The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Arguments For God Episode #4)

[@CosmicSkeptic]

Sorry about the video cutting out twice. The video wouldn't export until I removed the beginning for some reason. . .

[@victordanielcatalan1808]

CosmicSkeptic That shark though 🐬🐬

[@vanamburgben]

CosmicSkeptic You should film on two cameras, then you could switch camera views and also have a backup video.Just saying man, itd help.

[@estebangamez5695]

CosmicSkeptic Loved the shark picture😂

[@sethcaro76]

It is foolish to try to prove the existence of God. However, a first mover is still the simplest explanation for life, the universe and everything. Science is not going to reveal answers to questions that have no meaning, such as "what came before time?" or "what is outside of everything?" We'd need a hardware upgrade to understand better. Occam's Razor shows that the soundest thing we could do is behave as if God exists and pray for better understanding. That last part might be a joke, I'm actually not sure.

[@giovannysilva7735]

yes pls, do one with the big bang, I never get tired of it, and hearing it from new angles is always fun

[@cedricrobertson2893]

That is certainly a cool shark

[@adamas_dragon]

cedric robertson NO where is the drawer

[@turvytophat7470]

Can someone name the shark though?

[@vampyricon7026]

What shark is that?

[@mdove1803]

TurvyTophat It's a mako shark

[@SNORKYMEDIA]

Commander Salamander looks like a great white to me

[@Lollypopgurl12345]

Please do a video on the big bang!! Too many of my theist friends claim its only a theory and there is no proof. I would love to send them a 10 minute video explaining why the big bang is scientific fact, since I'm no astrologist and I'm afraid of explaining it wrong or making points that are easily countered. Thanks Alex!

[@G274Me]

Shiri Zeevi It is a theory. Your friend(s) just do not understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, and should maybe touch up on a high school science book.

[@laurieanthony1556]

That would be epic!

[@guytheincognito4186]

Shiri Zeevi Know this, a scientific theory is different from a theory. A *scientific theory* is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of Brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis; such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science versus "prediction" in vernacular speech, denoting a mere hope.

[@adatta3046]

Shiri Zeevi Unfortunately most people have absolutely no idea what the big bang is even about and then use strawmen to try and discredit it. These falsifications are then propagated through the general public and create this "just a theory" rationale and so the actual ideas behind the theory are not even offered to most school kids and most remain ignorant.

[@404namemissing6]

Shiri Zeevi an astrologist predicts the future using the stars. An astronomer is what you call the scientist. Just to let you know.

[@rationalityrules]

Awesome as always. Great job Alex! : )

[@jarl8815]

Alex doesn't think so anymore. 😆

[@goktug5976]

@@jarl8815 what do u mean

[@jarl8815]

@@goktug5976 He made a video about how this video is full of bad arguments. He debunked himself basically.

[@goktug5976]

@@jarl8815 okay can u give me a link or type down the title

[@jarl8815]

@@goktug5976 kzbin.info/www/bejne/g3itomh5btyosM0

[@VicedRhino]

I would love to see a video on the big bang. Also more sharks.

[@mateohedircortesvega955]

Holy shit, you watched this.

[@knavesaria6715]

Why did nobody else reply to this? I know it happened, but it’s just strange. Anyway, what’s up Vices Rhino!

[@leleltea8921]

Hello sweetie 😁

[@brightroarttttbbbb]

Atheism, materialism, presented to people as a fashion trend, adorned with the name of freedom. Is a person who denies free? There is a God who will take account of what we do in the world. A person who provides benefits to people who do good will be rewarded in Heaven. A person who does cruelty and injustice will be punished. Most of the world believes in God, prays, prostrates and is at peace. It is Allah who gives. Islam says that Allah exists and is one. Muslims are brothers, they love each other and support each other.

[@godlessengineer]

I hate the cosmological argument. mainly because of the logical leap from something causing the universe to God.

[@jordanw6918]

Godless Engineer it does not make that leap. The final conclusion is that the universe has a cause, not that god exists.

[@godlessengineer]

No, that is not what their final conclusion is.Their final conclusion is that god is that cause.

[@jordanw6918]

Godless Engineer I don't remember Craig or any other theist ever using that formulation of the argument.

[@godlessengineer]

Ok... Just because you don't remember people making that case doesn't mean they didn't... People make that leap all the time. Frank Turek is notorious for that.

[@godlessengineer]

lol it's called the Cosmological Argument for God's existence

[@DrMustacheQueen]

As a Muslim it's really refreshing to be able to watch an atheist point of view about God without bashing etc. I think the world would be a better place if theists and atheists were able to have a calm discussion about this, just like this video. I really enjoyed this. This is the first video of yours I've come across, but I'm definitely checking out your other videos. You make great points :)

[@alipk2633]

You still a Muslim?

[@----f]

Lol I'm Muslim too and Alex is absolutely right. He seems to be critiquing a Christian articulation of the KCA. For us, the KCA can only really prove some privative attributes of the necessary existence. It's just one argument for the cumulative case for God. Other attributes of God are revealed by revelation. I'm watching this video to supplement my Why Islam is True course by Hamza Karamali. I recommend it to you as well

[@elprofesor8571]

​@@----f👍🏻

[@redrob6026]

I think most people are reasonable and can reasonably have a discussion. For example, I'm and atheist and work with many people who are religious. I don't throw mud at them, I'm interested in their beliefs and can comfortably talk about my views with them without offending them.

[@TheoryChronicles567]

Just curious, are u still a Muslim?

[@alph1526]

im always amazed by how smart and articulate you are, while stil sounding nice and respectful. I believe I'm about your age (im 18) and the students that I meet on a daily basis who are interested in science and atheism are incredibly arrogant. Most of them don't want to communicate or exchange, they want to show off their knowledge. Thank you for not being one of them!

[@Chribit]

alphonsine Anders true. I find it most idiotic if some hardcore atheists start talking about religious people "forcing their beliefs on everyone" while forcing the atheistic viewpoint on everyone... like... I'm not religious... but I'll still listen to anyone as long as they talk in a clear respectful manner... which is something a lot of atheists can't do either.

[@alph1526]

Im just talking about my experience here, of course extremists cannot be reasoned with kindness but most young people in western society are actually open to discuss these types of things. But they won't listen if we talk to them like they are a bunch of idiots

[@Shayor100]

Neptune ! this is why no one takes you seriously (i'm agnostic)

[@lDanielHolm]

He's 17, I believe. (Not aware of when his birthday is, so he might be 18 by now.)

[@Amplifyafly]

Beppe I'm almost certain he's second year A-levels, so 17 or 18. I'd be flattered if someone thought i was in my 20s as a 17 year old though

[@troyschulz2318]

Just for the record Alex, you're quickly becoming one of my favourite skeptic channels.

[@csabaszabo8624]

the only problem is, he could not prove at all, that a creator being (or beings) does not exist. The big issue of atheists.

[@phenomenal821]

​@@csabaszabo8624 The burden of proof doesn't lie with the Atheist. It lies with the theist. Show us proofs that your god exists.

[@TuringMachine001]

Proponents of the Kalam cosmological argument need not resort to the fallacy of composition. They can, for example, take premise 1 -- that everything that begins to exist has a cause -- as a self-evident truth. In that case, if your intuition does not lead you to believe in that premise, you simply won't be convinced by the argument. It's up to you to be honest with yourself and find out what you truly intuit about that premise. Remember: every argument has premises. If every premise of every argument requires an argument, then we get an infinite regress of arguments. That means we must at some point take something as self-evident. If that self-evident truth is not deemed so by opponents of the argument, there really is nothing the proponent can do.

[@oldpossum57]

“everything that begins to exist has a cause -- is a self-evident truth”.Nope. There are physicists who say time does not exist before the universe’s expansion, and some say that while there has always been time, there has always been a universe. WLC uses B-G-V theorem to claim the universe has a beginning. Both G and Zv have said he is wrong. Te theorem says the expansion has a begging pm not the Singularity, about which the theorem says nothing. You retort of course that it is contrary to sense for something to exist with out a cause. Contrary to human sense. What we know about cause annd effect applies to most things in the universe…except at the level of the very small. But Kalām is a claim about how the realm outside the universe behaves, and no one can know. (You can’t define something into existence, ad that is all Kalām and WLC’s cheater version do.) In this realm outside the universe, there would be empirical reason NOT to have an infinite regress of Causes causing the next. In the absence of time, space, dimension a Cause could “exist” prior to AND subsequent to AND simultaneously with the effect, rendering the cause non-causative. Then how does the Immaterial act on the Immaterial? Then WLCs unmotivate claims that the Cause is Intelligent, Impersonal, endowed with Will are unmotivated nonsense. Kalām is patently incoherent.

