The Hardest Questions on the Kalam Cosmological Argument

Dr. Craig answers a range of tough inquiries regarding the kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God.
Special thanks to Nemanja Jurišić and NT Podkast Serbia for this interview.
For more resources visit: www.reasonable...
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonable...
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains short clips: / drcraigvideos
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Fan Page: / reasonablefaithorg

[@elijah11162]

I must admit, I'm tired of hearing the same baby objections over and over. So I'm very grateful for this. Thanks Reasonable Faith

[@bencausey]

If you haven’t watched any of Joe Schmidt’s objections, check him out.

[@elijah11162]

@@bencausey thanks, I'll check it out!

[@HarryNicNicholas]

the kalam has been shown, by nobel winning physicists, to be false. skydivephil has done a bunch of videos including people like roger penrose and alex vilenkin and alan guth debunking the kalam, we should not have to have these debates anymore, it's only religists who refuse to accept they are wrong.

[@rosamorales729]

@@bencauseySchmidt is terrible. His objections are a joke.

[@rosamorales729]

@@elijah11162Don’t waste your time. Schmidt is just another low tier secularist troll.

[@christopherlees1134]

Craig is still sharp as ever.

[@shassett79]

He certainly waves his hands as well as ever!

[@HarryNicNicholas]

yep - blunt.

[@rosamorales729]

@@HarryNicNicholasBlunt is the opposite of sharp. But someone as blunt as you wouldn’t understand what I’m saying.

[@shassett79]

@@rosamorales729 #thatWasTheJoke

[@delaliy545]

Craig is my man, the lord has Craig around in this mordern era for specific reasons. His mind is greatly appreciated amongst the people searching for answers to non believers. Also i would like to say that the certain people are known by one name only... Bird Magic, Jordan Michael, Craig, Moses etc...lol

[@horridhenry9920]

Apart from you, who calls him Craig? Usually he’s referred to as William Lane Craig or WLC . More recently he’s known as LBB( Low Bar Bill).

[@HarryNicNicholas]

craig is a laughing stick - low bar bill - desperate for god. stop using religious propaganda channel to get your science.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@horridhenry9920 craig is insane, he says it's okay to drown babies cos they were naughty, and that it's all made good cos they go straight to be with god - so apparently craig says sinners go to heaven now.

[@rosamorales729]

@@HarryNicNicholasYour lies are pathetic.

[@rosamorales729]

@@horridhenry9920”Low Bar Bill” almost sounds like a high praise compared to “Horrid Henry” But at least your name checks out! 😂😂😂

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Dr Craig, please make more appearances on Capturing Christianity ! Brother needs us to support his channel. I don’t work for or even know him; I wasn’t asked to say this. God bless

[@HarryNicNicholas]

the kalam has been shown, by nobel winning physicists, to be false. skydivephil has done a bunch of videos including people like roger penrose and alex vilenkin and alan guth debunking the kalam, we should not have to have these debates anymore, it's only religists who refuse to accept they are wrong. bertuzzi has become a sell out with all his exorcism videos, he's just desperate for money.

[@blessenjohn300]

​@@HarryNicNicholasall that has been debunked & adequately replied by Craig. Gullible atheist like you are living in a bubble

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@HarryNicNicholasCraig has done a four part series responding to that documentary.

[@bobmiller5009]

Craig what advice can you give to one who wants to take apologetics seriously to the text level!!! Please share please 🙏 “trying to make an apologetics youtube channel”

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

If you mean personal growth in apologetics, then we highly recommend completing the free courses on our EQUIP platform: knowwhyyoubelieve.org/. That's a good foundation. Then, you dive into more scholarly treatments of these topics through Dr. Craig's articles and books, or perhaps pursuing a degree in apologetics or philosophy of religion from a reputable Christian university. If you mean ministry growth, then it depends on what kind of ministry it is. If it's a KZbin channel, then you'll want to make videos with excellent apologetics content, excellent video and audio quality, good lighting, something unique that helps the channel stand out, new content on a regular basis, and promotion of the videos by posting on other platforms. You'll also want to network with others in the apologetics community, perhaps by becoming a Reasonable Faith chapter director or joining online apologetics groups. - RF Admin

[@bobmiller5009]

@@ReasonableFaithOrg thank you

[@valinorean4816]

@@ReasonableFaithOrg There are consistent past-eternal cosmological models, for example the reference eighteen in the rationalwiki article about William Lane Craig speculates that there could be two waves approaching each other, since forever, and when they collided, (big) bang. In this case, the entropy does not increase when an object is passively moving through space (that's easy to understand: if you move with it, then you see nothing at all happening), so in this model the entropy stays constant until shortly before the bb and only starts increasing a finite time ago, even though the Universe in this model is eternal. What's wrong with that? How do you know that something like that model is wrong? (If by any chance something like that is true, the Universe was not created!)

