5 Major Problems with William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument (feat. James Fodor)

[@ProphetofZod]

I love how he says that no scholarly sources have refuted the Kalam, as if this is because the Kalam is awesome and not because scholarly journals don’t waste time on stupid nonsense. You know what else has never been criticized in scholarly sources? The use of avatars in KZbin videos and the intellectual rigor of Paul’s former faith.

[@walnutoil100]

so you cant refute it either

[@Paulogia]

😂 well, I probably should be subject to some study.

[@rickmartin7596]

@@walnutoil100 It's not a matter of refutation -- it's a matter of support for the original claim. If you can't support it, it doesn't warrant refutation.

[@Julian0101]

@@walnutoil100 Indeed, poor craig has not refuted the criticism he has recieved

[@uninspired3583]

@@Paulogia a study subject? If only you knew a talented psychologist to help you out ;)

[@condorboss3339]

Interesting that WLC starts off with an _Ad Hominem_ argument: "People who disagree with me are KZbinrs, not scholars."

[@Paulogia]

Interesting, though not surprising.

[@iseriver3982]

It really shouldn't be a boast that random people on the internet are more reasonable than scholars.

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

It's also not true. I make this point in my own argument in a point of law I argue professionally that none of the peer reviewed scholarship disagrees with me. First, that does not absolve me of the requirement to respect and respond to individuals who haven't published, but it is a necessary short-hand when I am given 3 minutes to testify and I can't debunk everything in that time. Second, it leaves me vulnerable to exactly what happened here, where you bring in a scholar who published on the issue to present their work. I wouldn't use that argument if I weren't 100% sure, having read the FULL body of research, that on my issue I'm correct about that. Craig isn't.

[@Keira_Blackstone]

WLC is a huge fan of appeals to authority. It's how he shields himself from having to consider the massive holes blown in his argument by laypersons.

[@Venaloid]

As if no scholars, or actual physicists, have taken him to task on exactly this argument.

[@farrex0]

William "let me just poison the well before addressing the argument" Craig.

[@TheIronicRaven]

I've always seen him as more: William "let me not answer the question but provide an answer to a different question" Craig 😆

[@VioletJoy]

Lol

[@murph8411]

How can he argue for an infinite god but then argue against infinity being possible? Wouldn’t an infinite god also have had an infinite time to create everything so why didn’t he finish creation the day before or an infinite time before?

[@MagereHein]

@@murph8411 Oh, that's William "can I have fries with my special pleading?" Craig.

[@Pit.Gutzmann]

If no-one, not even God, can count to infinity, then there is no God.

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

I learned the Kalam argument from a Christian philosophy professor. He assigned us journal articles to read that had counterarguments. I disagreed with him about his philosophical conclusions, but he was a good professor. I wrote my final paper arguing the teaching of the class was a contradiction. He gave me an A- and when I switched into the philosophy major, I asked him to be my advisor.

[@austinlincoln3414]

Wow

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

@@austinlincoln3414 Scott MacDonald, Cornell University. Just googled him. 20 years later, unsurprisingly he looks so much older.

[@JM-us3fr]

My ethics teacher was Randy Harris, a frequent speaker at Christian universities. Definitely changed my whole worldview, and despite him being Christian, his teachings eventually led me to atheism. I still have a lot of respect for him.

[@metademetra]

More evidence that colleges are great places to debate and to converse, as opposed to being the liberal secular brainwashing centers people think they are

[@isk3397]

Is this modern christianity now? It's been ages since I actually put much thought to it, but have they just decided the best way out of the "problem" of proving the existence of a god is just to create pointless guff and then teach it to kids at school, in the vain hope that'll convince them while they're young? Great gig for those that can get it I guess, make shit up, get paid for it, and then make up more shit to explain why the it can't be proven wrong.

[@Thatonedude917]

If smug was arguments, Craig would have the most

[@goldenalt3166]

Have you seen Kent Hovind?

[@SC-zq6cu]

Unfortunately when it comes to having smugness Craig compared to Hovind and Ham would be me compared to Musk and Bezos.

[@goldenalt3166]

@@SC-zq6cu Craig at least pretends that science and government apply to him. Kent has spent prison time denying reality.

[@Iverath]

If saying "I find that simply unbelievable" was a counter-argument, Craig would have the most.

[@utubepunk]

@@goldenalt3166 KH doesn't have the educational pedigree, though.

[@JimFortune]

Craig says infinity is impossible, but his God is infinite.

[@tach5884]

That tracks.

[@richunixunix3313]

The plot thickens

[@PhoenixtheII]

An infinity of nothing, is still nothing.

[@55Quirll]

@Paul Dana What about my lucky leprechaun or gorgeous genie? Are they finite or infinite? 😊

[@Julian0101]

@@55Quirll the real question is, are any of them INVISIBLE?

[@danielsnyder2288]

The main failure of the Kalam is the fact that NOTHInG has ever "begun to exist" All that we have ever seen are the rearrangement of existing things.

[@swordswinger395]

Even before we get to external failure points, it fails internally. You can't set up a universal property (causality), and then immediately special plead for an entity that is absent this property. If an entity can be causeless, it's impossible to justify the premise that everything that exists must have a cause, and if the premise isn't valid, the entity is unnecessary and unjustified because, by its own existence, it would prove that something can exist without a cause. the entire argument collapses on itself.

[@KaiHenningsen]

@@swordswinger395 That's exactly why, these days, it's "everything that *begins* to exist" - and "but God is eternal and has no beginning". But then I'm back again that his universal principle doesn't work in the first place. The *_only_* thing we have seen that really could count as "begins to exist" instead of "rearranging what's already there" are virtual particles - which, as far as we can tell, do *not* have a cause. Oh, and as for his presentism and "that's just a mathematical trick to show relativity" - what's his explanation for the lack of a strict ordering in time for spatially separated events in relativity? Seems to me that that cannot possibly work with presentism.

[@truerealrationalist]

"NOTHING has ever 'begun to exist'." That is a claim. It's also as unfalsifiable as _his_ claim. Another way to look at it is, even if the universe were cyclical, as Sir Roger Penrose proposes, each iteration of the universe would have its own respective beginning and ending. Further, given the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, it is more likely than not that each iteration would be unique. Alternatively, if each iteration is identical to its predecessors and successors, we have already had this exact discussion an infinite number of times into an eternal past and will continue to have it sn infinite number of times into an eternal future.

[@GSpotter63]

So are you saying that the universe and everything in it has no cause, that it has always been? This has also never been seen witnessed and recorded so would be subject to your argument just the same. If Craig's argument fails on this account so does yours...

[@truerealrationalist]

@@KaiHenningsen 'The only thing we have seen that really could count as 'begins to exist' are virtual particles, which, as far as we can tell, do not have a cause." Virtual particles are caused by fluctuations in quantum fields, and _indeterminate_ does *not* equate to _acausal._ _Nothing_ has been confirmed to be truly without _any_ cause. I would add that according to the correspondence theory of truth, what is true is what conforms to reality. Thus, what conforms to reality is [that it is more likely than not] that everything has a cause, whether we can positively identify that cause or not.

[@ardenking3481]

The only people I've found convinced by WLC are people who already believe in the god at the time

[@pansepot1490]

Apologetics’ only purpose is to reassure doubting Christians, not to make converts.

[@letsomethingshine]

And it makes them lie to themselves about THEIR OWN version/concept of God(s) (as long as they are promised immortality), not adopt WLC's very detailed specifically vague for his own purposes one.

[@roqsteady5290]

Likely they don’t understand it, but are convinced anyway.

[@alwayslearningtech]

Yet he made be doubt even more.

[@imjessietr29]

I’m a theist and he is a moron lol.

[@just-some-muslim]

I would recommend the Book, *“Unreasonable Faith”* by James Fodor, A direct response to William Lane Craig

[@gavincarstens6497]

just a quick synopses of the book:- "WLC has written or edited more than 30 books, his arguments for God and Jesus are frequently cited by Christian apologists around the world, and he has severely overstated his case through a series of blatant mischaracterizations and philosophical blunders. You may have heard of William Lane Craig, a professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology who is known for debating atheists, but even if you haven't you have probably heard his arguments through followers and fans. He is known for painting faith as the"reasonable" road, and falsely claiming that he can prove the validity of his religion. From his work attempting to show evidence for Jesus' resurrection to his development of the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God, Craig is respected among his peers on the Christian side of the religious spectrum. But is that deserved? What's at the core of these arguments? Are they philosophically sound? More importantly, is this Unreasonable Faith?

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

I think this whole video serves to recomment that book.

[@just-some-muslim]

@@Sam_on_KZbin LOL 😂, I commented so early, I didn't even watch the video. I saw the title and thought about this book which i read earlier and just recommended it

[@speedmastermarkiii]

@@just-some-muslim The title literally says "(feat. James Fodor)".

[@just-some-muslim]

@@leahcimnaerc9543 interesting!!! How is Islam (a religion) connected with Uyghurs (an ethnic group) Sure they are muslims, but there persecution has nothing to do with Islam, as there 51% non-uyghur, Han Chinese muslims living in central China. This whole Uyghur issue is a political one, just like Taiwan, Xinjiang is also an illegal occupied region, Btw, I'm still interested in the dilemma you presented, If I don't oppose Islam, then I shouldn't concern about “human rights”.

[@Travisharger]

I don’t even know what it means for something to “exist” outside of space and time. Time and space is what we call “reality”.

[@tangerinetangerine4400]

It means that it doesn't exist.

[@gowdsake7103]

It means he can avoid the tricky problem of evidence

[@Telcontarnz]

WLC doesn’t exist in “reality”.

[@rbgg2010]

The only way I can imagine something existing outside of space/time is if it exists outside of *our* space/time, though it seems it would still require it's own bubble of space/time to exist within. For example, I can simulate a reality inside a computer. Everything that exists within this simulated reality exists within it's space/time, which began to exist (in it's current form) when I started the simulation. I exist outside of *it's* space/time, yet I still exist within *our* space/time. A bubble inside a bubble, basically. This wouldn't even really render "God" any less powerful or omniscient as theists claim him to be...it just means he can't be timeless, spaceless, or immaterial. But it seems necessary that he be those things for certain apologetic arguments to work, and so they just keep insisting...🤷

[@markhackett2302]

@@rbgg2010 You can't get that other space to interact with ours, though, so such a God would still not exist, except maybe on random intervals, e.g. a Deist God. Nobody worships one, though. It would be irrelevant to claim one did exist, worse to worship one.

[@taylorlibby7642]

It makes me kinda happy when William Lame Craig calls people who don't think like he does "infidels".

[@Gumpmachine1]

I’m happy to disappoint him lol

[@hitesh8383]

Infidel means non believers... Isn't that what we are...?

[@taylorlibby7642]

@@hitesh8383 Yep. Kinda my point. Calling a nonbeliever a nonbeliever isn't quite the insult they want it to be.

[@Dragonblaster1]

Infidel means "without faith". Yep, that sounds like me.

[@StanbyMode]

@@mandellorian790its not though, people think for some reason that “infidel” is some generic slur in Islam when its nowhere used

[@Seapatico]

I'd heard the phrase "Kalam Cosmological Argument" a lot, but never actually knew what it was referring to. So I was genuinely shocked to realize that this legendary idea for why God exists is just a fancy wording of: "Well, it all had to come from somewhere!"

