Kalamitous Cosmology

Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @aronra
Here is SKYDIVEPHIL's excellent documentary discussion on the physical and philosophical failures of the Kalam.
• Physicists & Philosoph...
• Atheism Is Absurd (Par...
If you like what I do, please consider supporting my efforts.
PATREON► / aronra
PAYPAL► www.paypal.me/...

[@JesterSatans]

"To define their God into existence under the guise of a logical deduction in lieu of any evidence and despite all of the evidence to the contrary"

[@condorboss3339]

Towards the end, you touch on one point I consider critical in debunking the Kalam: The category error which conflates a 'cause' in the sense of an antecedent condition that necessarily leads to the event with 'cause' in the sense of a willful action for a purpose. There is a difference between an avalanche which is the result of weather conditions that accumulate an unstable mass of snow to the point where it must collapse and an avalanche deliberately triggered by firing a mortar shell at the snowmass.

[@FrozEnbyWolf150]

Also, even what we consider deliberate causes have naturalistic explanations. Humans behave the way we do, and make the decisions we do, because of how our brains interact with our environment. The reason we invent and design things is that we're a toolmaking species that takes raw materials and crafts them into objects as a survival behavior. Therefore in order for the design analogy to hold, God must create things out of a similar survival behavior. Otherwise creationists are just making another special exception for God, like they always do.

[@gerritvalkering1068]

their argument there is from complexity and/or fine-tuning. 'This universe can't have come about by random natural processes, it's too complex/fine tuned, so it must have a designer as a cause'

[@kellydalstok8900]

@@gerritvalkering1068The universe isn’t even fine-tuned for humans. If anything, it’s fine-tuned for black holes.

[@gerritvalkering1068]

@@kellydalstok8900 don't look at me for an explanation, it's their argument, not mine. I'm right with you there. The universe is amazingly fine tuned so it's almost universally hostile to life as we know it. Praise the invisible flying spaghetti monster!

[@simongiles9749]

I suspect this common error arises from Aristotle and his "Four Causes". The Material Cause is what a thing is made from, the Formal Cause is the shape that it is, the Final Cause is what it is for, and the Efficient Cause is the effect that created it. Which is fine for trivial constructed objects, but naturally occuring things a) do not necessarily have a Final Cause, in that they do not exist for any particular purpose, the merely exist and b) the Efficient Cause does not need to be an intelligent agency. For example, a chair would have Material Cause = wood, Formal cause = a chair, Final Cause = for sitting on, and Efficient Cause = a carpenter. But a pebble on a beach would have Material Cause = stone, Formal Cause = a... pebble, Final Cause = ???, Efficient Cause = action of ocean waves on magma that extruded, cooled, compressed, folded and broke through weathering. I blame Aquinas for smooshing Aristotle into a Christian framework and filling in the gaps of Efficient Cause = my specific God and Final Cause = my specific God's unknowable desires.

[@zacharylehocki]

You know It always amuses me theists critique atheists the universe came from nothing when no one ever proposed that and theists literally believe they`re God created the universe from nothing! Great job on this AronRa!

[@edwardtrickett6064]

As each year passes, I am continually more astounded but also infuriated with the wilful ignorance of believers I thank you though Aron, for being a beacon of sanity in an otherwise crazy world

[@riparianlife97701]

I wish I knew that, in my final moments alive, Aaron could show up and tell me in that soothing voice: You lived honestly. Be at peace.

[@EdwardHowton]

It's not all willful ignorance, though. Don't be fooled. Some of it is straight-out _contrarianism._ The first time a cultist comes up to you with a platitude like "if we come from monkeys herpaderpa" they're ignorant. The second time they do it, it's willful ignorance. Every time after that is just them choosing to be assholes as a way of showing off to their imaginary friend. And this contrarianism is becoming increasingly popular. Cultists think we're just pretending and being mean because we're part of a different tribe. Most of them can't comprehend that we're being sincere about what we say. They think it's a show. People worship Sarah Palin or Trump or Elon Musk not because they actually like them, but because they think it'll annoy us. In reality, they're drowning, and they're refusing the flotation device we're throwing at them because they think it'll really piss us off. Like the anti-maskers. Like the flu trux clan. Like Qanon. Like flat Earthers. The success of this defense mechanism has been demonstrated, so *_EVERYTHING_* is starting to use it.

[@memegazer]

“Great God in Boots!-the ontological argument is sound!” -Bertrand Russell A Computationally-Discovered Simplification of the Ontological Argument Paul E. Oppenheimer CSLI/Stanford University and Edward N. Zalta CSLI/Stanford University A source for anybody interested. Of course this won't satisfy an ardent skeptic. But Aron Ra is not exactly correct that "ALL arguments for god necessarily ential fallacy" Also I concede that a symbolic logical proof of the soundness of the ontological argument is not really all that much in terms of validating any particular set of religious beliefs or supernatural claims made by any particular religion.

[@maxdoubt5219]

"Umm...do you have an internet-linked computer?" I always want to ask that question of Xians.

[@musicauthority674]

You have to understand that that being a fool is the basis for religion. and once you notice that, you'll never look at religion the same way again.

