Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Astronomy & Cosmology and God » The Kalaam Cosmological Argument

The Kalaam Cosmological Argument

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 The Kalaam Cosmological Argument on Mon Nov 25, 2013 12:56 pm

Admin


Admin
The Kalaam Cosmological Argument

http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1333-the-kalaam-cosmological-argument

The Kalam Cosmological Argument
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Some try to substitute God as first cause by claiming that energy was always there, eternally, stored in a singularity, and caused the universe into being by a quantum fluctuation event. Planck regarded matter/energy as derivative from consciousness. What would be the contrary? Consciousness derivative from energy. If it were so, over an unknown length of time, energy would have become cognitive and self-aware, even learning the how's and why's of becoming other perceivable forms. It would gain  perception, thinking, free will, moral judgment, and memory.  Einstein recognized the absurdity of this claim. He  described the "gulf' that logically separates the concrete world of hard objects on the one hand from the abstract world of ideas on the other. A small part of the materialists problem is that hard objects are never observed spontaneously to transform themselves (on their own recognizance) into abstract ideas.

W.L.Craig writes : 
The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time. For example, a man sitting from eternity may will to stand up; hence, a temporal effect may arise from an eternally existing agent. Indeed, the agent may will from eternity to create a temporal effect, so that no change in the agent need be conceived. Thus, we are brought not merely to the first cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.

Only the God of the Bible is described with the following characteristics:
• Supernatural in nature (as He exists outside of His creation)
• Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known)
• Eternal (self-existent, as He exists outside of time and space)
• Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it)
• Timeless and changeless (He created time)
• Immaterial (because He transcends space)
• Personal (the impersonal can’t create personality)
• Necessary (as everything else depends on Him)
• Infinite and singular (as you cannot have two infinites)
• Diverse yet has unity (as all multiplicity implies a prior singularity)
• Intelligent (supremely, to create everything)
• Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything)
• Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver)
• Caring (or no moral laws would have been given)

The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning … God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time.

Therefore, The God of the Bible fits the description of the cause and infers that He exists and is the best explanation of the cause of the universe.


A proponent of the Big Bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing."4 But surely that doesn't make sense! Out of nothing, nothing comes. So why does the universe exist instead of just nothing? Where did it come from? There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being.

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. For example, the cause of water's freezing is the temperature's being below 0˚ Centigrade. If the temperature were below 0˚ from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. So if the cause is permanently present, then the effect should be permanently present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. For example, a man sitting from eternity could freely will to stand up. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.

if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time. For example, a man sitting from eternity may will to stand up; hence, a temporal effect may arise from an eternally existing agent. Indeed, the agent may will from eternity to create a temporal effect, so that no change in the agent need be conceived. Thus, we are brought not merely to the first cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.

it can be plausibly argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator. For how else could a temporal effect arise from an eternal cause? If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity?  The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time. For example, a man sitting from eternity may will to stand up; hence, a temporal effect may arise from an eternally existing agent. Indeed, the agent may will from eternity to create a temporal effect, so that no change in the agent need be conceived. Thus, we are brought not merely to the first cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics Refutes the Eternal Universe

A scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning comes to the 2nd law of thermodynamics or the law of entropy.  This law says that in a closed universe the finite amount of energy is winding down, moving towards a time when all energy will be expended.   If we spin a ball on a table what we find is that it has a finite or limited amount of energy that was applied to spin the ball.  The spinning ball will soon stop; it has run out of energy.  In a similar fashion, the universe with its limited amount of energy is going to wind down to where there is no energy left.

Another illustration of the 2nd law of thermodynamics utilizes a hot cup of coffee.   Over time the coffee cools and the heat moves outward into the room.  Soon the temperature of the coffee and the room will be equal.  The same goes for the universe.  Heat is moving outward from stars and is being uniformly distributed throughout the universe. Eventually, the limited amount of heat energy of the stars throughout the universe will run out and suffer what is called, “Heat death.”  L. Barnet said this, “The universe is progressing toward an ultimate heat death or, as it is technically defined, a condition of maximum entropy.  When the universe reaches this state some billions of years from now, all the processes of nature will cease.  All space will be the same temperature… There will be no light, no life, no warmth–nothing but perpetual and irrevocable stagnation…and there is no way of avoiding this destiny!”

If the universe was eternal, all the heat energy would have been utilized an infinite amount of time ago.  If this is true then we should currently be at heat death.  All the energy should have been used up an eternity ago. Since energy exists today we can conclude the universe is not eternal.  If the universe is not eternal, it must have had a beginning. Both the big bang and 2nd law of thermodynamics refute an eternal universe.

Philosophical  reasons why the universe cannot be past eternal 

We realize that we can never get to an infinite period of time in the future by adding individual events together. 2  But today, this point of time in the present, is a point of time future to all past.  Correct?  In other words, we are future to yesterday, and the day before that.  Now, some have suggested that the universe is eternal.  That it has existed forever.  But it is not possible that it has existed forever.  Here is the application.  This point in time is actually future with reference to all of the past.  We just agreed that you cannot say that any particular point in the future will accomplish an actual infinite as events are added one to another.  Therefore, this present moment in time can't represent an actual infinite number of events added one to another proceeding from the past.  Time has proceeded forward from the past as one event is added onto another to get us to today.  But we know that whenever you pause in the count as we've done today, that you can't have an infinite number of events.  Which means that there is not an infinite number of events that goes backward from this point in time.  Only a finite number of events.  Which means the universe is not eternal.  Which means the universe has not existed forever and ever with no beginning, but it in fact had a beginning.

1. http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/establishing-god-as-creator-part-17/

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658v1.pdf
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-existence-of-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe
http://www.str.org/articles/you-will-not-live-an-eternity#.VF1ZbMlLktM

https://www.facebook.com/JuiceMY/videos/10155278672372714/?hc_ref=ARSjvKqlje2ME0GANXJq4wijBUcy2Qkn48TSMzVjt3Ezk0WKD2N_mddQ7ULMyx4k85E



Last edited by Admin on Fri May 25, 2018 4:23 am; edited 11 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Is it possible for actually infinite numbers of entities to be realized in the actual world?

http://crossexamined.org/philosophical-arguments-universe-beginning/

One of the greatest mathematicians of all-time, David Hilbert, certainly didn’t think so: “the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought.“ Georg Cantor established a mathematically rigorous way of dealing with the concept of infinity that is very useful for mathematical and scientific calculations. Although Hilbert defended Cantor’s work, he argued that infinities couldn’t exist in the actual world or they would lead to absurdities.

Some readers may be thinking that if it is mathematically possible it has to be physically possible. But not everything used in mathematics necessarily implies a direct correspondence with physical ontology (nature of being). Infinitesimals are mathematically feasible and highly useful in calculus, but modern physics holds that everything is quantized. Mathematical consistency and coherence doesn’t necessarily imply physical realization – there are abstract mathematical systems that can be constructed that are coherent but not all of them are necessarily realized anywhere in physics. In computer science we often choose between multiple mathematically equivalent but quite different ways of computing things – they can’t all correspond to physical ontology because they entail fundamentally different ways of modeling reality. Infinities that show up in physics equations are considered problematic unless and until some type of renormalization can be performed.

