Cosmic Kalam-ity | Why Alex O'Connor Will Believe Anything

[@ericanderson7942]

I think you missed the point in regards to Alex's criticism of Premise 1. I think his point is to say the Kalam Cosmological Argument is circular as Premise 1 really just reads "The universe has a cause" because the universe is the only thing that has ever begun to exist. To say "anything that begins to exist" really just means "the universe" since it is the only thing that has begun to exist. So he's arguing that Premise 1 and the conclusion are actually the same thing, thus it is not logically sound.

[@wesleydahar7797]

@@ericanderson7942 It's not circular. You presupposed that the universe is the only thing that has begun to exist, and made it circular by changing premise 1.

[@ericanderson7942]

@wesleydahar7797 I didn't presuppose it, nor am I arguing for this view. I'm simply pointing out claims that Alex O'Connor made that this video is referencing. Alex O'Connor gives his justification for why he thinks the universe is the only thing that has ever began to exist, which is briefly covered in this video, but I never even claimed to believe it myself. All I did was say "I think you misunderstood why Alex brought all this up." If it wasn't misunderstood that's fine, and you can certainly argue that it's not circular, but this video doesn't do a great job of addressing that point, which is what Alex was originally talking about in the conversation that this video is referencing.

[@wesleydahar7797]

@@ericanderson7942 You're correct. I'm sorry I put Alex's words in your mouth.

[@CaptainScarfish]

You misunderstand several concepts in physics. 1. The Big Bang does *not* describe the origin of the universe. All it does is describe its expansion. Science makes no comment on the beginning of the universe because "before the universe" is a meaningless statement given that spacetime wouldn't have existed "before" the universe. Additionally, science is only equipped to investigate phenomenon given an assumption of naturalism. 2. Thermodynamics doesn't preclude a cyclical bang/crunch universe, although we don't have enough evidence to support a cyclical universe. 3. In terms of priors, assuming that the universe is self-causing or uncaused has equal validity with a deity as an uncaused causer. Neither position is preferred because they both rest on a presupposition. 4. You talk about consensus among philosophers, but fail to mention that the consensus is that Kalam's is not a compelling argument for a deistic god, let alone the god of your specific religion.

[@wesleydahar7797]

Your point 3 makes no sense. Can you elaborate?

[@KoryRQueen]

1. You're making a distinction without a difference. The Big Bang describes the beginning of the universe, and it is the theory by which we came to understand that our observable universe has a beginning. If what you mean by "origin" is something, as it were, "behind" the Big Bang that caused it to happen, then sure, the Big Bang can't get you there. It remains significant that spacetime has a beginning. 2. Even if we grant this for the sake of argument, these cyclic hypotheses remain scientifically ill-established--certainly not strong enough to supersede the well-established conclusion that our universe had a beginning. 3. Mindless self-creation strikes me as innately less probable than creation intended by someone outside of the system. At least a mind can decide to create. A mindless universe can't do that; so it would just have to happen ex nihilo for no reason. That's quite a pill to swallow. 4. As of the 2006 Cambridge Companion to Atheism, the Kalam was said to be the single most discussed apologetic argument in the philosophical community--a hotbed of philosophical dispute. That said, a lot can happen in 19 years. On what basis are you saying the philosophical consensus has shifted to disfavoring the Kalam?

[@CaptainScarfish]

@@KoryRQueen 1. No, I meant exactly what I said. The Big Bang describes the expansion of the universe from a singularity. It says nothing about whether that singularity was the beginning. Literally just check out the Wikipedia page, any textbook on astrophysics, or many of the science educators here on KZbin. 2. I'm not advocating for cyclical universe. I'm just rebutting the idea that it violates thermodynamics. 3. A universe that is causeless/eternal is orders of magnitude less complex than a causeless intelligent being with the power to create the universe. 4. Given that physicists have to constantly remind apologists that the first premise of Kalam's is an assumption that isn't supported by evidence, no. No one is taking it seriously who actually engages with the experts on the subject (Big Bang).

[@wesleydahar7797]

@@CaptainScarfish 1. Then you have an infinite regression problem. Time has to start somewhere because it is contingent. 2. A cyclical universe violates thermodynamics. Where are you getting the infinite energy to eternally change the state of the universe? Nevermind that a cyclical universe implies an infinite regression of time. Since you state in point 1 that the big bang isn't the origin of the universe and therefore not the origin of time. 3. You've presupposed that a necessary being has any level of complexity as a barrier to existence. Nothing necessary can have any barrier to existence. 4. Can you support that assertion? Last I checked, cause and effect was a well established precedent for all of scientific inquiry.

