A New Argument for the Existence of God | Joe (he/him) - VA | Skeptic Generation S1E23

Repeat caller Joe has a new cosmological argument for the existence of God, and asks to take Eric and Vi through it. Problems start early, as Joe attempts to rely on intuition to argue for a cause beyond the universe. The hosts walk through why using words like “cause” and “begin” still rely on spacetime, and how cosmological arguments fail to point to any God.
________
Skeptic Generation is LIVE every Sunday at 11:30am-1:00pm CT
Call on your phone: 585-LA-MURPH (585-526-8774)
Call online: tiny.cc/callSG
Love the show?
Become a patron: tiny.cc/donate...
Buy merch: tiny.cc/SGmerch
Help with our studio: tiny.cc/SGwish...
You can also join our Discord: tiny.cc/SGdiscord
To find out more, visit www.skepticgen...
Copyright © 2021 Skeptic Generation. All rights reserved.

[@pdcdesign9632]

I was lucky enough to have a discussion with the great particle physicist Victor Stenger in 2011 and he gave me the most plausible answer to this question. THE UNIVERSE MOST LIKELY HAS ALWAYS EXISTED IN SOME FORM OR ANOTHER.

[@Akira-jd2zr]

Dr. Alan Guth, another great physicist, says the same thing...

[@jewsco]

@Joe Daddy no it doesnt at best the evidence leads us to the answer we dont know do try again

[@andreasplosky8516]

@Joe Daddy They are committed atheists for only one reason. Theistic/supernaturalistic magical fantasies solve nothing, there is no proof for them, and science is superior to anything primitive magical thinking can come up with. Never has theism/supernaturalism come up with a solution that trumped science. But science trumping these nonsensical magical fantasies happens all the time, again and again and again, and in the future it will happen countless times more. The god of the gaps is forced into smaller gaps all the time. Only lies and indoctrination and ignorance keeps people trapped in nonsensical fantasies.

[@coreymiller6717]

@Joe Daddy You seem to be excluding hypothesis like the big bounce. I'm not implying this is their belief but it does show your assertion to be flawed and your language to be sloppy at best.

[@exceptionallyaverage3075]

@Joe Daddy LOL. And I'll bet you have just as much evidence for all that as you do for whatever so-called god you believe in.

[@alanrosenthal6323]

The universe couldn't have existed forever but God could have existed forever because that is the only way to make the theist argument work.

[@trishayamada807]

It always comes down to one fallacy or another. Special pleading is a popular one. Something can’t come from nothing but god. 😑

[@rogerhamilton4961]

I love the demeanor of the conversation. That being said, these types of conversations should not be needed. Our educational system has done a great disservice to our society by not teaching the basic principles needed to understand why the point this man was trying to make is invalid.

[@arndnaj]

The educational system isn't the problem, the people destroying it, is the problem.

[@arndnaj]

Say I have a manufacturing plant that is making a toy that has five pieces that are designed to fit together well. For decades it has worked well in producing quality products. The system and the people administrating the system show that the system works in making this product. But over time, people who want to destroy my company have been infiltrating the company and my suppliers at every level. On the supplier end for my company, they've taken over those companies providing the raw materials and started using inferior raw material, causing shipments to be late to my plants, production is delayed or halted altogether thus my products aren't getting to stores on time and some stores stop carrying them. Because the raw materials are inferior, my products are shoddy, and fewer people want to buy them. In my plants, they start infiltrating management and the employee ranks, making things less efficient and deliberately manufacturing shoddy products. Before you know it, my plants have failed. That's what has been done to public schools. They've been undermined at every level and set up to fail.

[@antediluvianatheist5262]

@@arndnajA destroyed educational system is to the advantage of the ruling class. Ignorant people are easily controlled.

[@1eftnut]

⁠@@arndnaj100% true! Purposely underfunding public education is the true evil of these extremely gullible callers.

[@santicruz4012]

"Is illogical that something causes itself" Okay, so what caused God?

[@ΘάνατοςΧορτοφάγος]

"the uncaused cause" ofcourse 🤦

[@solly119119]

Exactly, Santi. Theists like to use what we know of reality and science, until it becomes inconvenient for them. It's just as illogical that something could be eternal, which a creator of the universe would have to be.

[@Heathen.Deity.]

Many also say god is infinite… but at the same time say the universe can’t have always existed in some form as we’d never get to the present… yet god has managed to get to the present… 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@arthurdossantos6826]

His mom, probably

[@lnsflare1]

Godzilla, obviously.

[@scienceexplains302]

At 16:42 Vi has completed a summary of a fatal flaw in Joe’s argument. He chooses not to respond, but reiterated his questions.

[@pizzagogo6151]

Caller; “ I don’t think anything can create itself”......( unspoken bit; “except god of course”).

[@adithyarajchoorikat9904]

Special pleading. Why not use it on universe itself?? We know universe exists. What before it is unknown so till we find it only special pleading applicable is to UNIVERSE.

[@Heathen.Deity.]

It’s exactly the same when sooooo many call in to whine on about infinite regresses with regard to the universe or matter, but don’t blink an eyelid when claiming their god is eternal.