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

@@valinorean4816 The same issues attend such a model as other past eternal models, namely that an actual infinity via successive addition is impossible. Before the waves collide at time t, they must traverse some distance d. Before they traverse d, they must first traverse d-1. Before d-1, they must traverse d-2, and so forth. So, as one extrapolates backwards in time, the waves get pushed ever-farther apart unendingly. If the waves are past-eternal, then they could never collide because they would have to traverse an actually infinite distance. - RF Admin

[@valinorean4816]

​@@ReasonableFaithOrg 1) Philosophy aside, Dr Craig clearly says in the video, timestamp 18 minutes, that there is a non-philosophical, physical issue with every single such model - apparently, he doesn't know that there is this new model (it's a preprint on arXiv) which really is physically and mathematically consistent, can you please inform him of that? (Don Page, George Ellis, and Avi Loeb find it interesting, for example - among physicists, and among non-physicists so does the host of "Closer to Truth") 2) Let's simplify and consider just just a quiet empty space sitting there, without much happening, forever. No beginning or end. No contradiction. Or is there? (I think you're implicitly assuming they are travelling from some "point at infinity", but there is just no such thing,) If you're sure that this is impossible then logically no physical arguments are even needed! But I didn't see any problem? If the past is infinite, it has always been infinite! Yes, the distance between waves increases as you go into the past, but it's different at different times - basically, it's like a burning fuse counting the time until the big explosion, you can even say, big bang :)

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Would love to see a Craig vs Morriston debate on Cameron’s channel

[@Mentat1231]

Even though I think it's a ridiculous response to the Kalam, I do wish the "Unsatisfiable Pair" objection had been brought up so Craig could deal with it.

[@alphaomega1089]

Something always existed. This creates everything. Hard concept to accept but the only logical axiom that explains the universe.

[@elijah11162]

Yay! We're finally gonna hear some good objections.

[@MeganDelacroix]

Nope, just very repetitive ones.

[@elijah11162]

@@MeganDelacroix you don't think any good objections were made in this interview?

[@MeganDelacroix]

@@elijah11162 No. And it was annoying to watch because the interviewer didn't seem to understand the answers, or even the _questions,_ so he'd just move on to the next one in his pile even though poor Dr Craig had already answered it.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@MeganDelacroixagreed. P1 seems obvious to the point that its negation isn’t even worth engaging. That said, I wish WLC would make use of Feser’s 2017 defense of PSR in support of it. The real issue is p2, and there I think we can have reasonable disagreements.

[@elijah11162]

@@MeganDelacroix yeah, I agree it seemed like the guy wasn't engaging with Craig's answers much. But I wasn't annoyed by that because it's just an opportunity for me to think about how I would strengthen the objection and how I would then answer it. I don't watch interviews expecting them to feed me the best questions and best answers. That would be a consumerist attitude toward education, which I don't judge anyone for, but I personally avoid. If I allow the video to simply be a tool for stimulating my own thoughts, I can have a positive learning experience regardless of whether a nameless interviewer guy has personal understanding of the topics.

[@DonswatchingtheTube]

The big-bang theory is breaking down. We are seeing maturity all over. It's a case of over extrapolating a motion to a greater picture. The planets seem to me to be created more or less in situ.

[@Unbathed]

I. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. II. The universe is made of energy. ∴ The universe did not begin to exist.

[@dylanjamesotf]

lol… are you serious?

[@dylanjamesotf]

We don’t even know what energy is… it’s certainly not known that the universe is made of energy. We know that energy exists “in” the universe. That’s a huge difference. Second, there’s also a difference between an open and closed system.. so… you’re out to lunch bud

[@tisajokt7676]

@@dylanjamesotf if we're considering the entirety of the universe, then the system is closed and the intuitive notion of conservation of energy applies; there is no larger system to be "open" to, since by definition we're already talking about the full domain of reality

[@noelcruz6226]

@Unbathed ... Energy Conservation Law establish that in a closed system (Like our Universe) the quantity of energy stays the same, not that it is infinite and thus without a cause. Certainly there is no infinite energy on the Universe. What the law means is, that the quantity that the universe has today is the same quantity that it had when it was created. It doesn't mean that it has always existed and forever will. The physical laws establish energy can't be created or destroyed, but those are the laws of physics, the laws that we can formulate to try to explain and understand physical quantification and naturalistic processes. Now, If you presupose or supose or deduct or infere that there could be metaphysical laws that are above and beyond the physical ones... Well... In theory there could be a past creation of the Total Energy in The System at the same time and perhaps a future destruction of it at the same time also... Some will call it... A GOD prerrogative...