So if we can show that absurdities result if actual infinites exist, then we have good reasons for rejecting the possibility of an actually infinite number of past events – even if it is mathematically feasible. Here is how philosopher Peter S Williams makes this argument to a lay audience:

Suppose I ask you to loan me a certain book, but you say: ‘I don’t have it right now, but I’ll ask my friend to lend me his copy and then I’ll lend it to you.’

Suppose your friend says the same thing and so on…
If the process of asking to borrow the book goes on forever, I’ll never get the book
If I get the book, the process that led to me getting it can’t have gone on forever
Somewhere down the line of requests to borrow the book, someone had the book without having to borrow it. It’s easy to see how this analogy applies to the Kalam – if the arrival of the current event/book required infinitely many prior events, it would have never arrived. You cannot traverse an actual infinity. If the current event/book did arrive, the process that led to it couldn’t have gone on forever.

Another example of the physical impossibility of an actually infinite number of items is the following. Suppose that there is one particle of some type for every positive whole number (integer) – we can think of these as comprising a mathematical set in which we’ve numbered the particles. The number of particles is aleph null and represents a so-called countable infinity. Suppose this type of particle is not stable and thus half of the particles decay in some time interval. One could think of the number of particles in this set as now consisting of the even integers. But one can also reach a contradictory answer that the number of particles is the same as the original by proving mathematically that the number of even, positive integers is the same as the number of positive integers.

This mathematical proof is quite simply done by showing a one-to-one correspondence between the elements in the set. For every integer in the original set, there is one integer in the set of even integers (2,4,6, …) obtained by just doubling the original value. Thus, the number of particles in each set is mathematically identical even though half of the original particles underwent decay. After we wait another half-life, half of the remaining particles have now decayed so the set would consist of particles (4,8,12, …). However it can also be mathematically proven that the number of positive integers that are multiples of 4 is identical to the number of positive integers. Have the number of particles been reduced or not? We reach contradictory results – no matter how many half-lifes we wait, the number of particles is the unchanged and has been reduced as per the usual physics equation. Thus, dealing with the actually infinite in reality would violate the laws of physics.

Philosopher Alexander Pruss offers at 6 arguments in support of premise 2 of the Kalam – that there couldn’t have been an infinite number of past events. Although he thinks actual infinities might be possible in general, he doesn’t think an infinite causal chain is possible. “This strengthens the Kalaam argument by showing that the premises can be weakened: the Kalaam argument only needs the kind of causal anti-infinitism that I now cautiously accept.”

Infinite regress is impossible 1

A potential infinite is a collection which is increasing toward infinity as a limit, but never gets there. An actual infinite is a collection in which the number of members really is infinite. The collection is not growing toward infinity; it is infinite, it is "complete." The sign of this sort of infinity, which is used in set theory to designate sets which have an infinite number of members, such as {1, 2, 3, . . .}, is À0. Now (2.11) maintains, not that a potentially infinite number of things cannot exist, but that an actually infinite number of things cannot exist.

2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.

2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.

2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

1. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-existence-of-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe#ixzz4jEcNSl00

More:
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com.br/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html



Last edited by Admin on Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:22 pm; edited 3 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

3 Re: The Kalaam Cosmological Argument on Thu Apr 06, 2017 3:29 am

Admin


Admin
Something cannot come out of nothing. Hence, any argument for the principle is apt to be less obvious than the principle itself. Even the great skeptic David Hume admitted that he never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something might come into existence without a cause; he only denied that one could prove the obviously true causal principle.29 With regard to the universe, if originally there were absolutely nothing-no God, no space, no time-, then how could the universe possibly come to exist? The truth of the principle ex nihilo, nihil fit is so obvious that I think we are justified in foregoing an elaborate defense of the argument's first premiss.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-existence-of-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe#ixzz4dSaS084s

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

4 Re: The Kalaam Cosmological Argument on Sat Apr 29, 2017 7:12 pm

Admin


Admin
P1. Regarding causation, two possible options are
(A) everything needs a cause, or
(B) everything that begins to exist needs a cause.

P2. Option-A: If Option-A is true then ALL things (all beings) are Contingent Beings. There is NO First-Cause. And there is NO Necessary Being that is the cause of all contingent beings. As a result, you are forced to an infinite regress of Contingent Beings (an infinite sequence of causes).

P3. However, an infinite regress cannot be crossed.

..................................................
C1. Therefore, Option-A is a square-circle impossibility.

C2. And it is Irrational for an atheist to insist that Option-A is necessarily true (in order to avoid the existence of God).
..................................................

P4, Consider Option-B. Everything that begins to exist needs a cause.

P5. This (P4) does NOT violate any rule of logic or rationality. Therefore it is NOT illogical or Irrational. Therefore, it IS logical and Rational.

P6. AND, this (P4) avoids an infinite regress.

..................................................
C3. Therefore, Option-B is NOT a square-circle impossibility.

C4. Therefore, it is RATIONAL and LOGICAL to subscribe to the truth of Option-B (particularly given that Option-A has been shown to be Impossible).

C5. Therefore, it is True that "Everything that begins to exist needs a cause".
..................................................

P7. The rest of the Kalam Cosmological Argument then applies, to point us to the existence of an Uncaused First Cause that is Necessary Being.

P8. Everything that begins to exist needs a cause (from C5).

..................................................
P9. The Universe began to exist

Reason A - If it did not begin to exist, it must have crossed an infinity of past moments to get to the present moment. It is impossible to cross an infinity by enumeration. Therefore, the universe must have begun to exist.

Reason B - The big bang has been confirmed to be true by a vast body of scientific evidence. The big-bang indicates that the universe began to exist.

..................................................
P10. The Big Bang indicates that that First Cause cannot be Matter-energy, space or time (MEST) since the scientific evidence indicates (prima facie) that all MEST came into being at the big bang.

..................................................
C6. This indicates that the the First Cause is a NON-material or IMMaterial Entity that is NOT MEST, and that has the ability to design and create the entire physical universe.
..................................................

P11. Immaterial entities are (a) abstract objects, or (b) MINDS.

P12. Abstract objects (numbers, laws of logic) do NOT have the ability to create something. MINDS do have the power to create things.

..................................................
C7. This indicates that this First-Cause is an incredibly intelligent and incredibly powerful MIND (that designed and created the physical universe).

C8. We call this Mind God.
..................................................

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

5 Re: The Kalaam Cosmological Argument on Mon May 29, 2017 12:57 pm

Admin


Admin
Premiss one of the Kalaam cosmological argument strikes me as relatively non-controversial. It is based on the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come out of nothing. Hence, any argument for the principle is apt to be less obvious than the principle itself. Even the great skeptic David Hume admitted that he never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something might come into existence without a cause; he only denied that one could prove the obviously true causal principle.29 With regard to the universe, if originally there were absolutely nothing-no God, no space, no time-, then how could the universe possibly come to exist? The truth of the principle ex nihilo, nihil fit is so obvious that I think we are justified in foregoing an elaborate defense of the argument's first premiss.

