The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Part 2: Philosophical

[@AlAmin-ct6cn]

Can we appreciate al ghazali for his wisdom

[@karlmuud]

No. He was Muslim. 😁🤣😁

[@bonar1211]

@@karlmuud I mean come on bruh, even tho I m as a muslim definitely. At least in here we are agree there s a God.

[@suzaneoriordan4366]

He made islam a pretty oppressive religion and is a reason for the horror today. So he has negative as well

[@ykn08001]

@@suzaneoriordan4366 how did Ghazali do that?

[@suzaneoriordan4366]

@@ykn08001 he made a division of religion and philosophy and disregarded Aristotle's work, which is probably a reason for the violence for in islam today

[@terryhollifield9343]

This philosophical version has always been the most powerful to my thinking (although admittedly, what convices one individual person is subjective). When I was not a Christian and was following a type of "New Spirituality" the reality of time and the fact of the present moment haunted me and was used by God to help me see the logical need for God's existence. Thank you for these excellent resources as always.

[@JamesKimSynergize]

Thanks for sharing that brief testimony. It illustrates to me that it is not one thing that brings us to faith in God.

[@terryhollifield9343]

@@JamesKimSynergize Thank you. Yet, thankfully He knows what each one of us needs (if we are at least willing) and meets us where we are.

[@JamesKimSynergize]

@@terryhollifield9343 I share some of the same having been an agnostic.

[@terryhollifield9343]

@@JamesKimSynergize Glad to be in the family with you.

[@aymanhalabi4536]

Thank imam alghazali and kalam science

[@les2997]

Makes sense. Actual infinities would lead to contradictions. For example, an infinitely dense planet would be condensed into a sphere with a radius zero, i.e. it would not exist.

[@les2997]

@mystix Zero volume means thing doesn't exist. Otherwise, there is no infinite density. Black holes don't have infinite density at the center.

[@laosi4278]

@mystix black holes only have a super highly density, yet it cannot reach the realm of infinity

[@hsingh5650]

In the drcraig video on the Leibniz' Contingency Argument, it says numbers exist necessarily. However, in this video it says numbers don't exist. I am confused.

[@les2997]

@@hsingh5650 Provide times in both videos where he says what you claim. Nobody is going to re-watch both videos again.

[@hsingh5650]

@@les2997 kzbin.info/www/bejne/fIGmq3iGZdR3bas Go to 2 mins 22 seconds

[@scottanderson7793]

I'm not afraid to admit that I wept when I viewed this video. Such an eloquent explanation. This also helps me defend my faith against an increasing amount of people who want to tear it down.

[@MrAlamri123456789]

Thank to al gazali and wiliam l craige

[@matswessling6600]

eloquency doesnt prove anything. logic and observation does.

[@Johnny-mz9ot]

​@@matswessling6600Can you justify materialism or atheism in the face of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? (Which you didn't attempt to refute.)

[@matswessling6600]

@@Johnny-mz9ot "materialism"? why bother with "materialism"? The important thing is to separate out what information that good evidence from the bad information. Khalam Cosmological argument doesnt provide any information so it is useless. And the argument in itself is faulty 1) everything that begins to exist has a cause. i say that nothing that really begins to exist has a cause. Why? because most things are just rearrangenets of atoms and doesnt really "begin to exist". only things that seems to "begin to exist" are virtual particles and they are notoriously uncaused. And it also fails in another way: everything we see are things that folliws the laws inside the universe. We know nothing about the laws outside the universe and they are the laws that guides how the universe began. so first statement of Kalam is not necessarily true and thus we dont have to care about the rest.

[@mattfig6098]

0:08 So glad she said, "raises the question" instead of "begs the question."

[@ChristianSigma]

Why?

[@BlisterBang]

@@ChristianSigma Eristic atheists nitpick Christians with the argument that there's nothing conscious there doing any 'begging'. Atheism is wrong, and they'll look for ANYTHING to hurl back at us.

[@yourfutureself3392]

Are u suggesting the argument begs the question? Why? In order for something to beg the question it should presoppouse it's conclusion in it's premises, but the argument doesn't do that: p1 is based on a priori intuitions wich don't presoppouse the idea that the universe has a cause in the slightest and p2 is based on scientific evidence and finitist philosophical arguments wich also don't presoppouse the universe has a cause.

[@allstar4065]

@@yourfutureself3392 It doesn't have to be used as a fallacy term all the time.

[@yourfutureself3392]

@@allstar4065 if he's saying the argument begs the question, but he's not using the term "beg the question" in its actual definition and as a logical fallacy then there's nothing wrong with begging the question. It's like accusing someone if special pleading and then claiming that you're not using the term "special pleading" as a logical fallacy. It's useless, misleading, wrong (as that's not the word's actual definition), makes no actual criticism of the argument and doesn't provide anything substancial

[@billbolthouse4648]

Nice video. Fortunately, I have an infinite number of points built up in the Hilbert Hotel Rewards Program, in case an infinite number of guests show up, I still get an upgrade.

[@TallGabe30]

Very helpful. I have struggled to explain the Hilbert hotel and this makes it’s much easier.

[@brando3342]

@TallestPiper Yes, someone on Facebook pointed it out to me in support of an actual infinite past and not understanding it exactly, I felt I had to defend my point of view against it. Not knowing that it's meant to show the absurdity of actual infinities.

[@abashedsanctimony154]

This video disproves evolution. Not sure if that was the intended purpose. For anything infinite to exist. There would need to be a Creator of infinite solutions. When the proposed odd number of rooms appeared, most would hopefully ha e recognized, a negative solution is still a valid infinite possibility. Nothing created nothing destroyed. The empty rooms simply become a negative potential. God has a universe created by laws and mechanisms we can't see the design of the mechanisms, but we see the existence that it is built upon. For example, *evil* . We do not see evil beings, but we see the effects of evil doers.

[@namapalsu2364]

Been waiting for a video version of the phislosophical argument for premise 2 of Kalam Cosmological argument.

[@MysteriousBeingOfLight]

@@abashedsanctimony154 We see evil, these are the satanic pedofile demons that rules the media's.

[@iyadal-najjar3512]

الله يرحم مولانا الحجة الغزالي Thanks for giving us this great video. It gives better ideas to explain things.

[@zorkboy]

Great video! To me, Ghazali's second argument is easier to understand and explain to people, so I generally go with that one

[@ShanerMcGrainer]

I enjoy the simplicity & depth of Dr.Craig's work.

[@cnault3244]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not have a god/creator as it's conclusion. In it's entirety the argument is: 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2) The universe began to exist. 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. The conclusion is the universe had a cause. Any use of the Kalam argument beyond the 2 premises and the conclusion presented here is NOT the Kalam Argument.

[@TXLogic]

Simple, yes, deep, no. The reasoning is atrocious.

[@jackplumbridge2704]

@@TXLogic I don't find his reasoning atrocious at all. Care to explain why you think it is?

[@amadubah8931]

I really love these animated videos. PLEASE KEEP IT UP!

[@JCATG]

That was excellently explained. The philosophical implications of infinity does present logical difficulties for those who propose a universe that has always been in existence. God has offered rationality in the underpinnings of the creation that exists today and it is those who humbly and intellectually seek it find the wisdom and reason which holds the grounds of our existence. I hope more people would come to terms with this. And I pray that more Christians would be on a pursuit of the wonders of the cosmos in light of the Lord Himself. Great job here, Reasonable Faith! May God bless your ministry all the more for Godʼs glory and the good of His people.