[@adithyarajchoorikat9904]

@@Heathen.Deity. god don't need cause!.. Why??? Because he is god😂😂😂😂 Zuckerberg dont need cause for his birth??. Is it???? Maybe not... Maybe😂

[@Heathen.Deity.]

@@adithyarajchoorikat9904 😂 I’m sure Zuckerberg wasn’t technically born, rather an ongoing attempt at an android-based AI project with limited success.

[@Heathen.Deity.]

@Andrew Boettinger as far as the evidence goes, there’s nothing to suggest that a god is necessary… or exists at all. Many theists want everyone to think a god is necessary, as it would resolve many of their deeply flawed argument and claims.

[@massimocellucci1404]

I love Eric’s “voipping into existence.” That’s exactly how everything comes from nothing. It voips. Perfect. 😆🤣😂👏🙏

[@Stoopkid1775]

But a "voip" requires a "voiper"!

[@ytxmak]

Another example of a theist trying to word-salad their god into existence.

[@nullverba856]

A nice, sour wine vinaigrette goes great with theistic word salad. ... _Restez à l'écoute pour un scepticisme encore plus _*_délicieux!_*

[@thepowerbill1]

I’m in Ohio and I’m definitely going to that debate. There’s lots of religion here and you’ll need all the heathen support you can get. Peace!

[@mdug7224]

@Stuart Beatty religion can be an uncountable noun too. Just saying.

[@mdug7224]

@Stuart Beatty I get where you’re coming from. I don’t get many replies regarding comments on creationism when I ask,”which god?” , mention Vishnu and point out Sanskrit has a word for universe whereas Hebrew didn’t.

[@mdug7224]

@Stuart Beatty and a moment of euphoria or empty thought is not cause for belief in anything other than brain function. I have imagined expanding to edge of the universe and shrinking smaller than an atom and I can safely put it is down my own brain and not unbounded deity. Once it was realised to be delusional, I woke up and got on with reality👍

[@mdug7224]

@Stuart Beatty this is the definition I will go with: “the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.” I consider reality is the interactive environment I am in and, although I can not speak for another’s reality, I equate shared evidence of my environment with others as evidence of its reliability. Eg: if I touch and maybe see an object and the experience correlates with other experiences that also correlate with the affirmed experience of others in identifying the same, my senses conclude that the event is real. I then have the experience which can then be applied knowledge for recognition when encountering other objects. As a lay person in philosophy , I will leave it there else I miss out on loads of other posts. Thanks for the question.

[@thepowerbill1]

@Brp 549 Actually religion is a singular noun. You make it plural by adding an ‘s.’ I’m not sure what your point is here but I do understand that the majority of Ohioans who are religious are Christian.

[@TheAntiburglar]

"Voip into existence" is such a great phrase. Voip is a fantastic word and I will forever remember it.

[@thoughtsengineer]

4:05 That premise is wrong. 1) When mathematicians says that "infinite does not exist" is because there is no specific value to it. It is just a concept. You can't count and reach that value, you can't hold an infinite value, you can't containerize infinite, .... It is basically the idea that if you were to transverse in some path (such as a line number) you will approach (or walk towards) infinity but never reach it. So, the existence of the universe could approach infinity into the past, just never reach it. This is what we mean by the universe existing infinite into the past. It doesn't "have" infinity, just goes towards infinity in time. 2) We transverse through infinits all the time. If you draw on the ground 6 meters (20feet) straight line, I bet you can walk all 20 feet from one end of the line towards the other. By definition: a line is composed of infinite points. Any space distance can be view as an infinite amount of infinitesimally small distances. But we still travel in that distance. Same for time. The reason many tends to have issues with this is we tend to forgot that time and space are continuous, not discrete. Actions are continuously interacting through out the entire course of its path. For example: the force of earth gravitational field is always pulling an object towards earth. When I drop a ball, gravity is continuously acting through out the entire path, even trough we could partition the travel path distance and time infinitely. In conclusion, that premise is wrong. We can travel through infinity. We can travel through a repeating loop. We can travel through an infinitely long line segment. We can travel forever, since ever as long as there is an infinitely amount of time. And because an infinite doesn't tangentially exist, it doesn't mean things doesn't approach infinity. The correct question should be: could the time of the cosmos (if the cosmos have additional time than our local universe) be infinite? I don't know, but may be possible

[@AdmiralBison]

All this word salad reminds me of that spiritual quack Deepak Chopra. I would so love to see a debate between Deepak Chopra and Jordan Peterson the ensuing dish of word salads and metaphysical substrates would probably go well when smoking weed.

[@AbrahamMeat]

Nah, I prefer my weed-smoking accompanied with reality-based diversions such as video games, movies, or some non-fiction/documentaries. No need for quackery when reality is way more interesting.

[@FourDeuce01]

I notice he tried to sneak in his little leap from “the universe had a beginning” to “the universe had a cause”. No leaps allowed in logic.

[@eklektikTubb]

I notice you said "he tried" as if he was doing it on purpose.