Nevertheless, some thinkers, exercised to avoid the theism implicit in this premiss within the present context, have felt driven to deny its truth. In order to avoid its theistic implications, Davies presents a scenario which, he confesses, "should not be taken too seriously," but which seems to have a powerful attraction for Davies.30 He has reference to a quantum theory of gravity according to which spacetime itself could spring uncaused into being out of absolutely nothing. While admitting that there is "still no satisfactory theory of quantum gravity," such a theory "would allow spacetime to be created and destroyed spontaneously and uncaused in the same way that particles are created and destroyed spontaneously and uncaused. The theory would entail a certain mathematically determined probability that, for instance, a blob of space would appear where none existed before. Thus, spacetime could pop out of nothingness as the result of a causeless quantum transition."31

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-existence-of-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe#ixzz4iUnHzkBy

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

6 Re: The Kalaam Cosmological Argument on Sat Aug 19, 2017 2:50 pm

Admin


Admin
It is based on the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come out of anything. Hence, any argument for the principle is apt to be less obvious than the principle itself. Even the great skeptic David Hume admitted that he never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something might come into existence without a cause; he only denied that one could prove the obviously true causal principle.29 With regard to the universe, if originally there were absolutely nothing-no God, no space, no time-, then how could the universe possibly come to exist? The truth of the principle ex nihilo, nihil fit is so obvious that I think we are justified in foregoing an elaborate defense of the argument's first premiss.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-existence-of-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe#ixzz4qEioKrXD


W.L.Craig: This, I think, makes good sense of the relationship of God and time. God is timeless without creation and temporal subsequent to creation. Having entered into time, He is not dependent upon finite velocity light signals or clock synchronization procedures for knowing what time it is. Rather, existing in absolute time, God is, as Newton proclaimed, the Lord God of dominion of His universe. In the words of St. Jude: "To the only God our savior through Jesus Christ, our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority before all time and now and forever."
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/god-time-and-eternity1/

God must be causally, but not temporally, prior to the Big Bang. With the creation of the universe, time began, and God entered into time at the moment of creation in virtue of His real relations with the created order. It follows that God must, therefore, be timelesswithout the universe and temporal with the universe. 1
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/timelessness-and-omnitemporality#ixzz4lILYz3mz

Is God Outside of Time? Not according to the Bible. 1
Most Christian theologians join countless philosophers of the last 2,500 years in saying that God is outside of time. However, if the Scriptures teach that God Himself experiences change in sequence, that would indicate that God exists in time, in the present, with a past, and looking forward to a future. This would demonstrate that atemporality, that is, timelessness, is not a necessary attribute of deity. So here is an example of a biblical proof demonstrating that God has a "past" and therefore falsifying the claim that God is outside of time:

Before the foundation of the world (as the Bible puts it), God the Son was not also the Son of Man; but then He "became" flesh as "the Son of Man", and so God the Son remains eternally "the Man Jesus Christ" (1 Tim 2:5).