[@jaredbowen3527]

4:06 that sounded really cool

[@cradle5456]

May Allah bless Al Ghazali for writing the cosmological argument

[@majukanumi9639]

but your salafistes kafarouhou..

[@cradle5456]

@@majukanumi9639?

[@zachio69]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God. It originated in medieval Islamic theology and was developed by Muslim philosophers such as al-Ghazali and al-Farabi. The argument goes as follows: 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. The cause is then argued to be a necessary, uncaused, timeless, and spaceless being, which is identified as God. The argument is based on the idea that the universe had a finite beginning and that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Proponents of the Kalam Cosmological Argument argue that the cause of the universe must be an uncaused, eternal being, since it cannot be caused by something that came into existence after it. There are several criticisms of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, including the following: The first premise - that everything that begins to exist has a cause - has been challenged by some philosophers and scientists. They argue that the cause-and-effect relationship only applies to things within the universe, and that it is not necessarily applicable to the universe as a whole. The second premise - that the universe began to exist - is based on the standard Big Bang model of cosmology, which is still a matter of scientific debate and not a proven fact. Some philosophers and scientists argue that the Big Bang theory does not necessarily imply a beginning of the universe, and that alternative models, such as the cyclic model or the emergent model, are possible. The conclusion that the cause of the universe must be an uncaused, eternal being is not logically necessary. There could be other explanations for the cause of the universe, such as a natural cause or a multiverse. The identification of the cause of the universe as God is not logically necessary. The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not prove the existence of a personal deity with specific attributes, but only the existence of a necessary, uncaused being. In conclusion, the Kalam Cosmological Argument has faced numerous criticisms and objections, and its validity as a proof for the existence of God is still the subject of ongoing philosophical and scientific debate.

[@revroboram4895]

Superb! Well Done!

[@generalhitblur813]

4:06 This one gave me a Transformers vibe, ngl. Thank you for making this video. God bless.

[@MichaelEHastings]

Let's talk about the Bible next and why it is one of the most historically accurate texts in existence. There are so many reasons it would be hard to put it in a 6 minute video.

[@Romailjohn]

simpatico ideale Dio vi benedica

[@JuggsMCPvP]

Yeah, he should do one on the Pauline epistles, one on the gospels, and maybe get a colleague to help him with the major prophets, psalms, proverbs.

[@brethrenjc.3606]

Perfectly said Christian Brother

[@mangolassi5273]

Quran is tbf

[@anotherpointofview222]

What do you mean by "historically accurate?" No historical errors regarding historical dates, places, people, events, etc? Please explain, I'm not understanding how you would make/support such a claim. Not saying it can't be true. Just why do you believe that.?

[@farhanwyne6040]

This indeed is a very strong argument for the presence/existence of a Divine Being.

[@cnault3244]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not have a god/creator as it's conclusion. In it's entirety the argument is: 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2) The universe began to exist. 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. The conclusion is the universe had a cause. Any use of the Kalam argument beyond the 2 premises and the conclusion presented here is NOT the Kalam Argument.

[@JoeFec]

Excellent videos on the philosophical basis for God. No argument will convince those who don't want to consider it, but at least this prevents those undecided people, especially the young, for being so quick to decide that atheism is the only way.

[@huynhngocnamgiang]

I LOVE THESE VIDEOS!! thank you Dr. Craig!

[@DougGroothuis]

Excellent. I defend this argument in Christian Apologetics. See also J.P. Moreland's treatment in Scaling the Secular City. I am going to use this in my apologetic class.

[@Romailjohn]

amen

[@vaskaventi6840]

You should also check out Grim Reaper paradoxes, they are even more effective since they lead to direct contradictions. Compared to some of the other paradoxes we have, Hilbert’s Hotel is one of the weaker ones!

[@interestingreligion5204]

Rationality Rules gives some interesting talks on the Grim Reaper paradox in a video with CC.

[@calebp6114]

@@vaskaventi6840 See Methusaleh's Diary paradoxes and the problem of vicious circularity as well, as defended in Andrew Loke's new book. I think there are at least five sound philosophical arguments for premise 2, and that's not even getting into the scientific support :)

[@danr.7982]

Animated videos sure do help guys like me. Lord knows that's the only way I can understand things.

[@nolangimpel39]

This is a really good quality video, the voice work and art work is very nice!

[@vaskaventi6840]

To all the atheist youtubers who will respond and nitpick at this video, keep this in mind: This video is a broad summary of a variety of arguments that attempts to express them in layman’s terms. It is meant to get the idea across to someone who is at the level of a high school student or so. There are much more rigorous and precise defenses of these arguments, so if you want to respond to the arguments for premise 2, please address some of the more advanced defenses, since they generally address the issues one has with the broad video summary.

[@interestingreligion5204]

You can't have your cake and eat it. You shouldnt produce a video if you are going to shut out people. Unless you don't want people to respond unless it's 'praise' 🤦

[@steelcarnivore8390]

@@interestingreligion5204 He is not shutting out people, but only giving a heads-up to this and there is nothing wrong with that.

[@interestingreligion5204]

@@steelcarnivore8390 the tone and texture of a message can be easily miscommunicated. I'm easily fooled into the wrong assumption.

[@heartfeltteaching]

@@interestingreligion5204 Then smarten up and don't be easily fooled bruv ;)

[@interestingreligion5204]

@@heartfeltteaching I can't and I am unsure if this is a serious post or a tongue in cheek response. 😜

[@michaelwaters7473]

Great job, does help explain the Hilberts Hotel which I have always struggled with as not noted by others, I love the philosophical evidences even if they are sometimes hard to get your head around.

[@thewayofthecross6619]

Great work Dr Craig. God bless you.

[@MrAlamri123456789]

Thank Dr Craig and thank al gazali

[@JuggsMCPvP]

Thanks Dr. Craig; I thought the world was ending at 6:03 because I had my subwoofer on LOL.

[@Acalmujannahmalaysia]

The temporal world would end, an eternal world would begin...

[@harukiishiguri625]

Al Ghazali is very genius

[@ChillMale22]

People say there can't be an infinite, but if the athiestic worldview is correct, how long does death last?

[@ceceroxy2227]

potentially forever, but you will never reach forever

[@nahoalife954]

This is terrific!

[@miftahulfirdaus7240]

Al Kindi also used some of the arguments in this video. Al-Kindi also stated that the universe and time are created.

[@santoseliodoropaz9894]

May God bless this apologist . She is so smart ❤ i am amazed

[@riobagus1720]

i really love this channel, it gave me easier explanation on God, GBU from Indonesia

[@renzodelaquintana566]

Me encantó. Muchas gracias Profesor Craig. 🙂❤✌

[@anonymoushuman3657]

I’m confused how the number of past events being finite automatically means the universe began to exist? I can understand how a finite past points to the beginning of matter and energy since they are constantly changing, but how does a finite past point to the beginning of space and time?

[@Joaaugustus]

Didnt you read the cosmo arguments everythings has a cause

[@anonymoushuman3657]

The causal principle is not “everything has a cause.” It’s “everything that begins to exist has a cause.” Indeed, if the universe (all of space, time, matter, and energy) began to exist, it has a cause, but I’m asking how does the number of past events being finite imply that space and time began to exist?