[@FourDeuce01]

@@eklektikTubb It doesn’t matter to me whether a person is being disingenuous on purpose or just because they’re ignorant.

[@eklektikTubb]

@@FourDeuce01 I think it should matter to you. Being just wrong about something is quite different from being disingenuous on purpose.

[@bassmit7]

Oh boy I love you guys! Vi is so rational and passionate! And Eric, I've been a fan since the very first "Talk Heathen". Your empathy and voice are like a hot shower after a hike in the freezing cold!

[@NEMOfishZ92]

So far I'm only 3 minutes in but I appreciate how polite this guys being and the fact he is taking his argument one step at a time allows the hosts to state objection

[@tonydarcy1606]

If callers like Joe are really that interested in what we know so far about the origins of our known universe, then why don't they take a course in cosmology and learn something. Instead they try to sneak in God through the back door of our ignorance. The one thing they can never explain is how the "supernatural" can cause what we experience as the universe.

[@AddisMultimedia]

Joe has already called different atheist shows several times and each time he was disappointed. I don't know why he keeps trying using the same old argument that he knows won't get him anywhere. Good luck Joe.

[@arthurmee]

I dont think Joe has grasped what the word 'cause' really means and that the cause/effect relationship may not even make sense outside of the universe . . . Mark Zuckerberg or not.

[@RideDatDonkey97]

Keep up the good work guys!

[@fredbohm4728]

@Joe Daddy Theism is a failure in reason and logic. Changing your name again? You change KZbin accounts more often than I change my socks. It doesn't help as your comments stay the same.

[@exceptionallyaverage3075]

@Joe Daddy Is that the best you can do? How about a little god-proof. Can't you just ask it what you need to say to convert everyone?

[@fredbohm4728]

@Joe Daddy What is pathetic is a theist trolling on an atheist site? Masochist? Nobody cares about your ignorant comments and you are not convincing anyone about your unproven evidence-free assertions and claims about your beliefs. Stop pretending you are a victim, grow up and accept responsibility and consequences for your actions.

[@WilbertLek]

@Joe Daddy ⬅️ sad troll

[@henrybest4057]

If nothing can cause itself, what caused god?

[@silverwolfmonastery]

But that's different! LOL

[@henrybest4057]

@CAMOFFICIAL Something evolved from something else. That's how scientists explain evolution. No creator needed.

[@henrybest4057]

@@silverwolfmonastery That's the 'special pleading sidestep'. :-)

[@silverwolfmonastery]

@CAMOFFICIAL so you go with special pleading and argument from incredulity... is it fun to have a belief system based on logical fallacies?

[@henrybest4057]

@CAMOFFICIAL That we don't (yet) know the answers to those questions doesn't mean we need to invent a supposed god as a non-answer. What brought your supposed god into existence, other than the ignorance of the ancients?

[@Zoulz666]

Even if everything has a cause, that in no way gets you to a god. What caused god? Infinite regress.

[@Heathen.Deity.]

Exactly. They don’t half love a bit of social pleasing. As for these specific types of argument I’ve yet to hear a single one of these boring and tired arguments that, even if we accept the basic Kalam, successfully make the leap from there being “a cause” to anything that is intelligent, sentient, a conscious being etc. Essentially, they’re all just as flawed and as boring as each other as one can’t even reasonably accept the premises leading to the conclusion that there was indeed a cause at present.

[@silverwolfmonastery]

Don't you find the argument that God is the perfect Special Pleading fallacy convincing?

[@Heathen.Deity.]

@@ceceroxy2227 I’d be interested to see what your qualifications and background are and how you can prove there cannot be an infinite regress. Given the leading philosophers, cosmologists and those of the other relevant fields of study cannot come close to agreeing, I’d be curious as to how you have established it.

[@Heathen.Deity.]

@@ceceroxy2227 awwwwww…. an armchair cosmologists who has no clue that trying to count to an infinite number is completely different to assessing the possibility of matter being eternal. I’m not really surprised, but I’ll certainly take you more seriously when you get that Nobel Prize I’m assuming you’ll have in the next year or two.

[@Zoulz666]

@@ceceroxy2227 Just sounds like special pleading to me. Even if there can't be an infinite regress (which is just an assertion btw), why does it have to be an entity that is the first uncaused cause?

[@lauriesoper4056]

Joe is an honest interlocutor. Very refreshing.

[@donfishmaster]

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy is neither created nor destroyed. This argues against the idea that the universe "had a beginning", doesn't it?

[@UlexiteTVStoneLexite]

Yeah it does. if energy was never created then it was always there and the universe was always there. they failed to understand this.

[@andyhx2]

@Joe Daddy Except we live in this "closed system" so we have no idea how does energy come into being at all. This of course does not pose problem for people who love to fill God into gaps.

[@grimmstryke9627]

@Joe Daddy there is not a shred of good evidence to demonstrate god created it , but hey theists love to overlook that

[@shadowshedinja6124]

@Joe Daddy That's because there's no evidence that such an entity is necessary, no evidence of anything that is non-contingent, no evidence of anything outside of time and space. In fact, if there is something outside of time and space, by definition that means it doesn't exist, never has, and never will.

