong reasons. Your intent displays thy mind, your action is the unfolding of your commitment,,your drive is the motion of Soul.
You'll find God when you start respecting God.
Four words end all debate! "From nothing nothing comes". God 'has' to exist or this universe could 'never' exist. God made the universe in such a way that no matter how advanced we got it would always come down to that. And come on, a first cause of the universe would HAVE to be infinite in power, knowledge, wisdom etc to be able to create this wondrous creation To say it could be anything other than God is utterly ridiculous. The absolute pinnacle of human stupidity is to claim God doesn't exist because - "From nothing nothing comes"!!!
God is conscious - moral -rational Being - God isnt numbers or abstract ideas out there in existence 😅
3:57 That's actually illogical, scientifically untrue, and Craig has been made aware of it before. It's illogical, composition/non-sequitur fallacy, and untrue scientifically because causation is defined spatial-temporally. The fact he keeps repeating a refuted argument tells me he is either unserious or is using it as an evangelical tool.
Might a first cause be indicated by the end / goal / teleology, such as God is the Alpha and the Omega?
Consider that God isn't bound by the forward flow of time, and forward time may be a distilling of perfection through experience. In that case, God created nothing and the beginning and the flow forward flow of time, in order that it become perfection. Fate is very real, it's just imposed in a way that is hard for us to understand, in reverse time.
道可道，非常道。名可名，非常名。無名天地之始；有名萬物之母。故常無欲，以觀其妙；常有欲，以觀其徼。此兩者，同出而異名，同謂之玄。玄之又玄，衆妙之門。
John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
This life isn't all there is, heaven and hell are very real but Jesus Christ loves you more than you will ever know and can save you. If you really want to know God and have eternal life, you just need to seek him with all your heart with prayer and repentance, no other way. If you will ask Jesus Christ with a genuine heart to please forgive all your sins, and come into your heart and please save you, he will save you and you will soon know how real he is. God bless. ❤🙏
@@FelixBat ❤
THE SKIN OF THE GOD ARE THE ORIGIN OF ALL CALLED GRAVITY USING A DUST TO GIVE A VISION AND DESIGN THE GRAVITY
The Universe is eternal and cyclical. No need for a First Cause.
Eternal and Cyclical - like "God" is the first and the last. The one mind in the end is the same who was in the beginning. 😉
No evidence though, time is emergent and so is space
@@neffetSnnamremmiZ No, no. No need for gods. You only need creator gods if you think the Universe had a beginning. But the Universe has always existed, and will always exist. No need for magical beings.
No proof for a eternal universe and no proof for a cyclical universe also. Your extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! In fact a big bang out of nothing is most likely whats real. Not shure why you are not willing to accept wht hard science is telling you.
Wrong. The Universe is the only example of a FINITE Isolated Thermodynamic System with increasing entropy.
Eternal & cyclic are nonsense fiction by Atheists/Agnostics.
We're spiritual beings having a human experience
Suuurree
There are only two existences: PHYSICAL ( Universe) & ABSTRACT ( Mind of an intelligence).
Physical constructs must obey the laws of Nature.
Abstract constructs are not bound by the laws of Nature.
The Abstract existence is the Non-physical reality for the mind of an intelligence ... and is as close as you can get to proving a spirit, soul or God with the Scientific Method which follows the Laws of Nature.
This first guest was this excellent show’s first misstep. This “theologian” or “philosopher” or whatever he calls himself is a fool, and an embarassment to theists everywhere.
First, he dispenses w a definition of God, which I suppose I dont fault him for too much since theists almost always do this-I suppose to avoid what is arguably even harder to substantiate, esp since it wld then constrain their whole argument. As science has marched forward in its campaign of explaining reality down to its tiniest and most elusive particles, small minded, second rate clerics such as this fellow have been forced to backpedal in order to stay relevant, and have now settled for a version of God reduced to whatever it is that lit the fuse before the big bang (if the big bang rly happened the way scientists believe it did; let’s not forget there isnt total consensus on this point).
Then poor Robert then politely nods his head while his interviewee unfurls his quackery, and it consists of such profound question-begging and circular reasoning that, well, I have to commend Robert for not tearing off his mic and stomping off like an embattaled senator during a 60 Minutes gotcha.
Reference to BIG-CRUNCH in the Quran, from the first cause to last cause BIG-CRUNCH.
Quran 21:104 The Day when We will fold the heaven like the folding of a [written] sheet for the records. As We began the first creation, We will repeat it. [That is] a promise binding upon Us. Indeed, We will do it.
The Egyptian Creation Myth reflects the Big Bang. So what? Does that mean that animal headed gods exist?
@@con.troller4183 Can you provide reference for your claim ?
@@rizwanrafeek3811 Yes - the Egyptian Creation Myth.
The point is, correspondence does not equal causality.
@@con.troller4183 Just because you claimed twice it does not make it authentic without reference.
@@rizwanrafeek3811 It's a myth. Like yours.
Each sees light stream through a prism of glass. The pious think of stained glass and God's bliss, and all but simplicity they let pass. They have no need for a hypothesis.
The logical need to know how light's bent, and measure photon wavelength to decide if particle-waves end the argument or there are more dimensions to divide.
The first has all the answers that it needs. The other must seek, before it accedes.
-- from "DILEMMA"
What caused the gods?
God is, by definition, uncaused.
@@larrylucid5502 We could define the universe the same way. It doesn’t add anything to invoke gods and goddesses.
@@orver1 we know the universe has an origin, buddy. did u just wake up ? thats what confused Einstein
@@larrylucid5502 we do not know if it had an origin.
@@orver1 yea, we do. Its called "the Big Bang" . And its precisely because of anti-god reasoning that Einstein couldnt see what his OWN equations were yelling at him. It took 10 years and a catholic priest to translate that for him
Plus our DNA has the genetic make up to worship
Because we live in a universe of time and space we tend to think that there has to be a first cause, when in fact there is no first cause, only infinity. There is no creator.
How can you have creation without a creator/independent mind? Even a succession of events is contingent on a non contingent outlier. It’s why you need something outside of material phenomena to have it in the first place. 0 + 0 = 0 not 1 observable laws must follow including in metaphysics.
@@empyrean9712 that is the point, there is no creator, it always was, it is infinite. The laws of physics apply to this universe. But, not necessarily to the whole multiverse. But, even if you are right and there is a creator, we would have to take into account every possible creator that created it, not just your favorite creator but every creation posibility.
@@AtheistCook That’s my point how can there be a “law of physics” without a lawgiver or some intermediary force in which to offset information. As to the multiverse theory it obfuscates Occam’s razor it also is just a pluralist or infinite regress model instead of an ontological idealist.
Ontological mathematics gets yet closer to the truth. Thanks for your videos.
Question: Why would there be a cause for anything if there isn't a cause for everything?
Prior to the universe causation did not exist, it's emergence resulted from a non-causal state.
God began to exist with the first man who asserted his existence, and the existence of god, will end, with the last man who asserts his existence!
-KM
Space/Time (or lack thereof) Prime Mover, Fine Tuning, yes, connect the dots with that theory of everything.