1. http://kgov.com/is-god-outside-of-time

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

7 Re: The Kalaam Cosmological Argument on Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:14 pm

Admin


Admin


1:45 / 35:05
Transcript


00:00
the atheist debates patreon project
00:02
presents the argument from contingency
00:09
so one of the patrons sent me an email
00:11
and asked if I would actually cover the
00:12
argument from contingency and the answer
00:14
was of course yes this is one of many
00:16
arguments that is on the magical
00:19
whiteboard list of arguments to cover
00:21
and in fact I had originally planned to
00:23
cover both the Kalam cosmological
00:25
argument and the argument from
00:27
contingency in one video I'm sure that
00:30
would have rattled some cages as these
00:32
things really need individual treatment
00:35
but there are some similarities and so I
00:37
figured what we do this time is cover
00:39
the argument from contingency talk about
00:41
my thoughts on this argument and then
00:44
when we get to the Kalam cosmological
00:45
argument later we will look back at
00:48
elements from this to see where there
00:50
are similarities some of the
00:52
similarities are going to be obvious
00:53
they are both in a sense cosmological
00:56
arguments and this raises a point that
00:59
I've wanted to cover for quite a while
01:01
and that is sometimes someone will email
01:03
and say what do you think about the
01:05
teleological argument or the ontological
01:07
argument the cosmological argument and
01:11
in reality there's no such thing as the
01:14
argument for a given category we
01:17
categorize the arguments for the
01:19
existence of God based on what they're
01:22
talking about and so there's a category
01:24
of teleological arguments which there
01:27
could be many of there could be a new
01:28
teleological argument tomorrow probably
01:31
only mildly subtly different from the
01:34
classical versions that we're aware of
01:36
there could be a new version of the
01:38
moral argument there are several
01:39
versions of ontological arguments even
01:42
taking some of the classic ones and
01:44
redoing them with modal logic and there
01:47
are several cosmological arguments
01:49
whether it's the Kalam cosmological
01:51
argument or first cos versions and the
01:55
subject of today's video the argument
01:57
from contingency so before we get
02:00
started on an actual presentation of
02:03
that argument what do we mean by
02:04
contingency so when philosophers talk
02:08
about things that are contingent which
02:11
we'll need to understand for this
02:12
argument from contingency all they mean
02:15
is that there's something about the
02:18
nature of this item that it's a very
02:20
existence is contingent upon something
02:23
else it doesn't have an explanation that
02:27
is internal to itself but it has a
02:29
reason for being which comes from
02:31
outside of that individual item the the
02:34
contingency is contrasted with necessity
02:39
necessary items are ones which don't
02:42
have an external explanation for their
02:44
existence they just exist necessarily
02:47
there is something about their very
02:48
nature such that they had to exist
02:51
there's no possibility or that they
02:54
couldn't have existed whereas contingent
02:56
things could have at least
02:57
hypothetically not existed one prime
03:00
example is you your existence is
03:03
contingent upon the existence of your
03:06
parents the existence of their method of
03:08
procreation and it continues a chain
03:11
backwards your parents existence is
03:12
contingent upon their parents etc if we
03:16
were to find something that had a
03:18
necessary existence we could contrast
03:21
this much more easily the problem is
03:23
it's very hard to clearly identify
03:27
something that has a necessary existence
03:30
that is in fact a thing a thing that we
03:33
can point to like a brick or a piece of
03:37
wood or this seat these these things are
03:40
all contingent on other things and this
03:43
connection of finding things in the
03:46
universe that are contingent and
03:48
expanding this to say that the universe
03:50
is contingent is something we'll talk
03:51
about when we get to the formal
03:53
structure of the argument one of the
03:55
issues with the argument from
03:57
contingency is that we don't really see
04:01
a clear definition of what type of
04:03
contingency we're talking about within
04:05
the argument this is perhaps intentional
04:09
it's perhaps a bait-and-switch a little
04:11
equivocation but it's important to
04:13
realize that when we talk about things
04:14
which are contingent there's really two
04:16
versions of contingency we're talking
04:19
about the first is causal your parents
04:22
reproduced this resulted in you
04:26
your existence is causally contingent
04:30
upon their existence and their method of
04:32
reproduction the other version of
04:34
contingency is sustaining contingency
04:38
and that is something like the heat and
04:40
energy that we get from the Sun the the
04:43
light that is encompassing me right now
04:45
coming from the Sun it is contingent
04:47
upon the Sun but it is contingent in a
04:50
sustaining sense which is if the Sun
04:53
goes away this light goes away whereas
04:56
if your parents go away you don't
04:57
necessarily go away so when we talk
05:00
about contingency we're talking about
05:03
the reason for something existing but we
05:07
also need to consider is this a causal
05:10
contingency in that this is the cause
05:12
and this is the effect or is this a
05:15
sustaining contingency as if you were
05:17
pouring water out of a jug that this the
05:21
existence of water flowing from that jug
05:23
is contingent upon the jug being there
05:26
and continuing to pour out water that's
05:30
not always clear when the argument from
05:32
contingency is presented so let's take a
05:35
look at one version or two versions
05:37
actually of the argument from
05:39
contingency so one classical version of
05:41
the argument from contingency goes like
05:43
this one everything that exists
05:45
contingently has a reason for its
05:47
existence to the universe exists
05:50
contingently three the universe has a
05:54
reason for its existence for if the
05:57
universe has a reason for its existence
05:58
then that reason is God and 5 therefore
06:02
God exists now I've imagined some of the
06:06
responses out there there are people who
06:09
accept the argument from contingency who
06:10
are theists of some stripe and say yep
06:12
that's one of the versions sounds just
06:15
fine to me what could you possibly be
06:16
objecting to and there are probably many
06:19
non-believers out there and people have
06:21
looked at this sort of thing before who
06:23
might be screaming and ready to pull out
06:24
their hair about how how can they say
06:26
that what's the justification for this
06:28
claim and it may have come at different
06:30
times one of the things about the
06:33
argument from contingency that
06:34
distinguishes it from other cosmological
06:37
arguments like the Kalam cosmological
06:38
argument
06:39
for various versions of first cause
06:41
arguments and there are similarities
06:44
there are elements of a first cause
06:46
argument in here but the claim is often
06:48
that the argument from contingency would
06:50
apply if in fact the universe was
06:52
Infinite that's not entirely true in my
06:56
estimation yes by talking about the
06:59
nature and saying that if the universe
07:01
is contingent it could perhaps be
07:03
infinite or eternal and yet it is
07:06
contingent upon the existence of the God
07:09
or the sustaining influence of a God it
07:12
might have might have existed forever
07:14
and so it might apply to the cosmos but
07:17
generally when we talk about contingent
07:19
things we are also talking about
07:22
something that had a beginning the idea
07:25
of an eternal thing that is also
07:28
contingent upon something is not only
07:31
counterintuitive it may be obviously
07:33
false it may be that there's a
07:35
contradiction there of having both the
07:38
thing that is contingent and the thing
07:41
that it is contingent on having no
07:44
beginning it would seem intuitive that
07:48
if something is contingent it had a
07:50
beginning as a matter of fact a lot of
07:51
versions of arguments from contingency
07:54
rely on this idea that the universe in
07:57
fact did have a beginning and we may be
08:00
talking about different things when
08:02
we're talking about universe because we
08:05
managed to get the universe label as a
08:08
label for everything but our
08:11
understanding of the universe has
08:12
changed the way this label is used such
08:14
that with the idea of a multiverse with
08:16
the idea of alternate dimensions even
08:18
though we can't confirm these things
08:20
what we mean by universe is typically
08:22