[@lizzard13666]

I know, it's almost as if it's obvious God exists! Academics do an awesome job providing evidence backed arguments for God's existence, and it's really important to know there is good reason to believe God exists in academia, but you're right that at some level many of these arguments are also self-evident!

[@Seapatico]

@@lizzard13666 lol, honestly, I would fully respect someone whose real reason for believing in God was just "it all had to come from somewhere!" Haha. As long as that person never voted.

[@lizzard13666]

@@Seapatico There's a lot of people who I wish wouldn't vote! Also a lot of people I wish couldn't be voted for ... oh well, the price of freedom I guess!

[@lnsflare1]

@@lizzard13666 Oh, no, you're thinking of Craig's completely unfounded variation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument which gives various unsupported traits to the cause. The Kalam itself only assets that things that begin to exist need something to cause them to exist, without providing any evidence that things can't just spontaneously begin to exist (which Quantum Mechanics shows happens all the time on the quantum level) or that the universe/cosmos even began to exist in the first place (the Big Bang only being the starting point of the expansion of the current instance of the universe that we inhabit from a pre-existing singularity, whose history we are thus far unable to investigate, and whose origins, if it has one and didn't just exist eternally, we aren't even close to being able to determine). Meanwhile WLC is just randomly claiming that there exists a magical sentient being with a bunch of traits that created the universe because getting people to keep giving him money for confirming their own indoctrination is much easier than actually researching cosmology, physics, biology, or any of the other topics that he pretends to be an authority on.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

This is called a strawman fallacy. Try again. Here is the actual argument A)Whatever begins to exist has a cause. B)The universe began to exist. C)Therefore the universe has a cause. It can be logically deduced that cause must have the following traits: Spaceless - Because space came into being and did not exist until this cause brought it into existence, the cause cannot be spatial. It must be spaceless or non-spatial. You cannot be inside of something if you are that something’s cause. You cannot be inside of something if that something did not exist until you brought it into existence Timeless - Since time did not exist until the cause, the cause cannot be inside of time. It must be timeless. Immaterial - The cause’s non-spatiality entails immateriality. How so? Because material objects cannot exist unless space exists. Material objects have mass and ergo occupy spatial dimensions. If there is no space, matter cannot exist. This means that because the cause is non-spatial, it is therefore non-material. Unimaginably Powerful (if not omnipotent) - Anything able to create all matter, energy, space, and time out of absolutely nothing must be extremely powerful, if not omnipotent. Supernatural - “Nature” and “The universe” are synonyms. Nature did not begin to exist until this cause caused it to. Therefore, a natural cause (a cause coming, by definition, from nature) cannot be responsible for the origin of nature. To say otherwise would be to spout incoherence. You’d basically be saying “Nature caused nature to come into being.” Uncaused - Given that the cause of the universe is timeless, the cause cannot itself have a beginning. To have a beginning to one’s existence entails a before and after relationship. There’s a time before one existed and a time after one came into existence. But a before and after of anything is impossible without time. Since the cause existed sans time, the cause, therefore, cannot have a beginning. It’s beginningless. Personal - This is an entailment of the cause’s immateriality. There are two types of things recognized by philosophers that are immaterial: abstract objects (such as numbers, sets, or other mathematical entities) or unembodied minds. Philosophers realize that abstract objects if they exist, they exist as non-physical entities. However, abstract objects cannot produce any effects. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. The number 3 isn’t going to be producing any effects anytime soon. Given that abstract objects are causally impotent, it, therefore, follows that an unembodied mind is the cause of the universe’ beginning All these traits that are logically deduced for the necessary cause of the universe's beginning match precisely with descriptions of God.

[@JiveDadson]

When something in our experience "begins to exist", it is a rearrangement of things that already existed.

[@DeconvertedMan]

Right - so then its equivocation when WLC says the "universe" did what we see other things do.

[@christopherpaige3270]

Right, this argument of yours is mereological nihilism. That's WLC's point (you atheists are nihilists, you just don't seem to know it.)

[@DeconvertedMan]

@@christopherpaige3270 no, we are not. Maybe some of us are. But not all of us. Its annoying how you pretend to mind read.

[@JiveDadson]

@@DeconvertedMan I wasn't going to respond to the personal accusation, if that's what it was. But since you did ...As Wikipedia defines it, I'm not that.

[@DeconvertedMan]

@@JiveDadson I've seen it before - and will see it again, people sometimes will say you think (X) or you believe (Z) and simply assert this - I consider it to be a fallacy I call "mind reading" although its not officially a fallacy... (yet)

[@OscarSommerbo]

WLC's "arguments" seems to amount to nothing more than assertions and quasi-scientific mumbo-jumbo, much like Deepak Chopra. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[@DBCisco]

You realize that most atheists play the same game, right ?

[@CallMeChato]

@@DBCisco No, that is a false assertion. The only thing that connects atheists is questioning god belief ranging from, show me the evidence to non-belief. A person who happens to be an atheist might 'play the game' as you assert but it has nothing to do with atheism.

[@DBCisco]

@@CallMeChato I am talking about the vocal atheists and anti-theists. What is wrong with you ? BTW, I am not a "believer", I am a polymath.

[@patchwurk6652]

@@DBCisco What is wrong with him? You just made a declarative statement without backing it up or providing any examples of what you're even talking about. Nothing he said was false, Atheists are not a monolith and in fact the ONLY qualification you need to be an Atheist is "You you believe in deities, Yes or No?" If the answer is no, regardless of the specific reasons, you are, by definition, an Atheist. THere's no further requirements or belief requirements, no doctrine or organization or overarching authority, no rules beyond just a single answer to a single question: "Do you believe in deities." No Atheist is required or obligated to answer for or even respect any other Atheist's beliefs on any level. We're not united, no one tells us what to do, every Atheist answers for themselves and themselves alone. So why, pray tell, would the behavior of other Atheists that I hold absolutely zero knowledge of, comradery towards, or hell since you didn't elaborate, Absolutely Zero Examples of what exactly you're even referring to, be somehow On Me to answer for? And why is the previous guy "having something wrong with him" for dismissing your unsubstantiated assertion that "Atheists play the same games". Any assertion that is made without evidence can be summarily dismissed without evidence. The claim an extraordinary thing is part of reality (i.e. an unsubstatiated claim in God and the Supernatural" and the Atheist has only said "I don't believe you." If you tell me you have an elf in your shoes that grants your wishes, it's not On Me to prove you don't have an elf in your shoe, it's on You to whip your damn shoe off and prove it. I'm not the asshole for not just insta-buying any and all claims made to me.

[@francesconicoletti2547]

@@DBCisco apparently we can only read words on a screen, not the words in your head. Sorry.

[@andreasplosky8516]

Craig describes the big bang as "something that began to exist" This is wrong. At best the Big Bang can be described as something that began to expand. Craig is a weird phenomena. He delivers his arguments with great underlined conviction, but the content of what he delivers is always very childish, flawed, and full of miscomprehensions of basic principles.

[@annoyboyPictures]

*** This is wrong. At best the Big Bang can be described as something that began to expand. *** Errr yeah... and you KNOW this is 'Wrong' WITH CERTAINTY how? Please provide SCIENTIFIC PROOF (which you can't since you were NOT there when it happened) for your Assertion from Authority, otherwise you're just engaging in COSMO-BABBLE... and not proving anyone WRONG.

[@markhackett2302]

@@annoyboyPictures Please provide proof of a God, with SCIENTIFIC evidence. Oh, you can't, because God doesn't exist. Prove with scientific evidence the OP is wrong. Oh, you can't. But you still insist he MUST be.

[@annoyboyPictures]

@@markhackett2302 *** Please provide proof of a God, with SCIENTIFIC evidence. *** Why? LOL! I'm not the one ASSERTING COSMO-BABBLE as 'SCIENCE'. YOU are... you want to claim SCIENCE... you provide the SCIENTIFIC PROOF... all you are trying to do is offer a RED HERRING to distract from your FRAUDULENT and UNSUBSTANTIATED claims.

[@markhackett2302]

​@@annoyboyPictures Because if your God existed you would be able to. This is proof your God doesn't exist. YOU provide scientific evidence of him being wrong, or me, because otherwise you cannot disagree with me, by your own argument, so shut it.

[@markhackett2302]

@@annoyboyPictures You know that he is wrong with certainty HOW? Oh, you don't. Please proivide SCIENTIFIC PROOF (which you can't since you were not there when it happened) for your assertion from authority, otherwise you are just engaging in lying for jeebus, and not proving the OP is wrong.

[@scienceexplains302]

It’s easy to count to infinity if you count in increments of infinity: “Infinity”. Done. So what is WLC’s proof about counting?

[@pansepot1490]

That’s pure genius.

[@condorboss3339]

I'd like to introduce WLC to the work of Georg Cantor. The infinite hotel is merely the first order of infinity.

[@scienceexplains302]

@@pansepot1490 Thank you

[@roqsteady5290]

Infinity is not a number.

[@scienceexplains302]

@@roqsteady5290 So Craig’s point about not being able to count to it is irrelevant.

[@kca_randy]

James is brilliant .Good guest

[@sonnywilliams9610]

would the KCA in your name wouldn't happen to stand for Kalam Cosmological Argument would it?

[@geoffrust6787]

You cant be serious. He actually brought out the old chestnut, "I don't find that to be persuasive..." which is just a shorthand for I can't actually argue against something so I will say I am not convinced and glide past. You are free to disagree but I am not convinced by your disagreement therefore I obviously win this argument- Do you see how moronic that is?

[@Rog5446]

Craig said that the being that created the universe, was endowed with this, that and the other. So who was doing the endowing?

[@guiagaston7273]

Yeah I ask the same when they invoke "gods nature".

[@letsomethingshine]

@@guiagaston7273 Look the universe's nature just is what it is... I mean infinite eternal gods natures just are what they are... I mean there is only one God for meaningless arbitrary simple-minded reasons... I mean the Dao just is what it is, including with it's Objective Mind-Independent Karma. ;)

[@christopherpaige3270]

Again, you don't understand special pleading. God, by definition, is extrinsic to the universe, so He doesn't play by the universe's rules. (Just like people in FL don't live by GA law; that's not special pleading; it's just understanding how jurisdiction works.)

[@guiagaston7273]

@@christopherpaige3270 by who's rules does god play?

[@Rog5446]

@@christopherpaige3270 Who said anything about god playing by any rules?

[@andresvillarreal9271]

One of my big problems with the Kalam Cosmological Argument is that the word "cause" is used in a very cavalier way. There are lots of kinds of causes, and there is no clear differentiation between conceptual and physical causes in the versions of Kalam that go around. And if we don't even have a formal definition of cause, then the very mention of an infinite sequence of causes is totally absurd. In mathematics, we do have a sound use of infinities, but it is only possible with clear, formal definitions of everything that we use. I can only expect the same precision when making philosophical arguments with anything that is possibly infinite.

[@maksimbolonkin]

If you give everything precise definitions philosophy will cease to exist and will simple turn into science.

[@Ken_Scaletta]

"Begin to exist" is also an incoherent phrase.

[@farrex0]

@@Ken_Scaletta Exactly, as far as we know, beginning to exist is simply impossible. We have never observed anything to begin to exist, and trying to presume how something, that we have never observed to have happened works, is simply arrogant and illogical. All the examples we can think of "begin to exist" are creatio ex materia... creatio ex nihilo so far as we know is entirely impossible, so it is a category error.