[@connormcflurry6708]

Alex, you inspired me to learn new stuff and you taught me how to think about an argument to debunk it. I started using your thinking techniques and I saw very good results in my school debates when they threw an argument at me. Thank you, and I cant wait till you get to 1 million. I'll always watch your vids, thanks you very much. You are my hero and you inspire me soo much. All I want to say is THANK YOU.

[@chandrajeet2315]

A truly unsatisfactory argument against the kalam cosmology from Connor. Given the universe is finite it IS subjected to the same principle of causation and thus necessitates an uncaused cause. And of course you can't apply that to the god of Christianity who claims to have become flesh, similar for hindu concepts of God. The only two religions which claims this claim and still holds ground is Judaism and Islam where in God is the only eternal entity with a consciousness or will to choose universe(s). Now, someone just have to iron out which one of these two are more universal and the religion of the future

[@bie-p1l]

@@chandrajeet2315 how do you know the universe is finite?

[@evingmadeez5008]

YES... I'm always down for a big bang!!

[@isuckatlifemutechannel6050]

John C ha nice

[@wedeldylan]

stfu

[@thebush6077]

John C Big bangs create things if you know what I mean

[@DJHastingsFeverPitch]

Omg hahahahaha

[@anthonia7930]

"Even if the cosmological argument was true, which I'll try to prove you it is not, it still won't confirm the existence of your own particular God " Hands down, favourite sentence.

[@marshallkarl7956]

I'm 16 and also atheist! My parents raised me as an atheist but I enjoy how although you were brought up in a christian family, you do not bash or discredit believers in "God". I feel its people such as yourself that will help pull back the veil that seems to be put over atheists and our beliefs. Thank you loads for making these videos, and I can't wait for your channel to hit 100k subscribers! Marshall

[@jesuschrist6979]

How did he find me out...SHIT

[@morwennmusachia2670]

Jesus Christ You con artist you

[@erikburzinski8248]

Is that shit holy

[@epistemologyphilosophy7791]

I’m just hoping gullible theists think this comment was actually made by Jesus

[@Tracks777]

Lovely content! Please keep going, one day you make it big

[@emikeenaife8495]

9

[@SirFrantzKrzysztof]

It's already big man.

[@joecurran2811]

He has!

[@liyanadan6354]

hey Alex, just wanted to say that you are cool as fuck😎

[@theofficialwatermelon8583]

Liya Nadan I completely agree with that

[@sianball7664]

Liya Nadan, your comment hit the nail on the head

[@lewismurphy8078]

theofficialwatermelon and I'm sure the ladies find him not hard to look at

[@mcmegz1520]

preach it^^

[@spilbeen5213]

theofficialwatermelon i completely agree with you when you agreed with liya nadan when she (or posebly but probably not he)stated that alex is cool as fuck!. and that is not a single word to many!.

[@blubear1225]

I miss the chest of drawers in the background

[@GameMaster-dt2ef]

Woof

[@carson3370]

Damn, that's one cool ass shark.

[@emerydo5937]

a very fine specimen of the marine organisms, if I can say so myself

[@cush6827]

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause" Example? No thing in this universe ever just begins to exist. Every thing is only a transformation of something existing before, including vacuum. The same may be true for the universe itself.

[@cush6827]

You are missing the point.

[@jignaio5762]

Boats begin to exist by people. Just because a boat is rearranged wood doesn't mean a boat and the tree it came from are the same thing.

[@tadm123]

Anyone know what video is this objection coming from? I seen atheist repeat this so it must have come from somewhere else, even though it's a horrible argument ,essentially you would be saying that yourself always existed even before you were born. The stuff that a thing is made is not the same as the thing itself.

[@SC-zq6cu]

The things in this thread that are shown as examples of things that began to exist because the stuff that makes them is not the same as themselves and thus seemingly counteracting op's point are things that are defined by the arrangement/transformation of the stuff that makes them. The Universe unfortunately doesn't fall into that category. So, a better iteration of op's question: What is an example of something that doesnt owe it's existence to an arrangement/transformation to something else, beginning to exist ? There is none we know of, because such an example would violate the law of conservation of mass-energy.

[@SC-zq6cu]

@The True World Except universe isn't just objects of matter. You have to account for fundamental particles, space and time as well which unfortunately have never been seen to just begin existing. Among these only the first one has ever been seen to transform. Your amendment solves nothing.

[@JoshuaPlays99]

Yes I'd love to see a video on the big bang. I've watched everyone of your videos so far and I've loved each and everyone of them!

[@TestTest-hl3em]

Hi CosmicSkeptic, the contingency argument does not rely on cause and effect in the domain of time. this is a common mistake some people make. it relies on logical cause rather than temporal cause. i.e it utilizes PSR (principle of sufficient reason)

[@joecurran2811]

​@skygardener7849Aristotle correctly predicted dolphins were mammals, not fish

[@cdsmith0917]

​@@joecurran2811Aristotle also thought the lungs simply existed to cool the heart.

[@randyohm3445]

I think a more succinct argument might be that despite the word games played by the Kalam version of this argument, it still argues for the existence of an uncaused cause. If it is possible for something to exist without actually *beginning* to exist and without a cause, then there is no reason to presuppose that the pre-big-bang universe doesn't qualify. If you allow for God to exist without cause, then you cannot effectively claim that the universe cannot perform the same trick. This argument is self-defeating from the get-go.

[@paullx8889]

It's much easier to talk with a camera rather than face your oponent

[@Reez22154]

What opponent

[@brianpearlwilliams4605]

Thanks for taking the time to speak about the cosmological argument. I listened to your podcast with William Lane Craig, enjoyed your questions and his answers.

[@dionysis_]

Well, I think after Alex’s latest episode with William Lane Craig we all know that his refutation does not hold. Looking forward to his re-examining of the proof.

[@joannagriffiths9405]

you literally predicted the future

[@dionysis_]

@@joannagriffiths9405 😂

[@jejoisland9182]

Woooooooooow Dude mad respect! Predicting the future like it aint notthn but a thaaaaang

[@aidanwiseman1655]

You actually look a little bit like Hitchens did - if you're destroying religion with naturally fluent and structured arguments at 18, your hitchslaps in 20 years will be fucking next level :') Keep doing what you're doing dude this is awesome.

[@chandrajeet2315]

A truly unsatisfactory argument against the kalam cosmology from Connor. Given the universe is finite it IS subjected to the same principle of causation and thus necessitates an uncaused cause. And of course you can't apply that to the god of Christianity who claims to have become flesh, similar for hindu concepts of God. The only two religions which claims this claim and still holds ground is Judaism and Islam where in God is the only eternal entity with a consciousness or will to choose universe(s). Now, someone just have to iron out which one of these two are more universal and the religion of the future

[@ConsumeristScroffa]

​@@chandrajeet2315Moreover, when you do a rebuttal you can't hide behind the fact that this is only a rebuttal. For if you claim that the universe didn't necessarily need a cause, you suggest that it's possible it didn't have one, aka it came from nothing, which is fallacious. The reason why I love the Kalam argument is that there is no escape from it. Atheists will either have to accept it or make fallacies to cope.

[@kurisudeiru]

What if the Big Bang happened not because of a force, instead by the sudden absence of contracting force, like when you release a compressed sponge from your hands? Doesn't it mean that force isn't actually needed for there to be a big bang?

[@AliJr_MetalGames_MetalGuitar]

Christian Dale Faustino best food for my brain, I'm full. Now : D

[@bp4freak]

(Short version below) For the exact moment of the Big Bang, force wouldn't be needed. To get the exact circumstances to make it happen you need force. The problem is that time and space are linked. Time is a measure of the changes to matter. This means that without matter, you can't have time. Matter itself didn't exist until some time after the Big Bang, at the exact moment of the Big Bang, everything was pure energy. For a compressing force, you need something to apply it, that something takes up space, but space was compressed into a singularity of infinitely small size. Before the Big Bang, time didn't exist so there was no 'before the Big Bang'. Short version: There was no space (it was compressed into an infinitely small singularity, so there was no time (space and time are linked, time is defined as changed to space), so there was no 'before the Big Bang', so there couldn't have been anything applying force before it.