[@nanntuckett8963]

Good breakdown. We spent a week “learning” this argument in my Catholic school. Amazing how a 13 minute video easily shows how flawed it is. They won’t you teach you that in school though…

[@thekaxmax]

Taking more than about an hour teaching it shows that it's not a good argument. :P

[@FrozEnbyWolf150]

I remember reading a debunking of it by Dan Barker from 20 years ago. It's just presupposition on top of presupposition, "Therefore god exists, therefore he is the God of the Bible, therefore he is the God of my specific Christian denomination, therefore he is MY personal God."

[@thomasneal9291]

"They won’t you teach you that in school though…" certainly not Catholic school.

[@DoctorOnkelap]

religious teaching is the opposite of school. We need to stop respecting lying to children in stead of granting it tax exempt status...

[@fredriksundberg4624]

​@@AnnoyingNewsletters I don't want to start any Blasphemous Rumours but i think that god got a sick sense of humour and when i die i expect to find him laughing.

[@cliveadams7629]

WLC didn't invent the Kalam or cosmological argument. It goes back centuries. He did what all apologists do, dressed it up a bit and sold it to the suckers as new and improved snake oil.

[@jakubosiejewski9859]

It's just the 'First Cause' of Thomas of Aquinas in 5th century AD. Evangelicals as always only read evangelicals.

[@ianchisholm5756]

WLC's version adds elements that aren't in the original version. Without any justification, he decides that the 'first cause' must be personal, powerful, and unaffected by space and time. Then he tells his Christian audience 'Well, that sounds a lot like God, doesn't it?'

[@ianchisholm5756]

@@0kwhat I teach philosophy at a UK university. I fully understand why WLC's assertions are neither justified nor valid.

[@ianchisholm5756]

The Kalam does not include a god in its premises or conclusion, therefore it cannot be an argument for the existence of a god. In order to argue for a god's existence, WLC adds a series of claims ('Whatever this cause was must be...') without any evidence or logical justification for these or for the existence of a necessary being, what it means for a being to be 'timeless, spaceless and immaterial' or how he he ascertained that it has a personal identity, effectively affixing personal speculation to the original syllogism. In order to bolster these claims, WLC needs to assert that both the B-theory of time and the theory of relativity are incorrect: he has not shown a logical or empirical method of demonstrating this. Finally, his argument rests on the notion that if his additional premises are correct, then the properties he has assigned to this 'timeless,spaceless, immaterial and immensely powerful' person are uniquely those of the god of the Bible. Setting aside the facts that the Bible does not appear to describe Yahweh/Jesus in such terms and that WLC has not yet shown that a first cause is actually necessary, this is begging the question ('I've heard of a particular god, and I have arbitrarily ascribed properties to a first cause which match my interpretation of that god, therefore that god must be the first cause') and a post hoc rationalisation ('I can make my god match Aristotle's criteria') which was originally adopted into in Abrahamic theology to argue for the necessity of the muslim god. WLC disregards the problem of underdetermination by assuming that his particular god is the first cause, when the properties he describes - if correct - could be those of any number of proposed deities. WLC's arguments can be used to assert the existence of any entity one chooses, but as they are logically fallacious and lacking in evidence, they can never constitute a valid and sound logical argument.

[@randyhodges8782]

You have a talent for clearing away nonsense. You're patient enough.

[@FrozEnbyWolf150]

The massive leap of logic between, "Therefore the universe had a cause," and, "The God of Abraham was the cause of the universe," is endlessly amusing. Apologists try to invent a category that can only include their God, and then shove God in there when nobody is looking, which is the question begging fallacy. In order to avoid this fallacy, you have to allow other things into the category. What if the universe was some kid's failed science experiment? What if the Big Bang was caused by the tantrum of a cosmic baby? What if the universe was sneezed (or other bodily function) into existence? Kalam is no different from any other creationist argument, and should be taken as seriously as Kent Hovind exclaiming, "No, I don't think so!"

[@maxdoubt5219]

Too true. It's an incongruous fit: the idea of an all-knowing, all-loving, totally superior god who gets angry again and again and if he doesn't kill you in one of his rages, he might curse you with a plague or acute hemorrhoids. 🤣

[@ClassicTrevorn0101]

@Aron Ra Your explanation of creationist fallacies is a breath of fresh air made precisely clear and consistent despite the lack of understanding in certain fields of study you still provide us with the basic tools to break down complex knowledge that is thoroughly conclusive and consice. 🙂👍

[@BallerDeep]

@Gargle Gager. Get the balls in there, too, don't miss a drop.

[@Kenneth-ts7bp]

Nope

[@bodan1196]

If God exist, the world is as it is. If God does not exist, the world is as it is. We can therefore conclude that God does not matter.

[@raptorcrasherinc.9823]

Fair point.

[@memegazer]

lol...fair point tbh It doesn't really matter if you believe in god or not imo I do...but in a weird kinda pascel's wager variation type of way imo if you don't believe in god, and that god does exists and decides your ultimate fate then either that god is rational or irrational if that god is rational then any lack of faith would be forgiven if that god did not demonstrate a rational proof to you individually...assuming that god is all loving then your lack of belief was no fault of your own in the absence of that proof if that god is irrational...just bc you believe and have faith does not mean that god will be forced by any standard of valid reasoning to spare anybody from some unsavory ultimate fate as a logical reward for their faith...an irrational god cannot be all loving...at least not if the burden it demands is for an irrational belief and worship such that there will be eternal punishment for any that refuse those terms

[@raptorcrasherinc.9823]

@@memegazer Very interesting point. You hold god to higher standards than most believers.