[@Joaaugustus]

@@anonymoushuman3657 well if time always existed the universe would need to be eternal which is not the cause since eternal past would mean today could never be reached. Its like this dominos fall forever and u expect the last to fall

[@AIContentx]

@@anonymoushuman3657 are you hearing yourself

[@jackplumbridge2704]

"I’m confused how the number of past events being finite automatically means the universe began to exist?" - This is necessarily entailed. Since the universe is a temporal object, and since time had a beginning, the universe must have had a beginning too.

[@ttecnotut]

1. We don’t know if something can from nothing 2. We don’t know if the universe always existed 3. We don’t know what it means to say a mind can think outside of time

[@clarencecausey7473]

Those are good questions; one way to arrive at an answer would be to employ one of several standards, including a "high degree of certainty", or "beyond a reasonable doubt"; notice that I'm not asking for s standard of evidence that is or even approaches 100%. With this in mind, it appears one can reasonably state "something cannot come from nothing". On #2, I think it's a safe argument to say the universe, at least in it's present form, cannot have always existed..

[@ancientpapyrus]

awesome infographic video very illustrative

[@ktall6749]

I would imagine infinity could/would exist as long as moving with the direction of time. If we have a beginning, there is no necessity for an end. As long as creation is possible, it could continue creating for eternity. Correct?

[@wakeg40]

Yeah thanks Dr. Craig!!!

[@esauponce9759]

Love the illustrations.

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

0:00 - 0:06 This is a false dichotomy. It is entirely possible that spacetime itself has only existed for a finite amount of time, but that the rest of the universe has existed for all time. In other words, it is entirely possible that the time axis is itself finite in length. So it could be the case that the universe has existed for a finite amount of time, but did not have a beginning. There is no contradiction here. One claim is about which time coordinates the universe has existed for, the other claim is about the length of the axis of which the time coordinates are elements of. 0:06 - 0:17 No. In part 1, you pretended to use science to support your claims, but completely misrepresented it and made false and baseless claims and tried to pass them off as scientific. I wrote an entire comment thread deconstructing the video and explaining how the science was misrepresented. 0:27 - 0:36 Yes, but he was wrong. He failed to account for the possibility above that I already explained: that if time itself is a set of points with finite length, then it is possible that the universe had no beginning, yet is finitely old. Something having a beginning has nothing to do with whether it has existed for a finite amount of time or a finite amount of time. It has to do with whether there existed a point in time prior to which the thing did not exist, and after which the thing did exist. If yes, then the thing in question has a beginning. If there is no point in time during which the thing did not exist, then it did not have a beginning, and this is true regardless of how long it has existed for. Al Ghazali did not realize this, because he made his arguments during a time when set theory and order theory were not well-understood. 0:36 - 0:45 It does not, and it is not. 0:46 - 1:28 There is no contradiction here. What does it mean for a hotel to be full? It means that that there is no room that is unoccupied. When you shift the guests of the hotal one room forward, the hotel becomes not full, because exactly one room is unoccupied. When the new guest fills the room, the hotel becomes full again. There is no logical contradiction here, because there is no point in time during which the hotel is full and not full at the same time. Nothing about the situation is absurd. The video fails to recognize that moving the guests to different rooms means that the hotel stopped being full. 1:29 - 2:09 Again, this objection makes the same mistake as in the previous situation: the video is assuming that the hotel stays full when you move the guests around the hotel. That is not the case. By moving the guests, the hotel becomes unfull. The fact that it can thus be filled with new guests is not an absurdity, just a mundane fact. If you start with a false assumption, then you get a false conclusion. Nothing surprising there. 2:09 - 2:25 What is absurd about that? There is nothing absurd about this. This is called Cantor's property. Cantor's property is the property that every infinite set has at least one proper subset that has the same cardinality as the original infinite set. In fact, we can know exactly how many subsets of a set have a given cardinality, and this includes the cardinality of the original set itself. The number is given by the generalized binomial coefficients, defined for cardinal numbers, finite and transfinite alike. 2:09 - 2:43 No. There is no logical contradiction here. The number of guests that left the hotel is the same for both scenarios, but the configuration of the rooms they occupied is different. Changing the configuration of the occupied rooms by moving guests in the hotel changes the properties of the hotel. To be continued in the replies.

[@patricksnoring4739]

I agree with a lot of what you stated above, but it’s breath wasted here. The community around these videos won’t listen to anything unless it confirms what they already believe.

[@timsmith3377]

Awesome as usual! I prefer the scientific version, though. I think it appeals to modern Americans better than the philosophical version. How about a video on how we got the Bible and why it is trustworthy?

[@les2997]

Science exists on top of philosophy.

[@prime_time_youtube]

@@les2997 But Tim is right, modern Americans prefer scientific videos to philosophical videos. OBviously, this philosophical defense is even better than the first video.

[@Romailjohn]

@@prime_time_youtube si

[@andro8854]

Fantastic video! Thank you so much

[@sidkaskey]

And so the intellectual argument demands the question of who created God [i.e.The creator of the Universe--which according to this argument must have had a beginning] And then we are led to who created the God who created the God? And then we have no choice but to struggle with who created the creator of God. And so on. Intellectual honesty.

[@drcraigvideos]

The Kalam argument itself only asserts that whatever has a beginning has a cause. If time began at the creation of the universe, then the cause would transcend time and therefore lack a beginning. See our video on the Leibnizian Argument from Contingency for an argument concluding that the cause of the universe is itself uncaused.

[@metatron4890]

Causes can be temporally prior to their effects and if this is true, then the kalam argument fails as an infinite past is generated. The statement for every event there is an temporally prior event that is its cause is logically consistent so an infinite past is logically posssible and metaphysically possible so long as it is metaphysically possible for causes to always be prior to their effects.

[@ChristopherMenzel]

The arguments concerning the infinite in this video are so deeply confused and so profoundly misleading that I’m inclined to call them immoral, as I believe Craig himself knows better. They exploit *obvious* ambiguities (e.g., on what “full” means) to generate bogus “contradictions”. There is absolutely nothing contradictory about Hilbert’s Hotel and the “contradictions” the video claims are inherent in the infinite are easily explained by anyone with a basic knowledge of transfinite arithmetic.

[@grantjepson1735]

Can you explain

[@elgatofelix8917]

Is this a reupload? The Argument from Intelligent Design is IMO a more powerful argument then the Kalam

[@peharda]

The Hilbert hotel is a great example of how maths and reality are not the same thing. Things that work in maths do not always work in real life.

[@Miscomprehended]

Excellent and informative video. The part where the vocal transitioned from the woman to the man was odd though. It sounded like a horror movie for a sec.

[@ProselyteofYah]

The fact we can conceive of eternity as an idea, yet have always lived and known finite as creatures in a finite universe, means eternity exists, but not inside this realm, and yet, we somehow were able to conceive of it, which means we experienced it, or interacted with it. The blind cannot conceive of sight, or colour. Likewise, we cannot think of new colours, only what we have already seen. We are ontological receivers, not projectors. Living in a finite universe, should by all means, cause us to be "blind" to the notion or idea of eternity. So eternity has somehow been "experienced" by us, or has been informed to us by something that in itself cannot be finite. Much like a sighted man telling a blind man about sight. A finite Universe that births men who can conceive of infinity reveals his infinite origins or cause.