[@TheGeneralJos]

SpiritWolf2K Well that's not definite. We don't know that for sure. In fact that concept is a proper hypothesis with a proper name. It's called the Big Bounce. This cosmological model was derived to find an answer to the origin and end to the universe. This hypothesis states the universe is in a constant cycle of expanding and contracting forever. This hypothesis, however, isn't supported by science. Currently, we know the universe is expanding. We also know by the Doppler effect that galaxies are moving away from each other. They're not just moving away from each other, they're accelerating away from each other, as if something is pushing (or pulling) galaxies faster and faster, and because of this, we know the universe isn't slowing down. If it isn't slowing down, there's very little chance the Big Crunch or the Big Bounce is true. Another hypothesis for the end of the universe is the Big Rip in which space will be expanding so fast that the fabric of space time will literally rip. This would be catastrophic and would end the universe. This is supported by String Theory, but not General Relativity which states that time and space can bend, twist, curve, etc. but not tear. The most supported hypothesis is Heat Death (the first one without the word Big in it lol). This hypothesis states that space will become so expansive, a photon of light will travel through space and never meet any other photon or particle or wave in its lifetime. Also, all matter will have evaporated into energy. We're talking a time so far away from now, all black holes will have evaporated into nothingness due to Hawking Radiation. But the reason for this universe ever expanding and never collapsing on itself is due to either Dark Energy or Einstein's Theory of General Relativity not being an accurate model of gravity.

[@tinybullfrog1955]

+spiritwolf2k I actually like to think this cycle happens, because otherwise we are spiraling toward universal heat death, and that is terrifyingly inescapable.

[@tinybullfrog1955]

And the expansion of the universe is actually supported by general relativity: they aren't moving apart, space is stretching (a weird distinction).

[@talyahr3302]

I'm a deist and the Kalam Cosmological arguments are basically my foundation for believing in God. I don't believe in any personal God and realize there's no way we can know the specifics about this God. And I like many on this channel, believe religion is bullshit and wrong. But I do believe in a very general God who just serves as the prime mover. Although this video didn't change my mind, I gave it a thumbs up because it provided some rebuttals and ideas that I've never heard of before. This video has given me some things to think about and that's always appreciated. I enjoy the channel, keep up the good work! (:

[@alexs.9912]

your channel is so entertaining

[@tylergarcia6335]

I still have a hard time understanding the Big Bang, so I would love for you to make a video about it.

[@gavsmith1980]

We know that causality is universal, people defending the kalam are assuming that causality is EXTRA universal, so they need to defend that premise.

[@arefallout]

gavsmith1980 Actually No. We know causality seems to only affect massive (relative to single atoms) objects. Single particals have been observed acting with no detectible cause. And beside how do you apply logic to a time when there was no kind of physics....

[@gavsmith1980]

"Single particals have been observed acting with no detectible cause" My point being, even for the sake of philosophical argument with people ignorant of quantum phenomena, you can make a mockery of the kalam even in the macroscopic world. "And beside how do you apply logic to a time when there was no kind of physics...." ...that was my point in the first place, except you've kinda made the same mistake as kalam apologists do - assumed there was "time."

[@pilgrimpater]

AreFallout "No kind of Physics"? Why not consider a totally different "kind of Physics" to the "kind of Physics" to that of our universe?

[@gavsmith1980]

The point remains - our logic is based on current physics, trying to apply that logic where those physics aren't true, is known as the fallacy of composition.

[@clintonwilcox4690]

That's not the fallacy of composition, at all. The fallacy of composition is arguing that what is true of all the parts is true of the whole (e.g. "Every musician on stage is an excellent performer; therefore, the orchestra must be an excellent orchestra").

[@ubergenie6041]

2;28 There is a world of difference between proving some kind of cause and God. Yes. That is why Craig always shares the causal analysis. We can't use time, space, matter or energy to create our universe since they began to exist when our universe began or later. He asks his audience do we have any being we know of that is uncaused? Abstract objects, and God. Abstract object are causally effete. God is the only timeless, spaceless, immaterial, being that is powerful enough to account for the creation. And if we want to punt to a universe generator multiverse we have only punted the problem backward according to Borde Guth Vilenken.

[@oldpossum57]

“God is the only timeless, spaceless, immaterial, being that is powerful enough to account for the creation.” Except that is defining god into being. You can’t motivate a God by assuming it. BGV say that WLC Misunderstands the theorem,. I respond at length to the problems of WLC and Kalām elsewhere.

[@DocBree13]

You are such an impressive, articulate young man - what a bright future you have in front of you! I just discovered your channel and I'm thoroughly enjoying watching your videos.

[@gabrielhowardMKE]

you are such a brilliant young man. keep it up, you will go very far in life.

[@PlubusDomis]

My favorite quote by Cosmicskeptic - "A multiverse is the only logical conclusion at this point, even though there is not any evidence for it." *I might as well believe in God. Thank you.*

[@PlubusDomis]

@Sky Gardener You seem to know all the mysteries of this universe.. Tell me oh wise one, which came first... The chicken, or the chicken sandwich..?

[@yeahnahatheist9776]

What I can't understand about theists like Turek who argue that "in order for something to transition from nothing to something, there needed to be a conscious being to initiate that transition", is that they are quite literally stating that there WAS something before the Big Bang, that something being the conscious deity responsible for the comeuppance of the universe. How can the very principle of 'nothing' exist at all if 'something' already does? I don't think it can. No one knows what came before the big bang, so it's not at all dishonest to simply say 'we don't know' and leave it at that until a great scientific discovery informs us further.

[@eroszakos9042]

Your problem can be cleared up if you just know what exactly they mean by "something." When a theist says there was at one point "nothing" what they mean is that there was nothing "physical" (including empty space.) When discussing "God" we're not talking about a physical thing. God exists outside of the universe and the argument is that God made the universe from outside of any sort of existence He specifically exists in. So it's "nothing natural existed before the big bang, but something supernatural did."

[@yeahnahatheist9776]

I always saw something/nothing as antonyms, just like black/white, odd/even, etc. so does a conscious supernatural being still qualify as 'something'? Simply being non-physical doesn't constitute 'nothing'. If God is something, such a being cannot exist alongside nothing as he in himself is 'something' and any further creations he completes are derived from an already exisiting 'something', that being himself. Even if his creation is seperate from his existence, it still ultimately traces back to him who is 'something'. If he is nothing, then he doesn't exist, there isn't any other way to look at it.

[@eroszakos9042]

@@yeahnahatheist9776 I think you've created a false binary here, and as philosophers like Nietzsche would tell you, it isn't doing you any favours. So, yeah, you're right, something does always exist (God) but other things that are not God (such as the universe) don't have to exist. I guess an analogy would be that certain things come into existence from others. Like if you take pieces of wood, the pieces of wood can be made into a chair, but the chair doesn't exist just because of the wood. So, with God and the universe. God can make using His power the universe, but the universe does not have to exist. You get what I'm saying? "it still ultimately traces back to him who is 'something'. If he is nothing, then he doesn't exist, there isn't any other way to look at it." You're right here. But when somebody says the universe was created "ex nihilo" it means that it wasn't created out of anything physical already in existence, just God.

[@yeahnahatheist9776]

@@eroszakos9042 "I think you've created a false binary here, and as philosophers like Nietzsche would tell you, it isn't doing you any favours." Bit of a meaningless statement, but please explain why you think something/nothing is a false binary? "Like if you take pieces of wood, the pieces of wood can be made into a chair, but the chair doesn't exist just because of the wood." But the chair does exist because of the wood? I think I see what you're saying, but I don't think you've worded it right. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're saying "the wood exists independent of whether the chair exists, but the chair is dependant on the wood existing" and therefore "God is independent on the universe existing, but the universe is dependant on God". "But when somebody says the universe was created "ex nihilo" it means that it wasn't created out of anything physical already in existence, just God" Ex nihilo means 'out of nothing', so are you saying God is that 'nothing' or is he still 'something'? This is also a God of the gaps fallacy, just inserting God as an explanation for what we don't yet comprehend. I think you may have slightly missed the point of my original comment. My point was to highlight that something and nothing cannot coexist, whereas I think you are arguing that things that do exist are dependant on it's components, which if not together results in the non-existence (nothing) of the object (your chair analogy). This is a seperate argument. I should also point out that the components of the chair are still 'something', and this reasoning simply results in an infinite regress, a result that even a God would not be exempt from. Our best answer for the question of what began the universe is still "we don't know", as we well and truly don't know.