[@memegazer]

@@raptorcrasherinc.9823 I don't hold what I call god to any standard I just pray that if god exist...then that god is all loving and rational bc if not...well then it really does not matter what you try to do to appease

[@raptorcrasherinc.9823]

@@memegazer Makes sense.

[@robynsnest8668]

Puppies and Kittens after that intro of heavy riff. Finally a good thing about Sunday.

[@Nymaz]

I like to refer to the Kalam as the "asterisk" argument for God: Everything that exists must have a cause* *except for God he don't count

[@DarthStuticus]

Craig didn't invent it, though he did "refine" it. Still just as flawed, though flawed in a different way than the original

[@MLaak86]

Yeah, just added that 'begins to exist' to try to define away the inevitable "well what's God's cause?" response.

[@herbieshine1312]

Thank you as always Mr. Ra Looks like the grand dining room in the east wing of Ra mansions needs renovating!

[@jmg94j]

I'm surprised that William Lane Craig still uses the Kalam Cosmological Argument after Sean Carroll destroyed it in their debate.

[@soriacx]

Like every professional liar: when you get caught with the lie, don't change it, double down. Plus, Craig uses the Kalam mainly to convince the already convinced, and in a cult it's a rule that anything that opposes the cult, like facts or reality, is used to reinforce their perceived victim complex, so no actual need for him to change his lies.

[@lunasborednow]

That's funny. Assuming appologist ever change.

[@Julian0101]

As all 'arguments for god', he just ignored he got debunked and restated it again. When people remind him his debacle against sean carroll, he just name drop someone else, usually with the VKG theorem. When people remind him even the authors reject his interpretation, he just namedrops someone else. Rinse and repeat.

[@brunozeigerts6379]

The Kalam cosmological argument: God exists... because I say so! Does too, does too!

[@invaderhorizongreen8168]

To anyone who even thinks the universe was made for us, only ONE planet in our entire solar system we can safely for the most part inhabit. The next nearest one that might be is quite a long way away from us.

[@lurch666]

And only one third of that planet can be lived on by humans since we can't survive underwater.

[@Akira625]

I don’t know where people get the idea that the universe is made for us when nearly everything in it can kill us. We’re not even safe here on earth with all of the earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes. We could get eaten by a lion, crushed by an elephant, or bitten by a snake. And then there are all of the bacteria and viruses that killed us by the millions throughout our history, and we didn’t even know of their existence until after we invented the microscope. And then there’s the water covering most of the planet, most of which is saltwater that we can’t drink because it will wreck our kidneys and we will die in yet another horrible fashion.

[@Nymaz]

Heck you don't have to travel off Earth to question "made for us". Over 70 percent of the Earth is covered in a substance that would kill us if we spent 5 minutes under the surface of.

[@raptorcrasherinc.9823]

Well that is not entirely true. Venus and Mars could be hospitable if they had different atmospheric conditions. But you are right that there are lightyears between the 3 planets in our solar system that we could potentially live on and any others.

[@valentine7455]

​@@raptorcrasherinc.9823no, the distance isn't light years, but yeah, that's exactly the point, they'd take serious terraforming to be even possibly habitable

[@IshanDeston]

I like the 4D Manifold idea. That way you have an eternal, closed system where matter can infinitely expand and yet still on occasion meet up in a singularity. Then it's just a numbers game where Singularities every so often create livable circumstances until it drifted back to the heat death until one day they collide into a singularity again.

[@raptorcrasherinc.9823]

There are many different interesting theories about the universe's origin, fascinating stuff.

[@NatalieDeeCleyre]

Creation is a causal activity. Thus, in order to argue for the existence of a personal universe-creator, Kalam must appeal to absolute time in contradiction to the relational concept of time upon which it earlier depended as a basis for the case against the possibility of an eternal universe. Kalam cannot allow an actual infinity if it is to establish a sentient and creative First Cause in the first place. This is very typical of arguments for theism and creationism, a great deal of which can be summarized as follows: “There is a rule x which must always apply in order for our case to make sense. But it does not always apply, because we propose something that has permission to break the aforementioned rule and call it ‘God.’”

[@beammeupscotty3074]

Before a changeless form changed into a physical form of geometry, it had to exist as a changeless form of zero before it changed into the first form that existed in zero, as defined by physical laws. So, a non-physical scientific form of zero existed before a changing physical mathematical form existed in zero, as defined by mathematical forms of progression that exist in zero, (which is the undefined form or the endless mathematical vacuum )

[@biogopher]

The Kalam is my favorite because it falls flat on its face. With the law of conservation of mass and energy nothing begins to exist

[@r.i.p.volodya]

Interesting, informed and articulate, as always Aron.

[@r.i.p.volodya]

why must i be kidding? - i take it you're not a fan of aron...

[@davidbaillie7386]

AronRa, fantastic I could listen to you all day .

[@SigmaValence]

48 seconds ago? Never clicked on a video so fast. Hope you're doing well Aron.

[@paulfromcanada5267]

He’s fine just needs Jesus 😇

[@stefansmith4313]

​@@paulfromcanada5267in your deluded brain, meanwhile here in reality Ra is fine without religion.