[@pdcdesign9632]

@Joe Daddy and yet, we don't fill the mystery of the universe with such a simplistic answer as GOD DIT IT.

[@puckerings]

The big opportunity the hosts missed was when Eric argued that you can't have agency without matter, and the caller challenged him to prove that this is true. At that point, they should have challenged the caller to prove that something cannot create itself.

[@coreymiller6717]

That's a dishonest shifting of the burden of proof and the hosts know better. I'm not dismissing your point.

[@Alex-0597]

@@coreymiller6717 I think it's trying to point out that the caller was perfectly fine accepting some common sense but unproven ideas (something cannot create itself) but wasn't willing to do the same with others (agency without matter), seemingly arbitrarily.

[@MGC-XIII]

The thing I hate about the argument that we can't disprove a certain thing because we don't know everything about the universe is that anyone can use that argument to come up with the wildest imaginations. When you take that stance you have to default back to there's no point of believing in such a thing until you demonstrate it. It's like the theist stance is up side down to how logic should work.

[@TheTruthKiwi]

Yup. The default position is to withhold belief until sufficient evidence is found and proven.

[@gremlinn7]

3:16. "Either the universe is infinite into the past and has always existed, or is finite into the past and had a beginning." False (or at least potentially false) dichotomy to me. At least one more option would be "finite into the past but did not have a beginning". Let's take "a beginning" to mean "a first event", or an event A for which there is no distinct event B for which A has a causal dependence on B. If that sounds like something that can be ruled out, out of hand, consider the function f(x) = sqrt(x) / (x * sqrt(x)) as a function from R -> R. (It's essentially f(x) = 1/x, but the added sqrt(x) in numerator and denominator effectively restricts the domain to the first quadrant, x > 0). Then if we look at the independent variable x as our "time" axis, the curve does *not* extend infinitely into the past (it doesn't go beyond x = 0) but also does not have a "beginning" (left-hand point of the curve). Instead, the curve is constrained to move upward to arbitrarily large numbers within a finite "time" interval. Not arguing that an infinitude of events in the universe were likewise compressed into a finite time interval, but just saying that it's a third option you'd have to tackle separately that wasn't included in the stated proposed dichotomy.

[@phrozenwun]

That's a nice point. We already know that time is malleable via the Lorentz transformation inside of our universe so there's no reason to a priori preclude a divergent boundary when energetic events can already create distortions.

[@dhwyll]

There is also the possibility of a cyclical system. The argument also confuses the dichotomy of finite/infinite with bounded/unbounded. Take the interval from 0 to 1. It has an infinite number of points in it, but it has a boundary. There are points outside the interval. And that boundary may or may not be included. The interval [0, 1], which includes the points 0 and 1 is different from the interval (0, 1), which doesn't. Both [0, 1] and (0, 1) have the exact same size, but one has a beginning and the other doesn't. And if there is an object that is separate from the universe that caused the universe, what caused the separate object? And if it doesn't need a cause, why can't the universe also not need a cause? After all, the insistence was made that "you cannot traverse an infinity" (which is not true). Thus, if this separate object is outside of time, then it "always existed" and is therefore necessarily infinite. And thus, if the universe cannot be infinite because we'd never be able to get to "now," then the separate object cannot also be infinite for it would never be able to get to the moment that marks the beginning of the universe. So either you can traverse an infinity or something can get started without needing anything else and we're back to needing justification as to why the universe necessarily isn't one of those things.

[@2robdot]

Space is infinite. Time would be eternal.

[@dhwyll]

@@2robdot Is space infinite? Don't confuse infinite with unbounded.

[@2robdot]

@@dhwyll space is infinite. But people misuse those words. The universe is infinite, but not eternal.

[@nagatopainbio-hazard221]

I like how you said people can't make decisions without a brain, and I thought but the Republican party's been doing that for ages lol

[@locutusdborg126]

Fact.

[@seasonedbeefs]

Wow just wow. Look at what is going on with the democrats agenda. The irony of your comment.

[@EustaBAracer]

@@seasonedbeefs Did you clutch your pearls like that when Dump stole millions of dollars from a veteran's charity, was caught, had to pay it back, and is now barred from running a charity in NY?

[@jonathanleslie9100]

one of the best dissections of the kalam cosmological argument I've seen. That is not where I thought is was going to go once the caller tipped his hand that "there in no infinity" because then his god being infinite would of also collapsed, but the hosts handled it even better.

[@flawedgenius]

Can matter be created or destroyed? Yes. It's energy that can't be created or destroyed.

[@annk.8750]

"Infinite" can exist, but you just cannot measure it.

[@annk.8750]

@@ceceroxy2227 still, "infinite" exists as a concept.

[@vertigo4236]

@@ceceroxy2227 Yes, you can. I have a infinitive number of finite numbers. if you take any finite number and add +1 to it, it will always be a finite number. At no point adding +1 to a finite number will make it infinite.