[@eroszakos9042]

@@yeahnahatheist9776 "Bit of a meaningless statement, but please explain why you think something/nothing is a false binary?" I mean that you have this binary "something/nothing" and are insinuating that it must be true. Why does something have to exist for there to be nothing? Is not "nothingness" independent of somethingness? "But the chair does exist because of the wood? I think I see what you're saying, but I don't think you've worded it right. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're saying "the wood exists independent of whether the chair exists, but the chair is dependant on the wood existing" and therefore "God is independent on the universe existing, but the universe is dependant on God"." The chair only exists as a *potentiality* not as an *actuality* of the wood. So yes, the universe exists because God made it but not because He had to. "Ex nihilo means 'out of nothing', so are you saying God is that 'nothing' or is he still 'something'? This is also a God of the gaps fallacy, just inserting God as an explanation for what we don't yet comprehend." I answered that question. God is "something" but a "something" that is not the or within the universe. God created matter and energy and space when there was none of it to begin with. Also, saying "we don't know therefore there must be a natural explanation" is also fallacious because you're assuming that you know the nature of the explanation. Which is why making claims about the nature of the universe and asserting "there must be a natural cause" is just a belief the same thing as saying "there must be a divine cause. If we're talking about the creation of the universe, there can't be a natural cause because "nature" didn't exist prior to the universe, at least not in any way that we could replicate or study. "I think you may have slightly missed the point of my original comment. My point was to highlight that something and nothing cannot coexist, whereas I think you are arguing that things that do exist are dependant on it's components, which if not together results in the non-existence (nothing) of the object (your chair analogy). This is a seperate argument. I should also point out that the components of the chair are still 'something', and this reasoning simply results in an infinite regress, a result that even a God would not be exempt from. Our best answer for the question of what began the universe is still "we don't know", as we well and truly don't know." But again, when speaking of the universe and God we are talking about two different types of "somethings" that do not exist in the same framing. And when you say "we don't know" what you're actually saying is "We have no scientific model to explain it (at least not at this time) and a scientific model is the only way we could know what caused the universe." There is a major problem with that though in the last part in that you're assuming that scientific experimentation is the only way we can know things; which is called "scientism."

[@jordanw6918]

Love your channel Alex, but I do want to say a few things about your objections to Kalam: 1. The argument has never been an argument for the existence of any god, specific or not. It has always been an argument for a first cause, which is later given reasons why this first cause is personal and necessary. So the objection that it does not prove "god" is not a substantial one. 2. The objection to premise one using the leaf analogy presumes a natural existence (gravity), which is part of the natural world and must be explained based on Kalam unless you are appealing to some infinite physical law. 3. Craig argues for why any existent universe must be finite. The borde, guth, vilenkin theorem proves why any universe in expansion must have a beginning, no matter how many there are. 4. The fallacy of composition objection is not applicable unless the proponent justifies the first premise with our experience of things beginning to exist, and neither Craig nor Turek, nor al Ghazali did. They justify the first premise from a metaphysical principle, that nothing can come into being from nothing without a cause. I think to avoid any possible objections to objections of Kalam, you have to play by the theists rules. But there are good reasons why the Kalam argument fails other than the fallacy of composition. 1. The problem of a temporal absence prior to the universe. For any change to occur, in any world, a temporal dimension must exist. This means that for any cause I initiate, there is an infinite number of temporal points leading successively to a point of creation and an infinite number of temporal points leading after the location of creation. The point of creation we shall call t=0, and before any such point there does not exist the cause and after there does exist the cause. Now, as a free agent who makes choices before he actualizes any cause, god chooses to create. Now, for god to choose to create, he would have to do so before creating, otherwise he could never freely choose to do so. But for god to choose to create and then causally act, he would have to traverse a moment in time, for there is an obvious change in the steps of not choosing to choosing and from not creating to creating. However this poses an immediate problem: there exists no time beyond our four dimensional universe, and therefore god literally could never have chose to create or cause anything. [before the theist objects, ask why the universe could not have brought itself into existence? The answer will be that the universe did not exist before it existed, and to create itself, a being necessarily must exist prior to its existence or creation. If this is the case, then the theist has justified the objection because this conclusion puts temporal restraints on god.] 2. Any thing which is caused to begin existing is done so by affecting a thing or things which are not yet what is being caused to begin existing, but what will be the thing in question. For example, if I want to make a pizza, I cannot act upon nothing to create the pizza. Think about it, how absurd would it be for me to, instead of hearing the oven and rolling the dough, just cup my hands and say "I really want a pizza," then poof a pizza is born? This would mean that I have causally affected the absence of any thing to become something. But the absence of any thing remains in absence. You cannot cause a not existent being to do anything, a nonexistent being remains nonexistent. The second problem can be summarized in my counter cosmological argument, which is the basic principle that no being, no matter how powerful, can affect nothing, the absence of anything, to become something. I will leave the argument for last. So when theists point to a magic trick like "a flame poofing in your hand" (a reference to a discussion Richard Dawkins had once when a caller used an analogy to cupping your hands and creating fire out of nothing, stating that it was absurd to believe her atheists believe it. I thought it was a perfect argument for atheism) and comparing this to the atheist worldview, they are essentially providing a perfect argument for atheists. 3. The immediate reaction to such argument (counter cosmological) is to say atheists believe the universe began to exist from nothing and by nothing and that this is more unreasonable. Let me explain why this is a false conception of the atheist view: if it is the case that the Big Bang was the boundary before which nothing existed, then it is incoherent to speak of any temporal, spatial, or material state prior to. This implies, then, that the universe did not "begin" to exist, rather it has always existed. It is eternal . It exists at every point in every direction at every time. This means, then, that when you look at the history of the universe is look into the past infinite: every temporal step leading infinitely into the past. This is not an actual infinite, that should not be mistaken, but a potential infinite. Think of it as an asymptote on a graph reaching a limit. It approaches, but never reaches the line. So, we can say then that every event leads infinitely into the past to a limit (the limit being the singularity), and each event is caused by earlier events (past seconds, and fractions of seconds, and fractions of fractions of seconds), and each and every one of these states is causally explained by earlier events. Because the universe as a whole is equal to its composite parts, and each part is causally explained by a prior state, then the universe is sufficiently explained without an external cause. Thus, the universe is explained without god. *Counter-cosmological argument* 1) nothing which exists can cause that which does not exist to begin existing out of nothing. 2) given (1), anything which begins to exist from nothing was not caused to do so by something which exists 3) the universe began to exist from nothing 4) given (2 and 3), the universe was not caused to exist by anything which exists 5) god caused the universe to begin to exist 6) from 4 and 5, god does not exist.

[@pipsdontlie3031]

1. Why does God play by the rules. He's (at least supposedly) omnipotent. Why does he need to take time to act? Isn't that limiting his (supposed) omnipotence. 2. Once again, omnipotence. You're limiting God by saying God cannot make something from nothing or cause something from nothing. 3. I do think it is more unreasonable, but that isn't why these objections are false. As for the eternal thing. Eternal means without beginning or end. If the universe, as we know it, began to exist, which if we say the Big Bang is the beginning of it's existence, we are admitting. It is not "eternal" because it exists at the same moment time does, as it still begins to exist. As for it being possible for an infinite regress, well sure, if the second law of thermodynamics didn't exist. Are you proposing that either A) The universe (being defined as literally all that exists) is not an isolated system, or B) That at one point (infinite ago) there was infinite amount of heat, though that sort of defies the concept of absolute hot. Even if you say the Universe were infinite, that still doesn't mathematically stop heat from infinitely filling it up. It seems rather impossible to me, unless of course the laws of the universe haven't always been around for the universe to have always been around. You can't really have infinite cause and effect if there is nothing for cause and effect to happen to. Your argument is good, except the first premise is false according to most believers in God. You can't logically say that an Omnipotent being cannot create something from nothing.