[@CaptainScarfish]

@@wesleydahar7797 1. You're veering off into a different argument. You want to use the scientific theory of the big bang to support Kalam's while extrapolating far beyond what the actual theory states. I'm putting a stop to your abuse of science by debunking your incorrect assertion that the big bang theory states *anything* about the origin of the universe. 2+3. You presume an uncaused causer. I presume an uncaused universe. Neither presumption is superior to the other because they're both presupposed and neither is supported by evidence. I reject the notion that a causer is necessary. It's true that events *within* the universe require a cause, but we've never observed the emergence of a universe and seen whether or not it requires a cause, whether it is eternal, or any of its other metaphysical properties. 4. Cause and effect is not equivalent to Kalam's. This is a motte-and-bailey argument. Again, it is rejected by pretty much anyone who isn't an apologist because it rests on a misinterpretation of physics as described in point 1. You said yourself in your video that you need to defeat the premises to defeat the argument and I've repeatedly shown you that premise 1 is a false extrapolation of the big bang.

[@thelastbrickbender2139]

Actually using the turtles all the way down talking point, holy shit and you wanna take down Atheism…you got hope work cut out for ya mate

[@wesleydahar7797]

@thelastbrickbender2139 Well, as the video stated, atheists who offer that argument aren't much of a challenge.

[@vinnygiggidy]

The universe is space/time. Which means the universe didn't come from anything because since there was never a TIME that TIME did not exist, it doesn't require an explanation for it's existence. The only things that require an explanation for there existence are things that at one TIME did not exist followed by a TIME that they did exist. I'm pretty sure your going to completely misunderstand what I'm saying but I tried to explain it at least.

[@KoryRQueen]

You don't find it significant that time has a beginning? You don't think that demands an explanation?

[@wesleydahar7797]

@@vinnygiggidy Correct me if I misunderstood you, but when you say that the cause of the universe needs no explanation because without time there is no causality, then you are mistakenly trying to frame the cause of the universe as beholden to the laws of the universe, which doesn't make sense because that upon which the universe depends cannot be itself unless you are implying that the universe is an eternal, necessary reality. Therefore, there must be a framework of causality which is not bound by the time or laws of our universe from which our universe originated. So there can still be a cause, unless you argue that the universe is itself necessary, eternal, and unchangeable.

[@vinnygiggidy]

@@KoryRQueen the only things that need an explanation for there existence are things that at one time did not exist. There has never been a time that time did not exist so time does not require an explanation for it's existence. Saying there was a time that time did not exist is a self contradictory statement.

[@vinnygiggidy]

@@wesleydahar7797 I'm pretty sure I didn't say any of that. I'll put what I'm saying in a syllogism. 1) the only things that require an explanation for there existence are things that at one time did not exist followed by a time that they do exist. 2) there has never been a time that time did not exist. Conclusion) time does not require an explanation for it's existence.

[@wesleydahar7797]

@@vinnygiggidy To explain something is to ground its existence using the rules of logic. All things require an explanation otherwise they couldn't exist. P1) Anything which cannot be explained is illogical. P2) Anything which is illogical cannot exist. C1) Anything which cannot be explained cannot exist. [OR] All things which exist have an explanation. P3) The time exists. C2) The time must have an explanation.

[@shaunmahlangu1673]

"They failed" stopped right there cause he doesn't know shit.

[@KoryRQueen]

Feel free to elaborate on what I got wrong. Always happy to discuss or learn something new.

[@scio-x3b]

The only reason to make arguments for God is because one hasn't experienced God. Is that what W. L. Craig is admitting - that God has no reality for him and he needs human thought to buttress his belief? Arguments for God are age-old. Islamic polymath Avicenna tried it only to be then criticized by his own saying his 'proof' was incompatible with the God of revelation.

[@KoryRQueen]

Craig addressed that very question in his debate with Christopher Hitchens. Firsthand experience is conclusive for one’s own purposes, but to convey that to others requires them to take your word for it. Logic isn’t much use in proving anything to anyone, hence the famous limit of logical proof: “I think therefore I am.” Logic does, however, offer additional bases for rational belief. And the countless testimonies of people’s firsthand supernatural experiences (perfectly sane and rational people, I should add) is part of the evidence that we can logically evaluate.

[@scio-x3b]

@@KoryRQueen It's a well-attested phenomena that people will experience according to their belief - Christians will see Jesus, Hindus will see their deities - and nothing else. For this reason a person who has actually experienced God, enlightenment, reality, is very unlikely to ask for belief.

[@thispersonrighthere9024]

​​@@KoryRQueen i am an agnostic theist. i believe it is far more probable that a God exists and created everything than creation coming about spontaneously, *but* i also reject all religions; i see religions as collections of folklore, mythology, and superstition. i especially reject the abrahamic religions because their deities (HaShem, Jesus, Jehovah, and Allah) use fear to get people to worship them, which is abusive. i also cannot reconcile this God being both loving and involved in our lives with the suffering of innocent people in this world, especially children.

[@scio-x3b]

@@thispersonrighthere9024 This God you say exists must do something for you personally - otherwise what need is there to believe? Can't speak for others but I don't lie in bed sleepless over how the universe came to be. My guess is neither does WLC 😉