[@herbieshine1312]

I thought I was quick clicking on it at 58 seconds after being uploaded! Damn my slow podgy sausage fingers!!😂😂

[@XPISigmaArt]

Right? Just what i needed for my drive home.

[@Jabbatic]

@@paulfromcanada5267You might be fine too, but you definitely need to develop a grip on reality and to grow out of playing with your imaginary, invisible friend.

[@insanetubegain]

The title is perfect💙

[@andrewjones6693]

I never did like the term "Big Bang". I'd rather think of it as a "Big Transformation" or "Big Transition" or better yet the "Big Rebirth". I think that what we call the Big Bang was not a beginning, but a changing of what the universe was to what we see it now as. The universe was never nothing. It is always something, but changes forms in cycles.

[@missk1697]

That's an old Buddhist idea iirc.

[@andrewjones6693]

@@missk1697 You may be right. I've watched so many of Aron's videos lately. I think he mentioned something similar. It even mentioned that some early thinkers said that the earth goes in 4.5 billion year cycles, which is spot on with the known age of the earth.

[@chrisyoung5929]

The term big bang was created by Fred Hoyle as a term of derision as he disagreed with the idea.

[@ProcInc]

The least accurate term in the label is "big." Technically, it's the smallest thing to have ever existed

[@cerealpeer]

the definition of time in an early enough universe leaves our meaning and concept of time meaningless. you can think of it like the asymptote time where t approaches 0 and ∆t or ∆e get so spacially warped such that there is no way to even define where you are in space which defines your change in energy, change in time, etc. there isnt physics as we know it in this space, and the fields that model how we understand space also just break down mathematically along some curve approaching zero. it could be that after that curve the universe parabolically retraces the algorithm of space as we know it, or it could warp into another kind of space along an s curve... or it could just approach zero and cease to exist as the tubular toroid where we get orbital geodesics that we can see with normal baryon distribution. we dont know.

[@alphanumericskeptic]

(9:00) Ah, ha, ha, ha! Excellent description, of something coming out of nothing! I've watched that occur so often in my time. When watching that happen, stick a metal spoon in the pan and drag the spoon on the bottom of the pan. The bubbles will form where the two metals have met. There's some usefull science around that experiment. I think it has something to do with magnetism. Just my 2¢... Great words AronRa!

[@pansepot1490]

Thunderf00t made a video on how and why bubbles form in boiling water. He used an electrical kettle though, if you have a transparent one you can see them “appear out of nothing” and float to the surface.

[@RichWoods23]

Bubble formation has nothing to do with magnetism. Try it with an aluminium pan and a copper spoon, or a pyrex bowl and a silicone spoon. You'll see the same thing as with an iron pan and a stainless steel spoon.

[@vaiyt]

The first problem of the kalam is that premise 1 defines "begin to exist" as how it normally happens - an uniqie arrangement of already existing materials - while premise 2 defines it as something appearing out of nothing, which has never been observed.

[@musicauthority674]

Aron Ra must put a deal of thought into his Atheism? because as a confirmed Atheist for many years. I can still learn some things in regards to Atheism from him. and I must thank him for that.

[@sthed6832]

Nice, succinct debunk of Kalam. I also enjoy that many of these people use the Big Bang to show that the universe began, and then go right back to their 6,000 year old universe creationist twaddle which negates the foundation of their argument.

[@randyhodges8782]

Please keep doing what you do.

[@perpetualpleasurist]

The Kalam is so goddamn stupid. Such a poor argument. Just an attempted dodge.

[@jens6754]

Good stuff, Aron!

[@dyamonde9555]

Was surprised Aron called him William Lane Craig, and not Low-Bar-Bill.

[@Dan_C604]

Great episode Aron! Not a single knowledge or truth has even been brought forward by religion and faith, nothing. Zero. Not a single contribution to human knowledge, not a single discovery, not a single development. With this background, religions should’ve disappeared long ago. And yet we still have it around us like a plague…..

[@Kenneth-ts7bp]

All knowledge is based on The Word of God.

[@Dan_C604]

@@Kenneth-ts7bp your “word of god” is just a collection of tales, stories and myths. Poetic at best, full of ignorance and bullshit most of it. No, your book is just shit.

[@Vintage-Bob]

@@Kenneth-ts7bp Actually, all knowledge is based on The Word of the Tooth Fairy.

[@Kenneth-ts7bp]

@@Vintage-Bob The Tooth Fairy still owes me money. Don't trust her!

[@Vintage-Bob]

@@Kenneth-ts7bp LMAO! Good one!

[@arcvidelos8008]

"The key to Causation is in the effect." " If you would know the unknown, observe carefully the known. "- the Zohar. Really appreciate your work, Aron, thanks.

[@celestialsatheist1535]

Absolutely love these educational videos. By the way aron can you do something on the fine tuning argument?

[@glebealyth]

Premise 1: Let us assume an eternal, uncreated god exists. Premise 2: Assume that the current universe is the only one - because why would god create two of them? Premise 3: Assume that causality is necessary. Conclusion: The christian god exists. Perfick!

[@Katy_Jones]

They never notice this works for the Flying Spaghetti Monster too...

[@glebealyth]

@@Katy_Jones Insert deity of choice!