[@jordanw6918]

Galvanized Gamer 1. To be a free, thinking entity who chooses to create, god must choose before he acts. God can cause the universe and the universe can be caused at the same time, but it is logically impossible for god to choose to create at the same time he creates. A choice necessarily comes prior to the action. This is a logical necessity, which means god is bounded by it. Omnipotence only means he is able to do all that is logically possible, not possible and impossible. 2.I justify this with an argument, and so you must dispute the argument before you say that it is possible for ex nihilo creation to occur. The metaphysical intuition that nothing remains nothing no matter how much any all-powerful entity wants it to become something is as strong to me as the fact that 1+1=2, and I see no justification for the opposite. 3. Here you completely misunderstand my justification for a "self-caused" universe (Quentin Smith). I am not arguing for an ACTUALLY infinite universe, that would violate the second law of thermodynamics and it would go against modern cosmology. But I am not arguing for that, rather I am arguing that since there is no first moment in time before which there is another smaller moment, and sincere sum of all moments of time and causal intervals in the universe equal the whole of the universe, it follows that every interval is explained by a prior one, and there is no interval which is not explained by a prior one given the physical and mathematical implications of what's called the "singularity" (a thing which itself does not possibly exist, at least as a part of the universe). I said in my comment that it should not be mistaken: this is not an ACTUAL infinity, but a POTENTIAL infinity, I even gave an analogy for it. Read "Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology" by William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, or for a short version, this philosophical paper: infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/self-caused.html

[@pipsdontlie3031]

1. You are still arguing that God is bound by something. You are making the same silly argument that other theists make in response to the Omniptence paradox, that God cannot do the logically impossible. I do not see why that assumption is at all true. If God is omnipotent, he should be able to do anything, that includes making rocks so heavy he can't lift and making square circles. If God is bound by logic, he is not A) Omnipotent and B) Supreme, as logic precedes him. 2.I don't hold to this metaphysical intuition. I hold to the intuition that there was nothing and that there is now something and that obviously there must have been Someone to bring that change about. It isn't intuition, it is rationalization. Omnipotence means one can do anything, including the impossible. To negate that is to limit omnipotence, which is of course making omnipotence not omnipotence. 3. I apologize, I clearly didn't read thoroughly enough before rebutting your argument. Do you then assume then that there is no smallest interval of time? I don't really make this assumption, but if you want to, I guess you can assume this. I just wouldn't really use theoretical limits to try to disprove non theoretical knowledge, especially when it is not generally accepted.

[@turvytophat7470]

I'm sorry but I'm not going to read all that on a school night, I'm shore it was grate

[@ashygfriend6784]

The concept of omnipotence is illogical from the beginning. And if we aren't going to use logic and reasoning to prove the existence of God, what else can we use? (And notice how this is only beginning to address the POSSIBILITY of a God, it's nowhere close to definitively PROVING a SPECIFIC God.)

[@loodlebop]

nailed it again man! also thanks for making this so accessible to everyone and explaining yourself so well without being rude or patronising

[@ErikJohnsonFMA]

patreoner here, yes. big bang video please. love all your content.

[@anthonynuzzo9512]

Neither Thomas Aquinas, nor any of the Theologians of the Scholastic Tradition, nor Augustine nor any of the Patristics ever formulated a deductive argument where one of the premises was cast in such a way as to suggest that "everything has a cause...." as claimed by Cosmic Skeptic. He is patently incorrect. I'm not sure how an individual can take a position contra another position without first understanding what he is objecting to........

[@jamiethegaymie]

I would love to see that Big Bang video! Please and thank you :3

[@dx-vc4kt]

A video on the big bang theory would be great.

[@Homophonic]

Explaining existence using first principles like causation makes more sense than taking a passive position of agnosticism, what do you think theories are for? No theory is 100% proven but we still make theories and live and act by them.

[@kierananthony25]

This is my favourite. The "moving the goal posts" argument.

[@jaywhoisit4863]

Would really enjoy a Big Bang video. But please discuss the multiverse and string theories that attempt to explain the possible causes.

[@LimiTLesSGaming9mm]

Isn't he the kid that WLC responded and owned?

[@andrerocks8424]

When did he own him?

[@LimiTLesSGaming9mm]

@@andrerocks8424 There is a video named "William Lane Craig responds to CosmicSceptic" or something close...

[@oldpossum57]

Maybe. WLC gets owned plenty. He is a BS artist. Can’t get a philosophy/theology chair anywhere but a bible college.

[@cellomon09]

4:55 - “Aquinas, Craig, and Turek alike assume some kind of singular, grand beginning to not only our universe, but anything does, will, and can exist.” This alone should disqualify CosmicSkeptic from any credible critique of Aquinas’ work, because it’s patently false. Not only does Aquinas not assume a beginning of the universe in his argument, but he explicitly withholds judgement on that issue for the sake of argument. This can be clearly seen in the Summa Theologiae 1.46.2 and Summa Contra Gentiles Ch. 13

[@sydneyburckert1016]

When I see your videos it always makes my day. Keep being awesome!!

[@taterthot9639]

This channel has quickly become one of my favorites ❤️ great job on your videos. They're all great!

[@thefeonx9751]

Yassssss! Big Bang video please!

[@AlexEvett55]

Thats a really weird coincidence. I just uploaded a video on the big bang lol.

[@tiuhti__]

(low key self-advertising)

[@matthieulavagna]

35 seconds and he already shows he doesn't understand anything. "everything has a cause" NO. That is not what the first premice says!

[@MrWick-oe5ij]

Yeah cosmic skeptic you're so stupid. Ask this guy here. He will tell you how the universe works with hardcore evidence he found on facebook meme page.

[@Steelmage99]

@Matthieu You didn't watch the video, did you?

[@Steelmage99]

@lemon island But you did watch the video, and therefore know that Matthieu's criticism is entirely unwarranted, right?

[@matthieulavagna]

@@Steelmage99 yes .

[@Steelmage99]

@@matthieulavagna How can that be? You do realise that 35 seconds in, Alex is talking about Thomas Aquinas original cosmological argument, not the Kalam version, right?

[@isaiahjoiner1625]

The Kalam isn’t intended to prove the existence of any particular god, it is a proof for theism not any religion. There are other proof for specific religions

[@lenaevess]

I really like your outro, simple and calm. It's nice that you dont have some music booming in the end, birdsong is cool :)

[@Saintly]

Please do the proof of the big bang video. So many people always say atheists have no proof for it and I'd love to be able to direct them to one of your videos than spend an excessive amount of time explaining it to each and every person

[@superone8533]

I was following your comments right up until I was blinded by a cool shark. Then I lost focus.

[@emerydo5937]

the shark is very captivating with its beauty

[@StarryxNight5]

That shark was so cool that I'm surprised we aren't living in a ice age

[@OryGold]

And yes please make a Big Bang video.

[@Paratus.]

Alex, your videos are fantastic. I can really appreciate the academic feel to them and the fact that you don't completely bash the theists that you cover. Great job!

[@YAZY84]

Hey brother been watching your series for a while and have to express a level of admiration and respect. As atheist and proof seekers a lot of us struggle going thru our everyday let alone our whole lives with Gods fine sales men and women thinking how we must have either been born yesterday or sympathy towards your going your whole life without knowing GOD and his many cults, not knowing that as some of us listen to them and thinking to ourselves "WoW do they hear themselves and what their saying, wtf" and mind you thats on our good days! Anyways its good to watch your voice of logic since the real poverty in the world is our poverty of thought, rationality, and common sense yet I hope that the portals of logic unlock in the religious simple minds around the world so that one day we can all unite as one. Call me a dreamer even though I know for a fact it will happen come the future! Thank you...

[@wishlist011]

"Our observable universe did have a beginning" For something to "begin" to exist couldn't it be argued that there needs to have been a time when it didn't? Isn't this vaguely what Stephen Hawking is getting at when he said something to the effect of "Asking what caused the Big Bang might be a bit like asking what is north of the north pole"?

[@jignaio5762]

To begin to exist is not to go to a state of existence from a state of non-existence, because "not existing" is not a form of existing. For a thing to begin to exist simply means that it's false that that thing existed before that point.

[@Shake69ification]

@wishlist011 yes, that's precisely it. Causality needs a temporal framework, and since time too, as part of our 4-dimensional space-time, was created then, to speak of a "before" is meaningless.

[@jesperburns]

I personally believe that leprechauns were fucking around with the kettle and they accidentally created our universe.

[@bp4freak]

'Oh crap Connor, I created a universe'

[@jesperburns]

'Dammit Frank, another? What are we going to do with 13 fucking universes!'

[@maybe11349]

I would love a video on the proofs of the big bang

[@marksgiggle8895]

I just noticed your so close to 100,000 subscribers. You deserve way more.

[@richardcramer1604]

Best explanation of the cosmological argument I've heard yet.

[@nicolestar756]

Hi, I've discovered this channel recently, and I'd like to say that I love your videos! I hope this does not sound too silly, but they've really helped me get over my past fears of hell. (I grew up in a Christian family.) Do you think you could make a video about your view on near-death experiences? I understand that there's scientific explanations for these, but they still make me uncomfortable and bring back my fears of hell. I'd like to see what you'd say about it. Thanks! :)

[@mr.sneakyman1267]

hey i would look into david wood or nabeel qurishi

[@cilo6962]

do you still uphold this view( im a christian myself, and apologize for what the church wrongly did to you doctrine wise)

[@stevenbaumann8692]

I wonder if his followers know it has an Islamic origin. Their heads would likely melt. The biggest failure of this argument is that I could use it to claim our universe is just the child of another universe. Convenient to claim god has always existed to worm around it. God also admits in his book of fairytales that he is not the only god.