[@farrex0]

@edo medo Brilliantly put Edo, and no need to apologize for getting nerdy because I enjoyed reading it. But what you say in the end is the biggest problem with the argument, and the one that rightfully most people point out. Because while the argument is flawed from the premise, at the conclusion, it seems like Craig skipped several axioms. After he states the Universe needed a cause, he just jumps to the conclusion he wanted to reach without ever even trying to justify it. Craig:"The creator has to be all powerful" Me: "ok, I am not sure if omnipotence is needed, but it makes sense that if there was a creator it had to be incredibly powerful..." Craig: "personal, all loving, all knowing, timeless, perfect in every way" Me: "Woah woah woah, hold on a minute, how did you even come up to that conclusion? Why does the creator has to have those attributes?" Craig: "I am not even gonna try and explain why" As far as we know, if there was a cause, there is no reason that cause was sentient... and if there was a creator, the only thing that would be needed is that said creator is powerful enough to create the universe. All the other attributes are mere speculation"

[@johnwalker1058]

But if they are precise with their terms, how will they be able to equivocate their meanings and shift the goalposts of the exact meaning behind the usage of these terms when it is convenient for them to do so in order to pass their arguments by? For sophistry to work, vagueness is your best friend!

[@ivanhagstrom5601]

It's delusional of William Lane Craig to believe that he understands general relativity better than the physicists that spend their lives studying it.

[@spudmcdougal369]

I always thought it was pretty arrogant of people like Craig who try to use physics & cosmology to prove the existence of god when people like Sean Carroll, Vilenkin , and Lawrence Krause who are experts in these fields have concluded there is no god. Does Craig believe that these physicists have not considered all the arguments?

[@TBOTSS]

@@spudmcdougal369 It is Larry Krauss who does not understand physics and then produces heavily edited e-mails to try and save face.

[@spudmcdougal369]

@@TBOTSS uggh. Put it on your blog. Secondly, Vilenkin et al. can explain the theory of a universe quantum tunneling from nothing without aid from Krause, and third, there’s theories by Steinhardt and Penrose that propose separate theories of cyclic universes. Like Sean Carroll say, “God is not a good theory.”

[@TBOTSS]

@@spudmcdougal369 Penrose's CCC does not work. In addition to the need to revamp the Standard Model of particle physics (electrons losing all their mass) the empirical evidence is against it. The recent survey of Hawking points reduced from six sigma to one sigma in Penrose's model. The Hawking points are now better understood as deviations rather than evidence of black hole collapse in a perious aeon.

[@TBOTSS]

@@spudmcdougal369 "Vilenkin et al. can explain the theory of a universe quantum tunnelling from nothing". Not a philosophical nothing. See Vilenkin talk about this 'nothing' from about 10 minutes in kzbin.info/www/bejne/bnSmmaGthNiab6s. Again there are serious problems about tunnelling from a forbidden state to an allowance state which are insurmountable. However if this can be overcome, this nothing has a lot of inbuilt properties. Notice how physicists have different nothings (actually somethings) to support their case of a 'UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING'.

[@heiyuall]

Craig starts and finishes with only one assumption: Craig is always right. Everything else that exists is either proof of this assumption, or a lie.

[@grosty2353]

Wait… so your complaint is that the guy thinks he is right? Wouldn’t that apply to Paulogia? Or literally anyone else who has an opinion.

[@heiyuall]

@@grosty2353 We all Think we’re right. Honest people are willing to be wrong and smart people understand they usually are. “The more we know, the more we know we don’t know.”

[@grosty2353]

@@heiyuall I don’t understand how anything you just said is meant to go against Craig. He’s a debater. He’s not going to be in the middle of a debate and say “well now that I think of it, I think my opponent is correct. That’s just foolish. Your also just assuming that Craig has never changed his views outside of the public sphere.

[@heiyuall]

@@grosty2353 As it applies to Craig, he lectures and writes books. Neither are debates, and neither contain corrections. If he lived in entertainment, which debates really are a part of, then it’d be called showmanship. But he also tries to be part of science and politics. Critical Thinking and the Scientific Method are how we identify and address the holes in our knowledge. How we find out how we’re wrong so we can later be right. Craig simply declares without evidence, then drops the mic. Worse, I’m certain he knows all of this.

[@grosty2353]

@@heiyuall he doesn’t declare without evidence. Take something like causal finitism. That’s a well evidenced claim that Craig makes.

[@13shadowwolf]

Really, the best way to understand Mr Craig's arguments are to look up how con-artists work. The word games that Craig plays becomes readily evident when observed through the lense of knowing how it is that con-artists play with language in order to make it appear as if the speaker has something of value to say. Craig doesn't know what he's talking about, he knows he doesn't, and he just wants to keep preaching without acknowledging criticisms to his concepts. He doesn't function like a honest interlocutor, we only ever see him twisting responses to suit his preconceptions. Craig is playing word games, he isn't actually saying anything worth listening too. His arguments only work on people that are presupposing the conclusion to be true.

[@ChryosSkathe]

Wait wait, Craig actually used the term "infidel?" He gets how extreme that makes him sound, right?

[@blackice9088]

Umm probably not, you're giving him too much credit...

[@andrewhall2411]

It also struck me as a weird word choice... Infidel vs atheist or secular

[@autobotstarscream765]

Y'all-Qaeda the Fundagelical Dominionist Taliban

[@baconsarny-geddon8298]

Yeah, it's weird coming from WLC, who usually goes out of his way to cast himself as the super-duper-logical, academic, big brain intellectual (even in this video, with the line about "Kalam's critics are mere KZbinrs, not serious academics" [swirls sherry glass haughtily]), and always seems very self-conscious, about trying to differentiate himself from those dumb young earth creationists, biblical literalists, etc. But calling non-Christians "infidels" almost seems like the exact opposite of all that.

[@angelikaskoroszyn8495]

@Bacon Sarny-Geddon Even the anti intelectual, young Earth apologists don't use the word. They know it makes them look like islamist fundamentalists

[@rickedwards7276]

My problem starts with the first premise. Usually stated as “everything that exists has a cause”. I have no reason to believe that anyone has ever seen everything. Therefore that’s an assumption and I don’t agree with it. Have no way of verifying it therefore any following conclusions are pointless.

[@silvertail7131]

If nothing else we've observed energy, and that it cannot be created or destroyed by any means we're aware of. Imagining an eternal universe, and imagining a "time" before the laws of physics, are equally mindbending. I lean on the, no idea, side of the argument

[@rickedwards7276]

@@silvertail7131 The universe is unimaginably large. For all I know at the edge of the universe energy is being created.

[@truthovertea]

Fodor isn’t careful with his language, especially for one who has made his career off of criticizing WLCs language. He uses tensed language constantly, unconsciously most likely-yet claims time is tenseless. It’s also in poor taste to add premises to his argument to attack, he uses the Kalam to show the universe is causally contingent.

[@Cellidor]

When he sounds confused about 'How a mindless cause could have created the universe once and not continued to do so, creating things all the time' it strikes me as someone asking 'How could anything cause a single lightning bolt to strike while not also causing lightning to strike every square inch of the ground, all over the planet, simultaneously and forever?' There's a reason lightning does not strike infinitely and forever, and it does not require a thinking mind. There's no reason to assume this would not also apply to the effect that kicked off our instantiation of the universe.

[@michaelsommers2356]

Obviously, lightning is under the control of Zeus, and Zeus is a personal agent.

[@stu1002]

I don't see how 1 is a fatal flaw to the cosmological argument. It is admitted that The KCA is based upon a tensed, rather than tenseless theory of time. Your complaint seems to be that Craig doesn't have an exact answer for how a tensed theory of time works. So what? That doesn't mean its false. There are *massive* problems with a tenseless theory of time also: For example, if time is merely 4th dimension of the universe, then we are saying that our perception of the passing of time is entirely illusory, generated by the fact that our conscious awareness seems to be moving through the 4th dimension of the universe involuntarily in one direction. Being "in" 2024 rather than, say "in" 1980 is just the same as saying you are "in" London, rather than "in" Paris. It's purely a reference point of your own location. While time appears to "pass", it is only passing in the same sense that trees "pass" the window when you look out the window of a moving train. That's a very cool idea in some ways, but also an utterly anti-real one, and fraught with problems. This generates enormous problems for most of our sense of rationality and causality. Suppose I'm sitting working on a maths problem at 9:30am. On this view, 9:40am (at which time I generate the right answer to the maths problem) *already* exists. But on this view, it becomes inexplicable why the 10 minutes I spend logically trying to work out the answer have any rational meaning: It was already determined, and has been determined for the entire (eternal) existence of the universe, that at that particular point, 9:40am, on that particular day, I would get a certain answer to that maths problem. So in what sense did I ever "work out" the answer? And if I didn't "work it out", why would I have any confidence in it being rational or correct? On such a view, our entire sense of rationality and reason are illusory, which renders this entire video illusory. Now, my point here isn't that the KCA is right, but merely that, unless you're willing to sign up for all the problems entailed in accepting a tenseless theory of time - and pin your colours to that mast and say "I believe in a tenseless theory of time", it's just irrelevant that there are conceptual difficulties with a tensed theory of time, because there are conceptual difficulties with a tenseless theory of time also.

[@robertharvey8536]

Is this what philosophers and theologians spend their time doing? The person who invented the water heater has brought more good to more people than all of the theologians who have ever lived.

[@BHTQ18]

You have to understand reality man and these arguments are important to our existence and purpose

[@ThePresident001]

Never confuse theology for philosophy. One is worth the time and effort, the other is a dead discipline with nothing to say.

[@oldpossum57]

Theology is, essentially, studying the nature of an imaginary being and its relation to humans. Pretty much a waste of time. The psychology, sociology, anthropology, history of religions is valuable. Philosophy is important. Some of its problems are not. A lot of philosophy assumes that the human mind apprehends the universe as it is. From a biological point of view this makes no sense. Why should a human perspective of the universe be accurate and the very different one experienced by whales be mistaken.

[@Travisharger]

My favorite rebuttal to Dr. Craig’s point about “Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem” is when Physicist Sean Carol had Alan Guth himself say Craig was wrong and basically didn’t understand the theorem.

[@Paulogia]

classic

[@KateeAngel]

😆😆😆😆👍👍👍👍👍👍

[@gnattress]

"Did God Create the Universe from Nothing?: Countering William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument" by Jonathan Pearce is excellent. You should get him on your show.

[@gnattress]

And of course, Fodor was excellent in this episode. Nice to get him distilled down to a very concise rebuttal.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

Wouldn't the claim that god created "the universe" from "nothing" conflict with the bible story? In which god clearly exists INSIDE space and time (floating over the waters) is NOT said to have created the waters (OR space and time) and thus exists inside the universe and starts with SOMETHING to make other things out of. (And we should also mention that back then "god" was a GROUP of gods, not ONE god and not a weird trinity orgy either...) WLC is part of a philosophical movement that tries to wave away the literal creation claims of the bible by retroengineering "what they must mean" into the modern understanding of cosmology, a dishonest enterprise from the get go. And as he uses massive numbers of fallacious statements to do so, it doesn't become much better.

[@CallMeIshmael999]

So I'm a mathematician. Before I became a mathematician I took some philosophy classes and was acquainted with Craig's thoughts on "actual infinity" but I hadn't looked at them since I went through my math education. I didn't remember that he thinks Hilbert's Hotel is an argument against actual infinity! Actual mathematicians use this as an example of how infinity actually works. Of course the example can't happen because we don't have infinitely many guests or an infinitely long hotel, but these aren't logically impossible, just physically impossible. And they're metaphors.