our local space-time reality that we can
08:27
explore that we inhabit and the word
08:30
cosmos is used to talk about everything
08:33
the cosmos would include a multiverse
08:36
whether one exists or not the cosmos
08:39
would include alternate realities
08:41
alternate universes no matter what the
08:43
actual reality of the model is the
08:45
cosmos encompasses all of that and is
08:48
the cosmos actually contingent
08:51
is the universe contingent is it
08:54
contingent on a cosmos but let's take a
08:56
look at the premises in the arguments
08:57
from what this argument actually says
08:59
and see if we can find some points where
09:01
we perhaps disagree it begins with the
09:05
idea that everything that exists
09:07
contingently has a reason for its
09:09
existence and this is true or I'm
09:11
convinced that it's true but this is
09:13
also true for non contingent things for
09:16
necessary things you could just as
09:18
easily say everything that exists has a
09:21
reason for its existence and then you
09:24
would be drawing a distinction between
09:25
things which are contingent where the
09:27
reason for its existence is external to
09:29
the thing you're discussing and things
09:32
that are necessary their reason is
09:34
internal it is part of their makeup they
09:36
they require no external support or
09:42
generation they are necessary things
09:44
they still have a reason the reason is
09:46
just that they're necessary they exist
09:47
because they exist and that that puts
09:51
some people off when you start speaking
09:53
in those terms but to me when you say
09:55
everything that exists contingently has
09:56
a reason for its existence okay fine
09:59
that's a tautology and I think it would
10:01
also be true of things that were
10:02
non-contingent it's just the reason is
10:04
very different but premise two is that
10:07
the universe exists contingently and
10:10
here's where we get into this discussion
10:11
about what do we mean by universe do we
10:14
mean our local space-time reality that
10:16
we inhabit you know the thing that is 14
10:18
and a half billion years old that we can
10:19
going to see the edges of you see the
10:22
microwave background radiation that we
10:26
have a suspicion about how it began we
10:29
have Big Bang cosmology even though
10:31
there are competing models this isn't
10:33
about declaring what version is correct
10:34
this is about saying is the universe
10:37
contingent well it may be the case that
10:40
the universe is contingent but I don't
10:42
see a demonstration that it is it may
10:46
also be the case that if we're talking
10:47
about the cosmos the larger everything
10:52
that our universe exists within or as
10:54
part of that the cosmos in fact is not
10:58
contingent that the cosmos is a
10:59
necessary
11:01
thing we'll get to that in a little bit
11:04
the third is that the universe has a
11:07
reason for its existence
11:09
I've already acknowledged from point one
11:11
that I think that that's going to be
11:13
true whether it is contingent or
11:14
necessary and then on number four we get
11:18
to this if the universe has a reason for
11:21
its existence then that reason is God
11:26
how did we get here now the truth of the
11:30
matter is that in philosophical circles
11:33
and apologetic circles when you're
11:35
talking about perhaps this version of
11:37
the argument from contingency the
11:40
argument doesn't exist merely on its own
11:42
there are a number of justifications
11:46
this argument itself is contingent upon
11:49
these explanations for why they can
11:51
claim that the universe if it has a
11:54
reason for its existence that reason is
11:56
God but that's not contained in the
11:58
argument and it's not here for us to
12:00
address and I'm not convinced that
12:02
that's actually the case and that means
12:05
that the conclusion they end up reaching
12:06
that God exists is as questionable as
12:10
this premise that the explanation the
12:13
reason for a contingent universe is of
12:14
God but this conclusion just assumes
12:19
already a sustaining version of
12:23
contingency so if we were to concede
12:25
that all of the points so far are
12:27
correct that the everything that it is
12:30
contingent has a reason for its
12:32
existence the universe is contingent
12:33
therefore the universe has a reason for
12:35
its existence if the universe has a
12:36
reason for its existence this reason
12:38
must be God this can final conclusion
12:42
that God exists does not follow from the
12:45
argument unless the argument is about a
12:49
sustaining version of contingents and
12:51
this isn't argued as in any case for
12:55
premise 4 where it says if the universe
12:57
has a reason for its existence and that
12:59
reason is God is one that hasn't been
13:01
demonstrated it's merely asserted but
13:04
also we're not clear as to whether this
13:06
is asserting that the best explanation
13:08
for the existence the universe is this
13:11
thing that they're going to call God
13:13
how did they determine that this is a
13:15
sustaining thing versus a causal thing
13:18
for example there could have been a God
13:21
who created a universe and ceased to
13:26
exist perhaps spewing forth its essence
13:29
to create the universe and then cease to
13:32
exist in which case we would still have
13:34
a universe that is contingent and a
13:36
universe where it is contingent upon a
13:38
god but that God no longer exists so
13:42
there has to be more here even to get to
13:46
the final conclusion that they want
13:47
which is that God exists because the
13:50
real conclusion from this even if you
13:52
were to accept the first for which we
13:53
don't is that a god is the explanation
13:57
for the origin it is of the universe
14:01
that the universe is contingent upon a
14:03
God it's not necessarily contingent upon
14:05
a God in a sustaining sense now if it's
14:09
possible for these arguments to get any
14:10
worse
14:11
it tends to happen when we use some
14:15
shortcuts we already have a number of
14:17
problems here where we've just asserted
14:18
that a God is the best explanation of
14:20
the universe but I want to address
14:22
william lane craig version of this or at
14:24
least one of the versions that William
14:25
Lane Craig has used he wrote a little
14:28
kind of response to questions about the
14:31
argument from contingency and the
14:33
version that he listed looks like this
14:35
number one everything that exists has an
14:39
explanation of its existence either in
14:41
the necessity of its own nature or in an
14:44
external cause number two if the
14:47
universe has an explanation of its
14:48
existence that explanation is God number
14:51
three the universe exists and then he
14:54
continues on with you know therefore God
14:57
exists is what he ultimately gets to
15:01
Craig argues that items number one and
15:04
number three aren't really assailable
15:05
and I would pretty much agree argument
15:08
over one or the point number one
15:10
everything that exists has an
15:11
explanation of its existence either in
15:14
the necessity of its own nature or in an
15:16
external cause this is basically saying
15:19
everything is either contingent or not
15:21
contingent either contingent or
15:23
necessary as the late
15:24
we would put on it contingent things
15:26
require an external explanation
15:28
necessary things have an internal
15:31
explanation its own nature is the reason
15:33
why it exists number two is if the
15:37
universe has an explanation for its
15:38
existence that explanation is God number
15:41
three the universe exists I agree and so
15:47
what we can look at here is that the
15:50
universe exists and so we go back to 0.1
15:52
because it exists it has an explanation
15:54
for its existence that is either
15:57
internal a matter of necessity that the
16:00
universe necessarily exists or external
16:03
that it is contingent upon something
16:04
we're in agreement I just don't know
16:06
where Craig decides to use if the
16:10
universe has an explanation for its
16:11
existence the explanation is God and
16:15
while I don't want this entire video to
16:18
be a rebuttal to one thing that William
16:20
Lane Craig said the fact of the matter
16:22
is that when discussing this instead of
16:24
arguing and presenting any justification
16:26
for his second premise that if there's
16:29
an explanation for the universe that
16:30
explanation is God he instead tries to
16:33
argue a little differently he says that
16:36
if atheism is true and here he has to be
16:40
talking about hard atheism or antitheism
16:43
basically the claim that no god exists
16:47
so on non-theism
16:49
would probably be a better way to put
16:51
this then the universe has no
16:53
explanation of its existence and if the
16:56
universe has an explanation for its
16:58
existence then atheism isn't true
17:00
instead of defending why he gets to just
17:04
