Dr. Richard Carrier Refuting the Causal Principle

In this video, Dr. Richard Carrier meticulously unravels the arguments surrounding the idea of causality, existence, and the universe itself. Dive deep into a thought-provoking exploration of cosmological principles with me, Godless Engineer, and Dr. Richard Carrier as we dissect and challenge the foundational causal principle that "everything that begins to exist has a cause."

In a detailed analysis, Dr. Carrier argues against the necessity and universality of the causal principle, highlighting its contingency and the logically possible conditions under which it fails. This critique is rooted in the philosophical examination of what it means for something to exist and whether such beginnings necessarily require causes.

Drawing on the Lincoln-Walcher model and other cosmological theories, Dr. Carrier explores the concept of creation ex nihilo (creation from nothing), challenging traditional views with cutting-edge scientific and philosophical insights. This discussion isn't just theoretical— it's grounded in peer-reviewed scientific discourse, offering a fresh perspective on the origins of our universe.

Join us as we navigate complex arguments, including the semantics of 'nothing' and the implications of contingent beginnings without predefined causes. This video isn't just a critique; it's an invitation to rethink everything we thought we knew about our universe and its origins.

Whether you're a skeptic, a philosophy student, or just curious about the cosmos, this video promises to engage your mind and challenge your beliefs. Don't miss out on this intellectual journey as we question the very fabric of reality and consider alternatives to traditional theistic explanations.

Original Video:

#atheism #christianity #atheist

Available Deals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Merch
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ancientfoglet]

Thanks GE for hosting Dr. Carrier. It's always a joy to listen to him.

[SecondaryHomunculus]

I love it when very intelligent people are capable of putting things in easy language. Makes it really difficult for the dishonest to argue against. Obviously they still do...

[DrWrapperband]

Just spoke with a religious person, it is mental how delusional they are, believing in their feelings, anti-science, God help us

[Byrvurra]

I don't even know what a metaphysical "nothing" is even supposed to be. I don't think of it as a coherent concept in a practical sense. The something is self evident, the nothing isn't.

[fepeerreview]

"It's all semantics."
Carrier's logical arguments are precise and accurate every step of the way. And I appreciate and acknowledge that.
But setting aside all the arguments, the poor ones offered by some, and the powerful ones offered by others like Carrier, NONE of it is actually evidence of the existence of a first cause or "god". There is simply no evidence, no sign anywhere in all of Nature, where an "outside hand" can be seen to be reaching in and influencing the course of events. It has NEVER been observed, despite thousands of years of people looking.

[laurajarrell]

GE, lol, I thought it said 'casual'! But yay, Dr.Carrier👍💙💙💙🥰✌

[ARoll]

Hey John, any info about the "Jesus From Outer Space" audiobook that KC recorded awhile ago being released?

[starfishsystems]

It's easy for these conversations to become incoherent if we aren't careful to distinguish between observed reality and conceptual formalisms. Dr. Carrier moves quickly through his ideas, so that even though he's probably clear on the points of distinction, we might miss some of them.

For example, he's talking about what primordial reality might have been possible. This is observed reality, something that we suppose really exists and can be interrogated for information about itself. So when he considers here that something might have been possible, he's talking about possible IN REALITY. Perhaps an appearance of nothingness could arise from all the quantum fields being at zero. But that's nothing, since those fields have existence, as well as the potential to take on nonzero values. Never mind the vacuum energy which arises from quantum uncertainty, let's set that to zero as well for the sake of argument. It's still not nothing. It's not possible to get to the kind of reality we observe from strict nothingness. It's not that strict nothingness is an incoherent idea, but it has no potential of any kind, because that potential is not nothing.

But then he switches to what is and isn't possible LOGICALLY. Logic is a coherent axiomatic system which we have devised. It's not an essential part of reality, even thoughit sometimes serms to be. When we prove that √2 is irrational, that proof is true regardless of reality. Intelligent aliens based on a completely different biochemistry, maybe in a completely different universe with different physics, are very likely to come up with the same proof. It can FEEL as if this kind of truth has independent and very strong existence, but it's dependent on someone playing with concepts until they hit on one that is internally coherent. There are any number of patterns of symbols that look like valid proofs but aren't. Picking out rhe coherent ones is a conceptual exercise, not a statement about observed reality.

But when Carrier shifts back and forth between these two distinct realms, we might miss the distinction. For example, when he talks about things being logically possible, or not impossible, that's NOT a statement about reality. It may usefully constrain our conceptual model of reality, that's all. You can keep up more easily with his arguments by bearing this in mind.

[classicsciencefictionhorro]

Christian apologists love to assert things like "The causal principle is the most basic law in science." It's not. Or, "the foundation of all we see or experience is a supernatural first cause called the Christian god." Or, "there can be no infinite regress." Why not?

[grosbeak]

Anybody here could recommend a book or a lecture for the a-casual argument?

[Vadjong]

"It's nothings all the way down" is an infinite nothingburger. Well, that's something!

[СергейМакеев-жн]

As I already said in my comment on the other video, the Kalam proponent does NOT need to prove that the causal principle is logically necessary. All that needs to be proven is that it is true *for all the actually existing things, * not for all the non-existent things in hypothetical alternate universes.

"Everything that actually began to exist, or will begin to exist, has a cause." That's what needs to be proven.

[LogicAndReason]

If a god could be eternal, then a non-god can be eternal. If sequential change did not always exist, nothing could have ever changed. If sequential change can happen regardless of space-time, then every possible pattern can probably emerge.

If a god could over-ride all of the things theists claim require a god, that means that those things can be functionally over-ridden, and therefore the god is not required. If something is impossible, then a god could not do it. If a god can do it, then the god is not required.

[catherinespencer-mills]

Except physics 101 teaches that energy can not be either created or destroyed. So I don't see how anyone can posit a starting condition of no energy.

[donaldclifford]

Whatever you posit the origin of existence is, calling it "God" contributes absolutely zero information.

[TheJacrespo]

Carrier can further close the argument by disqualifying a single deterministic cause at the origin of the universe by defining it as noise. Noise is neither something nor nothing; it is just random fluctuation (though prob laws still stand) without space or time.

So, it doesn't make sense to talk about a first cause here because there is neither time nor space. It becomes a cause once the random noise forms a signal, resulting in our universe with time and space.

[dominiqueubersfeld]

Of course religious persons don't like the Causal Principle. Their own principle is the Circular Reasoning Principle:
Why does God exist? Because the Bible says so
Why is the Bible true? Because it is the word of God

[LogicAndReason]

When the theist claims that there was nothing, before there was something, then claims there was a god, he has already shot himself in the foot; for a god is not nothing.

All apologetic, when fairly applied, self-refutes.

[rogersacco]

If. there is a god it's not the biblical god or gods

[istvansipos]

and now the g0d fans need a detailed explanation from a PhD to reject Zeus.
oh, wait! The 0.000 Zeus evidence is enough for them in that topic. Weird, right?