[@francesconicoletti2547]

Are you saying the hotel is physically impossible or as WLC manages to sneak in there that infinity is physically impossible ? I think WLC’s trick is to conflate the metaphor of the hotel for reality and therefore dismiss everything as absurd. The only way to find out about infinity in the real world is to measure it, which is rather difficult as our main measuring rod, light hasn’t had time to travel infinite distance since the finite beginning of the universe.

[@CallMeIshmael999]

@@francesconicoletti2547 The hotel is physically impossible for a number of reasons, I think (though I'm not a physicist). I doubt that it's possible to bring together an infinite amount of matter and it would be impossible to make a loudspeaker that could reach all the infinite rooms, but the fact that this scenario is impossible doesn't mean infinity itself is physically impossible. One way of seeing an "actual infinity" might be to look smaller instead of bigger. We at least model the universe by imagining there are an infinite number of points between any two points. Or it's at least conceivable that the universe has existed for infinitely long (I think physicists don't think this is true - they think the universe is compact - but Craig is trying to argue it's somehow impossible, not just that it doesn't happen to be true).

[@distantdream2002]

If you have an infinite amount of people in the hilbert hotel, and you make all the odd numbered room guests leave, you have an infinite amount of people left. Therefore Infinite - Infinite = Infinite If you have an infinite amount of people in the hilbert hotel, and you make all the guests from above room number 3 leave, you have 3 people left. Therefore Infinite - Infinite = 3 This is a clear absurdity, how can this possibley exist?

[@CallMeIshmael999]

@@distantdream2002 This is a proof by contradiction that it's impossible to consistently define subtraction of infinity but it's not a proof that infinity can't exist.

[@distantdream2002]

@@CallMeIshmael999 I mean you can hold and latch on to the belief that infinties exist. I have every valid reason to not believe in its existence apart from God himself.

[@coolcat23]

The universe and its possible origins are a mystery. An even greater mystery is how a very intelligent person like William L. Craig can hold on to such a flawed argument.

[@crm321]

Your point at 00:05:35 is incorrect I think. Just because he chose to act at those discrete moments doesn't mean that he was constrained to. He could've chose to do it that way and had the ability to do it another way.

[@ackbooh9032]

Hume explains very clearly that we don't know if smething could pop in or out of existence at any time. Because there is actually no necessary, logical reason as to why things stay as they are. Laws of the universe are empirically determined, a posteriori. It seems improbable that it would happen, but any probabilistic argument against laws of physics changing are invalid. Probability and probabilistic proof for the stability of the Universe would require that we know the universe of real possibilities, the scale of the (statistical) universe of (empirical) universes, which we don't (since we only experienced this stretch of one particular universe). So even local objects could very well have no cause and break physics. Now this doesn't bother physics that much, since physics is still our less bad model of the universe as it currently seems to work. But from a metaphysical (and theological) standpoint, we have no rational proof that the Universe couldn't pop out of nothing, and that it won't disappear again.

[@Greyz174]

For the infinite hotel analogy, that's totally mundanely workable. You just need an algorithm to coordinate the movement of an infinte amount of people, but that's perfectly possible. Rooms labelled starting at 1. Take current occupant out of room 1 Move new guy into room 1 Take current occupant out of room 2 Move the previously replaced occupant into room 2 Take current occupant out of room 3 Move the previously replaced occupant into room 3 Take current occupant out of room 4 Move the previously replaced occupant into room 4 Do that literally forever up the chain of rooms So yeah I mean you will cause an infinite amount of waves from swapping people in and out of rooms because in an infinite amount of swaps, the swapping will never settle itself. But this isn't surprising. Of course moving an infinite amount of people is going to take an infinite amount of time if youre a finite being and have to coordinate that. Doesn't mean it's impossible to do, it just takes literally forever. But that's fine, this hypothetical assumes the hotel has the manpower to handle infinite requests, right? It is an infinite hotel. But you can get the guy into the first room just fine and not be out of rooms so this situation isn't as ridiculous as he makes it out to be. It just takes forever to complete a series of replacements but that's totally mundane and what you'd expect from a really big hotel room.

[@olivieryeung398]

2:28 that's a lie, thats not WLC 's formulation of the Kalam argument. The truth all over the internet Moreover; the Kalam is not a Christian argument, it's a philosophy from the Arab world.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

As someone who studied Formal & Informal Logic at university and even more-so in the decades after, I just want to say the objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument by William Lane Craig from Atheists are so illogical, at times, that it's comical. Lots of fallacies of scientism (type of category error fallacy in which a non-scientific claim is conflated with a scientific claim)

[@michaelsommers2356]

Such as?

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@michaelsommers2356 The objection to premise #2 - that we know the universe began to exist, for example. Atheists often reject that we know this because it cannot be empirically verified. But empirical is not the only way to knowledge. Mathematics and logic, within philosophical arguments, also serve as paths to knowledge. Here's one for how we know the universe began to exist. There are logically only two options: 1. The universe always existed, or 2. The universe began to exist at a finite time in the past. Below, I will describe how we determine it is mathematically impossible that the universe always existed, which leaves us with option #2 by logical deduction. In order for the universe to have always existed, it would mean an infinite number of things could exist - namely past events prior to today. But, as I will explain, an infinite number of things can't mathematically exist within this universe. “But”, you may say, “I learned about infinity in my math class in high school.” This is true. So, before we can go any further, let’s quickly look at the difference between potential infinity and actual infinity. Potential vs Actual Infinity It is true that we can sit and talk (and perfectly understand) about an infinite number of things. For example, we could picture a line 100 feet away and then take steps to cut that distance in half. And then take steps to cut that distance in half. And again. And again. And again. And we understand that we could keep doing this forever (an infinite amount of times) and never reach the line at the other end. This is what we would call potential infinity. That is to say infinity serves as an ideal limit that is never reached. Potential infinity is what we learned in math class. But, because of what we do know about infinite set theory (doing math with infinite numbers), we can quickly see how actual infinity (an infinite number of things in the real world) leads to all sorts of invalid mathematical impossibilities. Here’s a pretty easy one to think about regarding the universe and time. Let’s say that for every 1 rotation around the sun for the planet Saturn, the Earth completes 2 rotations. So, after Saturn has gone around once, Earth has gone around twice. After Saturn has gone around twice, Earth has gone around 4 times. And so on and so on. By the time Saturn has gone around 1,000 times, Earth would have gone around 2, 000 times. By the time Saturn would have gone around 5 million times, Earth would have gone around 10 million times. The gap between the number of rotations just keeps getting bigger and bigger. And yet, if time were infinite, guess how many times Saturn would have gone around? Infinity. And how many times would the Earth have gone around? Infinity. But, if the Earth goes around twice as fast as Saturn, wouldn’t it be 2 x Infinity? Well, sure. But, the answer to that math problem is: infinity. And, guess how big the gap would be between the rotations of Saturn and the rotations of Earth? You guessed it: infinity. **The number of times each planet has gone around the sun would be equal despite the Earth rotating around twice as fast** ... which is impossible. This serves as a mathematical proof that actual infinity cannot exist within this universe we live in. Only potential infinity can, in our minds & in mathematical equations. Consequently, an infinite series of past events cannot exist & we can be 100% certain the universe began to exist at a finite time in the past.

[@antiksur8883]

​@@lightbeforethetunnelFirst, you have no idea whether Mathematics is independent of the universe, or of intelligent minds. So trying to assert proof by mathematics is a useless endeavor. And science is a subset of philosophy and logic. Empiricism and logic aren't exclusive things. And you literally determined nothing. First, you demonstrated that some kind of infinity doesn't make sense in our universe, when we aren't talking about things inside the universe, but those beyond it. Second, infinities are of different kinds. And objections to one kind of infinity has no logical link to disprove other kinds. Case in point, the infinity of Natural Numbers is countable and has a definite beginning. The infinity of such a proposed universe has no discernible beginning iteration.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@antiksur8883 "first, you have no idea whether Mathematics is independent of the universe, or of intelligent minds." How do you justify your assertion that I don't know this? I find it interesting how often atheists debate as though they can read the minds of others, particularly given that it's usually YOU guys accusing others of that (falsely). A good rule to follow in debate: If you can't justify an assertion you're making, you shouldn't be asserting it. It is irrational to do so, regardless of your seemings or subjective opinions regarding what you think likely is the cas (derived from your pre-existing presuppositions / worldview that you start with). "So trying to prove proof by Mathematics is a useless endeavor." Proofs only exist in Logical knowledge & Systemic knowledge (Mathematics, Geometry, other systems). So, no... a proof by Mathematics would not be a useless endeavor. It would be a mathematical proof. "And science is a subset of philosophy and logic. Empiricism and logic aren't exclusive things." Definition of Empiricism - the philosophical view that truth can ONLY be known of it's empirically verified. It does not say scientifically verified, it says empirically verified. So, whether or not science is a subset of philosophy and logic is irrelevant.. and a red herring fallacy. Empirical verification means that it was verified with the senses. Sense data was obtained. Scientific verification is different than that. Scientific verification requires that sense data is repeatable, independently verifiable, etc. Empirical verification does not. It could just be a one time event. So, you seem to be conflating science with Empiricism. They're not the same. And Empiricism is the particular philosophical belief that we can only obtain knowledge through our senses... that there is no other way to knowledge other than through our senses. That is a demonstrably false view, as it is logically self-refuting. Since Empiricism cannot be empirically verified itself.

[@oldpossum57]

@@lightbeforethetunnel ZEven if I grant you that we cannot have an infinite series of past events, once you are outside the universe, you can have the, yes. Is there a difference between an Infinite Chain of Causes, each causing the next, and a unique Cause? I don’t see how mathematically or philosophically you can distinguish the two, though you want a Unique Prime Mover if you want to get at a Personal Intelligence witness Intent/Will/Desire. I don’t think you can use reason to get to WLC’s Personal and or Intelligent First Cause. The Infinite Chain might be less elegant, but it isn’t wrong headed.

[@sbunny8]

It is important to note that some thought experiments about infinity prove that infinity CAN exist. Take Zeno's paradox, and its many variation. To reach your destination, you must first reach your halfway point. Then you must reach the point halfway from there to the destination, and so on, which means that every journey requires infinitely many steps, therefore it is impossible to go anywhere. Yet we see people reach destinations all the time. The conclusion we draw is that some kinds of infinity actually CAN exist, such as an infinite number of steps which get smaller and smaller adding up to a finite result. For Craig to conclude that all infinities are impossible is just ludicrous. Also, Hillbert's Hotel doesn't prove that infinity is impossible. It just illustrates that infinity is counterintuitive. Our common sense ideas about how things happen in ordinary life don't apply to situations involving infinity. Craig notes a mismatch between common sense and infinity and concludes that the problem lies with the infinity, because common sense is just fine the way it is. Hogwash. We could just as easily resolve the mismatch by concluding that common sense is faulty and the infinity is just fine the way it is. Of course, it's also possible that both things are flawed.

[@hotblackdesiato3022]

Good post.

[@autobotstarscream765]

Hilbert's Hotel is a Ponzi scheme, not the self-evidently perfect creation of a benevolent Creator, let alone proof that this universe is any such thing. 😂

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

Reality cannot be split into infinitely many parts, ther eare minimal amounts of time and space, quantizing it, therefore you cannot truly reenact Zenos Paradoxon in the actual world as at some point the divisions would be smaller than is physically possible. And a wanderer going the distance will not take it in halves, he will take measurable, countable steps that definitely add up to a whole that is able to surpass the total distance easily. That is the difference between thought experiments and reality. They do not both follow the same rules. Which is why our world runs on science, but adores philosophy that isn't bound by actual limitations and can think up ANYTHING if it tries hard enough.