[@alexp8924]

“it seems to me” isn’t a reason to think that something is true.

[@ScienceFoundation]

The KCA remains special pleading. If the universe began to exist, the principles therein also began to exist and cannot be applied. You don't get to exempt causality from beginning to exist just because you need it for your argument.

[@jpbrooks2]

@ScienceFoundation doesn't the idea that everything (including causation) could have come into existence without being caused, suggest that our universe could be self-sustaining for no ultimate reason? If so, it is not clear how that view of reality would be superior to Craig's Theism. JPB

[@haushofer100]

These kinds of argument are why many theoretical physicists are sceptical towards philosophy.

[@wmarkfish]

Beer and Beethoven is a good combination.

[@midimusicforever]

God created the Universe!

[@HarryNicNicholas]

there is no god. demonstrate this god please cos i'm tired of you lot making claims about fairy tales and expecting me to live by your laws - you need more than "trust me bro" to make laws.

[@gregorylatta8159]

So much for Calvinism.

[@CynHicks]

Even if material always existed or came about from the "laws," the concept of "things" is enough consider.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

deep. not.

[@overknox6558]

Really? 50 question about causality and he just keeps asking? We get it, Kalam is pretty much impermeable unless you question the principles basic logic. NEXT

[@endofnight]

Anybody here follow the work of Bernardo Kastrup or Donald Hoffman?

[@cogitoergosum3433]

The issue of bicycles etc coming into being has been firmly refuted over a decade ago. What is truly odd here is that Craig is perfectly happy to make similar arguments about Boltzmann brains, which presumably he considers to be not only probabilistically possible but likely. That is to say he is happy to entertain a Boltzmann brain that is infinitely more complex than a bicycle. This is nothing short of bizarre.

[@user-lj3ku5yd1h]

I honestly find jimmy Akins critique pretty solid so I’m not sure how I feel about this argument. Either way I believe God created everything!

[@HarryNicNicholas]

there is no god. demonstrate this god please cos i'm tired of you lot making claims about fairy tales and expecting me to live by your laws - you need more than "trust me bro" to make laws.

[@nathanpettijohn3236]

Interesting. I hold the other perspective on this one, but it would be very interesting to discuss. My understanding of Akin's argument is as follows. Please let me know if I am missing something. :) If I remember correctly, he posited 2 primary reasons for discounting the philosophical defense of the Kalam. The first was that God can do anything with the exception of that which bears logical contradiction and is thus not logically possible (ie married bachelor). An actual infinite doesn't bear logical contradiction and is thus logically possible. Thus, God could bring about an actual infinite. 2nd God being timeless would experience our eternal future as an actual infinite. Akin then used that to show that an actually infinite already exists in God's experience and thus an actually infinite past would cause no real problem at least for God. Are those represented accurately? That is basically how I understood them. God bless! I am a Christian too btw. It's great to see you are giving these thought also. Have a blessed week man.

[@eusuntaici]

What is Kalam anyway? A google search is further confusing, since it suggests a concept in Islam, which I doubt Dr.Craig intended.

[@forgiven_lee]

Kalam was a Muslim theologian. Dr. Craig brought the concept from him for the existence of the Creator not as the Christian God.

[@shassett79]

​@@forgiven_lee Kalam wasn't person; it's a shortened version of the name of a Muslim apologetic tradition that started around 1000 CE. And to be fair, Craig wastes no time rushing straight to the Christian god after talking through the syllogism. I'd love to hear what those ancient Muslim scholars would think of Craig and his claims...

[@forgiven_lee]

@@shassett79 thank you for the exact info. I misunderstood.

[@RaymondTT]

​@@shassett79this argument is not supposed to reach a specific God. Craig is clear about that. Other considerations are needed to find if this cause is deistic, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu or other.

[@shassett79]

@@RaymondTT I'm aware, but it's still the case that Craig inevitably handwaves away all other potential creators in favor of the Christian god immediately after offering the syllogism. He's not trying to prove a creator in a vacuum and everyone knows it.