[@gunnarneumann8321]

1. If the universe needs a Cause to exist, why doesn't God? 2. If god can exist with out cause. Why can't the universe? 3. Aren't we taking the rules of the universe, applying them to a time before the universe, where they may not apply?

[@Noahs_Crazy_Kid]

I asked the same question. I found an answer in philosophy. There is only one thing that can exist without a cause. Existence is the only thing that can exist of itself. And logically, it has to be eternal. If there were a time when it did not exist, then nothing would.

[@fanghur]

@@Noahs_Crazy_Kid Well then that would mean that God would require a cause. At least, assuming that God is something that exists.

[@Noahs_Crazy_Kid]

@@fanghur I apologize for not being clear. G-d ‘is’ existence. He is One and there is nothing else. That’s Existence.

[@fanghur]

@@Noahs_Crazy_Kid I'm sorry, but that is simply a nonsensical statement. Even under pantheism it is incorrect to say that God is conceptually identical to existence. It would simply be the case that there is only one fundamental thing IN existence, namely God. This is metaphysics 101. There are two broad classes of entities that do not overlap. There are abstract entities and concepts, and there are concrete entities/objects. Existence is an abstract concept, whereas God, if there is one, is by definition a concrete entity, since it has causal powers.

[@TheoSophii]

Rules of universe are not applied to anything outside it. But if that is a cause then it must powerful.

[@Code_Icarus5051]

Where is part 1 pls?

[@drcraigvideos]

Here you go: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bHTYnXWrgqh_nZIsi=whqndO_mZ_ArJk3w. - RF Admin

[@Jimages_uk]

If there are an infinite number of rooms, they can never all be full, because an infinite number or other rooms are available an infinite number of times.

[@truthtvproductions9947]

can someone explain this to me even more simpler?

[@olorinmartinez]

Lololololololol

[@yourfutureself3392]

If the past were infinite the present wouldn't have arrived because it would be preceded by infinite events. Then space, matter and time began to exist and their cause must be beyond space, matter and time and extremely powerful. Did that help?

[@truthtvproductions9947]

@@yourfutureself3392 yes thank you

[@TheoSophii]

Cause of anything is beyond it.

[@isaiahceasarbie5318]

Awesome!

[@messbahullah3512]

I don't understand what actually number of past events mean? is it the movings of atoms? or the digits of time like second?

[@davidgarro416]

Please, do not settle for this. The Kalam Cosmological Argument commits several fallacies. In favor of it, I admit that it accomplishes to hide them well. Fallacy of equivocation: when it refers in the first premise to a type of beginning which is totally different to the beginning about which the second premise talks(at first, it talks about things beginning to exist into temporal line, with a moment in which they didn't exist; then it talks about the beginning of space-time itself, with none moment in which it didn't exist, by definition (so that there's not any change to explain, however much the sequence of time is finite in the past). If no such change has taken place, how come is a cause logically necessary?), as well as when it doesn't specify the type of cause in premise #1 and #3. Fallacy of Composition: when it assumes that, since all the elements of the universe, which is the set of all known things, have an efficient cause, the own universe must also have an efficient cause. It does not logically follows that assertion: only because all the parts of an everything meet certain quality, it doesn't mean that the set itself meets that quality. You may not compare things which we are able to experiment daily to something which we'll never be able to experiment, or maybe even understand. Non Sequitur fallacy: when it attributes unnecessary qualities (like "immensely powerful" (WTF! Where the hell did they get this one from?!) and "personal"), in the same way that qualities which are contradictory between each other (like "immutable" and "thinking") to the supposed cause. From my perspective, this approach is entirely about intuition. There's not rational nor empirical evidence in favor of "ex nihilo" creation.

[@edgarrenenartatez1932]

Your response seem jumbled. Perhaps you should update your thoughts on the matter? See the recent dialogue between 2 professional philosophers Andrew Loke (pro) and Graham Oppy (anti) here kzbin.info/www/bejne/l2mxo4esYqmoqMU Loke's position is extensively critiqued here, but see Loke's in depth and incisive responses to the critique in the comment section (extensive but respectful exchange between Loke and the critic). Loke goes deeper into the issues here in this discussion kzbin.info/www/bejne/gGenXoJte9eAeNE

[@black-cross]

Numbers arent infinite because they have a beginning. Even if you start counting backwards in a negative sense, how can you remove from something that doesn't exist? Even if you owe, you owe what?

[@philosophyforum4668]

Billy is like, "Wow, the only thing stranger than all these believers making such a commotion over something so obvious as this little two premise syllogism is the non-believers who deny it."

[@philosophyforum4668]

@Paul Dubya So, you are actually saying that the whole universe literally came from absolute nothing? You're not even talking about little known types of reality like the quantum vacuum, quantum gravity, the no boundary proposal, etc?

[@philosophyforum4668]

@Paul Dubya Well, I don't see the error, but what's the loop model? Is that like Hawking's no boundary proposal? Is it a pre-big-bang, pre-time model?

[@Professordowney]

great video

[@Rotisiv]

Al-Ghazali was Muslim, I hope you now view Islam a bit more differently that what you used to due to your corrupt media. There’s no rift that separates between us Jews, Christians and Muslims we all worship the same unchanging, eternal Creator who brought the Universe into being, we simply differ concerning the view of Christ.

[@TheoSophii]

Wahhabipig movement almost destroyed Islamic traditions

[@robadams5799]

3:32 reminded me of "Doctor Who." Anyone else?

[@DeAngeloJohnson-ee9bt]

How would you prove that the cause was conscious though

[@blusheep2]

I probably won't word it great but it goes something like this.... If the first cause was mindless then what would act as the catalyst for it to create? The first cause by necessity would have to possess perfect entropy, that is stability. WIthout the existence of another "cause," then there would be nothing to upset a mindless balance. It would never create. The only solution to this problem is a mind that can choose to create or not create. The cause of creation then is found within itself.

[@ultrastar23]

This is awesome. Please translate this Part 2 into Spanish 😩

[@Supermariobroszx]

I do need to understand better this argument. Do anyone know any book that explain easily this argument? For example, if an actual infinity can't exist, what about God existing infinitely in time? I don't understand a lot about this.

[@mmachuenemaloba5594]

That is exactly my concern. What's the infinite standout of God.

[@Supermariobroszx]

@@mmachuenemaloba5594Well, God can be an actual infinity, but not a material infinity. Just an object that can change is inside time. Because it has potentials. A universe, can't exist forever, because it should be changing infinitely an so on. But God is unchangeable, there is no other potential for Him. So If there is no chance, there is not an infinite amount of changes in Him, nor seconds, because time is not a thing for unchangeable beings.

[@yourfutureself3392]

According to this vid, the Kalam leads to a timeless God. God, as proved by this argument (if sound) isn't temporally infinite. He doesn't exist for an actually infinite amount of time. In fact, he exists for no time at all. He doesn't exist for any amount of time. The arguments in support of p2 (if sound) rule out the possibility of God existing for an actually infinite amount of time, because the arguments try to prove an infinitely long amount of time is logically impossible. Even temporalist conceptions of God can reject that God exists for an infinite amount of time.

[@TheoSophii]

God being outside the limits of space and time makes him infinite and limitless.