[@reneejones6330]

Nothing can be infinite, but God is infinite. Everything needs a cause but God does not need a cause. Everything has a beginning but God has no beginning. The only logical conclusion is that God = nothing.

[@russellmyers934]

Hawking: "The boundary condition of the universe is that there is no boundary"

[@EustaBAracer]

"I threw the Benjis on the ground, hike that skirt and turn around, make that pu$$y make a sound" - Stephen Hawking

[@twig8523]

"There are 10 million million million million million million million particles in the universe that we can observe Your momma took the ugly ones & put them into one nerd." -Hawking

[@davidsmith6859]

One problem with Joe's argument is that if the universe could not have existed for an infinite period because infinity is not a real thing then something must have existed "before" or outside it which contained a mechanism for causing this universe. But that thing could also not have existed back into infinity and must also have had a beginning and a cause. And so must that thing have had a cause. So you just keep going back forever which is what he supposed was impossible in the first place. So an infinite regress is not impossible but actually necessary. In that case why can this universe not have existed forever without all the other causes? It's turtles all the way down folks.

[@redmed10]

People like joe cannot accept the idea of infinite regression. I can see why because it's a mind bending thing to get your head around. But if they think they know something we don't know they are sadly mistaken.

[@JarredTheWyrdWorker]

This video is a beautiful example of why I don't engage in the cosmological argument. Where's my aspirin? ETA: Can you even talk about time beginning? I mean, the idea of a state of being (or even non-being) before time existing seems self-referential.

[@KeltoiMagus]

FYI - "However, matter creation is allowed by these laws when in the presence of another particle (another boson, or even a fermion) which can share the primary photon's momentum. Thus, matter can be created out of two photons." Wikipedia under Matter Creation. It seems to add weight to the idea of a material universe that came into existence naturally, though does not detract from a created universe argument.

[@AztroNut66]

Spacetime, AS WE EXPERIENCE IT, seems to have originated with the "birth" or beginning of our local Universe. This in no way implies that "TIME" [as a concept or as a property of the COSMOS] did not exist prior to our local Universe. So we can't really conclude that there was no TIME before our Universe began to exist. It could be that our Universal spacetime branched off of a pre-existing, continuous cosmological timeline. So arguments insisting that anything that existed "BEFORE" our Universe would have to have existed "BEFORE" time itself, would be meaningless.

[@peterbartley7183]

Matter can definitely be destroyed. Energy can’t be created or destroyed

[@Specialeffecks]

Matter IS energy via E=MC2. Check your physics. Matter cannot be destroyed.

[@rubinbingham9547]

Energy/Matter cannot be destroyed. Matter can be converted entirely into energy or arise from pure energy.

[@BryanH_68]

Our universe is a child’s science fair project and it can fit in the palm of her hand. What has been 13-14 billion years of perceived existence to us has only been 20 minutes to her.

[@coreymiller6717]

Closer to a couple seconds at best. Heat death and the last stars and black holes could last up to hundreds of trillions of years or longer. Not a whole lot of time for other intelligent species to come about yet either.

[@TheTruthKiwi]

If theists used the word ORIGINATED instead of "caused" or "created" they might be able to understand better. By using "caused" or "created" they are shoehorning in an unobserved, unproven and a pretty much impossible "creator." If they just say the universe originated and admit that they don't really know if it was "caused" by anything then they would be much more honest. Basically, saying "The universe couldn't create/cause itself" is begging the question because theists are presupposing a creator. How do they know that the universe didn't originate naturally? Also, Vi's mike drop starting at 15:50 totally stumped Joe. :)

[@FourDeuce01]

The reason theists don’t understand better is because they don’t want to understand better. If they understood better, they couldn’t remain theists.😈

[@TheTruthKiwi]

@@FourDeuce01 Very true FD1, very true.

[@emordnilaps]

Things cannot create/cause themselves? Not to nitpick, but I think current physics recognizes that particle-antiparticle pairs spontaneously erupt into and out of our space-time, yes? Does this require some etheral will, or is this a function of our universe and its physical laws, which we don't yet fully understand?

[@Leszek.Rzepecki]

This is just a warmed-over Kalam cosmological argument, which is a form of presuppositionalism. It specifies that nothing that comes into existence can have caused itself, because it couldn't have been around before it existed in order to cause itself, therefore must have had an external cause that must be in itself uncaused and eternal. This seems superficially logical, except it presupposes that eternal entities that can cause things are possible, and that the universe cannot be one of these entities. Maybe the universe is itself eternal, or maybe it's something that can spring into being uncaused and will maybe collapse vanish again in a Big Crunch, like a quantum event. But even if you accept the premises and conclusion of the Kalam, you can't logically get from the Kalam to any of the worlds modern or ancient religions. You are still left hanging wondering what the nature of Aristotle's unmoved prime mover is. It's like a dog chasing its own tail.

[@kishintuchis4133]

IF THERE HAD TO BE SOMETHING THAT CREATED THIS UNIVERSE , WHO / WHAT CREATED THAT CREATOR ? AND WHO CREATED THAT CREATOR , AD INFINITUM .

[@sebidotorg]

Please stop shouting!