[@markhackett2302]

@@Ugly_German_Truths Maths doesn't work with reality. It works with cows that are spherical, no matter what shape they are, because it doesn't matter what reality says compared to logic. This is why science is not mathematics. And it is why there is no need or want to produce Zeno's Paradox in real life. All we need to do is show maths is, at the time of Zeno, incomplete. Since Cantor it has been able to answer his paradox. Reality doesn't factor in.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

@@markhackett2302 Mathematics itself does not make statements, it delivers formulas and tools. It also does not dabble in cows, that is physics USING mathematics (or maybe agricultural "sciences" ...) Maths is a language and you need to be both fluent in it AND the field you want to use it as a tool for to get proper results. But on the basic most level i agree, doing any thought experimetns with no experimental confirmation or observational evidence is simply circle jerking. That is why Philosophy does not deliver unequivocal results and is bad at telling us what to do and that is why apologetics, YEC, FE and other fields of theological sophistry are not science. or reliable or realistical.

[@GrimsBar]

17:10 Bicycles, Bethoveen, and Rootbeer did come into existence without a cause. WLC has lost the plot. Rootbeer that is old and dehydrated is not rootbeer if it is unrecognizable as such. To ask, "At what point does the rootbeer become rootbeer" or "At what time does it stop being rootbeer" is to involve ourselves in making a determination. This is the problem at hand. The universe is wholly indifferent to what we may call a collection of atoms. There is no "cause" to create rootbeer, just that we identify it as such. Rootbeer is only a label for a ratio of molecules we use when communicating. Bethoven's body replaced all of this atoms every 7-10 years. Later when he died, there was a shape of matter people identified as his corpse. If, for example, he was incinerated, and his atoms were absorbed by trees, grass, and eventually other people, they don't "become" Bethoven. Bethoven was a series of unique arrangements that exists for a short period.

[@VSE4me1]

Anyone else waiting for William Lane Craig to start talking about a “thought experiment” about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? He seems like a guy with waayyyy too much time on his hands.

[@piros100]

maybe he already knows that angels don't dance. except for one and can he can dance only the gavotte 😁😆

[@mashah1085]

A good prediction is that WLC now keeps his public appearances isolated to ONLY college students...or "friendly" debates with atheists...or simply Christian-only audiences. Thus avoiding actual philosophical debate with people like Fodor. Am I wrong?

[@dftknight]

Looks like you're wrong. He's debated Scott Clifton since you posted this.

[@mashah1085]

@@dftknight Great. Where and when and is it upon KZbin?

[@dftknight]

@@mashah1085 kzbin.info/www/bejne/oqXIhaiwmq-NeMU

[@stu1002]

On Point 3: No - just wrong: A way to conceptualise the equations of Relativity is by imagining a tenseless theory of time, but that doesn't mean that is ontologically the case, but the BGV theorem is derived from the mathematical description of the theory of relativity, not from the tenseless conceptualisation of those equations. The BGV is true because the equations are true, not because one particular ontic interpretation of those equations is true.

[@geoffmoon2903]

Even if I were to accept his kalam argument as reasonable, I still fail to see how WLC gets from a personal agent creator to the Christian God. It seems an absolutely absurd leap to make.

[@kai_plays_khomus]

Wonderful - the new Viced Rhino video just ended and I can get the next dose of quality counter-apologetics with friendly support of Paul. Thanks Paul!

[@bungalobill7941]

5:32 This guy makes the same mistake that many theologians make. Assuming that God is subject always to his attributes. God is not subject to his attributes. His attributes are subject to him. Just as everything else is also. If God were subject to his attributes then his attributes would lord it over him. The only one who can place restrictions on God is God himself.

[@Triumph_Of_Insinuation]

I love that you got under Dr. Craig's skin. I hope he thinks about your critiques every time he thinks on these things. You are the crack in his "perfect" philosophical fortress, slowly growing, and he can't fix it, and he knows it, all he can do is put coat of paint over the flaws and hopes that works, but he knows, and we know.

[@walnutoil100]

what flaws?

[@Julian0101]

Yeah, but i think is because craig have been getting sloppier the okder he gets, and cannot think of any good response. Probably in his prime he would have been "eloquent" enough to give an answer, but nowadays he is just a shell of what he once was.

[@Triumph_Of_Insinuation]

@@Julian0101 ​ @Julian That is a possibility. I think Dr. Craig is a smart guy who constructed very elaborate and seemingly sound arguments that were tough for people to grapple with. But over time qualified individuals pointed out the flaws and it appears he will not directly deal with them, or dismisses them with out reply, or creates a straw man version of their argument that does not sound at all like what his opponent was saying.

[@markhackett2302]

@@walnutoil100 What reality?

[@Slum0vsky]

@@walnutoil100 "what flaws?" Watch this video. Then re-watch it again and again. Maybe you'll get it eventually.

[@pandora8610]

Okay, so infinity can't exist. So the universe must have a beginning. So the universe must have been caused by something. But that something either has a beginning and so requires a cause of its own, or has no beginning, so is infinite, which we've already declared impossible. Yeah, nah. Every form of the cosmological argument hits the same snag. The supposed cause can only be exempted from needing a cause of its own by special pleading. And while there's no logical need for it, in practice it always hits a second snag when it makes the jump from "a cause/creator exists" to "a cause/creator exists, and it's *my* god, and he wants you to give me money and cares very much about your sex life".

[@DeconvertedMan]

The real god is a lobster, I keep trying to tell people but no one believes it :D

[@christopherpaige3270]

Uh, no - that's not how special pleading works. Everything in the universe has a cause, so the universe has a cause. That cause is NOT in the universe; therefore, that cause is NOT subject to the rule. The rule says "everything in the universe;" something NOT in the universe is NOT subject to the rule. There's no special pleading. Let me illustrate by example: GA bans motorcycles. Driving a motorcycle in FL is NOT illegal. Claiming that I'm "special pleading" when I claim to have been in FL rather than GA means you don't know how jurisdiction works. Since the extrinsic cause of the universe is NOT subject to the laws of the universe, it's not special pleading to claim that the extrinsic cause of the universe is NOT subject to the laws thereof. I mean this point is so basic I don't know how to make it any more obvious: the universe needs a cause because everything in the universe has a cause (your claim that the universe might be the exception to that rule is actually the textbook example of special pleading. That the extrinsic cause of the universe does NOT need a cause is not special pleading; it's simply pointing out that something that is NOT of this universe would not need to follow the laws of the universe.

[@markhackett2302]

@@christopherpaige3270 Uh, no, that is how special pleading works. There is also an unsupported claim there from you: everything in the universe requires a cause. Prove, plz. QM just has the opportunity, but causes nuclear decay nonetheless. There is a fallacy in your claim too, that the universe acts like things IN the universe. That you claim that GOD is exempt from the rule "all things have a cause" and not the universe (before which there was probably no time) is what special pleading IS.

[@markhackett2302]

@@christopherpaige3270 A prior universe is not obedient to the causes of THIS universe. Why must it be God? You want to believe, but you do not, hence the police.

[@pandora8610]

@@christopherpaige3270 Everything in my cupboard is a saucepan therefore my cupboard is a saucepan.

[@richardgregory3684]

The kalam "argument" is based on two things: 1. "I can't see how it could have happened unless an invisible magic wizard did it" 2. Special Pleading - the rules prove the magic wizard is real, but the same rules don't apply to him...just everything else

[@Arexion5293]

"Infinities do not exist!" How many values are between 1 and 2? How about 2 and 3? The funny thing about infinities is that they're defined by their limitations. An infinity is not unlimited, unless defined to be so.

[@bobbun9630]

There's a lot of sloppiness with infinities in Craig's arguments, but I'm not sure he's the only one in this video doing that. I have never taken Hilbert's Infinite Hotel as trying to assert that infinities are absurd. Rather, it illustrates that infinite sets behave differently than finite sets (in some ways). The counting down argument seems to turn the conventional notion of infinite iteration on its head. We say that counting is an infinite process if the process is unbounded. Counting down from a lack of an upper bound, or as in the video, counting up from a lack of a lower bound, is a notion that makes no sense. That doesn't say anything about the universe, it says you don't understand the relationship between notions of infinity and counting! Counting always starts from a fixed point, which an infinity is not.

[@martinmckee5333]

@@bobbun9630 I find it rather frustrating that I - with my Computer Scientist level of math education - can recognize how "of fast and loose" both sides are playing with the properties of infinity in situations like these. There always seems to be equivocation of infinity with a number, even when an explicit exhortation against that is given in the same argument. It's not just that people don't understand the properties of infinities, often even the most basic concepts seem out of reach.

[@TBOTSS]

@@martinmckee5333 Craig has published a research level monograph on the philosophy of mathematics. Hard to do if he 'fast and loose' with the literature.

[@martinmckee5333]

@@TBOTSS I haven't read his work on the philosophy of mathematics. As such, I will accept - for the sake of argument - that his command of the literature in that is impeccable. That does not change the fact that in this video, it is not. Infinity is not a quantity. Treating it as such is, indeed playing "fast and loose" with the concepts. Pointing to somewhere that Craig gets it right doesn't change a place he got it wrong. And, really, my comment was on the fact that both sides were doing the same thing. Rather than be a "dig" at Craig, I was opining that in these sorts of discussions people on both sides tend to make the same mistakes.

[@donnievance1942]

@@TBOTSS The fact that Craig published a monograph on something means nothing. If his math philosophy monograph is as bad as his Kalam Cosmological argument, it does indeed play fast and loose with everything it touches on. "Published a monograph"-- wow!

[@ZeroESG.goopootoob]

You fellas misconstrue &/or avoid the notion that it is impossible to _traverse_ an actual infinity. This necessarily impinges upon any theory of spacetime. Further, you seem to be misconstruing the premise of plausibility. Also, the Kalam isn't "the" cosmological argument for the existence of God, it's _a_ cosmological argument among others. Craig didn't develop it either. He is a proponent of it.

[@gregtyler4002]

So, ‘the universe began’ is debunked because there’s not a deep enough philosophical understanding of the ‘present’? That the singularity of ‘the present’ creates an infinity within itself and thus is invalid?

[@macieyid]

8:41 The depth of idiocy in this statement is so vast I have to turn down the speakers or the sun is starting to flicker and going dark. Tell me, Billy, please, at what point you would start such a countdown?

[@maksimbolonkin]

Moreover, in Hilbert Hotel metaphor you can't move guest 1 to room 2, it's kind of still occupied. You have to start from infinity and go down.

[@YAWTon]

@@maksimbolonkin The way to do it: every guest leaves her room. All rooms are now empty, all guests are in the corridor. Then every guest enters the room with his/her old room number plus 1. Room 1 is now unoccupied. The new arrival enters room 1.

[@YAWTon]

He probably believes that in an infinite past there would be a point at an infinite time before the present. Which is nonsense. WLC could profit from reading a bit about transfinite arithmetic, set theory and mathematical logic.

[@chefchaudard3580]

@@YAWTon It does not work, either. You cannot add a room to the hotel, because it already has the maximum possible number of rooms and no room exists where you can add one from. In other words, any room you would add already exists. You cannot add a guest either, for the same reasons. mathematically, both sets, hotel rooms and guests, have the same cardinality. You can't change that unless you redefine one or both of the sets. But, by doing so, you don't talk of the same things anymore.