[@cnault3244]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not have a god/creator as it's conclusion. In it's entirety the argument is: 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2) The universe began to exist. 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. The conclusion is the universe had a cause. Any use of the Kalam argument beyond the 2 premises and the conclusion presented here is NOT the Kalam Argument.

[@tedgrant2]

My neighbour has an explanation for the origin of the universe. He is a Hindu. Should I love him ?

[@eternalbyzantium262]

OUTSTANDING VIDEO! PLEASE MAKE MORE

[@Jimages_uk]

"knowing" something intuitively is not actually "knowing", it is a feeling. Intuitively. "Adverb. by means of direct perception, an instinctive inner sense, or gut feeling rather than rational thought:They've been married so long, they know intuitively how best to support each other." We still don't "know" the universe began to exist, at best, we can say it might have begun as we know it at some point in the past. But even if we fully accept it had a creator, all we have done regarding infinity, is kick the can down the road, because what created the creator, or the creators creator? And none of this can point to a god until we have evidence for gods.

[@andro8854]

Suppose you say "God came into existence at "T = n", well how could he? Because he has always preceded n such that n is any number e.g. imagine you think "God was created at 13.8 billion years ago" - well how can he? He's timeless meaning that for any moment of time you think he's created he's existed prior to that time and this goes for any time. You probably think God is a material object. God is self-existent and couldn't have been created because there's no time at which he could have been created. If you're an immaterial, changeless, spaceless entity you can exist timelessly at the very moment of creation. E.g. suppose the cause of water freezing is the temperature being below 0° if the temperature has always been below 0° then any water left-over would be perpetually frozen. Why would there ever be a change to this timeless water without these external conditions changing? Now suppose a man has been sitting from eternity back, he may just will to stand up. In this case he is not confined to being perpetually in a state of sitting down because he can will something different. God does not change, he is not a physical entity.

[@Jimages_uk]

@@andro8854 "God is self-existent" how do you "KNOW" that? How do you know there is a god, just saying that there is, does nothing to demonstrate any gods are really true. Until we see actual evidence for any gods, you can't just make a fact claim about your preferred god. You are at best, presenting what you "feel" to be real, not what you know

[@andro8854]

@@Jimages_uk because of the arguments given by Dr Craig. If you're good at logic you can see it with a lot of confidence. They are valid, sound and very powerful. Watch debates between dr Craig and atheists or watch his talks.

[@snake1625b]

So the common atheist rebuttal is to say that "but then how is God infinite in existence". I understand god was the supposed first cause that didn't begin exist to exist but he still had to exist eternally which faces the infinity paradox

[@BlisterBang]

God is certainly difficult to understand. One of the big problems for us is when we try to define God using the rules of our universe. The definition of 'Eternal' absolutely depends on time. But since God created time, He's certainly not bound it. God does not have to exist 'eternally'; it is wrong to force Him into any universe rule that He, Himself, created.

[@jean1785]

The infinity this argument is facing is a quantitive infinite and the infinity that is part of God's attribute is a qualitative.

[@bkhan19]

@@jean1785 The claim suggests not to think of God as what came before him or how long he exists. We are using space-time in that case which is a thing within our universe and not beyond it.

[@chrisvanallsburg]

Surprised they're allowing comments! Hello to Nel the narrator. :)

[@Benjamin-ml7sv]

Isn't an argument against infitinity the best argument against god? An argument against infinite would mean that god can't be infinite and therefore the first cause argument also falls apart since god is not infinite himself. Also what about set theory?

[@theoskeptomai2535]

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._* And here is the evidence as to why I currently hold to such a position. 1. I personally have never observed a god. 2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god. 3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists. 5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises. 6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 9. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable. ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

[@DennisMerwood-xk8wp]

Sadly Theo you are casting your pearls before swine on this website LOL You might as well be talking to a brick wall.

[@theoskeptomai2535]

@Eddie Crume By "observe" I mean to perceive, notice, or examine (a phenomenon).

[@theoskeptomai2535]

@Eddie Crume I am responding to your comment one issue at a time. You have made the _claim_ that this god you've mention is metaphysical. Are you claiming that this god is not real?

[@DennisMerwood-xk8wp]

@Eddie CrumeI'm not sure I'm getting your drift here Eddie. Are you refuting the atheists stance? Also its perfectly rational to be skeptical of ALL claims without substantiation. Otherwise you could accept any old nonsense And of course atheism has no burden of prove at all. It makes no claims required to be proven. It just says I don't believe there is God - because there is not enough evidence. Whereas a theists makes all sorts of claims that he needs to substantiate with evidence. And BTW, even though we can't see gravity, we can prove it exists every time we drop something. You know that I think. God is Metaphysical-OK-how can we observe his effects? Its a non sequitur. As for Theo's 5 - show us a Philosopher who has proven the existence of a God. There isn't one. And if you think you can - congratulations - go collect your Nobel Prize! LOL My conclusion is the same as Theo's. No God exists. Take care my man.

[@bkhan19]

@@theoskeptomai2535 Your point 1 is a point that suggests that you only treat things as truth that you observe. Am I right? Do you 100% follow that?

[@the-m3y5s]

Legend says it took them 8 years to find that audio clip

[@JamesKimSynergize]

Hasn't been disproved in a 1000 years.

[@piage84]

I'll do it now. We don't have any example of something coming into existence. Therefore we cannot tell whether something that come into existence must have a cause or not. Done.

[@JamesKimSynergize]

This comment came into existence.

[@BlisterBang]

@@piage84 Surely this in not intended to be a serious argument. At least try to keep your arguments within context. He is talking about objects that weren't there before and now they are. Things that meet this definition happen thousands, maybe millions of times per day right here on Earth. Cars, coney dogs, microprocessors - ALL of these things alone come into existence and have a cause. So much for '[nothing has come] into existence'. "I'll do it now" - no you won't. "Done" - hardly.

[@yourfutureself3392]

The fact that we intuitivly think that what begins needs a cause doesn't mean that it is true that all that begins needs a cause. U say the universe can't cause itself bc in order to do that it should exist before itself. What u are suggesting is that something must be temporally previous to something else in order to cause it. Therefore, God should be temporally previous to the universe in order to cause it. However, God can't be temporally previous to the beggining of the universe bc the beggining of the universe is the beggining of time. And if u claim that it's not neccesary to be temporally previous to something in order to cause it, then ur argument against the the universe causing itself doesn't work.

[@bkhan19]

The claim is that God is beyond space-time. So God can be after, before and present. It is a little hard to think as such. A temporal time creation is still a cause even if outside of time. For example, a photon exists for us when it leaves the sun and reaches our eye in around 8 minutes. Relatively, speaking that is an illusion right? At least to a photon, as for it there is no time. It's instantaneous (even that is hard to define as there is no real instant unless measured against a clock, which the photon can't by itself). Only we measure it as we are within space-time. Therefore, the question is: can an object exist beyond space-time? The photon does exist in manner of speaking, at least for us. Was it caused? Yes, as in the example that I mentioned, it came from the Sun.