[@guytheincognito4186]

Steven Baumann precisely, if he was the Only God the first commandment would'nt be what it is. First Commandment: Thou shallt not have other Gods before me.

[@bp4freak]

It's the best part about their so-called proof of God, all they do it show that a deity might be the cause of it, although it is only one possibility amongst many and it doesn't specify which deity. Might as well be the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[@stevenbaumann8692]

Yep

[@stevenbaumann8692]

Guy The Incognito yep. Like psalms 82:1-2 God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: "How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?

[@jonnyw82]

If a God does exist it doesn't mean it's the God of the Bible.

[@TheHiss55]

This guy is my hero

[@stephenvanburen1818]

I would really enjoy a big bang video! Also I love your work.

[@victoriaQsevy]

Hey Alex, I just discovered your KZbin channel the other day and I am powering through all of your videos. I'm a big fan of Matt Dillahunty, and that's probably how you popped up in my recommendations. I just wanted to thank you for all of your thoughtful, well worded arguments. One of my favorite ways to pass time is listening to these types of videos, but only when done respectfully, which you definitely have done. I really enjoy listening to them, and I am really impressed with your knowledge of science. Keep up the great work! And keep the videos coming. ;)

[@skeptical.bricks7098]

I'm an atheist and I always hear "why did the Big Bang happen?" so a vid would be great:)

[@commandar88]

That's a philosophical question that unfortunately a naturalist atheist would have no explanatory power to answer. However if you use your reason and the world around you, you can look at the signs around you and within you to reflect and contemplate upon

[@covenantsoul8027]

The self-existent first cause, suggested by the KCA, is not an arbitrary choice for someone to invent so as to have a god to believe in. It is the very frame of reference from which our world begins and from which thinking itself can proceed. It clarifies what needs to be explained about reality and thus clarifies a lot of people’s misconceptions about what God has to be. The self-existent first cause just happens to be consistent with the God of the Bible. But it is there for any religion to claim as apparently Islam did at least in the middle ages, although few other religions have. Thus the KCA’s discrediting of non-theistic religions is merely a side benefit. The self-existent God has to “still be around.” Such is part of what it means to be the self-existent first cause. He also has to be one (a Trinity being included) as opposed to many, and I’ll go along with Him needing consciousness so as to be a causal agent, but the KCA is not intending to address all of God’s attributes. Most of the attributes of the God of the Bible are, well, revealed in the Bible. It is not just any cause that needs to be conscious - just the first cause. A self-existent non-conscious thing, prior to any cause and effect, is not going to be causing anything. The first cause is going to need free-will in order to cause something, and a will is possessed by a conscious mind. You seem to be a bit possessed by the need for “proof.” Sometimes you just have to go with how things seem instead of making wild speculations by invoking what we can or cannot know as though there was some form of non-conscious reality that existed eternally prior to the big bang. The skeptic who questions everything begins by denying God, eventually denies the existence of the universe, and in the end, himself. The KCA is not representing itself as “proof” for God. It is showing that it is reasonable to believe in God. The burden of proof doesn’t belong with the atheist until atheism enters the culture and brings its chaos into everyone else’s life. I have hope that you’ll be gaining more wisdom after you turn 14.

[@oldpossum57]

Your argument here is that god must exist in order for god to exist. You are the child here, my friend. You have watched a little WLC. He is a bible college dog and pony show,

[@covenantsoul8027]

@@oldpossum57 No that's not it. The statement is more along the lines of - if you have a house, you know that you also have a foundation. Perhaps the problem is not just your thinking, it's also that you cannot find God with a prideful, scornful, hate-filled heart.

[@oldpossum57]

@@covenantsoul8027 You are arguing using an analogy. In other words, you compare the universe to a house, which requires a foundation. A universe requires a “foundation”. But why should anyone accept your analogy. I do not see how a universe is at all like a house. The failure of the WLC version KCA is precisely because he assumes he can have knowledge about a realm outside of the universe. Inasmuch as what ever knowledge we have is based entirely on our existence within a universe, it should appear obvious to anyone that WLC is claiming knowledge he cannot have. Recall that the KCA and WLC’s version of it, are both intended to “prove” the existence of gods without assuming the existence of a god. The KCA cannot do this, not even with the help of WLC. You can leave the personal comments out of your contributions. They don’t advance your argument.

[@covenantsoul8027]

​@@oldpossum57 "Why should anyone accept your analogy."

[@oldpossum57]

@@covenantsoul8027 Out of politeness, I will respond. 1) You say there must be a First Cause for the Universe. This is the Argument from the First Cause. It has the following problems, which WLC cannot solve. A) Mathematicians and physicists say that it is quite possible that the Universe is infinite. Although this possible is “counterintuitive”, it could none the less be true. Counterintuitive does not mean incoherent, illogical. B) Even if one were to grant (for the sake of argument), WLC’s claims that the universe must have a cause, and that there cannot be infinite chains of causes inside a finite universe, WLC cannot argue that the First Cause must itself be uncaused. Outside the Universe, WLC cannot claim that there could not be an infinite chain of causes each causing the next. This of course means that he is wrong that the First Cause must itself be uncaused. C)in (B) above this is another case of WLC applying a rule from inside his universe to the realm outside it, a realm no one knows anything about. He makes this error a few separate times just in the Kalām syllogism, and then in all of the unargued premises he sneaks in: that the First Cause must be uncaused, that it can be causal, that it must be intelligent, that it must be Personal, that it must have Will or Desire. One could, for the sake of argument, grant his conclusion in the Kalām, and these conclusions would still not be allowed: he doesn’t have an argument. He just plays semantic games, defining things into existence. 2) WLC DOES make knowledge claims about the realm outside the universe. I don’t believe science does so. There are theories that predict a Multiverse, and thereby address the anthropic principle, but inasmuch as there is no empirical way to test Multiverses, they are just “artifacts of theory”. Whereas WLC wants to able to claim that this realm is timeless, dimensionless, immaterial. He wants to claim that in this timeless realm there cannot be present or potential infinite sets of causes). He wants to claim that even there is no timeframe, that a Cause which may be (all at once) Prior To AND Subsequent To AND Simultaneous With its Effect is nonetheless a Cause, even though it is uncausative. He wants to claim that Immaterial Cause can act on Material, and does not explain how. He claims to know that a Mindless Cause cannot cause a Universe. He claims to know that an Intelligence can exist outside of time, space and material substance. He claims to know that this Intelligence has Personality (Anthropomorphic Personality at that!) and Desireor Will. But he never explains how these things are possible, nor how he alone knows. The reason is that WLC is constantly “begging the question”, assuming the truth of the existence of gods before he has argued for their existence. 3) Deductive reasoning is not creative. It just tells you what you already know. There is a lot that WLC pretends to know that he doesn’t. In my second set of reasoning, I explained all the errors that come from his unreasonable claims of knowledge about a realm outside the Universe, when all we could ever hope to know rationally comes from our experience within the Universe. He makes more mistakes. A) He claims that the BGV theorem proves that the Universe must have a beginning. G&V have both stated quite public ally that WLC misunderstand the BGV Theorem. It states that the expansionary phase of the Universe must have a beginning. It says nothing either way about the Singularity, which could have existed for an Infinity. As I have said in (1), mathematicians do not rule this possibility out. It is “counterintuitive”, but so are a lot of things. I will refer you to two YT videos that explain why the WLC Kalām is mathematically and physically incoherent. B) One of the things you begin to understand about rational thought when you run into “counterintuitive” facts in math and quantum physics and cosmology is that your brain may be pretty remarkable for a social ape species, but it is still three pounds of ape-meat. We evolved as a hunter-gatherer species. By mutations (one appears to be gene mutation TKTL1) we ended up with an excess of neocortex. As a species (not me, of course) we have done a remarkable good job of creating knowledge. But even though we know by experimentation that the predictions of our theories are accurate, the model of the universe is not intuitive to us. Both you and WLC may want to claim that god gives us knowledge of god. But I am afraid that before anyone accepts your claim, you need to be able to prove god’s existence. WLC pretends to do it by deduction, but you cannot make deductions about a realm you cannot know anything about, the realm outside Reality, outside the Universe. In simple terms, as I and many others have said before, WLC is trying to define Things into existence with Words. It can’t be done. You are likely familiar with Occam’s Razor: WLC actually misuses it once in his argument supporting the Kalām, in an ineffective argument about the First Cause needing to be uncaused.) William of Ockham was also famous for another philosophical position, that WLC and evangelicals generally tend to forget. Ockham was a Nominalist. He was opposed to the Realists who claimed that if you could conceive of something, it must exist. Ockham said, quite the contrary, if you have a concept, all you have essentially is a name. You cannot Name entities into existence. There are two YT videos that gather mathematicians, cosmologists and philosophers together to show how WLCs Kalām is unfounded, based on erroneous premises and invalidly argued (not the bare syllogism, but the added on unproven claims) I will attach in a part two comment.