[@YAWTon]

@@chefchaudard3580 I do not add a room to the hotel. Initially all rooms are occupied, and there is a new guest at the reception. The guests that already have a room simultaneously leave their room and go to the next room (guest in room n goes to room n+1). Then the new arrival goes to room 1, which is now free. The set of rooms remains the same, the set of guests is changed by the addition of the new arrival, who is now a guest. The cardinality of the set of guest does not change when a new guest is added. This is why it works. And the new guest can be added in a finite number of steps if the guests change rooms simultaneously.

[@Abstract_zx]

i cant get over the fact that the "infinity is absurd" argument doesnt reconcile with a god that is "infinitely powerful, loving, etc." and the fact that if the universe had to come into existence then its supposed creator wouldve had to come into existence too, leading to the same origin problem and nothing really feeling solved, this was my original thought when i saw his debate with christopher hitchens

[@rabidbeaver167]

These people run on ms-dos and can only handle 1 thread at a time.

[@andanandan6061]

That is even more brain twisting to think God has a cause/creator. God had creator (or cause), then God's creator had creator , Creator of God's creator had also a creator and so on so forth, the process continue to an infinite number of Gods. If this is case then we would never arrived in 2023. There must be source of All This source doesn't have begining nor ending. It can be God or anything else. I don't know but this is what I understand from this so called Qalam Theory.

[@trollface4552]

Funnily enough, A-theory of time ( presentism, growing blockism) are considered less plausible then B-theoretic ones by most philosophers. This is partially due to physical discoveries (relativity). Another question concerning presentism is the surrogate problem - how can we account for records of past in presentism.

[@uninspired3583]

Infinity isn't a number, it can't be counted to or from. It's like asking to start counting from blue and see how far you get. Also, didn't relativity blow presentism out of the water like 100 years ago?

[@letsomethingshine]

More like asking to start counting to or from uncountable. The Dao that can be named is not the eternal Dao.

[@uninspired3583]

@@letsomethingshine blue is uncountable

[@lizzard13666]

You should change the title of this video to "ZERO Major Problems with WLC's Kalam ...". JF literally had to change WLC's presentation of the argument to try and find a problem, and then in the first "problem" tried to claim that a being that sits outside of time would have trouble acting "in between" discrete moments in present time ... when the whole argument involves said being acting outside of any present moments in time in the first place ...

[@lizzard13666]

@Anon Ymous I mean, thanks for at least pretending to acknowledge my point I guess! Look, I don't want to embarrass you, but you are jncorrect that we don't have any such examples, we do have examples such as "logical priority" that exist irrespective of time. I mean there are several theories of time in the first place, and some of them include time not actually existing in the first place! Another thing you really need to consider ... "scientism" isn't a logical position to hold, neither is materialism. They are self-refuting positions, so this leads to the logical consequence that empirical observation CANNOT be the only way to obtain true knowledge. This has the logical consequence that there ARE in fact things that we can come to know to be true OUTSIDE of simple empirical observation. So your claim that we need some simple empirical observation of a phenomena that is not within the scope of the empirical is absurd. Your "a priori" assumptions are showing!

[@antiksur8883]

Processes literally require time. Doing something outside of time is a contradiction. And we use empirical observation because it is reliable. You don't want to use it because it doesn't provide evidence for your claim.

[@lizzard13666]

@@antiksur8883 What do you mean by "processes require time"?

[@oldpossum57]

Your Prime Mover or First Cause exists out of time, yes? Because before the existence of the universe there is no matter, energy, space or time, correct? 1) I do not see why, being outside of time, we could not have an Infinite chain of Causes each causing the next, as an alternative to WLCs uncaused Cause. There is no choosing between the Alternatives. Except only the uncaused Cause fits WLCs desired Personal Intelligence endowed with will. 2) I’m not sure how the Immaterial acts on the immaterial to create the Material. You say it is necessary for your solution to work, but I don’t see where the problem lies. 3) Surely Causation as we understand it is our biological mind’s understanding of the universe, not a direct apprehension of the universe. Obviously we understand Cause and Effect in a temporal order. But, naively, we also suppose Invesible Agents and Actions. Science allows us to dismiss many Invisible Agents as artifacts of naive thought. Why must our understanding of cause and effect be real? 4) If the Cause (or string of Causes) exists outside of time, there is no Arrow of Time. So the Cause can precede the Universe, and also follow the Universe and be simultaneous with the Universe, indeed all at once. So your Causemis not, to our thinking, causative. 5j A stupid Cause as well as an Intelligent Cause. The Intelligence is assumed because this Universe “works”, the parameters allow for energy and matter. But this can happen A by Random or B by having a large number or infinite number of universes , a subset of which will work. 6) No one explains why the Cause must be Personal. The will to create something out of nothing seems to be the source, but why must the Cause be willed? No good reason I can see. It is just hiding the conclusion as a premise.

[@relentlessskeptic22]

I would say Craig would say in response to one of the questions (why can't the universe have begun without a personal cause) would be that such a universe would have to be eternal, as an impersonal cause would have always been present (in eternity past). The obvious problem with this justification is that if space-time began with the beginning of a finite universe, how could a personal being have caused the beginning of said universe at a specific point in time.

[@aaronh.8230]

WLC has been corrected on all this before. Does anyone think he will admit it or change his views? No way - he has already ignored refutations by the boat load. He is a gifted orator though, very good at using the tone and pace of his words to influence. Personally, I think he’s a grifter and represents some of the most insidious anti-thought you can find.

[@guuspot923]

I'm Dutch. Bicycles used to pop into existence in my back yard all the time, especially after a night out. Less tongue-in-cheek, though ; William Lane Craig can't _not_ take a metaphor literally. After all : Genesis exists.

[@LDrosophila]

The Dutch didnt begin to exist until bicycles popped into being (sorry couldnt resist)

[@guuspot923]

​@@LDrosophila No, that's fair, though you're not entirely correct. The domestication of the wild Velocipedé into the staggering variety of modern bicycle was a process of hundreds of years of careful selective breeding.

[@emanuelmayer]

ah, the "agent causation", love it. Especially, when there usually should be an "agent causation" for the agent #1 to appear and #2 to react to its own existence, which means, this agent would have a need to create/change ...

[@tetsujin_144]

How can a "timeless" entity make "decisions" at all? If a "timeless" entity wants to stand up, then it is already standing (unless it can't). It wouldn't be able to "decide" anything because nothing would ever change, so it also would effectively have no free will.

[@GSpotter63]

How do you know? Have you ever been in a timeless realm or even seen an examples of one? Can I see evidence that a conscious entity in a timeless realm cannot make decisions.... Or are you simply making your own assertions about something you can't possibly know anything about and placing them above any other assertions? Lets not forget that the assertions of the Christians are not based on their own subjective ideas pulled out of thin air but on texts that have proven to be archaeologically and historically accurate over and over again for thousands of years. That said let me make a few of my own assertions based on the information found in those archaeologically and historically accurate texts. In a timeless realm there could be no cause for the universe, because nothing ever changes in a realm with no time. This eternal never changing environment could not have ever made our universe. Why? Because the eternal, never changing condition in this realm would either continue to make this universe in an ongoing never ending process or it would never make it at all. The conditions there simply never change, and so it can't start or stop doing anything, including the making of this universe. The Big Bang cosmology predicts a starting of the universe along with its constituents (time/space/matter) and so this timeless realm itself where nothing is supposed to changes could not be the catalyst for a universe that has a beginning. A non-conscious mindless entity would have no ability to change anything in a timeless, space less, matter less environment. Could it be that the only thing in a timeless realm that can possibly change and produce anything at all is a conscious mind with a will of its own, one that is not reliant upon nor subject to the nonexistent outside forces in that realm? Simply asserting that a conscious mind in a timeless void would not "be able to decide anything" without even the slightest bit of evidence has no more validity then someone proposing the opposite...

[@markhackett2302]

@@GSpotter63 How do YOU know? You don't. Therefore your claim is without support, therefore wrong.

[@GSpotter63]

Something not being true because you don't understand it does not follow.... Truth is not contingent on you believing it.

[@GSpotter63]

@@markhackett2302 Just because you can't support your claim with evidence does not mean it is not true...... The conclusion (it is wrong) simply does not follow from the premise ( Your claim is without support).

[@marchyman5061]

Every argument can be challenged, that’s why it always comes down to Faith. You can have faith in the existence of God, or faith in the non-existence of God. Even if you cling to the reality that we cannot “know with absolute certainty” whether God exists or not, there’s a part deep inside you that either knows He exists, or hopes He doesn’t.

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

I wrote my senior thesis on making presentism and eternalism compatible with quantum and relativistic physics. Neither Craig's view of presentism nor the one presumed for the purposes of criticism in this video are consistent with the closest version to presentism that is consistent with physics. I can't really present my version though. It is way too long for a comment. My ultimate conclusion was that there could be no distinction except in the most basic ontology between the two views. I'm going to have to rewatch this, but I don't really see why this argument would be dependent on presentism. Eternalism, once made consistent with indeterministic quantum mechanics, creating an infinite branching universe, seems to be equally consistent and equally wrong in the end. Edit: rewound and thought about it again. I don't see any reason this argument is different between presentism and eternalism, at least if you modify them both to make them accurate to physics as I did in my thesis. The criticisms of Craig's argument work equally well either way and Craig's argument fails either way. For eternalism, you need to redefine words like "begun to exist." But that is true for any version of eternalism. It isn't a unique challenge to Craig's argument. As for the duration of the present in presentism, to make it consistent with quantum mechanics, the minimum duration of a "moment" (the term I use) is the plank time, but the actual duration is defined locally based on the uncertainty in the energy-time uncertainty equation. Basically, the length of time your own local moment remains in a stable superposition, which is typically close to the plank time, but in some highly specialized circumstances, like while performing a quantum eraser experiment, you can locally stretch it longer. Duration and locality are also very closely linked in this view, but that is a whole other complicated thing.

[@jonathanhenderson9422]

Errr, if there's an infinite branching universe then quantum physics isn't deterministic. One of the few deterministic versions of QM is in the infinitely branching many-worlds.

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

@@jonathanhenderson9422 Depends on your definition of "determinism." Stephen Hawking made that argument as well, so you're in good company. But any definition that is useful from within that universe, that doesn't have an omniscient perspective of seeing the whole multiverse, is not deterministic. Imagine you just ran an experiment and found the results are A. If, 10 minutes ago, there was no fact existing in the then-current point in the universe that determined that you would now be seeing A as opposed to the alternate version of you that at the same time index is seeing B, then in what way is that meaningfully deterministic to you? There is a definition on which it is deterministic, but no useful definition of determinism.

[@Hurricayne92]

I mean my take away is WLC’s Kalam requires Presentism because WLC said so, like most of his reasoning.

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

@@Hurricayne92 Classical eternalism is inconsistent with his view of Kalam. However, classical eternalism is also inconsistent with quantum mechanics. And classical presentism is inconsistent with relativity. You need a modern interpretation of both and if you have it, then neither is particularly problematic for his version of Kalam. The problems with the argument, and there are many, lie elsewhere.