[@yourfutureself3392]

@@bkhan19 hello! Thanks for the response. It's pretty good. However, the fact that God is timeless doesn't mean he can be temporally previous to the beggining of time. Nothing can be temporally previous to the beggining of time by definition. Even WLC and others claim that the moment of creation is an example of simultanous causation. That's why many proponents of the Kalam defend simultanous causation. If simultanous causation is impossible, then the cause of the universe should be temporally previous to the beggining of time. Given that nothing can be temporally previous to the beggining of time, the cause of the universe must be temporally simultanous. Even most proponents of the Kalam agree with what I'm saying. God could be logically or causally prior to the moment of creation, but not temporally prior. I don't think the photon analogy is a good one. Even if timeless things could be caused that doesn't clear out the contradiction of claiming the universe can't cause itself because it can't be temporally prior to itself but then claim that God, who isn't temporally prior to the universe, caused the universe.

[@bkhan19]

@your future self Thanks for reading! I would suggest to think again on your meaning of atemporal or in simple terms something without relation to time. You are mentioning 'temporarlly prior'. What does that mean? Temporal means within Space-Time. 'Prior/Post' to it is illogical as we are in Space-Time. Perhaps you are suggesting something before our Universe and after it. That again is outside of Space-Time or timen as we know it. Again, think of the photon as when it exists within our Universe it is temporal for us. But to itself it is not. Think of a Universe made only of Light aka photons. You would never be able to know what the age of the Universe is. It will exist but independent of proper time as there is no quantum fluctuation (in simple terms, no energy variance). No energy variance, means no variable excitation of the photons, meaning no difference of motion, which means no change in energy state, which means no new particle with mass forming, which means no relativity, which means no proper time. But there would be light. It exists. Now if there is even one variant excitation within that light it can only be a measure relative to the previous state. Suddenly we have difference. But even if it did happen the cause was still atemporal. It was not fixed in time but it was what led to the excitation. That is why the term 'cause'. I do understand your grief is with God and creation as that requires Space Time. Yes, when the Universe starts aka the Big Bang happens Space-Time forms, so the creation act is within time. But Only for our Space Time. We are still trying to figure ours out, let alone fathom what is the beyond and within (blackholes?). However, the cause, just as a photon's formation, does not require Time. It can be non temporal.

[@yourfutureself3392]

@@bkhan19 i think you slightly misunderstood my point, tho maybe i wasn't so clear. I wasn't criticizing the concept of creation itself or timelessness. I was critizicing an inconsistency in the vid about causality. WLC claims that the universe can't cause itself because that would mean it is temporally prior to itself, wich would break the law of non-contradiction. So what he's claiming is that causes are temporally prior to their effects. If he accepts that causes don't need to be temporally prior to their effects then he should accept that the universe could have caused itself. However, if this line of reasoning is accepted, then the universe must be uncaused, because, given that there is no time before the universe, nothing can be temporally prior to the universe and cause it. If one accepts that causes don't need to be temporally previous to their effects then the universe doesn't need to be temporally previous to itself in order to cause itself. If simultanous causation is impossible (if causes must be temporally prior to their effects) then the universe is uncaused because nothing is temporally prior to the universe and if simultanous causation is possible then WLC's argument to prove the universe couldn't have caused itself fails. This isn't about creation requiring time, about timeless things not having temporal effects or about causation being neccesarly temporal. This is about an inconsistency in the vid.

[@YorgosSimeonidis]

Proposing that infinity is absurd because it is incomprehensible and at the same time accepting an incomprehensible creator of the universe is at least suspicious. If you insist that reality should be within what the human mind can understand be consistent.

[@drcraigvideos]

The argument isn't that infinity is absurd because it is incomprehensible. It's that the properties of the concept of quantitative infinity *are* understood and result in absurdities if instantiated in reality. Thus, a universe with an actually infinite past would lead to absurdities and therefore cannot be real. Also, when we speak of God as being "infinite" we're not talking about a quantitative infinite, but a qualitative one, having his properties to the maximal degree. A mundane example would be water with maximal purity. Any quantity of water can be maximally pure if it is without contaminants. So, there's nothing logically incoherent about an infinite God, so long as we're using infinity in the qualitative sense. - RF Admin

[@isaiah7577]

Is a black hole a potential infinite or an actual infinite?

[@pennzilla57]

So, if I am to understand this correctly, you're saying that God and the big bang are one in the same? I'm trying to wrap my head around this.

[@jackplumbridge2704]

No, the argument is that God is the cause of the Universe. The big bang is a theory to explain the past history of the universe up to its beginning (or back to its beginning if you like). The big bang theory says nothing about what caused the universe to begin to exist, only that it did begin to exist.

[@VicCrisson]

great work, thank you

[@growKnee857]

Alhamdulillah....

[@wakeg40]

Love this!!!!!!!!

[@mostafaomar2366]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument An argument that Uses the most fundamental laws of contemporary physics and engineering. To prove. The presence. Of God. Allah. 1-Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existe. 2-The universe began to exist.( The Big Bang Theory of the Universe postulates a beginning.)+(the second law of thermodynamics (entropy). In a closed system the available energy will become less and less until until finally you have no available energy at all (you have reached a state of entropy).simply The universe is running out of energy.which also points us to a universe that has a definite beginning. 3-therefore, the universe has a cause. In Holy Quran the Word of God, THE ‘BIG BANG’ VERSE اَوَ لَمۡ یَرَ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡۤا اَنَّ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضَ کَانَتَا رَتۡقًا فَفَتَقۡنٰہُمَا ؕ وَ جَعَلۡنَا مِنَ الۡمَآءِ کُلَّ شَیۡءٍ حَیٍّ ؕ اَفَلَا یُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass (ratqan), then We opened them out (fafataqnahuma)? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (21:31 Al-Anbiya) The universe is running out of energy VERSE ﴿٨﴾ أَوَلَمْ يَتَفَكَّرُوا فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ ۗ مَا خَلَقَ اللَّهُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ وَأَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى ۗ وَإِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنَ النَّاسِ بِلِقَاءِ رَبِّهِمْ لَكَافِرُونَ 8. Do they not reflect within themselves? Allah did not create the heavens and the earth, and what is between them, except in truth, and for a specific duration. But most people, regarding meeting their Lord, are in denial. ( The Romans

[@dddmmm21]

Honest question I have is: if God is imaterial, hence it has no matter, no format, no substance, or one can say it simply didn come to be, how could he have created man "on his own image", since he had to image?

[@TheoSophii]

He is not an image in His absolute being. But the whole creation containing His virtues. Man is a collection of those virtues at one point.

[@Bankyschl]

Thank you for such compelling evidence of GOD of the Universe who makes all things and things are established just as He decares in His WORD. The WORD of GOD is the TRUTH. HALLELUJAH 🙏

[@charlieallansen9763]

Absolutely marvellous!!!👍🤓

[@R-rl7qc]

amazing

[@vestborgelev]

This infinite hotel thought experiment only shows that anything countable must be finite. But who claims that an infinite time has countable events? It is not an ad absurdum as the proposition of infinite events does not also state that the events are countable. If you can imagine an infinite number of events in the future, i.e. Uncountable events in the future, and that is not absurd, the same holds for the past. As for the domino analogy: it is begging the question.

[@notnpc7965]

That thing you said about the infinite events in the future isn't true. There is a difference between potential infinites and actual infinites. You should watch the talk Lane craig had with cosmic skeptic. They talked about that

[@yourfutureself3392]

The vid actually adresses your first argument. If the past is infinite, then there was enough time to make an infinite hotel if a room per year was added and all those contradictions would be possible. That's the response given in the vid.