assert that there's a god he goes on to
17:05
make additional assertions his claim is
17:09
that if there's not a god then the
17:12
universe doesn't have an explanation for
17:14
its existence well how did you determine
17:15
that I mean you're living in a universe
17:20
clearly it's here either there's a God
17:23
or there's not and if there's not a god
17:26
how did you determine that a universe
17:29
couldn't exist even if the universe is
17:32
contingent it might be contingent on a
17:33
multiverse or on something in the cosmos
17:36
but Craig's thing is in order to argue
17:40
for his premise that the explanation for
17:42
the universe is God he just says if
17:45
there's not a God then the universe
17:47
doesn't have an explanation and the
17:49
universe and if the universe has an
17:50
explanation then there must be a God
17:52
this is just a a bald assertion that
17:57
makes the entire discussion about his
17:59
second premise circular now we're stuck
18:03
with this word universe as we've talked
18:04
about there may be equivocation
18:06
fallacies involved but is the universe
18:08
all there is and as I mentioned before
18:10
I'll be using cosmos and I'll try to do
18:13
that in all the videos everywhere what
18:15
I'm talking about all there is if you
18:19
were raised and born on an island you
18:22
might think that the entire world was
18:25
your Island and so you might have a word
18:28
that you would use the world and then at
18:32
some point when you figured out that
18:33
there were other continents and other
18:35
islands and other lands for you to
18:37
explore your definition of what the
18:40
world is would expand this is kind of
18:42
what's happened with the universe as we
18:44
explored more we've discovered that
18:46
we're probably best off it would be
18:49
ideal based on the actual
18:53
transliteration of universe or its
18:56
origins thing if we used it to describe
18:59
everything and instead used a condensed
19:02
label like our local universe or our
19:04
real space-time but we don't and that's
19:08
why we draw a distinction between the
19:10
universe and the cosmos
19:12
now contingency arguments merely assert
19:15
that the explanation for the universe
19:18
must be a being and a necessary
19:21
non-contingent one they don't ever
19:22
demonstrate this in any way nor do they
19:25
demonstrate that this being explanation
19:27
must be one in which this being still
19:30
exists the difference between a causal
19:32
contingency and a sustaining contingency
19:35
why is that I mean after all they
19:38
believe in a God that exists I mean
19:41
these arguments aren't just coming from
19:43
deistic notions even though they are all
19:48
consistent with a deist ik notion of a
19:51
god
19:51
these are quite often fundamentalist
19:56
Christians evangelical Christians
19:58
moderate Christians seminarians
20:02
apologists all who believe in Jesus
20:05
these are also arguments coming from
20:08
Muslims to argue for their God how is it
20:11
that these different religions can use
20:13
the same argument for the existence of
20:16
God and yet believe in different gods
20:18
now this isn't an argument in any way it
20:22
just show that they're wrong if there
20:24
was in fact a God arguments for the
20:26
existence of God would apply to all the
20:27
religions that would point to a similar
20:28
God this is an expression of the concern
20:32
that I have that people aren't defending
20:34
the God they believe in and when they
20:36
instead offer arguments like this like
20:39
the argument from consent can
20:40
contingency the Kalam cosmological
20:41
argument things like this not only are
20:44
they not arguing for the God that they
20:46
actually believe in but the argument
20:49
that they're presenting doesn't get us
20:50
to a God exists the conclusion of the
20:53
Kalam cosmological argument for example
20:55
is not therefore God exists it is
20:57
therefore the universe has a cause and
20:58
the conclusion of the versions of the
21:01
argument from contingency while they
21:03
might be God exists we can see that
21:06
there's a disconnect between there is
21:08
some non contingent thing that it serves
21:12
as an ultimate foundation and this idea
21:16
that the non contingent thing that
21:17
serves as an ultimate foundation is a
21:20
thinking being that they're going to
21:22
call God and then they're going to
21:24
extrapolate from that down to the
21:27
particular God they believe in in the
21:28
religious doctrine what if our local
21:31
universe began to exist and has a cause
21:34
for its existence as a reason an
21:36
explanation for its existence that isn't
21:39
actually an agent a thinking being what
21:42
if it is a natural explanation and
21:44
natural in the sense of it is a part of
21:48
the cosmos but not necessarily a
21:51
thinking agent putting forth some sort
21:53
of creative effort the truth is we don't
21:57
know why there's something instead of
21:59
nothing
22:00
there are a number of people who would
22:01
tell you that it's because nothing is
22:03
intrinsically unstable and therefore
22:05
something is going to emerge from
22:06
nothing but we don't have an
22:09
understanding of a mechanism and since
22:11
we can't explore beyond the origins of
22:14
our universe we can only hypothesize and
22:16
if that's the case how did we determine
22:18
that the foundational essential
22:24
explanation for our universe is that it
22:29
is a contingent entity that is derived
22:33
from a thinking agent I see absolutely
22:37
no justification for this definitely not
22:40
within the arguments and this is one of
22:43
the things that needs to start happening
22:45
if you're going to present an argument
22:49
when you offer up your premises you need
22:52
to offer reasons for those premises you
22:54
may have to add additional arguments to
22:56
it and that doesn't always happen this
22:59
shorthand version of the argument from
23:00
contingency both of the versions we've
23:02
looked at today have this bald assertion
23:05
in there if the universe has a reason
23:07
for its existence then that reason is
23:08
God now I know because I've studied this
23:12
that they think they have reasons for it
23:14
they will say oh well it has to be
23:16
something that's non contingent that you
23:18
know serves of the origin of our
23:20
universe and it has to have these
23:22
particular qualities it has to be
23:23
capable of creating a universe it has to
23:26
be capable of causing University exists
23:28
and it goes on and on and on and it said
23:30
then their conclusion is that the god
23:33
hypothesis is the only thing that we
23:35
know of that fits those criteria the
23:38
problem here is the god hypothesis is
23:41
not something we know of and these
23:43
arguments are relying on a long history
23:47
of mankind inventing deities inventing
23:52
ideas that are sufficient to explain
23:55
what the unknown but they aren't
23:58
necessarily necessary to explain the
24:00
unknown so if you live in a culture that
24:02
has been taught from birth that yep
24:04
there's a god if you live in a culture
24:06
where even individuals who weren't
24:08
raised to believe in a God are still
24:09
familiar with this concept
24:12
of a an all-powerful divine being that
24:15
is not bound by space and time that
24:17
exists eternally then it will seem
24:21
reasonable to say that ah given the
24:25
unknown origin of the universe given the
24:27
unknown causal foundation for the
24:30
universe upon which our universe is
24:32
contingent the only entity that we're
24:35
aware of that could possibly do this is
24:37
a God it had to be thinking it had to be
24:39
intentional it couldn't just be an
24:41
accident all of these things are preying
24:45
upon our intuitions we don't want the
24:50
existence of everything to have been an
24:52
accident and by the way the way the
24:54
universe progresses from its beginning
24:56
to where I am now sitting in my backyard
25:00
on a swing is not just a series of
25:03
accidents there is order in the universe
25:05
there are physical laws that must be
25:06
obeyed and this is why there's so much
25:08
confusion about the process of evolution
25:10
by natural selection people wanted to
25:12
say oh you just think it was all an
25:14
accident that did it no it may have been
25:16
an accident that perhaps started the
25:18
fire but it's not an accident that the
25:20
fire then followed the path of burnt
25:23
grass of dry grass and stayed away from
25:26
the water
25:27
because water doesn't or fire doesn't
25:30
actually consume water like that what if
25:33
the cosmos is actually necessary what if
25:38
the cosmos is necessary and serves as
25:40
the foundation
25:42
perhaps a scenario like the multiverse
25:45
where there's no intelligent being that
25:47
is oh let me make a universe here we go
25:49
I am now made a universe that universe
25:52
is contingent upon me what if instead