[@ricardovonkrypton8908]

That creator was created by 'special pleading'...

[@petermirtitsch1235]

Here's a challenge for those who believe in a first uncaused mover existing. Define "exist". Nobody ever asks that.

[@darksoul479]

The cosmos has always existed. Until proven otherwise, for there to be nothing is impossible.

[@2robdot]

No one claims nothing existed. The universe,had a beginning

[@FourDeuce01]

“Until proven otherwise, for there to be nothing is impossible.” Until that claim is proven, it is worthless.

[@2robdot]

@@FourDeuce01 no one ever said there was nothing. But the universe is not eternal. It has an age we can measure.

[@FourDeuce01]

@@2robdot Many people have said there was nothing, but they didn’t prove that claim either. The people who say nothing is impossible can’t prove that claim either.

[@2robdot]

@@FourDeuce01 no one said there was nothing.

[@barbiedahl]

Joe likes slinging mud but does not like to receive it in turn? How profoundly Christian of him!

[@tomdebevoise]

Wow Joe does not even know the Kalama cosmological argument 🙄

[@tedgrant2]

Things exist, sure, but the "universe" is a concept, namely, the collection of everything. We, humans, created the concept "universe", so in that sense, it exists, in our heads. Did the universe have a beginning ? Sure, it did, when somebody first thought of it. Who was the person who first thought of the concept "universe" ? We don't know.

[@enlargedapostate]

Vi, you're so freaking intelligent that it's intimidating...why would you shut Eric down the way you did on the "creator" exchange when that's what the caller was obviously trying to promote? To say the caller obviously isn't referring to a creator while implying through argument that it could only be accomplished via creation deserves some scrupulous review on your part.

[@redmed10]

I think it's so funny that so many Christians use the kalam cosmological argument proposed by Muslim philosophers in the Middle Ages. "Kalam" is a school of thought that tries to defend Islam intellectually against criticisms. Famous Kalam scholars included Al-Kindi and Al-Ghazali - but they were largely ignored in the West.For centuries, the KCA was an obscure argument, but in the 20th century it became popular because of the Big Bang Theory. Today, the KCA is supported by the American philosopher William Lane Craig.

[@trishayamada807]

It’s always special pleading. Something can’t come from nothing but god. God doesn’t have to follow the rules.

[@tedgrant2]

The origin of matter/energy, space and time is a problem. So what we need is something else, something that has always existed. Something capable of causing matther/energy, space and time to come into existence. Hmm. Let me think. This rings a bell. Right, I've got it. It's the god of the Hebrews. Bingo !

[@howdoyouknow1218]

I chuckled. 😂😂😂. And yet that ridiculous line of reasoning makes sense to people. Gullible people.

[@tedgrant2]

@@howdoyouknow1218 The god of the Hebrews is probably the most successful god ever invented. The Christians, Muslims and Jews all worship that god, often known as God. He's really doing well, so he must have been designed very carefully. Thank you Hebrews, where ever you are, for such a gift.

[@Specialeffecks]

Given a universe that had a beginning, you’re asking me to grant not only that somehow a "cause" could exist absent time, space, matter and energy, not only that the cause had to be sufficient to bring all energy into existence absent any temporal, spatial, power, or substantive traits, but also it had complex thought processes, ideals and goals that somehow recognizably align ONLY with a specific planet's, particular mammalian ape that would not evolve for 13.8 billion years who itself only will have existed for .01% of that time, and also that this cause cares especially about what this particular ape will do while naked?

[@KeltoiMagus]

There has been a discovery of apparent intelligent algae. That would demonstrate thinking without a brain.

[@andyrihn1]

There was never a point in time that the universe didn’t exist. It’s therefore nonsense to talk about the universe beginning to exist since that would imply some preceding state of events (ie time before time existed)

[@hplovehandle]

I agree but the argument being presented is that "before" the universe what were the conditions to give rise to the universe, or were there no conditions, or is the universe part of a collapsing bubble structure of universes? Unfortunately language isn't a strong point for a lot of theists.

[@andyrihn1]

@@hplovehandle there can’t be conditions before the instantiation of time

[@feedingravens]

It is so funny, they play the "it must be so because physics says everything has a cause and something cannot come from nothing, this can NEVER be violated" and then jump to "to make these rules work, I postulate that outside space and time there is an uncaused cause that created everything out of nothing. And I know it is not just some weird mechanism we do not know, it MUST be a hyperintelligent entity, I KNOW that it created the universe intentionally, I KNOW that this universe has a plan and a purpose defined by this entity, I KNOW the reason for creating the universe is to have a place for us humans to exist, because I KNOW that we humans are that what is relevant in this universe for this entity, I KNOW that the primary interest ghis infinitely powerful and all-knowing entity has is us humans, all else in this universe is just the necessary scenery required to allow us to exist". Of course, none of the apologists and the Kalaam users ever go that far. I think implicitly they know themselves that when you reallyspeak it out loud, and think about it, it becomes pretty absurd. Amazing what people in the universe can know about something outside the universe, about the character and intentions of another intelligence. We do not understand our own character and intentions and how it works, but we know exactly about this perfect, unchanging character, from his perfect, unchanging book.