[@sennest]

So cool! Very cool! Thank you!😎👍👍💥🎉

[@cheikhhmayadi6870]

According to Roger Penrose the universe started with the Big Bang, and there was actually a universe already existing before it and the Big Bang was merely the end of that universe.

[@F4CTZV]

Who defined all the interactions, and the parameters, and who set that thing up? Also as said in the video, if the universe was in an endless cycle, we would have never gotten here.

[@Romailjohn]

@@F4CTZV si roger penrose just repeats the past eternal universe stuff in another manner

[@SPQR7117]

@@Romailjohn What was the genesis of _those_ interactions, actions, parameters, etc...? How far back are we going here?

[@BlisterBang]

Scientist themselves have already shot down that argument. They determined that the universe does not have enough mass to ever contract, so there is no cyclical Big Bang. The Big Bang we see is, therefore, the only one - which means it had a beginning.

[@calebp6114]

@@BlisterBang A further problem with cyclic universe scenarios is entropy. How come we are in a state of high entropy if the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies across the chain of universes, as we would expect?

[@Saa42808]

why people hate philosophy so much? I think the smartest people are philosophers.

[@HORUSXPSY]

I agree with you. They are very intelligent 👌

[@BerishaFatian]

My brain is steaming.

[@yourfutureself3392]

This argument is self-refuting. Here's why. First I will clarify a lot of terms. If you know them all, go straight to where it reads "ARGUMENT✝️". This comment is huge, so if you want youst respond to a part of it. COMING INTO BEING: The argument, according to WLC himself, uses the following definition of "begins to exist": some entity e comes into being at some time t if and only if e exists at t, t is the first moment/time in wich it exists, e doesn't also exist tenselessly/timelessly and if e's existence in t is a tensed fact/a temporal fact/it exists temporally. We can use a concrete example: a chair begins to exist at 11:30 if the chair exists at 11:30, if 11:30 is the first time at wich it exists, if the chair doesn't also exist timelessly/tenselessly and if the chair's existence is a tensed fact. This shows the argument only works if one assumes a tensed theory of time. TIME⌛: The tensed theory of time, also known as presentism, is the view that the past has no ontological reality and neither does the future. Only one moment has ontological existence at a time. There is absolute time and a universal clock that dictates the passing of time. TIMELESSNESS: something timeless is tenseless, duration-less and changeless. It can only exist for an instant. If it exists for more than an instant it has duration, and is therefore temporal. It also can't go from one state to another, because that would require change. It must be simultanous to all moments. It must always have ontological existence, but not duration. A triangule is a great way to represent this. The base line at the bottom is time and the tip is the timeless instant that is simultanous to all moments. ARGUMENT✝️:I will present two arguments. ARGUMENT 1) if a being in a single instant is simultanous to every moment of time (that is, he is timeless) then it generates paradoxes for presentism. For example, an event in 2016 could cause the timeless being to cause an effect in 3564 bc. 2016 would be simultanous to this being and this being would be simultanous to 3564 bc. Yet, if presentism is true, then back in 3564 bc 2016 didn't have any kind of existence, it was nothing. Wich means an event in 3564 bc was indirectly caused by nothing, violating the causal principle the argument rests on. This would be equivalent to a rock's dream causing something. From nothing, nothing comes. The kalam proves a timeless being that therefore exists for one instant and exists simultanously to all moments. This means that the Kalam, if sound, debunks A theory and therefore itself. ARGUMENT 2) the Kalam proves a timeless and changeless cause of the first moment/instant of the universe. If it's timeless it has ontological existence in every moment, incluiding now. This means that now the cause has ontological existence. The cause is changeless, wich means it's only state is the state of causing the universe. It can't have other states. It is "still" in that state. It couldn't have had a state previous to causing the universe and another one after causing the universe. That only state has ontological existence in the present. It is still causing the first instant of the universe/the moment of creation/the Big Bang/time=0 and interacting with this first instant. If it wasn't, it would have changed and that's impossible for timeless beings. His only state must be ontologically simultanous to all moments. He can't be a certain way when he's simultanous to one moment but a different way when he's simultanous to another moment. If right now there is a being causing/giving existence to a past moment, then presentism can't be right. If right now the moment of creation doesn't exist then the cause is giving existence to something inexistent, but back when the moment of creation did exist it was giving existence to something existent. This would mean that when he's ontologically simultanous to the first instant he causes something existent but when he is simultanous to another moment he causes something inexistent, wich is contradictory because, given that he's duration-less, he's simultanous to these two moments simultanously. This is contradictory, because God is changeless. It's impossible for God to have been interacting with something existent at the moment of creation but with something inexistent in the present, because that would mean God interacts with different things as time progresses, wich is absurd if he is timeless. So God is either always interacting with an existing moment of creation or with an inexistent moment of creation. It's absurd to interact with an inexistent moment. It would be equivalent to interacting with a rock's dream. It's just nothing. Additionally, if God always interacts with an inexistent moment of creation, then the moment of creation never existed. This means the universe has no first moment, something incompatible with p2. So, God, in his only state, interacts with an existing moment, wich means that right now the moment of creation has ontological existence. Therefore, the instant of creation always has ontological existence and is therefore also tenseless, because if a single instant (the first instant) has ontological existence at all moments then it is simultanous to all moments, simultanously. But remember the definition of "begins to exist". It only applied to tensed facts. This means that if the moment of creation is tenseless, then it could have been uncaused. However, the tenseless first instant caused the second moment of the history of the universe. But the same reasoning can be applied here. If time=0 is tenseless and it causes the second moment then the second moment must also be tenseless for the reasons listed above as to why tenseless causes can't have tensed effects. If the second moment is tenseless, then its effect, the third moment, is also tenseless. This way, all moments are tenseless, past present and future, meaning they all have ontological existence. This leads to all moments being tenseless and therefore none of them began to exist. The Kalam therefore leads to denying presentism or the causal principle.

[@philosophyforum4668]

No, nothing causes God to do anything, because he is the unmoved mover, and he knows all things already.

[@yourfutureself3392]