[@tisajokt7676]

Kalam really, _really_ annoys me 10:53 It is equally as unproblematic to claim that time never began to exist, and always has been & always will be, thus rejecting premise II. The common appeal to the absence of "real/actual infinities" to reject this notion always comes from the absurdity of infinite matter in space, or infinite events in a finite amount of time, but really doesn't apply to time itself. It's like if we have a discrete grid with discrete time steps, we can see that only finitely objects can exist in a finite space (Hilbert's hotel cannot exist), we can see only finitely many events can happen in a finite time duration (Thompson's lamp), but the intuitions we gain from seeing those evident facts has nothing to say (or ought have nothing to say) about the cardinality of time itself. We could just as easily construct a hypothetical world where time _is_ finite, and yet infinitely many things happen involving infinitely many objects in every finite space. They are separate contexts! It really drives me up a wall, there seem to be so many damn holes in this argument jumping out at every possible angle, much like the ontological argument, but so many of them don't ever get mentioned even in critical discourse w/ atheists. I just... I think I need a break, I'm pausing at 13:38 and maybe future me will pick up from there

[@thinkingchristian]

Suppose you grant that time never began to exist (though I should point out the Big Bang is often cast as the beginning of time itself). I should mention this kind of eternity is discussed in Craig's book Time and Eternity and defended by guys such as Richard Swinburne. In this case time exists outside of the universe; prior (logically) to it. However this still doesn't solve the problem of why matter and energy seem to just come into being at a given point in time; in fact I think it makes the problem worse. Furthermore, claiming there can be a hypothetical world where "infinitely many things happen involving infinitely many objects in every finite space" presupposes that infinity is a coherent concept; that an infinite number of objects existing is a logical possibility; that infinities can exist. Why think this? I think there are plenty of reasons to be doubtful of infinities existing, such as Torricelli's trumpet and Banach-Tarski's paradox.

[@DartNoobo]

Time as we know it doesn't exist without mass and energy. Mass and energy has a beginning. So start over with your argument.

[@tisajokt7676]

@DartNoobo citation needed? Time is only a useful concept in the context of mass and energy yeah, but to my knowledge there's nothing preventing time from "existing" without mass and energy

[@DartNoobo]

@@tisajokt7676 ok, give me a definition of time that is not dependent on material universe

[@tisajokt7676]

@@DartNoobo time is the 4th dimension in spacetime, with a different sign than the 3 space-like dimensions in the metric applied for the space, ct^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2

[@RobertSmith-gx3mi]

An argument from ignorance that begs the question.Won't you please accept my composition fallacy doesn't prove the existence of deity.

[@flompydoo9067]

Please explain what an argument from ignorance is?

[@ReasonBeing25]

I really tried to listen with an open mind, but all I hear is assertion after assertion without any demonstrable reason to believe them. There is also quite a few false dilemmas thrown in there for good measure

[@Kratos92607]

Which ones?

[@efo0l]

Craig still cannot believe that people think the universe popped into being out of absolutely nothing! See his debate with Sean Carroll. 5:10 Craig commits the same error: "Beer pops into being out of nothing." The word "pop" implies time, as there would be one moment when there's no beer and then a later moment when there is beer. The beer "pops" into being. The change of state is time. It sounds like he's labelling the prior state of non-being as "nothing", but this isn't usually what is meant by "nothing". When speaking about the universe itself, which is comprised of all contiguous space-time, this statement doesn't make any sense as time cannot "pop" into existence. To circumvent this language problem we usually refer to "the first moment of time." It's also referred to (confusingly) as the "beginning of time," but you must take care to note that time does not begin, as that does not make any sense -- it's nonsensical to say that time itself transitions from non-being to being. It simply has a beginning, or initial state, or "first moment." 6:07 Craig builds his causal principle by observing the patterns of the physical universe. This is fine for explaining things inside the universe, but it does not apply to the universe itself. Causes precede effects in time. There is no time prior to the first moment of time, it does not have a cause. 9:37 Craig does understand the problem but chooses sloppy language: Define "beginning to exist": entity x "begins to exist" at time t if x "comes into being" at t. Define x "comes into being" at t: iff 1. x exists at t. 2. t is the first time at which x exists. 3. x existing at t is a "tensed fact". i.e. temporal becoming is a real and objective feature of reality. This is consistent with "there is a first moment of time," and thus has no problem. Ordinarily in conversation the phrase "comes into being" would imply a state of non-being, but Craig clarifies it. However, if this is what he means then why the fuss over the "universe pops into being out of nothing?" Apparently "pops into being" is different from "comes into being." Moreover, per this definition, God "comes into being" at the first moment of time. Go back and watch at 6:07 to see the inconsistency. At 6:07 he correctly notes that we observe entities transitioning from non-being to being (i.e. they begin). We infer rules that describe how matter transitions from one moment to the next, namely cause and effect. This does not apply to the beginning of the universe, there's no time prior to the first moment of time! To get around this he changes the definition at 9:37. 11:19 He concedes that our physical concepts of time may break down at the first moment of the universe. It seems there is hope for Craig yet. However he then proceeds to suggest that a metaphysical concept of time does not depend on the universe nor does it break down at the beginning. So maybe it's hopeless. 12:19 He thinks the causal principle is metaphysical rather than a law of nature. The causal principle is derived from what we observe in the physical world, so I agree with the 6:07 version of Craig and disagree with this 12:19 version. I bet I know his reply: "I can't believe you think the universe popped into being out of absolutely nothing!"