[@DB6195]

This argument fails due the fact that Cause/Effect only apply to the confines of our space time. Which began as we understand it with the Big Bang. Therefore the idea of applying Cause/Effect to logically deduce factors from outside our space time (before the Big Bang) is ludicrous and simply impossible. Perhaps effects preceded cause or an entirely different process was about. It's impossible to tell. And even to dumber to assume you could.

[@yellowmellow9265]

That's the point what he said in video is that . Out side this universe /time /space/matter how you know there is one god and not many likes him and it's Odin not thor . But he have to accept god do exist

[@andrewhewlett3504]

My conviction is most of my fellow believers over state their case by calling various arguments "Proofs". I think it is far better to call them "clues" or "pointers" in a cumulative case for God. (I think Prof. Alister McGrath gets it right in his approach) In my view various arguments (Kalam, Fine Tuning, Moral Argument) simply show that the idea of God's existence is a completely rational concept (though not absolute proof) and that a serious enquirer should be open this possibility.

[@danielkaz7751]

Love your videos watching for a long time, first time commenting sorry it's taken so long but please what do you have on the Big Bang, would love to see it. Again love what you are doing don't stop being you and one word of knowledge I have I share with everyone, laugh everyday! Your smile makes a lot of people happy including me, don't stop being you.

[@Tdisputations]

"Similarly, everyone “knows” that the cosmological argument for God’s existence says “Everything has a cause, so the universe has a cause, namely God” and that this argument is easily refuted by asking “Well, if everything has a cause, what caused God, then?” - except that that is not what the cosmological argument says, and none of the philosophers who have famously defended the argument - not Aristotle, not Aquinas, not Leibniz, not anyone else - ever committed such a stupid and obvious fallacy" - Dr. Edward Feser Oops!

[@ramigilneas9274]

owchywawa But Craig does exactly that, and he is pretty much the only one who still uses that old useless argument. 😂

[@internetnonsense1771]

The shark would have been cooler with a laser on its head. Or in a tornado. Or a laser and a tornado.

[@kristina5108]

You get cuter and cuter every time😭❤️

[@francissreckofabian01]

You are too intelligent AND well informed for your age. I'm 3 times your age and you know & understand a lot more than me! (I do read etc.) Anyway, well done. You are a excellent communicator. I can see you doing documentaries. The new Brian Cox, perhaps? I like how you can articulate your arguments so even I can follow (for the most part - I like philosophy but it is sometimes way over my head).

[@TheBulletproofmind]

I'm all for this Big Bang video.

[@jahovashalom17]

@CosmicSkeptic You lump all 5 ways of St.Thomas Aquinas that he spent a life time to develop into one easy to debunk strawman of his position.... checkmate theists...

[@maj.peppers3332]

Defs want a video on the proofs of the Big Bang

[@OryGold]

God is not appreciating your videos, Alex. He keeps cutting off your videos.

[@SuperMegaBA]

YES!!! Please do a proofs of the big bang video I would love to see that. Thanks for your great content!!

[@simonsemchenko3056]

Let's see that big bang video my dude

[@bavarianpotato]

sure do a video about the big bang Maybe that could start a series about science.

[@Tdisputations]

Aquinas never formulated his argument in that way. The first premise is that everything that is changing is changed by another. The first cause must, therefore, be immutable. There are several defenses of the first premise, and none of them have anything to do with the composition of the universe. In fact, the Argument from Motion is about things here and now; not the beginning of the universe. I've defended the fact that this must be God on my channel, but basically the fact that the prime mover must be its own existence means that it is the same God we see in the Bible. After all, God describes Himself in the burning bush as "I am He who is." There are more reasons to believe God is intelligent, has will, is good, etc, but I doubt anyone will read this anyway, so I won't waste my time.

[@psprokkinrobin202]

owchywawa Too late. You already wasted your time. And your entire life believing in magic. The first cause of the universe was a pan dimensional, time surfing space slug who ate a rotten piece of pan dimensional, time surfing lettuce got a particularly nasty case of indigestion and exploded. Prove me wrong. See I did the whole prove god doesn't exist bullshit only with a pan dimensional, time surfing space slug. :)

[@Tdisputations]

+PSP RokkinRobin A time surfing space slug is changing, therefore, it must be changed by another. Whatever is the first cause of all change cannot be changed by another, therefore, a time surfing space slug cannot be the first cause of all change. A time surfing space slug is composed of parts which are non-essential. The green color of the space slug, for example, is not essential to the space slug, which is why space slug would still be a space slug, if it were not to contain this green color. That said, without a color at all, the space slug would not exist. The space slug is made actual by its accidents. Whatever is made actual by another is not its own existence, but the first cause must be its own existence because it cannot be made actual by another. Therefore, a time surfing space slug is not the first cause. A time surfing space slug is composed of parts in general, which can only be in it, if it contains potentiality. The mouth of the space slug is not the tail, for example, so these parts are in potentiality with regards to each other. The first cause of all change cannot be potential in respect to change, however. Therefore, a time surfing space slug cannot be the first cause. A time surfing space slug is in space. Anything space can be divided, but everything that is divisible is dependent upon its parts for its existence, and its motion. This cannot be true of the first cause. Also, if it is divided, then that is a type of change, which is impossible for the first cause. Therefore, a time surfing space slug is not the first cause. Your description also depends on the idea of four dimensional spacetime block universe, which would seem to deny the reality of change, but change is evident to our senses, so this is inherently absurd.

[@schmooopy]

That Aquinas neglected to state that his argument referred to the composition of the universe doesn't mean that it's precluded from the argument. I think it's clear to everyone that the technology of Aquinas' time - of anyone's time - places limits on the breadth of knowledge and the scope and context to which it might be applied. The universe is necessarily implied by the argument itself since he used Unmoved Mover to argue for the existence of a god. William Lane Craig is aware of this as he frequently refers to Aquinas' and Kalam's arguments when he speaks about the nature of the universe. I would also add, in response to your defense that the Unmoved Mover _must_ be God, that Aquinas also presupposed that infinite regress was impossible without offering any premises to support that conclusion.

[@Tdisputations]

+Michael Coen "by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist" - St. Thomas Aquinas St. Thomas Aquinas' argument has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe. It is about things which are changing _hic et nunc._ "Aquinas also presupposed that infinite regress was impossible without offering any premises to support that conclusion." False: "But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand." - St. Thomas Aquinas

[@schmooopy]

***** and he used his conclusion of the Unmoved Mover as a premise. You accept that?

[@giacomopamio1191]

artichokes are better than lamps

[@theofficialwatermelon8583]

Jack 'o Bong why?

[@ciarfah]

Jack 'o Bong Please elaborate. I'm interested.

[@naooho9392]

Interesting...

[@schadenfreudebuddha]

I think you might be on to something. ever try to eat a lamp?

[@Stephiscool444]

You're right

[@G8rfan61]

Alex undoubtedly is the most composed, articulate, rational and astute 11-year-olds I've ever hearkened. Great argument. Great presentation.

[@MrMacD069]

I truly enjoy your videos. Thank you for sharing your knowledge! It revitalizes my faith in humanity to watch these!

[@shahzansadick1248]

God is not a Thing. False premise

[@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763]

It's a false belief? A myth?

[@shahzansadick1248]

@@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763 he says in the video that "god is a thing" and hence blah blah.. that is a false premise.. no one said god is a thing. A Thing is what occupies space and time. God CREATED Space and Time and EveryTHING that inhabits it. Hence he can't be subject to it.