[@grapeshot]

Yeah, I see no evidence of an invisible sky wizard. Christian ,Jew, Islamic, or any of the Pagan deities. Or any of the Eastern religions, by that matter.

[@JesterSatans]

Thor said he would rid earth of all the ice giants. Do you see any ice giants?

[@grapeshot]

​@JesterSatans there was also supposed to have been a global flood but all the evidence in science says that didn't happen.

[@grapeshot]

@karldubhe8619 Just like you can prove there's a genocidal maniac in the sky that got himself nailed to a cross.

[@grapeshot]

@karldubhe8619 there's no proof that neither one of those entities ever existed. That whole giant and dragon legend thing more than likely came from our ancestors finding dinosaur bones and not knowing what they were looking at.

[@Disentropic1]

@karldubhe8619 Well, narcissists get a lot of mileage out of pointing to sky Hitler to be fair.

[@nooneatall5612]

Craig did not invent the kalam, it's been around for centuries, he just modified it and has his version of it that is equally insane.

[@simongiles9749]

Low Bar Bill added the "begins to exist" part to give special pleading for his god.

[@MageGrayWolf]

Slight correction. William Lame Craig didn't invent this argument, he revised it.

[@polycera8570]

Nicely done, Aron. You're bound to have upset William Lane Craig for taking away his favourite chew toy.

[@queuecee]

WLC's Kalam has been debunked over and over by many people. The flaws are all obvious. But WLC ultimately doesn't care. Like a lot of the trolls here, they will just "nuh-uh" their way through.

[@SuperStrik9]

Great video. Thanks for doing what you do Aron. 👍

[@ChipArgyle]

I like to sum it up this way: you can't argue your god into existence.

[@theoutspokenhumanist]

When monotheism was invented, men were not sophisticated enough in their thinking to see the inherent problem. If there is only one god, then the very presence of other religions with different characteristics for that god renders the concept invalid. Every argument for a single god simply presumes that the god in question is their particular god but in no way can that be verified, or even cogently argued. This means that the same argument may be equally applied to every version of the monotheistic god, rendering said argument redundant.

[@drsatan9617]

Well said

[@DoctorOnkelap]

I especially liked when he said the singularity is made out of infinities.

[@AronRa]

An infinitely hot infinite mass that might have existed for eternity.

[@DoctorOnkelap]

@@AronRa Even better, a singularity in a black hole contains infinities NOW. The mass is compressed into a single point so the density is infinite and many calculations lead to infinity within singularities too.

[@romazone101]

Hail to the only one true God, the almighty ALGORITHM.

[@riparianlife97701]

Evangelicals to me: YOU'RE GOING TO HELL FOR NOT LOVING JESUS!!! Evangelicals to Israel: Want some more free nukes? It's no trouble.

[@Awakened_Mucacha]

It is the imaginary friend equal to my dad can beat your dad.

[@Tenebris_Sint]

I love it when Christians cite the Kalam (an Islamic argument) in vain attempt to ground Christianity.

[@chefchaudard3580]

It was in fact posited by Aristotle, refined by the 13th century apologist Thomas of Aquinas.

[@Tenebris_Sint]

@@chefchaudard3580 That version isn’t what’s presented here or generally speaking, otherwise it wouldn’t be called the “Kalam.” Either way, it’s a non-Christian argument often cited by presup Christians.

[@chefchaudard3580]

@@Tenebris_Sint agreed. But Aristotle was not a Christian and Muslims extensively relied on Greek philosophy in the Middle Ages. Hence the « Kalam ». The Christian version was one of Thomas Aquinas « five ways » . The difference being that, contrary to Aristotle who though that the world existed for all eternity, Aquinas, like Muslim philosophers, believed it was created by God, so started at some stage. It was revised recently by William Lane Graig, who amended it (adding the « begin » in the first premise, as to exclude the option of an infinite past)

[@Tenebris_Sint]

@@chefchaudard3580 I know all that… it’s called the Kalam for a reason, not the “Aristotelian”… just like Islam is based on Judaism and Christianity, but is not Christianity or Judaism. The Kalam is specifically a Muslim version of the argument. WLC doesn’t use Aristotle’s version, he uses Kalam’s version, ergo Christians are using an Islamic, not Greek pagan argument.

[@lunasborednow]

Ahh the Kalam... failing every single premise and still not leading to a god...

[@ultrademigod]

On a side note Islam also says that if you die a slave in service of a Muslim master you will continue to serve them for eternity in the next life/realm.

[@sgtbrown4273]

If you want to see the fruits of religion, just take a look at what's going on over in Israel and the Gaza strip. 😂 Love yah, Aron

[@simongiles9749]

Weeeellllll .... yes, religion plays a role, but much like Northern Ireland, it's as much about geopolitics as anything. The religious element adds another reason for both sides to refuse to sit down and actually try to resolve the damn situation without trying to wipe each other out, though.

[@Disentropic1]

@@simongiles9749 No it isn't. What's the geopolitical explanation?

[@simongiles9749]

@@Disentropic1 Er, Balfour Declaration?

[@Disentropic1]

@@simongiles9749 "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." You're saying that this paragraph explains the perpetual killing and hatred we see? Just "as much" as the belief that Jesus will return once the Palestinians are genocided? I don't think so.