@@philosophyforum4668 hello! Thanks for reading. I know my comment was very long so I appreciate you taking your time. Hope you find this dialogue productive. 1) this only responds to my first argument so, even if sound, what you said doesn't prove the argument isn't self-refuting. 2) my first argument doesn't require things causing God to do something. That's just a way of demostrating the underlying paradox of a timeless being and presentism. It's not my example itself that makes these elements incompatible, it's just demostrating a deeper incompatibility. Something being simultanously simultanous to all moments is incompatible with presentism. God being simultanous to the present and to the future and to the past is absurd if the past and the future are inexistent. How can one be simultanous to something that doesn't exist? Inexistent things lack relational properties. That's the true problem and a way to demostrate it is through this causal paradox. 3) temporal things do cause God to do something. For example, God knows that tomorrow you will go shopping. Does the fact that you go shopping tomorrow cause God to believe you will go shopping (making this a properly justified true belief) or does the fact that God know you will go shopping cause you to go shopping (removing your free will)? If the second option is true then God's knowledge determines you to do things (wich removes your free will) and it also makes God's "knowledge" accidental. If God doesn't know something because it's true, then can we really call it knowledge? It's not a properly justified true belief because the reason why he knows it isn't based on reality. It's equivalent to irrationally believing someone is dead and accidentaly killing him because of your belief. That doesn't make your belief knowledge. If God causes events by "knowing" them, then his knowledge is irrational as he believes those events will happen for no reason and they just so happen to be true because he unintentionally causes them. It's also absurd to claim that knowledge of events causes those very events directly. Therefore, events must be the ones that cause God to know them, not the other way around. But, this implies that temporal events cause something on God. Knowing that tomorrow you will go shopping is one of God's properties or qualities and that's caused by you tomorrow going shopping. Therefore, something temporal causes something on God. If presentism is true, this is absurd, as the future is inexistent, meaning that an inexistent fact caused God to know this inexistent fact. This violates the causal principle the argument rests on. It's even more absurd if God uses knowledge of the future to decide the initial conditions of the universe, for example. This would mean future inexistent events caused the inexistent beggining of the universe to be the way it is (if presentism is true, the past is also inexistent). Who knew inexistent events had causal relations to one another? God deciding the initial conditions of the universe using knowledge of the future is probably required to solve the problem of evil. If he didn't focus on how the initial conditions would develop then, when creating the universe, he didn't try to make it as good as possible. This is why future events caused God the make the initial conditions the way they are. If presentism is true, then back at the beggining of the universe these future events didn't exist, despite they caused God to make the initial conditions the way they are. This means the initial conditions were caused by inexistent events/by nothing, violating p1. 4) to solve these paradoxes, you either have to reject presentism (rejecting p2) or accepting inexistent events can cause things (rejecting p1). This means the argument is self-refuting. 5) even if you're not convinced by part 3) of my comment, part 2) still holds and I would ask you to focus on that for your response

[@philosophyforum4668]

@@yourfutureself3392 POST 1 Yes, you’ve built quite the word wall. I’m splitting up this response into 4 posts because the response is lengthy, and KZbin has glitches. You are manufacturing a problem for a little god. Your recourse is presumably to abandon belief in that god. My recourse would be to believe in a God who is the greatest conceivable Being for whom your challenges are easy. On your first post, first argument, and your second post #2, God created the world already knowing everything that would be done in it. God created time, so he knows how to use it. Time does not put limitations on what God can do in time. Being timeless does not interfere with God’s ability to create the world or intervene in the world at the right time. He has the power to do those things. But we actually agree on this point, because neither of us believe in the little god you are imagining, who can create time but doesn’t know how to use it.

[@philosophyforum4668]

​@@yourfutureself3392 POST 2 On your first post, second argument, you said, “The cause is changeless, wich means it's only state is the state of causing the universe. It can't have other states. It is "still" in that state.” You also said, “If right now the moment of creation doesn't exist then the cause is giving existence to something inexistent.” What is a “state”? God creating the universe does not mean God is changing. Once God created the universe, the universe exists, and God is done creating it. If God was still creating the universe, we wouldn’t have a history of thousands of years. Events in the past exist, but they are not the only things that exist. There is also a succession of events. This is one of the problems with philosophy. You’re allowing philosophical theories to diminish your critical thinking. It is better to abandon the theories of time and maintain your critical thinking than to argue in such ways. If it makes any difference, my views on time don’t fall strictly into either theory. I have a view of time that has elements from both the A and B theories of time. When it comes to a theory of time, I generally favor most things being real in their own way. My theory of time goes something like the following: I define time as a succession of events (B). The past (B), present, (A&B), and future (B) are all real, but tense is also real (A), and the difference between past, present, and future is real (A). WLC calls the A theory the “common sense view,” but it is not common sense to me to deny the reality of the past. If you believe in the correspondence theory of truth, any true proposition is reflected in reality. So if the discipline of history speaks the truth, the events it speaks about must be real. Also, if events in the past are not real, why is there such a thing as justice for a crime? How can anything that affects us in such profound ways as every past event not be real? I think part of the confusion is the difference between “things” that can come into existence and pass out of existence, and “events” that always remain real even though they are in the past. If a star goes nova, it no longer exists, but the fact that it existed in the past, and that it went nova, and the effects it had going forward all remain real. Another part of the confusion is the limitations of language. When we speak of the past in the past tense, we confuse the past tense (existed) with the claim about what exists, and these are two completely different things. Past tense is just a property to describe a dimension; it has no authority over existence. So I agree with WLC on a lot of issues, but not apparently not on these issues.

[@philosophyforum4668]

​@@yourfutureself3392 POST 3 On your second post on #3, causality and knowledge, you said, “Does the fact that you go shopping tomorrow cause God to believe you will go shopping….or does the fact that God know you will go shopping cause you to go shopping (removing your free will)?” I don’t think either option is true. I do not think God’s knowledge of what we will do is what causes God’s knowledge, because causality involves events in time, and God’s knowledge of what we will do is as timeless as God. Before God created the universe, there was nothing to be a cause of God’s knowledge. I also don’t think God’s knowledge of what we do is what causes us to do things, because knowledge is not causal. Thus our free-will is safe. We are free to choose among the choices before us. Nevertheless, there are Christians who deny free-will, and they are none the worse for it. On your second post #4, you said, “to solve these paradoxes, you either have to reject presentism (rejecting p2) or accepting inexistent events can cause things (rejecting p1). This means the argument is self-refuting.” I do reject the relevant points of presentism. The past is real. So, by your accounting, p1 is safe. For my argument which you would say defends p2, see above on the discussion under my post 2, on your first post, second argument.

[@senpaid.5545]

Filipino version please! for better understanding.

[@leonardu6094]

Lol why did the part 2 come out 7 whole years later?

[@spectre8533]

coronavirus

[@leonardu6094]

@@spectre8533 lol almost a decade

[@demergent_deist]

These are the best objections to the Kalam argument: It is counter-intuitive, but not logically impossible, that the universe has a potentially infinite linear past. It is not logically impossible for the universe to have a circulatory infinite past. So everything would repeat itself. The argument could just as easily lead to a pantheistic or Spinozistic universe (God would be identical with nature), that is, to something that the traditional Christian finds somewhat atheistic. A dimensionless simplicity or singularity would extend itself to the four-dimensional universe. "Even if valid, the first-cause argument is capable only of demonstrating the existence of a mysterious first cause in the distant past. It does not establish the present existence of the first cause. On the basis of this argument, there is no reason to assume that the first cause still exists - which cuts the ground from any attempt to demonstrate the truth of theism by this approach." (George H. Smith - Atheism. The Case Against God) "Indeed, why should God not be the originator and now no longer exist? After all, a mother causes a child but then dies." (Peter Cole - Philosophy of Religion) The cosmological argument only leads to a poor tautology: the ultimate cause is the ultimate cause.

[@rameleuterio380]

William Lane Craig's discussion with CosmicSkeptic about the Kalam Cosmological Argument was my one of the most insightful and decent criticisms that I have watched so far.

[@caiomateus4194]

"It's counterintuitive, but it's not logically impossible" What logic are you talking about? classic? dialectic? intuitionist? fuzzy? Free? quantum? If it's classical, what basis do you have other than intuition to ensure classical logic is correct? Furthermore, the falsehood of 2+2=4 is not logically impossible either. The first cause doesn't corrupt (corruption, destruction, degeneration and annihilation are typical of matter and time), so it's hard to think that it can cease to exist.

[@demergent_deist]

@@caiomateus4194 I did not claim that the arguments are convincing, only that they are the best.

[@MrJamshedakhtar]

great philospher

[@albert8390]

This video trains my brain

[@agnosticmonkey7308]

5:13. Have most philosophers rejected that position?