[@SecondaryHomunculus]

#2 is possibly false: It could exist at separate points throughout the past, voiping in and out, or phasing into alternate dimensions which would cause it to exist somewhere and not exist somewhere else simultaneously.

[@eklektikTubb]

Mind existing outside of a brain is a weird idea, but the main problem is the idea of this mind existing outside of time and space. Thinking, contmplation, planning creation and creating (and any actions in general) are dependant on time. I cannot imagine someone being outside of time and space and doing something, and come to think of it, i dont even understand what "outside of time and space" really means. The way i see it, time couldnt be created and it is either eternal or it came from nothing by mere chance. I am ot sure about space, but matter could have been created, hypothetically, or at least it is possible to imagine it as some sort of magic act.

[@michaelhoyes3973]

The issue I have is moat people are talking about the current instantiation of the universe but not considering the singularity. That could have existed for some non length of time the or something triggered the expansion. Just look at radioactive elements to see things being triggered randomly. It could even have been a god that played billiards and on the break, the singularity expanded. I don't see a reason to invoke a higher being but some may.

[@philipeoverton]

There was a confusing statement n this conversation. ENERGY cannot be created or destroyed -it simply exists in different forms. (Eric repeatedly says "matter" -which is only one form of energy.) The total energy in The Universe is finite. It was at one time concentrated in a 'singularity' 13.7 billion years ago. It is now spreading in/as The Universe, e.g. in matter, radiation, etc. (e=mc²)

[@scienceexplains302]

All of reality ever = Cosmos. It is possible that our universe generated from the remnant of a previous one or is a type of black hole within another. This is not just semantics: part of Joe’s argument is about what can happen in a universe.

[@briancomley8210]

l have just found a very old bible, in it the the 4 gospels are all called ( Saint), but the newer prints only call them by their name, ie. Mathew, Mark, etc. Have you any reason why the Saint has been left out?.

[@einyv]

the universe could have existed in a different form , whatever it was before the expansion. whatever that something was , was a something not a nothing. So a beginning in its present form.

[@martinharcourt6256]

Thus; If you can describe a thing with numbers it is Finite. If it cannot be described or even quantified it is infinte. Can you describe the universe? All gods and incarations of gods are finite because they can be described.

[@benroberts2222]

Conflation between "beginning" and "cause." A beginning is just a first moment in time. If causation is a relationship between spatiotemporal events (a common though not majority position among philosophers) and there was a first event, that first event was uncaused

[@petermirtitsch1235]

I love those who claim an infinite cosmos stretching backwards is impossible, because an eternity would pass before something happens has ignored Zeno's paradox.

[@quacks2much]

There is no god because a god can't create itself. We aren't here either because there was nothing to create us. Ah, forget it.

[@sageohio1864]

You come to Columbus next year I promise to be there

[@doctorshell7118]

Careful with the positive claim. It’s a setup for the black swan fallacy even if I agree with you.

[@TruthSika]

Was the clicking at the beginning him with a pen or the sound of a Discord server? I've heard Shannon Q chew a caller out about this before.

[@RandyWanat]

The universe is chronologically finite. The cosmos may not be.

[@landsgevaer]

We have no clue what happened in the first umptieth second after the extrapolated big bang afaik, so it could well be infinite into the past (unless you *define* the "universe" as a finite part of our reality so to say).

[@polarbianarchy3333]

At what point will this all just break down and be seen at the pedantic bulshit it is

[@jeffreymiller3600]

Did, or does God evaluate evidence, learn new things, and make new decisions based on its new understanding of its reality? If not, how could it have decided to create the universe at any point other than the moment it came into existence?

[@hplovehandle]

I like Eric and Vi's style, Dillahunty et al are a bit battle wearynd very pragmatic and cut straight to the point, whereas Vi and Eric will try and and be a bit more gentle with people, unless they're real dicks of course.

[@davids11131113]

If gods were at all real you wouldn’t need to make up arguments for their existence for thousands of years.

[@neoaeonmusick]

The third argument would be conformal cyclic cosmology

[@skuuvatakis]

Actual infinities don't exist, because he says so.

[@TheGodpharma]

I think they should have picked him up on that. It's true that infinities don't (and presumably can't) exist in any physical sense (i.e. numbers of physical things) but it's not illogical to talk about an infinite amount of abstract things. This could, for all we know, include infinite time, which is what they were talking about.

[@redmed10]

Joe here's an analogy for Ya. Could ants understand how the earth they live on came into existence. Perhaps we are the ants of the universe.

[@truthrevealer771]

Before we exchange evidence for if God exist or not, please answer the following question: If evidence of God's existence is provided to you then will you become a believer?

[@darksoul479]

I don't care what the heck you guys talk about as long as it's not politics.

[@marasmusine]

Energy can't be created or destroyed, but the total sum energy of the universe might be zero.

[@pluggerizer]

Space and time are the same thing in our observable universe, we don't know about other universes ...