[@simongiles9749]

@@Disentropic1 Whete did you get the idea that I thought it was one simple reason? Of course it's not, only a moron would think that.

[@Gfish17]

While I Like the idea of gods and supernatural I don't actually believe it 😂

[@alphanumericskeptic]

Doreen Dotan explains a similar view to your view. Although of course she believes in a single God. Doreen is Jewish, and lives in Tsfat Israel. She says that God does not exist. She says that God created existence. This message is in her video titled: The Rabbis Got It All Wrong - starting at (four minute zero seconds) in the video timeline. Thanks, AronRa! Love your views and deep analysis on the subjects presented in your videos. Wonderous indeed!

[@patnewbie2177]

Philosophy Engineered (formerly known as AntiCitizenX) has the best takedown of the cosmological argument.

[@jackskellingtonsfollower3389]

Here's one you might find some interest in by 'Answers In Genesis' channel. "Aliens: Is it WRONG for Christians to believe in them?" They bring up evolution throughout. I just watched it. It's a mess 😄

[@lower_case_t]

Everything in this bucket is water. Therefore, the bucket must be made of water.

[@Disentropic1]

I don't understand... Unless you're arguing that god exists (he's the bucket, so he doesn't have to follow the proposed consistency)?

[@lower_case_t]

@@Disentropic1 The Kalam starts with the proposition that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Which is already wrong, because everything is a result of all the events in the universe that lead to it's current state at any given time. There is no single cause for anything. But even if you grant that proposition, the conclusion that something that is true for everything inside a container (the water, stuff within the universe) must also be true for the container itself (bucket, universe) is sheer nonsense.

[@Disentropic1]

@@lower_case_t Okay, except I don't love the analogy because I think the universe is just the sum of the water, it's not something separate. Despite the fact that it's just the sum of the water, it doesn't follow that water-water relationships have the same properties as water-external relationships. Trying to say the properties generalize from parts of something to the whole is called the fallacy of composition (from Aristotle).

[@pjosephlthewonder5082]

When one has to create more lies to make the failures in an old fable book more and more believable, the more I believe the Cat in the Hat is fact. I mean when on e fabel is as good a another then any old fable will do. Maybe Harry Potter is a better choice, there the magic is about the magic, not some dusty old narcissist ghost in the sky. Aron, once again you you have shown there is truth to be understood. Peace

[@Duchess_Van_Hoof]

Long before I knew of logical fallacies and technicalities, I reacted to the bait and switch from "a vague alien super-intelligence" to "this highly specific deity adhering to a specific doctrine". It is a very obvious thing.

[@PaulTheSkeptic]

It seems obvious that you can't just be clever and prove God. That's not a problem with how clever they are. It's a problem with the nature of the thing they're trying to prove. A thing that is not seen, needed or even indicated.

[@rhecb]

WLC is an interesting case in cognitive dissonance. He clings to Kalam and the alleged “witness of the holy spirit “ but his later writings betray a departure from orthodoxy

[@Leroy-gg5qg]

Right right ❤

[@hicetnunc1129]

"Whenever I struggle with something, I look for the experts." Now really, Aron, what kind of old-fashioned thinking is that? Nowadays we scream over experts unless they specifically hold our viewpoint.

[@roberth721]

Well that's not really new.

[@soriacx]

Ah, come on, it's not always this way, some very sophisticated people go the rocky way: search on YT until you find the video that supports your viewpoint. It's sophisticated because it requires more work than just sitting there and defend the viewpoint WITH SHEER VOLUME AND AT LEAST 20 REPOSTS!!!!!!!

[@hicetnunc1129]

@@roberth721 Good point

[@josephheston9238]

William Lane Craig? You mean Low-Bar Bill?

[@joelonsdale]

Whatever exists has a cause OR an array of contributory causes or maybe something we couldn't honestly understand as a cause...

[@lurch666]

Have you ever seen anything begin to exist?

[@missk1697]

​@@lurch666I really hope it's a sarcasm

[@joelonsdale]

@@lurch666 Have you?

[@lurch666]

@@joelonsdale Of course not. If you had thought about it for a second you would realize no one has ever seen anything begin to exist. So how can you know everything that exists has a cause?

[@joelonsdale]

@@lurch666 Read my original comment more carefully and you might realise I'm arguing against there being a "cause". I've re-read my original comment to check it's clarity, and it is perfectly clear, so slow down, read more carefully and don't be so aggressive.

[@davidwatson2399]

Cleaning up after the wanna believers is like standing at the back of a bull, no matter how often you shovel, the bullshit keeps flowing.

[@renesoucy3444]

Power and Domination are not fallacies, they can make you say whatever they want and that’s the game, isn’t it? You can dare the Dragon if you want, you have their licences in your wallet and you can sing on either side of the open sea all you want, they still run the show…

[@thekaxmax]

The fallacy in both cases is Appeal To Authority. And at least one other.

[@renesoucy3444]

They don’t appeal to authority, they got it!

[@renesoucy3444]

Tribalism is the reality of those talks, a power struggle, a biological process, generically induced fight for domination. Honestly…

[@michaelpudney]

If the universe is cyclical then we may appear again in our space time slot as part of the wave shape of the oscillation to live our life over and over with each oscillation. This idea is put out there in the movie K PAX.

[@dragonhealer7588]

I was never aware the Kalam cosmological argument posited a specific entity, much less a specific God.