25:53
there's a cosmos that we can't explore
25:55
and we can't understand that has
25:57
mechanisms in it that causes universes
25:59
to arise now I have no way of
26:01
demonstrating that this is in fact the
26:03
case but the possibility that this is
26:07
the case or the fact that nobody's
26:09
demonstrated that it's not the case
26:11
shows us that they cannot assert that
26:13
the best explanation for the universe is
26:16
contingent is a God because they cannot
26:20
show which of the two possibilities we
26:22
have
26:23
a necessary cosmos that has the
26:26
necessary capability of producing
26:30
universes or a god that has the
26:33
necessary characteristics to produce
26:35
universe they have no way to demonstrate
26:37
which of those two is in fact more
26:39
likely so the argument from contingency
26:44
is one version of a cosmological
26:47
argument there are a variety of
26:48
different versions of the argument from
26:50
contingency and at least all of the ones
26:53
that I've seen have within them this
26:56
bald unsupported assertion that the
27:00
foundational thing upon which the
27:03
universe is contingent is a god they
27:08
don't tell us anything about the
27:09
characteristics of this God within the
27:10
arguments they'll try and do that
27:12
outside of it ah this God is eternal and
27:14
powerful etc etc and as I mentioned it
27:17
relies on our intuitions living in a
27:19
culture where a lot of people believe in
27:21
a God people talk about a God what
27:23
happens is when you present something
27:25
like this and you say okay if our
27:28
universe is contingent if it's not
27:30
necessary if it could have been the case
27:31
that our universe didn't come into
27:34
existence which we're not sure if that's
27:36
the case or not is it what is the best
27:40
explanation for this and in cultures
27:43
where people have been positing a God
27:45
the vast majority of people are likely
27:47
to say well oh yeah of course it must be
27:49
a god I can't think of anything else
27:52
what else what else could it be these
27:54
are essentially arguments from ignorance
27:56
or arguments from incredulity that we've
28:01
really got no better idea than this god
28:04
thing the problem is is that the god
28:06
thing isn't necessarily a good idea it's
28:08
not anything we can demonstrate we don't
28:11
have any way to calculate the
28:12
probability of the God and we don't even
28:13
have a way to calculate its likelihood
28:16
in comparison to alternate hypotheses
28:18
things like a multiverse things like a a
28:21
cosmos that was necessary when we talked
28:25
about the argument from contingency when
28:26
people want to claim that the universe
28:28
is contingent they may in fact be
28:30
committing the fallacy of composition
28:33
because their reasons for assuming
28:36
that the universe is contingent is to
28:38
say that look I look around in the
28:39
universe and every single thing I look
28:41
at is contingent and they're taking the
28:43
property of the constituent components
28:46
of a universe and then saying that the
28:48
universe must then also have that
28:50
property that is almost a textbook
28:53
fallacy of composition now the universe
28:56
may or may not be contingent and the
28:58
cosmos may in fact be contingent or it
29:02
may be necessary we don't know we can't
29:04
get to that point but as soon as we get
29:07
comfortable with this idea that a God is
29:10
the best explanation for it what happens
29:12
next is something we see within
29:15
syncretic compositions of religion and
29:18
religions as they grow and change
29:21
throughout time and that is we get away
29:24
from the Bible the Quran the doctrinal
29:27
orthodoxy versions but we're desperate
29:31
to cling on to the idea the notion of
29:34
God because it keeps us from feeling too
29:38
ignorant and so people will actually
29:41
redefine God and say God is that thing
29:46
which explains the origin of the
29:49
universe they've told us nothing they've
29:50
given us an no clear description of the
29:55
attributes or characterizations that you
29:57
would find in a God except to say that
30:00
here's a big mystery we don't know how
30:02
this came about but whatever the
30:06
properties are that explain that mystery
30:09
those are the property that we're going
30:12
to label God that's not a proof for the
30:17
existence of God it's not an argument
30:19
for the existence of God it's a proof
30:21
that we're prone to assumptions it's a
30:24
proof that we are terrified of not
30:27
knowing what terrified of our ignorance
30:29
that in the reality that we inhabit
30:32
whether it is contingent or not we are
30:35
limited not just by our current
30:39
intellect and current levels of
30:41
knowledge but perhaps limited
30:42
permanently from finding the answers to
30:46
some of the biggest questions we may be
30:49
able to find them we
30:50
not why is there something instead of
30:53
nothing what we're really talking about
30:55
is existence
30:57
why does existence exist and it would
31:01
seem to me that if there was an example
31:02
of anything that would be considered
31:05
necessary and non-contingent it would be
31:09
existence that existence exists
31:12
necessarily and I think that there's a
31:15
good argument to be made that the cosmos
31:18
is at least partially synonymous with
31:23
existence it is the fabric in a
31:26
metaphoric sense that undergirds our
31:28
universe other potential universes
31:31
multiverses things that were not even
31:33
completely aware of and to say why is
31:38
there something rather than nothing when
31:40
we're talking about something like
31:41
existence is to misunderstand the
31:45
question itself it's just not very
31:47
comforting to people to say it exists
31:49
because it exists and instead of
31:53
recognizing this discomfort and
31:55
acknowledging that at least for now it
31:57
may be the best most accurate
31:59
explanation that we may be currently
32:01
blocked instead some people have taken
32:03
it in stride and created an argument
32:07
that asserts that no no existence
32:11
doesn't just exist it has another
32:14
foundation it has a foundation in a god
32:17
it has taken our discomfort with the
32:21
idea that we might have to acknowledge
32:23
we can't have an explanation for this or
32:26
this it doesn't need an explanation and
32:28
it's painted this warm fuzzy man in the
32:31
sky cares about us God too type of model
32:35
which by the way we don't seem to be
32:39
able to confirm or know anything about
32:41
and the argument is that this being
32:43
exists necessarily that it needs no
32:46
explanation for its existence there were
32:50
a number of different first cause
32:51
arguments and discussions about absolute
32:54
infinities and actual infinities versus
32:57
non actual infinities that take place in
33:00
the first cause arguments we'll get into
33:03
temporal issues and things like that and
33:05
I remember a discussion where someone
33:09
said well the universe must have had a
33:11
cause and of course the question after
33:14
they assert that God must you know was
33:16
was the cause is well what's the cause
33:19
of God what's the explanation for God
33:21
well God doesn't need an explanation and
33:24
there were many people who pointed out
33:25
that instead of just talking about the
33:27
universe that began fourteen and a half
33:29
billion years ago or 13.7 billion years
33:32
ago instead of saying oh it definitely
33:37
needs an explanation but the thing that
33:39
explains it doesn't need an explanation
33:41
why don't we stop at the limits of our
33:43
knowledge and say for now because we are
33:46
barred from exploring beyond the
33:50
beginning and even when we talk about
33:51
before the beginning that may be a
33:54
nonsensical term why don't we just
33:56
acknowledge that we don't have an
33:58
explanation for the existence of
34:00
existence and that it may in fact not
34:03
need an explanation and that if someone
34:05
ever finds an explanation we can
34:08
consider that then but the cosmological
34:12
arguments the versions that we've seen
34:14
and especially the argument from
34:16
contingency don't demonstrate that a God
34:19
exists they just merely assert without
34:22
justification that there must be some
34:26
non contingent thing upon what universe
34:29
is sits on this foundation and that
34:34
thing is God and that God is necessary
34:36
and does not need an explanation I don't
34:40
know how that solves a problem at all
34:42
but I think it tells us a lot about who
34:44
we are what we're afraid of and how
34:47
we're willing to just go with
34:49
assumptions that are comforting whether
34:52
or not they're actually true this video
34:58
is made possible by supporters of the
34:59
atheist debates patreon project you can
35:01
find more information and add your
35:02
support at patreon.com slash atheist
35:04
debates

