No, science doesn’t show the universe began to exist | Dr. Daniel Linford

Today I'm joined by Dr. Daniel Linford to respond to the scientific case for the universe's beginning as well as the claim that the universe's cause must be God. In particular, we discuss a video produced by @ReasonableFaithOrg.

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
2:30 WLC’s video
3:16 Past finitude doesn’t imply beginning
19:45 Second Law of Thermodynamics
28:00 Red shift and Big Bang cosmology
36:53 Successive failure of models
39:45 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem
46:05 Stage Two: Properties of the cause
46:55 Spaceless?
53:13 Timeless?
56:02 Immaterial?
59:38 Uncaused?
1:02:57 Unimaginably powerful?
1:06:42 God?
1:12:35 Conclusion

RESOURCES

THE USUAL...

[naparzanieklawiatury]

Dr. Daniel looks like a synthesis of gigabrain and gigachad

[salt]

When he said "tired light hypothesis" I had the mental image of light stopping to take a nap in the middle of it's journey through space. It was tired and needed some shut eye before proceeding across the universe.

[CogniMente]

It always motivates me to see Tom Holland talk about philosophy.

Just kidding. I love these topics. Congratulations on the channel.

[ruseriousdownunder]

It looks like they have taken Bertrand Russell’s quote was taken out of context. My understanding is that this quote was about accepting the universe existing was just a “brutal fact” as it was self-evident. As you say, he was not commenting on an eternal universe or a universe with a beginning.

[elgatofelix]

To quote world renown physicist Richard Feynman... "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

[shassett]

It's weird how I've come to a place in my life where I'm excited to watch two academics discussing apologetics from the eleventh century. Teenage me would be so disappointed!

[PhilHalper]

great stuff guys well done. Going to be releasing a new video on this next week with scientists who have reexamined the BGV theorem, exciting new paper.

[TheWeb]

I love these discussions. What I always find funny is how theists, when they got to a necessary being/thing, suddenly take leaps and start ascribing all kinds of fancy properties to it...."because we need it to be like that in the end"

[CognitiveOffense]

In the beginning was nothing and it went on that way for an amusing length of time. It endured, simultaneously, for precisely 42 seconds, 42 psuedo-seconds, 42 femto-seconds, 42 gestational periods of an 18th century blue whale, 42 readings of Hitchhikers Guide to Cosmological Time Metrics (forthcoming), 42 Galactic Empire Calendars (403rd historical accuracy revision), 42 renditions of a particularly inane joke written as a youtube comment, 42 Mayan Calendar cycles, and 42 First Stones Thrown by Sinless Apes (not yet evolved). Then nothing got bored and exploded.

Everything was quite strange because time and causality had a particularly fractious love affair when the Universe was born. All things were strewn about chaotically... especially the philosophers.

Great talk. I enjoyed it.

[mf_hume]

Starting at 1:11:00 I really appreciate the comments made by both Daniel and Joe here. I think this is one of the places where PhilRel can spur interesting investigation of other philosophical issues, but because there's so much apologetic effort invested into one particular research goal (getting YHWH from the Kalam), it kneecaps further investigation both by (a) deterring philosophers of religion from fully exploring those adjacent questions and (b) deterring outside philosophers from opining on kalam stuff for fear of getting caught in the crossfire of apologetic poo throwing.

[calebp]

Looking forward to reading his dissertation. Good stuff!
Also, not very relevant, but I just got a First at Oxford, so I'm rather happy :))

[jursamaj]

1:14:00 Regarding the Sean Carroll book: that title sounds like the book is a compilation of the YT videos he did during the pandemic lockdowns. I highly recommend those.

[TheCannoth]

Ooph, sometimes i need to replay sections a couple of times to understand the dialog. Love it, but some clearer lanuage would be nice

[postpunkjustin]

Great discussion! It's a perfect illustration of why the Kalam is my favorite theistic argument. Even though it's wrong in every step, it's wrong in ways that are really interesting to discuss.

[davidslone]

Bro I don’t know a damn thing that’s going on but I love it

[ThePresident]

To your question at the end, Joe about why theists find this argument so powerful, I think it's because they already believe in the first place. Craig admits he was a believer *before* he went anywhere near a philosophy department. He revised an already existing argument that supported a conclusion he already held. So, it doesn't need to be *convincing*, it just needs to sound plausible on some level to support what he (and the others) already believes. The question is then, if it didn't convince him in the first place (as he already held the conclusion to be true when he encountered the argument), then why does he think it should be convincing to anyone else?

[CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

I loved this video! I learned some new things here (e.g., Malament-Manchak theorem). Very interesting. Already "liked, " shared and added it to my counter-apologetics playlist.

[TheOtherCaleb]

I’d love to hear Dr. Ryan Mullins discuss with Dr Linford.

[Gvisibletop]

At this point you should just arrange a formal 3+ hours long debate (with Q&A 4+ hours) with WLC on KALAM.

[joejohnoptimus]

I think I understand the objection to "beginning to exist" near the start of this video.

In order for something to 'begin to exist', there has to be A) a finite past for that thing, and B) a temporal prior state when it did not exist. Is that right or over-simplified?