[@patriklindholm7576]

Special pleading conforms with unspecified reasons.

[@thomasseichter5670]

There is probably no creator, but we know there is KREATOR!

[@mazikeensmith2606]

Hell yeah! Saw KREATOR in Saarbrücken, Germany on March 18th, 2023!!! Awesome concert!!!🤘🎸🔥🤘🥰

[@THUGGO773]

I'm curious to know about all the other fallacies

[@BertrandLeRoy]

Pretty good for someone outside of their area of expertise :)

[@algi1]

Any statement with "everything that" in it should cause suspicion. "Every X" is not necessarily a collectivizing statement, especially if they use natural language like "began to exist". Set theory doesn't allow any kind of set. PS. Eg. is the set of all things that began to exist a thing itself that began to exist?

[@firefly4f4]

Just a quick aside, although this is nitpicking to the extreme: "4th dimension inflating 3 dimensional space-time" I think you meant a 5th dimension, since space-time is already 4 dimensions.

[@AronRa]

Did I forget to say "spatial"?

[@Father_Veteran_Gamer_Artist]

God is all-powerful except for when he's not. 😂

[@empurress77]

If there actually were a god they would have to have said "Let there be darkness" to create the universe. 👈😎

[@aemiliadelroba4022]

The Kalam argument was originally a Muslim respond to criticism of Islam …. It has faults , it assumes many things as facts and creates nonsense to explain something or nothing .

[@EdwardHowton]

Carl Sagan had an answer for all the excuses commonly used to special-plead away criticism like that which utterly vaporizes the Kalaam nonsense. "Why not save a step?" I don't remember the exact wording of the context and I won't bore people with looking up and copy/pasting the specifics, but it's such an elegant put-down of religion as a whole. It's exactly like the "I don't believe in one more god than you" definition of atheists. Which, really, is what all rejection of atheism boils down to. Instead of constantly having to come up with mutually-exclusive and increasingly absurd excuse-making to prop up belief in a divine sky-crane, why not save a step and just remark that the garden is beautiful without assuming there are also fairies in it.

[@Disentropic1]

I thought you were going to teach me something, but then you said you wouldn't bore me with the details. :(

[@andykeating791]

Respect to you Aaron. Banging your head against a brick wall trying to point out the absurdity of believing in supernatural beings to those who have been brainwashed by there churches. Must drive you insane.

[@robertomuniz5721]

wait. the presentism/eternalism thing are actually philosophical ideas and not something made up by Warframe. My God

[@MLaak86]

Oh yeah, there's some truly fascinating 'philosophical' concepts around - it's just a shame philosophy is so often abused by people, who're dedicated to an idea, so they can just keep arguing the same basic concepts and lines until you run out of patience and they declare victory whether they ever explained their position and or dealt with objections to it.

[@chefchaudard3580]

The beauty is that quantum physics demonstrated recently that things can cause each other.A can cause B AND B can cause A. The universe may have caused itself.

[@Disentropic1]

Not so sure about that. Why would quantum physics apply to a domain external to the universe? If it posits that things within the universe may cause one another, I don't see how that tells us about the universe's relationship to causality. Seems like we shouldn't posit that it has one, and that causality is instead just a property of the universe.

[@chefchaudard3580]

@@Disentropic1 i completely agree with you, but… the purpose of the Kalam for Christians is to posit the necessity of the existence of a « first cause » that preceded everything (their God creating the universe). Even if we grant them that « causality » applies to the existence of the universe, quantum physics shows that this « first cause » may have been several causes that caused themselves, with no need to add the unnecessary existence of a creating God in the equation.

[@Disentropic1]

@@chefchaudard3580 Lol alright I mean you can defeat the argument for God as many ways as you like it's obviously superfluous at some point though, either people pay attention to the arguments or they don't and that's all it comes down to.

[@TalonCain]

If you're looking for a way to think about how the 4th dimension might interact with 3D space, I recommend Flatland by Edwin A Abbott.

[@Obeijin]

My god can beat up your god ...

[@cloudshifter756]

Can't create anything out of nothing God bang it Big Bang! aronra exist 😊

[@exceptionallyaverage3075]

Only religious superstitionists claim something can come from nothing.

[@fomori2]

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is also unsound. That has not, nor cannot, be proven. The problem is with the word "everything". It is entirely possibly that there is something that begins to exist uncaused that we have not observed or do not know about yet. Just because everything we have observed beginning to exist having a cause does not logically follow that EVERYTHING does as well. You could change it to 'Everything we observed beginning to exist has a cause', but then it doesnt serve the purpose of a theist, so they cannot be honest about it.

[@DoctorOnkelap]

Every time a theist mentions ANY detail, they are lying/deluded and they skipped several steps already.

[@user-fu9uj7gr4u]

Hi Aron you have beautiful hair cut it in layers and blow dry it you would look great and it seems that some people need a rude awakening and you allways phone it in for all you do thanks and much love

[@aemiliadelroba4022]

It seems to me that God has evolved ! I mean new attributes and abilities! So is God constant or fluid !?

[@Desertphile]

Eternal inflation means an infinite number of universes that have always existed, with an infinite number of new universes being formed at any moment. I presume that the universe I find myself within is the extrusion of a black hole from another universe much like the one I am in.