[@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763]

@@shahzansadick1248 Oh sheesh, "thing" is a fill-word that can stand for anything. Like "what was that thing I was thinking about... oh right, that zoom call later today". A video call is also not a "thing" yet the sentence works. _"God CREATED Space and Time and EveryTHING that inhabits it. Hence he can't be subject to it."_ That you create something does not mean that you can't be subject to it. I can build a prison and then be imprisoned. I can craft a bow and arrow and shoot myself in the foot with it. _"God CREATED Space and Time and EveryTHING that inhabits it."_ That is an interesting claim. How do we verify whether it is true?

[@hankschwiebert1384]

A straw man was presented in this video. Every apologist I have ever seen present the Kalaam Cosmological argument never claimed that the argument proves their particular take on the personality of God. They always make it clear that the Kalaam argument only supports the idea of an abstract concept of God. Often, they will follow up with separate arguments as to why their particular idea of God is the most reasonable. Also, on the example you used with the atoms supporting the Fallacy of Composition, what do you mean by alive? In a naturalist view, is being, "alive", significant, or is it a made up concept? Is me typing this comment any different than a Coke can fizzing, or in other words, a collection of atoms reacting together? Maybe we can conclude that we aren't truly alive in the sense that most mean it, based off of the fact that we are made out of entirely, "unalive", entities. Without further clarification, I don't find the example compelling for your case. With the, "small", brick example, you need to make a distinction between Extensive and Intensive properties. Volume, or size, is Extensive, and Extensive properties change depending on how many bricks you are considering. Intensive properties, such as density or color(I recall that you considered red in your example), don't scale or change as you consider larger and larger groups of uniform bricks. Thus, I would propose that the Fallacy of Composition only applies to Extensive, and not Intensive, properties. This still allows us to make conclusions about the larger reality based off of what we can observe within our own universe.

[@Songbird645]

Hank Schwiebert Okay. Let me give you an other analogy. Let's imagine that the Universe is a grain of salt. In a 'grain of salt' every 'non-subatomic particle (ion)' has a 'charge'. In the 'Universe' everything has a 'cause'. If all 'non-subatomic particle' in the 'grain of salt' have a 'charge' does it mean that the 'grain of salt' also has a 'charge'? Let me rephrase my sentence. If all 'things' in the 'Universe' has a 'cause' does it mean that the 'Universe' also has a 'cause'? 'Universe' = 'grain of salt' 'Non-subatomic particles' (in the grain of salt) = 'things' (in the Universe) 'cause' = 'charge'

[@hankschwiebert1384]

@@Songbird645 The charge of a group of molecules or atoms is an Extensive property. It can increase or decrease in magnitude depending on the quantity of charged entities considered. My objection, and the proposition that we can still reasonably conjecture about Intensive properties, still holds.

[@Songbird645]

Hank Schwiebert Okay. I got it. You are right. "An extensive property is additive for subsystems. This means the system could be divided into any number of subsystems, and the extensive property measured for each subsystem; the value of the property for the system would be the sum of the property for each subsystem." Yes, we can consider charge as an extensive property by this definition. By the way. Why we consider "cause" as an intensive property? Is it a property at all?

[@hankschwiebert1384]

@@Songbird645 Well, I described it as intensive to pinpoint exactly why I thought his given examples werent good examples for supporting his point. And I would say that a logical property of an entity, such as requiring a cause if it began to exist, could be described as intensive, in that the quantity of the object isnt relevant. Now, if you want to denounce the assumption that reality is logical at all, I will concede that we cannot prove logic, as that would require logic. However, I think that logic is a safe assumption(or at least a necessary one), and if you dont, then there really isnt anyway we can come to agree on anything and this conversation is pointless.

[@Songbird645]

Hank Schwiebert Okay. I could agree with that. If we consider 'cause' as a property then it must be an intensive property. If everything has a cause then wouldn't we get an infinite number of causes? (Like with the Zeno's paradox.) If we don't want to have a paradox we need 'something uncaused'. But why we call this 'uncaused thing' God? They have just one same property. Why did we assume that this 'uncaused thing' created our Universe? Isn't it a logical possibility that the 'uncaused thing' caused 'something' which caused the Universe? By the way I don't think that this Kalam argument has anything to do with religion or God. All it is proves that we likely had 'something uncaused'. We don't even know if this 'uncaused thing' still exist.

[@WeShallOvercome_]

The way these 'proofs' of god are often expressed by faith adherents is a form of circular reasoning called Begging The Question. Sometimes in a debate one side might ask the other to concede certain points or issues to facilitate seeing the other person's perspective. However, to beg the question is to ask that the crux of the matter be conceded, which is clearly an illegitimate proposal. These cosmological 'proofs' ask us to concede the physical to the non-physical, and ultimately to a non-physical eternal, all powerful god, the very matter being disputed, all without this leap in argument being substantiated by evidence. Such begging says nothing more than: Claim X assumes X is true. Therefore, Claim X is true. Imagine being on trial accused of murdering your wife, you've not yet been found guilty, and the prosecutor turns to you and asks: So, how did you feel when you killed your wife? Objection, your honour! The prosecutor is begging the question. S/he is asking you to concede the crux of the matter being disputed, when it's his or her job to prove you killed your wife first. Claiming an eternal, non-physical and powerful conscious mind exists _because_ it precedes the physical universe is asking others to concede the very matter we're debating. The next stage then is for the proponent of the various cosmological 'proofs' to use dogma to give weight to the unproven proof, usually in the form of "this is the only (logical) possibility", e.g. "whatever came before the physical had to be non-physical", "the cause came before time so it is timeless therefore eternal". As often with begging the question, the statements often just lead to more questions. About the 'before' space-time 'timeless' assumption, we could ask: Could this god have created the universe earlier than he did? If so, how can you claim it's timeless where this god is or comes from or has always been? If he couldn't have created the universe earlier than he did, how can you call it god? While we're at it: How can something be eternal and change? There are many other questions that spring out of guessing but ultimately the question is: Why does the cause just so happen to be the god the proponent believes in? The answers often allude to the 'supernatural', but whatever that is, wouldn't a supernatural power, force, intelligence be subject to supernatural laws and reasoning, in which case how can it be god? Without evidence there is rarely only one possibility, so if some feel persuaded by limited possibility, might I suggest to such proponents that it is equally or even more likely that it is in fact your knowledge and understanding which is limited. It might also be worthwhile pointing out that, when not really in the know, humility either costs nothing or costs very little.

[@DavidF-fe7zs]

I'd love to see a video focusing on the big bang or how our universe exists. It fascinates me, great work Alex :)

[@sonjahyvarinen7692]

i love your channel, your videos are great, keep going💙

[@eldotjay]

*Right from the offset you’ve already got it wrong. The first premise of The Kalam Cosmological argument is not based on cause and effect. It’s based on a metaphysical state of being - that from nothing comes nothing.* *You repeat the same mistake again when you state that the Kalam cosmological argument fails because it doesn’t get you to “your particular god”. That’s like saying a bus doesn’t work as a means of conveyance because it can’t take me from London to Munich. That isn’t the point (which you’re failing to grasp). Better yet I can still take that bus to Heathrow and grab a plane to Munich. In the same way, the Kalam cosmological argument can work out for us a cause for the universe without the need for any particular god.* *It is only only when we begin to divulge in what this cause must be do we then can we look into it fitting the description of monotheism - Christianity in particular. We can then look at the argument for the resurrection of Jesus (another argument) to see if he was who he claimed to be.* *If it is proved to be true is how we can then arrive at a Christian world view in particular. Not just the Kalam cosmological argument.* *As articulate as you sound I think maybe it’s best to stick to completing your A Levels / university degree.*

[@itzepix3013]

You‘re Not Debunking the Argument you‘re just List some theses with no reason to belief in.

[@Songbird645]

Can you list some of these "theses"?

[@giacomopamio1191]

first! I finally did it!!

[@adamas_dragon]

Jack 'o Bong *sarcastic applause*

[@theofficialwatermelon8583]

Jack 'o Bong well aren't you a special snowflake?❄️✨

[@theofficialwatermelon8583]

- Skyler - somebody get him a medal

[@ladywoodgrill7956]

theofficialwatermelon Don't worry, I brought the medal.

[@brianstevens3858]

hhhmmm hold on I have a cardboard cookie around here somewhere

[@pilgrimpater]

The whole problem is that premise #1 is relevant to only this Universe yet is used to argue for what necessarily must be outside the Universe.

[@DanPieu]

This lad has been debunked....by his older self!

[@DanPieu]

@@bradsubramaniam4429 Dude...I mean Alex has been debunked by Alex himself...he made a new video pointing out the errors in the arguments he makes in this video...here is that video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/g3itomh5btyosM0