[@BeachBumZero]

The universe includes spacetime, but this does not preclude a separate arena of spacetime that exists outside of our reality.

[@philipwagner9169]

So, after explaining what that means (if anything), the only thing left for a champion of this speculation to do is present some evidence to suggest that it is possible, followed by evidence to suggest that it is in fact the case. Simples!

[@PierrotOfFlashWood]

There never was a time when time did not exist.

[@scienceexplains302]

If everything needs something external to cause it, then there is an infinite regression of causes. You can’t logically argue both that 1) everything needs an external, prior-existing cause AND 2) infinite past time is impossible They can’t both be true. #1 requires an infinite regression

[@Cellidor]

One issue I noticed is that Eric and the Caller both kind of fell into the same fallacies trap with this kind of discussion. Joe stated 'Something cannot create itself', and based that on the fact that we've never seen that within our world. Similarly, Eric stated 'You can't make decisions without a brain' and similarly based that on the fact that we've never seen that within our world. This is what happens when you delve too deep into 'before the universe' discussions, it inevitably turns into people just making unfounded assertions about something we know nothing about. That's why I'm glad that despite that, Eric and Vi brought it back around and drove home the 'we don't know' at the end, because...well, we don't. Say we grant that the universe is finite. That it had a cause, some _reason_ that it began, then that cause can be defined as x. The term 'god' comes with enough baggage that it _cannot_ be simply subbed in for x. It would not be 'We're calling x 'god'', it would be 'We think that x _is_ god'. god is one _possible_ answer for x among many. If one wishes to sub in god for x, you are free to do so, but you need to remember to _show your work._ That's exactly the problem however. How can anyone with our level of technology possibly show their work when doing so requires information about the state of existence _before_ time and space? A non-place and non-time whose metaphysical rules are an unknown to us, if it even 'exists' at all? It's just a bit too riddled with unknowns for me to see it as anything more than philosophical wankery. Interesting to listen to and brainstorm about, but little else (for now).

[@bubbercakes528]

So something started the universe so therefore god? If this god thing exists then why worship it or even acknowledge it? We don’t know why this god thing started the universe or even if it purposely meant to do it. Perhaps this god thing is just another form of a nature. We just do not know yet. We do know that human religion has been proven false. So glad that Joe is such a polite caller.

[@nathanielthomson6600]

A thing cannot cause itself to do something? Did I hear that right? Or did I mishear that?

[@neoaeonmusick]

By roger Penrose

[@eej9273]

I always ask people like ok you believe in one of the gods, somehow it was never created, did not create itself, didn't really come from nothing because it is eternal and has no beginning and no end so it was never nothing so how about we start there before you get into everything else?

[@lynettekomidar2819]

Something or someone that is invisible.

[@brucewilliams4152]

In truth, the theists just invents an infinite beyond universe agent th that can by his own logic exist because it's also needs a creator, ( infinite regress), that he can't demonstrate the existence of....

[@cygnusustus]

Sigh. No, the laws of thermodynamics do not say that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

[@Chris-op7yt]

infinities dont exist within local universe. outside it, it may be possible. in any case, time is not a thing and it doesnt stop. time is merely our perception of causality, which goes on forever. a nothing is truly impossible in all respects, as it would have to be everywhere and has no powers of causality. we have never and will never observe a nothing.

[@mihaicolceriu-nicola7148]

this is basically the" i dont know about the subject so its impossible and illogical" fallacy lol. the fact that you cant understand why the universe could be without a beginning,or it seems impossible,by our knowledge on how the universe works and laws of physics,chemistry etc...that something cant create itself,doesnt mean its impossible. PS: by "something cant create itself" i mean matter and energy and some chemicals,rather than a brain or a thinking agent,coz we know you need matter,energy and chemicals to create a brain so...

[@martinharcourt6256]

Do you believe in infinity? can you imagine infinity? we know if we add one number to the whole it gets bigger and bigger that means the universe is infinite then there was no start their always was.....

[@runekristensen2531]

If nothing can come into existence by itself, then nothing should exist, but something do exist. So maybe things can come into existence by itself. By the magic of some god seems like a weak explanation, and the same problem would apply for a god. Can a god come into existence by itself? If so we should expect more gods at some point

[@ianjackson8855]

Joe didn't say the universe could cause itself. Why did you say he did. You weren't listening.

[@mikeadams2351]

the universe HAD to be created..but their GAWD didn't...okay then...Gawd woke up on the first morning and saw HE was good..then created everything else..including matter..energy and time...light came much much later when he got around to creating the earth and stuff...all good by me...

[@WilbertLek]

Spoiler: it isn't.

[@unkaumanguy1439]

Doesn't Joe's third premise break his second premice by declaring that the aforementioned infinite exsistance side of the dichotomy cannot be possible leaving only one option,. I am no expert on syllogisms so tell me if I am I wrong.

[@grantwing4942]

Would mitosis be considered to be close to something creating itself?

[@MNbenMN]

I would say technically no, since the cell already existed before the mitosis. But, then again, defining "create" precisely is its own challenge.

[@magnatcleo2043]

Probably not.