[@beammeupscotty3074]

Before a changeless form changed into a physical form of geometry, it had to exist as a changeless form of zero before it changed into the first form that existed in zero, as defined by physical laws. So, a non-physical scientific form of zero existed before a changing physical mathematical form existed in zero, as defined by mathematical forms of progression that exist in zero, (which is the undefined form or the endless mathematical vacuum )

[@jasonswearingin1009]

I sometimes wonder that supermassive blackholes like supermassive stars can reach a point of such density that they achieve supercritical mass. When supermassive stars do this depending on their mass can create nova supernova and hypernova. If a supermassive blackhole was to attain so much mass that the nuclear forces pushing out overcame the gravitational force pushing in what would the result be?

[@michaelbuick6995]

It would be impossible. Simply put, it would be a bomb. The nuclear force winning out over gravity would cause it to rapidly expand. I have no idea what the energy released would be, but I suspect it would make the brightest quasars look like fireflies. Although as I said it would be physically impossible because the expansion would have to occur faster than the speed of light. It would mean material could cross *back* over the event horizon. The reason a black hole forms in the first place, as opposed to say becoming a neutron star, is precisely because with enough mass compressed to a small enough volume gravity wins out over all other forces. Once you compress mass to within it's Schwarzchild radius, there is no force in the universe that can prevent (or reverse) the collapse.

[@hokiturmix]

According to Sean Carrol the topic of the beginning of the universe is mostly interesting for creationist believers. I don't like when he answers religious questions. Funny how Craig or Peterson want to put words into the mouth of Penrose who considered as a """rebel""". Another thing I like when Sean C say that the observer effect can not be included in the equations because there is no such value. So only the interaction matters. He can't add any number to consciousness.

[@theflyingdutchguy9870]

i never understood why people think of the kalam cosmological argument to be one of the best arguments for God, never mind christianity or any specific denomination. i still think one of the better arguments is the God of the gaps. at least there are things we dont know. and even tho the God of the gaps is not a good argument. i think its one of the better arguments they have because at least it assumes and pretends to know what isnt known. but doesnt ignore what we do know. and doesnt make big jumps like the kalam does.

[@niblick616]

The 'god' of the gaps is not an argument in the sense the Kalam is. It demonstrates just how absurd all 'god' ideas are by factually describing how all 'god' ideas steadily vanish into the gaps in our knowledge as science and our knowledge steadily progresses.

[@MLaak86]

Glad to see this being shredded for the appalling bad bit of 'philosophy' that it is as well as how believers citing it ignore ANY observational or philosophical point you mention that is at least inconvenient for it... I mean of course that's how they ALWAYS act with all their assertions that they pretend are explanations or proof but you know what I mean.

[@mrapistevist]

"Kalamitous" 😂😂

[@memegazer]

Hey Aron Ra what was that intro music?

[@MartinJames389]

Not quite. Deists asserted that there must once have been a god, an initial creator, but found no evidence of continued presence, or even continued existence, of this god, whatever it was. So they assumed it to be dead or otherwise absent. Deism was a strong influence in the founding of the USA, through such people as Tom Paine and, arguably, Thomas Jefferson. Ben Franklin also identified as a Deist, but said he was a Christian in personal morality. Little of Deism survived the understanding of evolution from the 1860s onwards, let alone later developments in cosmology, but there are still a few Deists around. Even someone as late as Neil Armstrong identified as a Deist and resisted attempts by others to describe him as a Christian.

[@BradReddekopp]

I tend to be a bit nick-picky. I don't think it's quite accurate to give Craig the credit (or blame) for the argument. He certainly produced the modern formulation of it but the argument has a very long history. I do like your analysis of the argument, though.

[@Seoras111]

Unfortunately human concepts like "existing", "infinite", "event", "cause", "effect", "before", "after" and even "size" all need there to be the factor of time and for time to have a direction. In a singularity that only contains energy these concepts are meaningless. This is also why Roger Penrose suggests that once the last proton in the universe decays and only photons are left (i.e. energy), then, because photons all travel at the speed of light, time disappears and the size of the universe therefore becomes meaningless. The universe will once more be indistinguishable from a singularity. No Big Crunch required in that scenario. Furthermore, there is the issue of explaining "continuity" of a universe when it is not possible to observer the universe form the outside. We are part of the universe, any "discontinuity" that happens inside it will discontinue the ability for us to observe it. So for example, if the universe was oscillating between Big Bang and Big Crunch, it is again meaningless to state that our Big Bang was "preceded" by a Big Crunch. Unfortunately our brains have evolved to only apprehend what is needed to succeed as a species, so it is impossible to for us to comprehend this.

[@Disentropic1]

What is it with Penrose, anyway? What is he trying to do? He says a lot of out-there stuff without going full anti-science, like he's trying to be provocative, or at least philosophical. I put him in a separate category from both mainstream scientists and charlatans, but he treads awfully close to Deepak territory most of the time.

[@ChristyReedyFamily]

What happened to the last video covering Guardians of the Galaxy 3 making Atheists the villain?

[@AronRa]

It was not well received.

[@ChristyReedyFamily]

@@AronRa The Atheist community should be allowed to talk about it & make good points, just as they have religious freedom.

[@celestialsatheist1535]

Wait what?!. Care to explain