[@jonathanhenderson9422]

@@Sam_on_KZbin My definition is the same as all scientists, and any physicist with any knowledge of quantum mechanics will tell you that the Shrodinger equation, which models the evolution of the wavefunction, is deterministic. QM is only indeterministic under the assumption of a wavefunction collapse, which many worlds does away with, and which isn't an inherent part of QM. You can do a quick Google search for "is many worlds deterministic?" and you should get plenty of legitimate sources to confirm that it is.

[@Abstract_zx]

16:37 what are these clips playing for? i dont see why you put them there

[@VeridicusMaximus]

Because everything that begins to exist has a cause - everything in the vid has a cause -esp.the lady making the food.

[@Abstract_zx]

i see that now that youve pointed it out, i didnt think of that when i posted the original comment, thank you

[@jamespilcher5287]

This whole idea is founded on the assumption that conscious motivation is some metaphysical magic power and not merely a consequence of everything that has physically happened to your brain up to the current moment

[@Angelmou]

Exactly. Personality/Personhood is not magic. This is 1 of the biggest absurdities and not properly adressed by Fodor whatsoever. Craigs "true libertarian mind" is actually translated to "I want magical miracle makers to be a thing to solve all my problems by true magic tricks...like a fantasy wizard summons a dragon out of thin air in a book".

[@fridayhawks-spangenberg8979]

I just can't get over the fact that he used the term "infidel" non-ironically. Can't take him seriously after that 🤣

[@autobotstarscream765]

Y'all-Qaeda the Fundagelical Dominionist Taliban

[@VolrinSeth]

1. The BB is about the expansion of the universe, not it's beginning. 2. Just because we cannot measure time/space beyond the singularity, does not mean it did not exist/began to exist at the start of the BB.

[@maxwellmallery5638]

While you are correct in your understanding of the Big Bang, I don't think Craig uses that as evidence for the beginning of the Universe. Rather, he argues from philosophical grounds. See for example this video by CosmicSkeptic: kzbin.info/www/bejne/g3itomh5btyosM0 This video also addresses the flaw in your second argument.

[@VolrinSeth]

@@maxwellmallery5638 He consistently claims the BB proves the universe had a beginning while it does no such thing. There's no reason to mention the BB otherwise when trying to make the argument that a god is necessary to create the universe.

[@VolrinSeth]

@@maxwellmallery5638 There is no flaw in my second argument. If you think there is demonstrate/argue so yourself, dont expect me to watch other people's videos to look for a counterargument you should be making.

[@maxwellmallery5638]

@@VolrinSeth While he may use the big bang as supporting evidence, that is never his primary argument. Rather, he argues for the beginning of the universe on rational/philosophical grounds: 1. The impossibility of an actually infinite number of things in reality. 2. The impossibility of forming an actually infinite collection of things by successive addition.

[@maxwellmallery5638]

@@VolrinSeth About your second premise, the Kalam argument defines universe in a very specific manner. It defines the universe as anything that has material existence. I believe it is only logical to say that something cannot come from nothing. By nothing I mean not anything. You have said that just because we cannot measure spacetime beyond the singularity does not mean that it did not exist at the start of the Big Bang. This question does nothing to invalidate the Kalam argument because the Kalam argument never uses the big bang as primary evidence for the beginning of the universe. In addition, any prior universe would also come under the manner in which universe has been used in the kalam argument.

[@IsaacCoverstone]

To a believer, all their arguments sound good. It's a reassuring pat on the back. They don't really care that the arguments don't hold up to the outsider test.

[@gavincarstens6497]

and that why apologetics exist. it's not to refute arguments. it's reassuring belivers that their world veiw is correct and how to square that with the actual world that is so obviously different from their own world view.

[@walnutoil100]

Atheists ARE believers

[@walnutoil100]

What does not hold up?

[@chadboneman]

@@walnutoil100 well everyone believes in one thing or another as reality is too big and detailed for one to test in each and every way that exists, you've gotta leave things for someone else to test and observe and focus on your own field. Believing itself is not a bad thing but believing bad things can prove to be harmful and we've got many better things to believe in other than old religions.

[@SecularEvil]

@New Hope Enterprises We're not believers in a sentient god. Arguments for the existence of gods do not make sense.

[@fepeerreview3150]

23:45 And if Craig should actually succeed in answering those 5 questions he still won't have contributed one iota of evidence of the existence of God. He'll just have some nifty logical arguments.

[@sonnyfleming904]

2:28 I've never been comfortable with how Craig explains personhood out of a logically necessary, uncaused first cause.

[@Oswlek]

Does Bill know that he is a joke amongst the philosophy peers that he likes to use for cover?

[@Paulogia]

interesting. is this on the record somewhere?

[@farrex0]

I have always found it odd, how apologists say something is impossible and therefore say an impossible being exists that has the attributes they just described as impossible... For example, "infinite time is impossible, therefore there exists a being that is eternal or that is outside of time" The explanation of this being being outside of time, doesn't make sense, because if there was no time where this being exists, how can it interact with time in our time? When did he decide to create the Universe? If he is outside of time, there is either infinite time or no time at all. And infinite time according to their arguments is impossible, and no time, would be the being would be unable to act in time. A lot of people do not stop and think, what God being infinite, or being outside of time really means. A being outside of time would be constant and therefore wouldn't be able to act, would be like frozen in time, because there is no time. Craig says the creator has to be outside of time, and then acts as if he is inside of time. But without time how can he act? You need time to create events, so if he acts and creates events then he is inside of time. But if it is eternal, time is infinite, events are impossible, because infinity plus one is just infinity, like all the examples Craig gave. When did God create the Universe? If God started counting from the moment everything started till the day he created the Universe, with eternity when will he arrive to the day he created the Universe?

[@laurentmaquiet5631]

You are right, and even more. Outside of time has no meaning, saying that it would be "frozen in time" is already assuming time. It is just meaningless.

[@thetannernation]

You very poorly edited the video. It’s not a top 5 list. It’s a top 10 list. And in Craig’s video, he wasn’t responding to the arguments made in this video. I’m so confused

[@HelloWorld-dq5pn]

Craig believes actual philosophers and physicists would spent their time on reviewing his dishonest dogma and stupid pseudodeductionist mid age arguments. It's the same reason you usually dont see biology scholars arguing with creationists on Christian Podcasts, unless necessary.

[@paulcontursi5982]

I just can't figure out how Craig is supposed to be such a heavy hitter in the apologist community. His arguments may be a little more eloquently stated but I find them no more valid than those of the average believer.

[@Angelmou]

indeed...they are just more well formulated bubbles of hot air or flat out contradictions in themselves - just hidden under a giant bag of sophistry.

[@markhackett2302]

You will notice that those that are "hard hitters" are argued for when the atheist argues against a theist and wins. Which one IS a hard hitter changes to suit.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

Amongst the blind the one eyed man shall be king.

[@fepeerreview3150]

9:02 A random thought as I watch Craig play his mind games. What concrete, positive contribution to humanity has Craig's work produced (beyond the obvious entertainment value)?

[@sbushido5547]

I've always found it strange that a person arguing in favor of a religion which features an infinite God would have such a big problem with infinites. Unless he's just another in a long line of apologists who need to put limits on their limitless god in order to have it make some semblance of sense.

[@farrex0]

I know right? Like even when I was a Christian, those arguments made no sense to me. "infinity is impossible therefore an infinite being exists". The first time I heard that argument, I was like "wait what? isn't that a contradiction?" and I was a Christian.

[@donnievance1942]

Craig argues against "actual infinities" to stave off the contention that the universe may have always existed and would have no beginning to be created by a god. And also, his God has not existed for an infinite amount of time either, but existed "timelessly," an incoherent concept.

[@CC-wq8yz]

Until God comes down for a visit to introduce himself with a 6-pack of a decent IPA and a fresh Margarita pizza, I’ll just go with the “there’s no evidence.” I’m not quite sure why so much effort is placed on all this abstract past present infinity stuff. If God were real he wouldn’t make it so difficult to believe. Why not focus our efforts on making the world a better place?

[@gavincarstens6497]

because they want to hold on to their sky daddy... and when our world directly is at odds with is what is written in a book.. people search for things to justify that their beliefs is right, moral and justified

[@gavincarstens6497]

and when a argument is made "why does your God make it so it so hard to know he exisits" is just a test of faith or that they just "belive "

[@walnutoil100]

Prove there is no evidence

[@CC-wq8yz]

@@gavincarstens6497 “blind faith will get you killed.” Not my quote but I “believe” it.

[@CC-wq8yz]

@@walnutoil100 Prove there is and I’ll join up.

[@chuckmoore3623]

The biggest problem I see with Craig’s view is that an eternal God could not choose to stand up within a timeless state. The act of standing or creating requires a prior condition of not standing or creating a specific thing (in this case the universe). Such a condition requires the notion of tense or sequence, hence time. The exception would be if all things occur simultaneously, which then requires a tenseless universe and does not necessitate a beginning.

[@Nick-Nasti]

Logically, nothing can exist outside of time. Time would not exist. Thought, matter or even energy would be impossible. It time does exist there, it would be considered another universe (multiverse).

[@oldpossum57]

@@Nick-Nasti I think the Cause could exist outside of Time. But in the absence of Time’s Arrow I guess the Cause could Precede the Universe, follow the universe and be simultaneous with the Universe that it Caused. Of course, this makes nonsense of our biological brains’ understanding of the universe. But as it is outside the universe that doesn’t matter, what does matter to WLC is that his Cause is, to our understanding, non-causative. And at that point, I think he has nothing left to say

[@ACharmedEarthling]

But God's magic, so the rules don't apply to him, duh!

[@Ozone280]

The most amusing aspect of this is that WLC imagines himself to be a scholar and not just a plonker.

[@stevewebber707]

Considering the problems with simultaneity introduced through special relativity, I think defining a present like Craig wants, gets pretty dicey. I'm not going to address all the problems with Craig's arguments. But his claim that his arguments aren't addressed seriously in scholarly circles doesn't really make his argument sound good. In fact, I'm not sure if there's a place his argument doesn't fail. Aside perhaps from convincing people that don't know better.

[@walnutoil100]

prove there are any "problems"

[@markhackett2302]

@@walnutoil100 Prove that WLC is right.

[@stevewebber707]

@@walnutoil100 The problems consist of premises 1, 2, and 3. All failing. And no I'm not going to rehash something that's been done to death already even if you want details. Craig did the philosophical equivalent of slapping duct tape on a problem. Using sophisticated words and concepts does not make his arguments true, or good. It just makes it more challenging for laymen to parse through his arguments.

[@longcastle4863]

Love the clear precise thinking of this guest. Totally dismantled the Kalam.

[@spoddie]

But Dr Craig is a professional philosopher, I know because he told me (and the whole world numerous times) . My analogy for time space as understood by real scientists is that old an old style movie film reel. You can go back in time (frames) to the very first frame but you cannot ask what happened before, there is no before. Moreover, there are over reels of movies (universes) lying around, they have both different time and space, there is not relationship between them - at least none that we in the movie can know.

[@christopherpaige3270]

Your evidence for any of this?

[@spoddie]

@@christopherpaige3270 Analogies don't have evidence. If you want to analyze whether my analogy is valid you'd have to understand physics.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

@@spoddie Well you claimed this analogy was motivated by whatever real scientists understand, which would imply existing evidence.

[@spoddie]

@@Ugly_German_Truths There are plenty of resources available for you to study the Einstein Field Equations but they're a little more complicated than an analogy involves movie reels.

[@juniusluriuscatalus6606]

WLC is so painful to listen, that I must thank you for torturing me only in short periods. I usually avoid videos that even might have his voice in it.

[@PhoenixtheII]

I bow to your tolerance to do so for short periods.

[@FakingANerve]

I agree. I find his voice nearly unbearable.

[@cutekoala]

1 No loving God would allow WLC's voice to exist 2 Wlc exists and he has a voice Therefore 3. God doesn't exist Wlc proves god's non-existence

[@juniusluriuscatalus6606]

@@cutekoala Amen! :D

[@stu1002]

Point 2 seems extraordinarily weak as an objection. What we mean by an infinitely old universe is one in which there are an infinite number of any defined unit of time prior to this one. ie. t = ∞ seconds. But this literally *is* craig's "counting down from infinity scenario in the sense we are counting down from t= -∞ to t=0 at the present moment". You can say "well, yes, but I don't mean infinity like THAT" which just begs the question, what do you mean then? Put it another way: suppose someone had been crossing off numbers from a chart, one number a day, and had just reached zero today (16th May 2024). He would have been on 365 one year ago, 3650 10 years ago. He would have been on 191,523 on the 1st of January 1500. Accepting that practicalities such as people not living for 500 years, and, if we go back far enough, the planet would have been molten lava not able to support life, and going back further still the universe itself was too hot and dense for anyone to have done any counting - but still, it's possible to theorise the farthest back point at which a count *could* have commenced and attribute a very large, (But finite) number to that point. Beyond that point you might say that the density of the universe was such that it caused such time dilation that there was no previous time to attribute a N+1 count to - OK, well, isn't that very much like saying that time had a beginning? If alternatively you want to say that there is no such point and the count could - in theory - continue to infinity, then Craig seems to have an entirely valid point: Why would the count be reaching zero today? Why not yesterday? as yesterday an infinite amount of time had already passed in which the count could have reached zero...

[@valhalla7408]

1:31 “. . . _a brain dead Christian faith_ . . .” Is there any other kind?

[@incredulouspasta3304]

I know you are just trying to make a joke, but... yes. Ironically, it's often the smartest people that are best able to rationalize inconsistencies in their ideology. Sometimes while reading the Bible, your brain has to be humming along at 100 mph to try to figure out how everything can fit together. It can be exhausting.

[@autobotstarscream765]

@@incredulouspasta3304 It can be fun! :3

[@nemilyk]

James: *fascinating information on different ideas about the universe and rebuttals to Craig.* Me: NERDY NUMMIES!

[@jamesnoel2666]

Atheist's Kalam Alternative. 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The first law of thermodynamics shows that nothing can be created or destroyed. 3. Therefore, the cosmos could not have had a cause. Conclusion: The cosmos never had a beginning. In more detail: The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy shows that, “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, just transformed.” Energy and matter are one and the same: E=MC^2. The cosmos is just energy in different transformations. Therefore, the cosmos cannot be created nor destroyed. The Big Bang can only be a transformation from a previous state.

[@AndresGonzalez-rx3mv]

The first law of thermo does not entail the universe is past eternal. It basically says that within the universe, within space and time, the internal energy of a system as it evolves over time is related to how much energy it exchanges with its environment (both in the form of heat and of work) The first thing to point out is that this does not mean nothing can be created or destroyed, it says that the energy of a system as it evolves over time is conserved (which does not entail the universe itself is past eternal or past finite), it says it would hold for any time evolution of a system within a past eternal or past finite universe. The second thing to point out is this does not necessarily hold in all scenarios, since energy conservation is a result of Noethers theorem applied to a continuous time translational symmetry. Whenever such symmetry is not present, one does not necessarily have energy conservation. It just happens that that symmetry is usually present in almost all common scenarios, but not all

[@archiebaker9894]

I heard you can reconstruct the entire Kalam cosmological argument from only non-WLC sources.

[@kamilgregor]

That's a good one

[@tach5884]

Even Jigsaw wouldn't make someone do that.

[@matthewmunk7266]

If Craig thinks infinity is too absurd to exist in reality, then why does he believe in an infinite God? Typical theistic selective blindness.

[@GSpotter63]

Infinity is time without end... The narrative presented in the bible indicates that God resides in a place that is without time. Craig's argument is that the creation itself is not infinite. He is not talk about the attributes of God... Your argument fails because you are misrepresenting the premise.

[@8114梦见]

@ GSpotter63 I wouldn’t call it misrepresenting the premise, when some of the examples Craig uses (like the hotel for example) are simply based on infinite things, not just infinite time. He does seem to be directly arguing that infinite things (including time) are impossible.

[@thesacredlobo]

@@GSpotter63 - How can there be a place without time? And if time in it's most basic sense is a series/sequence of events doesn't that mean God created time within a place without time as soon as he did/thought about anything?

[@GSpotter63]

@@thesacredlobo No.... One does not need to be in time (as we know it) to make it happen... His arguments of course are contingent on the Big Bang cosmology being true. If the universe (time space matter) did not have a beginning then his argument is a waist of time... But at the moment the Big Bang theory is the top runner and has the most evidence both in cosmology and particle physics.

[@thesacredlobo]

@@GSpotter63 - "One does not need to be in time (as we know it) to make it happen" So your saying time can't be understood as a series/sequence of events?

[@sabin97]

my favourite defeater of the kalam is a simple yes/no question: does everything that exists need to have started to exist? if the answer is no, then the universe doesnt need to have started to exist, and we have no evidence of it ever starting to exist, so the kalam does not apply. if the answer is yes, then their good needs a cause for its existence. and they get triggered.

[@maxwellmallery5638]

And then the creator of their god needs to have been created and the creator of the creator of their god needs to created so on so forth. It has to all come to rest somewhere. If I asked you for a pencil and you asked your friend A who asked his friend B who has his friend C who asked his friend D so on so forth for a pencil. The only way I could get a pencil was if someone had a pencil to begin with. This pencil would then be passed down the chain onto D, then C, then B, then A. A would give the pencil to you and you would give the pencil to me. However, all of this fails if there is no origin of the pencil. Similarly, there must have been a necessary being because otherwise all of this could not have existed. I hope this makes some sense. This is at least how I understand this problem.

[@sabin97]

@@maxwellmallery5638 "there must have been a necessary being" that right there is the fallacy of the kalam. assuming something was necessary, why exactly would it be a being? why not the universe? either starting to exist is not a necessary condition for existing(and thus the universe can exist without starting to exist), or yahweh sabaoth started to exist and thus needs to cause. which one do you choose?

[@maxwellmallery5638]

@@sabin97 Because the universe started to exist. By definition, it can't be necessary.

[@sabin97]

@@maxwellmallery5638 do you have any evidence that it started to exist?

[@maxwellmallery5638]

@@sabin97 1. The impossibility of an actually infinite number of things existing in reality. 2. Getting an actually infinite number of things by successive addition. The impossibility of an actually infinite amount of time elapsing makes it so that the universe must have started at some point and thus is finite. (The universe here refers not just to our particular universe but all that has material existence).

[@heethanthen706]

Next time you you plan on slamming Craig, bring in TMM. This is right up his alley

[@lnsflare1]

The Martian Manhunter?

[@heethanthen706]

@@lnsflare1 The Messianic Manic

[@lnsflare1]

@@heethanthen706 I guess that's fine too.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

In general i agree with you, Heethan Then. But in THIS case TMM is just "another KZbinr" and does not have the credits to disprove Craigs glib assertion that scholarly argumentation does not disagree with him.

[@incredulouspasta3304]

Here's the fundamental problem, in my opinion: to establish his premises, Craig relies on the assumption that stuff behaves according to natural laws. However, his conclusion is conveniently exempt from all natural laws. Once he allows for this, all bets are off. Perhaps space, time, and matter existed in some other form that obey different natural laws. Perhaps causality was different. Why would the cause of the universe need to be "powerful" if conservation of momentum and energy aren't a thing? Once we untether our conclusions from anything empirical (i.e. the natural processes), we are just left with speculation. Maybe he's right, but we have no way of ever knowing. When talking to Christians about this, I prefer to focus on this broader problem, rather than get bogged down in philosophical minutiae.

[@walnutoil100]

However, his conclusion is conveniently exempt from all natural laws. - But can you prove any natural law caused the universe to begin?

[@incredulouspasta3304]

@@walnutoil100 No. The cause of the universe remains in the realm of speculation.

[@rickmartin7596]

@@walnutoil100 When we don't know the answer to a question, the correct answer is, "We don't know." The correct answer is not to make an assumption without sufficient evidence.

[@walnutoil100]

@@incredulouspasta3304 Your evidence is?

[@walnutoil100]

@@rickmartin7596 - So prove there is not sufficient evidence

[@michaelsommers2356]

Where can I get a metaphysical watch to measure metaphysical time?

[@Venaloid]

14:07 - So basically, Craig will embrace scientific anti-realism, when it's convenient for his argument.

[@walnutoil100]

sop can you prove your claim?

[@markhackett2302]

@@walnutoil100 So can you prove the OP is incorrect?

[@thepaulwalkerexperience8727]

Could it be the case that the KCA is just a really long-winded appeal to ignorance fallacy?

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

It's more like a begging the question fallacy that was hidden by retroengineering the "logic" bit from the conclusion back to the premise.

[@thepaulwalkerexperience8727]

@@Ugly_German_Truths Ah, I see. Thanks for the analysis.

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

20:23 To support that a libertarian agent could have been the first cause, Craig proposes it's possible that a man sitting from eternity past could decide to stand up. Has Craig forgotten all his other arguments that the man could never traverse the infinity to get to the point where he stands up?

[@bruceblosser2040]

the reason why Scholars don't waste their time on that Kalam, is that is is an argument of assertions, without ANY evidence! It is also a very good indicator that WLC understands neither modern Physics, nor the theory of General Relativity, in particular! - So despite its Word Salad Hocus Pocus - it is NOT a very good argument!

[@adrianthom2073]

Not sure why WLC or Frank Turek use the Kalam argument as it does not get you to the Christian God.

[@stevegeorge6880]

It allegedly gets you to that point where Craig adds his own personal touches regarding what the cause must be. My favorite nonsense in that part is where he says the only things that couldn't be contingent and material are abstractions and minds, as if we have any reason to believe in immaterial minds.

[@goldenalt3166]

Like any other scammer, it filters out those who can recognize BS. You dismiss anyone who objects to the "obvious" premises. Then you have a better chance of bamboozling those that remain. Basically, That is it allows the theist to believe they are being logical.

[@walnutoil100]

Straw man - no one said the KCA got you directly to the Xan god

[@walnutoil100]

@@goldenalt3166 - So prove the universe is eternal

[@goldenalt3166]

@@walnutoil100 Look up Braxton Hunter.

[@ancapftw9113]

Infinity isn't a number, it is a concept. Anything that is infinite cannot be counted and is therefore not a number. Think of it this way: there are an infinite number of whole numbers, but infinitely more fractions than whole numbers, and infinitely more irrational numbers than fractions.

[@DavidFraser007]

Mental Gymnastics at it's finest. WLC just sounds ridiculous, his whiny voice doesn't help either.

[@GSpotter63]

So a whiny voice now cancels an argument?.... Really? You can't possibly think that is logical...

[@DavidFraser007]

@@GSpotter63 I didn't say that a whiny voice cancels an argument. Changing what I said is a dishonest approach.

[@markhackett2302]

@@GSpotter63 So WLC is whining.

[@ACharmedEarthling]

​@GSpotter63 No, he's saying his argument sucks AND he has a whiny voice. Learn to read.