[@DerMelodist]

19?

[@onlyonetoserve]

Tanko bro tong of truth. Planit erth was creatored

[@hopaideia]

God didn't begun to exist, are you saying that He dosen't have a cause ?

[@personalprofile1939]

Yes. He is eternal.

[@LetsgoB]

@@personalprofile1939You hit the nail on the head

[@dominiks5068]

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause" doesn't entail "Whatever doesn't begin to exist doesn't have a cause", that would be the fallacy of denying the antecedent. But yeah, Christians think that nothing caused God.

[@LetsgoB]

In that case I suppose the Universe has a cause rather or not it had a beginning. It’s hard to imagine a cause before infinity but perhaps God exists outside of time and has a different perspective of eternity.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@personalprofile1939 "matter energy cannot be created or destroyed" the universe is eternal, the big bang is the start of the expansion of OUR iteration of the universe. radioactive decay happens at random intervals and has no cause. nature is quite enough, no god required. try harder.

[@CMVMic]

To exist means to be spatial, empirically verifiable and that which grounds change.

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

Why think that the only things which exist are spatial and empirically verifiable? - RF Admin

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@ReasonableFaithOrg skydivephil has done a series of debunking videos that are made with penrose, guth, vilenkin, carroll and others and they all seem to agree that you talk nonsense - the kalam has been proved false, why do you keep dragging this crap up? it's done and dusted, find something concrete to argue.

[@blessenjohn300]

​@@HarryNicNicholasCraig already debunked skydive Phil non sense

[@shassett79]

@@blessenjohn300 Craig made a response video; he didn't debunk anything.

[@Prisonbee_Jesusislord]

@@shassett79he did rebut the documentary wether you like it or not

[@bestyoutubechannelever3206]

Jesus: "Welcome to Heaven, little boy! You see that man over there? That's the man who broke into your house and hacked you and your parents to pieces. It's okay! He got saved while he was in prison! Go say "hi" to him!" Little boy: "Where are my parents?" Jesus: "They weren't saved! They're burning in Hell for eternity! You see how reasonable faith is?"

[@RaymondTT]

Heaven will be full of undeserving sinners, like me, Craig anf perhaps you. So while you attempt to caricature it - you seem to at least understand that none of us deserve heaven.

[@shassett79]

@@RaymondTT Not speaking for OP, but I think they were calling out a situation that might offend our moral reasoning to the point of absurdity: The cruelest and most sadistic person you can imagine will necessarily enjoy eternal bliss, as long as they show deference to the Christian god, while the kindest and most noble person imaginable will necessarily suffer eternal torment for failing to do the same. I get that this is what the dogma says, but it's easy to see why people have a hard time with it.

[@RaymondTT]

@@shassett79 Absolutely! It is unfair to the n'th degree.... ...That any of us would receive forgiveness and spend eternity with God. I understand the issUe. I just think it doesnt prove anything other than our innate desire for justice. Lets make a quick analogy to a courtcase. The kindest and most noble man imaginable will still go to prison for murder. All his other goodness does not remove his crime. Meanwhile, any murderer who accepts an offered pardon will be set free. Jesus offers each of us a pardon. You can choose to take it or ignore it.

[@a.n.1102]

​​@@shassett79hmm you hold a view of hell that differs from the orthodox view. Hell isn't a burning place, it's complete darkness and seperatation of God. The people who are there are the ones there by the own will. God doesn't send them there. This also makes compliments the doctrine of faith

[@shassett79]

​@@RaymondTT "Lets make a quick analogy to a courtcase." To godwinize things (sorry!) say that the Nuremberg Trials had inexplicably resulted in the Nazi brass all being pardoned. It's hard to imagine a lot of people coming out to defend such a decision, any more than people would condone a court sentencing someone to death for feeding homeless children. But when it comes to god, people are invited to just kinda shrug, draw bizarre moral equivalences based on the abstract concept of heritable sin, and get on with it. "The people who are there are the ones there by the own will." This just feels like a sort of victim blaming to me? It's not that I desire to go to hell, however you imagine it, so much as my personal epistemology seemingly makes it impossible for me to believe in the Christian god. Like, I could lie and say that I do, but I have to believe an omniscient mind would know I was pulling a fast one.

[@tedgrant2]

Having established that the universe probably began to exist and thus had a cause, what we need to do next is find the cause and the best way to do that is to consult a man who can read stories written a long time ago and would like you to buy his book.

[@RaymondTT]

This seems like a blanket dismissal of every scientist and philosopher that has written a book.

[@sammyking9407]

@@RaymondTTYea but internet atheists with absolute knowledge in every single realm of knowledge know better. Pleas sit down and learn.

[@simonpaine2347]

​@@RaymondTT No, maybe it's just a dismissal of people who try to persuade others to believe in Science Fiction, because they want to believe that it's true. The bulk of the Bible was not written at the time the events happened. There are numerous 'writings' from others that have been omitted from the current Bible. The translations from Aramaic and other original documents are loose, to say the least.

[@RaymondTT]

@@sammyking9407 Yes. Ted probably has a degree in philosophy and a doctoral in "Kalaam Cosmological Argument". Instead of attacking the person presenting the argument, why not object to the argument itself?

[@godfreydebouillon8807]

No, but you'll find out that using pure logical laws of Non Contradiction, The Law of the Excluded Middle etc that this cause starts to sound indistinguishable from the being described in the book written a long time ago.

[@Unbathed]

I. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. II. The universe is made of energy. ∴ A creator of the universe cannot exist.

[@abhishekandstuff]

Where did the energy come from then? It's not eternal, it has a beginning.

[@noelcruz6226]

@Unbathed ... Energy Conservation Law establish that in a closed system (Like our Universe) the quantity of energy stays the same, not that it is infinite and thus without a cause. Certainly there is no infinite energy on the Universe. What the law means is, that the quantity that the universe has today is the same quantity that it had when it was created. It doesn't mean that it has always existed and forever will. The physical laws establish energy can't be created or destroyed, but those are the laws of physics, the laws that we can formulate to try to explain and understand physical quantification and naturalistic processes. Now, If you presupose or supose or deduct or infere that there could be metaphysical laws that are above and beyond the physical ones... Well... In theory, there could be a past creation of the Total Energy in The System at the same time and perhaps a future destruction of it at the same time also... Some will call it... A GOD'S prerrogative...

[@Lightbearer616]

Craig why waste 48:27 talking rubbish? Two questions which are the reason why I'm not listening to your failed argument again (you do realise with a bit of effort you could train a parrot to to do this failed speech): 1. It was proved over a decade ago that particles come into and out of existence in every atom in the universe without a cause. If you don't believe me you can go to the Reasonable Faith site where someone called William Lane Craig tried and failed to argue against it (in a panic I might say as he recognised it crushed his Kalams argument that everything that exists must have a cause). You know, based on what we know, only the observable is subject to causality not the quantum universe and we know a Big Bang was a quantum event if it is true. So my first question is: After a decade, don't you think it's time to admit the science and drop the deception. (I suppose this is about the 50th time I've asked.) 2. "From nothing". Precisely to which "nothing" are you referring? Were you there before the Big Bang or are you just talking sh#t? Obviously, if nothing can come from nothing, before the Big Bang, there wasn't nothing. It's mind numbingly obvious. But Craig, given we don't know our universe had a beginning, given we actually have no idea how the universe started (except it wasn't a god) where exactly is your proof nothing existed before it that no one else on earth has? Did you take pictures? A video? People like you are too easy with their absolute and profoundly unsustainable, casual, off the cuff comments on something they simply couldn't possibly have any clue about. If I look out the window tonight, I know, from observations and calculations I can only see 5% of the part of the universe I'm watching. The particles can't be found or measured and perhaps the best theory is tachyons. So tell me Craig, that's 95% of our universe we have no idea if it could exist before a universe. Feel free to let us know why and how that 95% couldn't or didn't exist before a universe? And lets take the Higgs Boson and the Higgs field considered as giving mass to everything so, if the Higgs Boson didn't exist before a universe, basically the entire universe could exist before a universe and the universe would depend on one particle forming to start the entire Big Bang process going without reference to "nothing". Craig you haven't got the vaguest clue what existed before the universe or if there even was a "before the universe". So you don't have any argument for your god whatsoever. And after decades and a PhD you only have 4 pathetic and easily and regularly debunked arguments to your name. That's just sad. Summary: Give up Kalam's, it's been proven false for well over a decade and stop declaring something you couldn't possibly know is fact: There was nothing before the universe.

[@richiejourney1840]

You mean particles coming into existence by magic without a cause? Sounds like God to me…

[@jasonpalladino1852]

I think the principle of “whatever begins to exist has a cause” is extremely solid metaphical pronciple. Do you really believe that particles are a counter-example to this principle? How do we know that these particles you are referring to are completely “uncaused”as opposed to coming from some “unknown” cause?

[@Lightbearer616]

@@jasonpalladino1852 Come back when you are up to date with modern science, specifically quantum mechanics. P.S. No one who exists in the real world cares what you think that's why there is progress and we aren't still on caves.

[@Lightbearer616]

@@richiejourney1840 Thank you for proving theists are delusional. Oh, and magic is reserved for the theistic world, the real world proves itself, it doesn't dabble in magic. Your lack of education is showing.

[@regstoy]

Question for god botherers, what was before eternal, did eternity begin? There was no before (according to our current understanding) our universe, time is simply a way of expressing our relationship with entropy, so our universe is eternal and so needs no creator.

[@midimusicforever]

Time is indeed part of what began once. That means that the cause has to exist outside of time. Speaking of "before time" is a bit of a misnomer. No, our universe is not eternal. You seem to have misunderstood that part.

[@regstoy]

@@midimusicforever Has our universe existed for all of time?

[@shassett79]

​@@midimusicforeverWhen did time begin? How does causation work without time?

[@sparephone8228]

God is not bound by time. Time is a physical concept in our universe.

[@shassett79]

@@sparephone8228 The neat thing about being an abstract concept is that you can do anything anyone can imagine!

[@cogitoergosum3433]

Out of nothing nothing comes? But if that is the case, if Dr Craig asserts that the universe can only originate from a state of complete nothingness, creation as he argues the case is impossible. Hence, that contradicts this statement as on that argument the universe can only arise from a necessarily existent state. But it would not be so bad as both atheist and theist agree that the universe being created from nothing is impossible (though not logically impossible). But it follows logically and necessarily from this that there can never have been a state of absolute nothingness as Craig asserts. That is to say that this non nothingness state must, can only exist necessarily. As for the timeless, spaceless assertions, we definitively know that the universe was in a hot dense state and that as GR does not apply, there is by axiomatic definition no space or time and hence nothing that even remotely resembles a changeless libertarian god mind (whatever that contradiction of terms plays out as). But we do know that the stuff of the universe is immeasurably powerful, so he at least has got one thing right. As for the fine tuning argument, this could just as easily be correctly claimed to be a necessary condition with no mind needing to do anything to lead to the cosmic and biological evolution that leads to minds bent on assuming only a mind can do this. Expressed in this way it is embarrassing to think that otherwise rational people could be so consumed with hubris that the sole purpose of the universe is so we can worship the god of the bible and whom which contravenes the ‘laws’ he creates (including moral laws) when there’s no one to bear accurate and reliable witness to this event? And it’s not just that Christians have failed to show the existence of the realm of the supernatural, as all religions have fallen foul of exactly the same fatal weakness

[@shassett79]

It's odd how people seem to gloss over the most obvious objection to Craig's argument: There's insufficient reason to conclude that matter or energy ever "began to exist." And his folksy routine about bicycles just "popping into existence" is simply nonsense that has nothing to do with anything anyone proposes.

[@Yesunimwokozi1]

Try him

[@shassett79]

@@Yesunimwokozi1 You act like the guy hangs around on the internet, chatting with random people.

[@Yesunimwokozi1]

@@shassett79 again try him

[@shassett79]

@@Yesunimwokozi1 It seems that I have no idea which "him" you're referring to. Try being specific?

[@christopherlees1134]

Your point was addressed in the video.

[@shassett79]

If nothing can be eternal, that includes god. If god can be eternal, then so can the universe. Seems pretty straightforward. And dont BGV me because, no, the cosmologists don't agree with Craig.

[@jameshughes3602]

The universe had a beginning. That is the scientific consensus.

[@shassett79]

@@jameshughes3602 I wonder where you got that idea?

[@suntzu7727]

Who said that nothing can be eternal?

[@shassett79]

@@suntzu7727 You misunderstand. It's not even that I object to the idea of things being eternal or not eternal, so much as I don't care for the sort of special pleading that takes for granted the assumption that nothing can be eternal, apart from some sort of nonphysical mind that can will matter and energy into existence from nothing.

[@christopherlees1134]

Craig did not argue that nothing can be eternal, and the finite existence of the universe was addressed multiple times. Watch the video.

[@thomasfischer9259]

Dr. Craig operates on the assumption(s) that he expects you to accept: 1) Time is a fundamental physical force (never explicitly states this, but it'very implicit) 2) Cause and Effect are mutually exclusive (Meaning he places the importance of cause over effect, but never considers they are inseparable, he is essentially saying that one particular polarity is more important than the other (hot vs cold, south pole vs north pole)) He states, things like gas stations or other human made objects don't pop into existence; therefore, nothing could pop into existence. While I have a problem with the wording 'pop', but never seems to consider that in a relative way, that they are 'popping' into existence because they are here.

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

//Dr. Craig operates on the assumption(s) that he expects you to accept: 1) Time is a fundamental physical force (never explicitly states this, but it'very implicit)// Dr. Craig is quite adamant that time is not a physical force: "As a theist I have a knock-down argument that time is a reality which transcends physics. For we can conceive of God in the absence of any physical universe as having a succession of thoughts (or creating an angel with a succession of thoughts), say, counting “1, 2, 3,. . . .” Such a succession of mental events is sufficient for time, wholly independently of any physical reality." (www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/the-arrow-of-time) //2) Cause and Effect are mutually exclusive (Meaning he places the importance of cause over effect, but never considers they are inseparable, he is essentially saying that one particular polarity is more important than the other (hot vs cold, south pole vs north pole))// This is a misunderstanding. Dr. Craig doesn't think that cause and effect are mutually exclusive. You might be confused by the way he emphasizes causality as explanatorily prior to the effect, which does seem to be the case. Effects depend on causes, but causes do not depend on effects. Think of free choices. The agent is the cause which spontaneously make a choice. But, because the choice is free, the choice is not the result of some prior effect. So, it's not that causes are more important than their effects. It's that effects require causes and are explanatorily posterior to them. //He states, things like gas stations or other human made objects don't pop into existence; therefore, nothing could pop into existence. While I have a problem with the wording 'pop', but never seems to consider that in a relative way, that they are 'popping' into existence because they are here.// By "popping into existence," Dr. Craig means something's coming into existence without a cause whatsoever. Gas stations certainly don't come into existence that way. The construction workers who build them would take great offense at the idea! - RF Admin

[@Godschosen316]

Great rebuttal RF!!

[@horridhenry9920]

The Kalam does not contain God in the premises. Low Bar Bill does not define nothing. The Big Bang model can only go back to a singularity. We don’t know how the singularity came about. As soon as you bring gods into the discussion you have to engage in special pleading. Craig is not a cosmologist and makes assumptions that the experts in the field do not make. Craig is not a Christian because of any arguments. He’s a Christian because of the self authenticating inner testimony of the Holy Spirit. The Kalam is just smoke and mirrors.

[@RealNomadicus]

1 poisoning the well... 2 The KCA is a philosophical proposition not a cosmological one, it undergirds the foundational axioms necessary for grounding science in the natural world. Or to paraphrase Lenox "the first scientist expect law in nature because they believed in a law giver." The KCA make such beliefs logical, don't confuse it with natural science. 3. Bruh if the Kalam contains God in its Premises then its circular, the point is to show that an uncaused cause is necessary further arguments define God.

[@CorbinHoffman-lg7iu]

Cope

[@flavioa2252]

Tell us again how you don’t understand the argument

[@aardvarkratnick2118]

You want a definition of nothing? Draw a circle. Put everything in the circle. Then, remove everything and then remove the circle.

[@aardvarkratnick2118]

God exists before the universe. All of a sudden, the universe exists. What causes it to come into existence?

[@secretweapon8367]

as others have pointed out, proof for any "beginning" is not forthcoming, and his definition of it is circular. people like Craig are sophists who exploit the natural desire for cognitive closure with metaphysically exceptional solutions.

[@wheretruthleads]

Just out of curiosity, do you not think the evidence of the big bang theory provides proof for the beginning of space, time and matter?

[@secretweapon8367]

@@wheretruthleads the Big Bang is a "beginning" relative to our comprehension of physics but is by no means an absolute beginning. Craig's "God" could be nothing more than quantum soup.