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

8 Re: The Kalaam Cosmological Argument on Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:19 pm

Admin


Admin


00:00
it's a big one my friends the granddaddy
00:02
of all the first cause arguments and an
00:05
absolute favorite among many apologists
00:07
this is the Kalam cosmological argument
00:10
debunked the history of cosmological
00:21
arguments or first cause arguments
00:23
stretches back to Aristotle and Beyond
00:26
where they were used to prove the
00:28
existence of God such as Zeus
00:30
however they received considerable
00:32
development during early Christianity
00:34
and then again between the 9th and 12th
00:36
centuries by Islamic theologians and it
00:39
was during this time that the Kalam
00:41
cosmological argument was first created
00:43
the argument goes as follows whatever
00:46
begins to exist has a cause the universe
00:49
began to exist therefore the universe
00:52
has a cause before we proceed to debunk
00:55
this argument it should be stated that
00:57
William Lane Craig is predominantly
00:59
responsible for restoring its popularity
01:01
as in 1979 he comprised a defense of the
01:05
Kalam cosmological argument in the form
01:07
of two additional arguments now while
01:10
there are serious serious flaws with
01:12
Craig's additional arguments and while
01:14
this video will indeed briefly cover
01:16
some of these flaws the main focus of
01:18
this video is the original Kalam
01:20
cosmological argument and so sorry Craig
01:23
you're not in the limelight this time I
01:25
have to take on your word salad of a
01:27
joke at a later day so to get straight
01:30
into the thick of it the first point to
01:33
be raised in my opinion is that even if
01:35
we accept the Kalam cosmological
01:37
argument in its entirety all it would
01:41
prove is that there was a cause of the
01:42
universe and that's it it doesn't even
01:45
suggest let alone prove that this cause
01:48
was a being and it certainly doesn't
01:50
suggest that this course was a being
01:51
that is eternal omnipotent omniscient
01:54
omnipresent omnipotent personal and
01:57
moral that is one hell of a leap hence
02:02
even if accepted the argument doesn't
02:04
remotely support theism a second problem
02:07
that arises even if we accept the
02:09
argument is that while it would prove
02:11
that the universe had a court it
02:13
improve that this course itself was
02:15
without a cause or in other words it
02:17
wouldn't prove that a first cause
02:19
existed which for a first cause argument
02:21
is pretty damn ridiculous to be fair the
02:25
proponents of this argument do indeed
02:26
offer additional arguments in the
02:28
attempt to assert that the cause of the
02:30
universe must be without a cause
02:32
but the point I'm trying to make here
02:34
and now is that the Kalam cosmological
02:36
argument by itself is pretty damn
02:39
trivial and hence the proponents of this
02:41
argument almost always employ additional
02:44
arguments to reach their conclusions
02:46
including the likes of Craig so far
02:49
we've just scratched the surface of this
02:51
argument and yet we've already
02:52
demonstrated that even if it was valid
02:55
it wouldn't prove that a first cause
02:56
existed and it certainly wouldn't
02:59
indicate that the cause of the universe
03:00
was the Abrahamic God however in an
03:03
effort not to bore you let's now move on
03:05
from the starter and get to the main
03:07
mill the logical flaws within the
03:09
argument one of the most critical flaws
03:12
with this argument and one that isn't
03:13
always recognized is that it commits a
03:16
subtle but devastating equivocation
03:18
fallacy it does this because the
03:20
argument switches between two different
03:22
definitions of the universe throughout
03:24
its premises in order to achieve its
03:26
conclusion during premise two the
03:29
argument uses a scientific definition of
03:31
the universe that being all matter space
03:34
and time but during premise-free it uses
03:37
a colloquial and or theological
03:39
definition of the universe that being
03:41
everything that exists everything that
03:44
has existed and everything that will
03:46
exist the key difference here being that
03:49
when we say that the universe began to
03:51
exist using the scientific definition of
03:53
the universe what we are saying is that
03:55
all matter and by extension all of space
03:57
and time began to exist in the way it
04:00
does now what we are not saying is that
04:03
absolutely everything came into being
04:05
from absolutely nothing but when we say
04:09
that the universe began to exist using
04:11
the colloquial definition of the
04:12
universe we are indeed saying that
04:15
absolutely everything came into being
04:17
from absolutely nothing and this brings
04:20
us comfortably to another critical flaw
04:22
with the Kalam cosmological argument it
04:24
asserts that something can indeed come
04:27
from
04:27
a concept in philosophy known as creatio
04:30
ex nihilo creation out of nothing when
04:33
this has never been demonstrated to
04:35
occur in fact to the contrary everything
04:39
we know about cause-and-effect
04:41
overwhelmingly and unanimously tells us
04:44
that when a new thing is created it is
04:46
due to the rearrangement of energy and
04:48
matter that already existed that is
04:50
everything is the result of creatio ex
04:52
material creation out of material the
04:56
truth is that we have no evidence
04:58
whatsoever to suggest that the universe
05:00
as defined by science was created from
05:03
absolutely nothing and hence the
05:06
extraordinary claim that something can
05:08
come from nothing requires extraordinary
05:09
evidence and yet the best response the
05:12
proponents of this argument have offered
05:14
so far is the assertion that absolutely
05:17
everything began to exist at the Big
05:19
Bang which again simply isn't what the
05:22
evidence suggests yet another defeat and
05:25
flaw that the proponents of this
05:27
argument commit but not a flaw that the
05:29
argument itself commits is a special
05:31
pleading fallacy as already stated the
05:34
Kalam cosmological argument by itself
05:37
only asserts that the universe had a
05:39
cause but the proponents of this
05:41
argument go a step further they assert
05:44
that the cause of the universe didn't
05:45
begin to exist and therefore it didn't
05:48
have a cause without adequately
05:49
justifying why this cause is an
05:51
exception in general these proponents
05:54
argue that because cause and effect
05:56
cannot occur without matter space and
05:59
time and because matter space and time
06:01
began to exist as a result of the Big
06:03
Bang then what ever came before the Big
06:05
Bang could not have had a cause but to
06:09
stay in for a last time the claim that
06:11
matter space and time began to exist at
06:14
the Big Bang is not substantiated to
06:17
quote Sean Carroll a cosmologists who in
06:20
my opinion is remarkably articulate on
06:22
this subject the correct thing to say
06:25
about the Big Bang is not that there was
06:26
no time before it but rather that our
06:29
current understanding of the laws of
06:30
physics give out at that moment in time
06:32
and this leads us to the last floor I'm
06:35
going to point out in this video
06:37
and it's another floor that isn't
06:39
committed by the Kalam cosmological
06:41
argument itself but it is very
06:42
frequently committed by the proponents
06:44
of this argument beneath all the
06:47
additional arguments and word salads the
06:49
proponents of this argument are
06:51
essentially making an argument from
06:53
ignorance what it all really comes down
06:56
to is the claim that since no scientific
06:58
explanation can provide a causal account
07:00
of the origin of the universe the cause
07:02
must be a very specific God a God that
07:06
wouldn't you know coincidentally is the
07:08
one that the proponent believes in
07:10
that's right it all comes down to the
07:13
extremely satisfying we don't know
07:15
therefore God like I say in most of my
07:18
debunk videos there are many more floors
07:21
with the Kalam cosmological argument and
07:23
there are countless more floors that are
07:25
committed by the proponents of this
07:27
argument but to recap just a few we've
07:29
risen here the Kalam cosmological
07:31
argument is trivial and/or useless
07:33
because even if accepted it doesn't
07:36
support theism and even if accepted it
07:39
doesn't suggest that first cause existed
07:42
and the argument is flawed because it
07:44
commits an equivocation fallacy and it
07:47
is searched that something can be
07:48
created from nothing and the proponents
07:51
of the Kalam cosmological argument also
07:53
frequently commit a special pleading
07:55
fallacy and an argument from ignorance
07:58
the Kalam cosmological argument is
08:01
either a sound argument that is trivial
08:03
and relatively useless or is a
08:06
grotesquely flawed argument that
08:08
requires additional flawed arguments to
08:10
reach a monotheistic conclusion anyhow
08:14
as always thank you Carly for the view
08:17
and I'll leave you with this
08:18
overwhelmingly powerful argument to
08:20
consider whatever channel begins to
08:22
exist has subscribers this channel began
08:25
to exist therefore this channel has
08:28
subscribers and it loves them dearly
08:31
all 293 of you thanks guys

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum