PART 2 - REBUTTING an atheistic documentary on the kalam argument

In this episode Trent finishes his rebuttal of a documentary produced by the atheist Youtuber skydivephil that tries to refute the kalam cosmological argument. In this episode Trent focuses on Big Bang cosmology and issues related to causation.

[iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:

00:00 📺 Trent is responding to a documentary critiquing the Kalam cosmological argument's premises and evidence.
00:29 🌌 Part 2 focuses on scientific evidence for the universe's beginning and arguments related to the Kalam's first premise.
01:13 📜 The Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems aren't accepted as definitive proof of the universe's beginning; modifying general relativity with quantum theory is needed.
02:52 🪐 Standard Big Bang model needs adjustments due to limitations of general relativity; quantum physics and general relativity integration necessary.
04:44 📚 While cosmology supports a finite past, scientific evidence is supplementary to the philosophical argument in the Kalam cosmological argument.
05:52 🔄 The documentary discusses cosmological models allowing for an eternal universe, but doesn't disprove models with a finite past.
08:10 📄 Arguments and counterarguments about the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, eternal inflation, and pre-Big Bang scenarios are debated.
10:44 🤖 The quantum mechanics debate: randomness, causality, and interpretations; different models with various levels of causality explained.
15:08 🧪 Quantum fluctuations and virtual particles don't constitute coming from absolute nothing; different quantum interpretations discussed.
17:29 🧐 The documentary highlights diverse quantum interpretations, but uncertainty remains, and no interpretation conclusively refutes the principle of causality.
19:51 🕰️ Different interpretations of quantum mechanics: deterministic (Bohm), random (Collapse), and various others; no consensus on causal mechanisms.
23:06 🎭 Critique of William Lane Craig's use of fringe interpretations (de Broglie-Bohm, Neo-Lorentzian) of quantum mechanics in Kalam's defense.
24:55 🌌 Discussion of quantum interpretation popularity; even minority interpretations have notable support among physicists.
25:23 🌌 The Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests that causality operates within each individual world, not between them.
26:02 🧪 There's no consensus among physicists about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, so using it to refute the Kalam argument is weak.
26:57 🌌 Quantum mechanics lacks consensus about event interpretation, but this doesn't undermine the basic principle that something can't come from nothing.
27:40 👁️ Common sense and intuition are limited in explaining advanced scientific concepts, but basic metaphysical intuitions still apply.
29:19 🐅 Quantum mechanics allows strange possibilities, but the probability of significant events like a universe appearing from nothing is low.
30:35 🤔 Absence of evidence for absolute nothingness doesn't disprove the basic principle that things don't come from nothing.
32:53 🔄 There's no scientific basis to assign probability to the origin of the universe from nothing, as it defies conventional probability calculations.
34:43 🔄 The nature of causality is debated, but simultaneous causation is valid, evidenced by examples like bricks breaking windows.
37:04 🕰️ The definition of causality varies among philosophers, but a basic principle like "whatever begins to exist has a cause" can be accepted.
38:14 🌀 Time and causality aren't always linear; simultaneous causation is possible and relevant even in cases like the universe's cause.
42:13 🪄 Concepts like causality can exist beyond space and time; simultaneous causation can be understood independently from temporal order.
46:49 🛰️ Causality can transcend space and time, as evidenced by simultaneous causation, allowing application to the universe's existence.
47:42 🔄 Causality is not confined to space and time; concepts like the law of non-contradiction apply universally, so why not causality?
48:07 🌀 Bouncing cosmologies, spontaneous fluctuations, and time travel models propose universe origins, but self-creation is self-contradictory.
48:35 🌌 Simultaneous causation can coexist with the idea of a self-created universe, as long as it involves a timeless cause initiating the universe's existence.
49:04 🧠 Craig discusses the idea that nothing can cause itself due to the need for existing to have causal power.
50:13 🔄 Simultaneous causation vs. self-causation: Craig distinguishes logical priority from temporal precedence.
51:48 🌀 Circular time as an alternative: Circular causation in a universe with no linear time raises questions of causality.
52:01 🔀 Physics and equations still applicable: Even with circular causation, equations can describe the system.
53:52 ⏳ Challenges of circular causation: Paradoxes and issues arise in scenarios of closed time-like curves.
54:07 💭 Medieval philosopher's argument: Al-Ghazali's assertion of free agents and spontaneous actions in the universe.
55:01 🔄 Everyday observations and the Kalam argument: Ahmed argues that everyday experiences counter Kalam's conclusion.
55:43 🔍 Narrowing the causal principle: The fallacy of hasty generalization in narrowing the scope of causes.
56:39 🛠️ Defenders offer independent reasons: Kalam defenders like Craig provide additional reasons for premise one.
57:20 🔑 Personal nature of the cause: Craig's argument for a personal cause despite probabilistic systems.
58:48 ⌛ Timeless nature of God's will: God's timeless act of willing a finite universe as a response to objections.

[josephtattum]

I love how when the Big Bang cosmology was discovered, atheists rejoiced, until the philosopher realized it shows God's existence in higher probability. Then the atheist has to go out of his way to show that "no the universe can't have begun to exist. We just don't know enough." It is naturalism of the gaps in its worst form

[PopCultureWizard]

One of my humble observations of this documentary is that about 3/4 of the scientists have no training in philosophy. Hence, their address of Craig's postulations focuses more on a scientific answer. Which is necessary yet incomplete in its rebuttal. A few do address the philosophy of science, and that's why their answers seem more substantial than the others.

Great job at addressing all these points, Trent!

[mrbarryfleming]

It's probably not great that the only thing I understood fully was the bit about Marvels Time Variance Authority 😵‍💫, nevertheless excellent video Trent 👍

[crockettlegendas]

Love your work, Trent. I've reading your books and listening to your podcasts.

From Brazil.

[petery]

Man, and I was almost done MoR's first response. Now I have to brace myself for another 3 Hour response.

[Vicpoint]

The cause of radioactive decay is the interaction between constituent quarks. An energy threshold is exceeded and this is what triggers decay. Now, the quarks are moving randomly, and so especially with a low population of quarks we can't predict *when* the nucleus will decay. But when it does, we can always explain how. IOW, we know the cause.

As for virtual particles, they're not (as the name suggests) really particles but disturbances in a field that will never be found on their own, but they are caused by the presence of other particles, usually of other fields.

Besides all this, if there were really no cause of radioactive decay or virtual particles, then we would see them literally everywhere, literally all the time. No cause = no causal constraints. The moment we finish the sentence "The reason this is not happening literally everywhere literally all the time is..." = the moment we admit there is some kind of cause involved.

[adamq]

Great video Trent!
I feel that, the issue with these science movies or the line up with scientists, is that firstly, alot of them don't agree with each other, the second problem, is that they more or less dismiss arguments with a hand waveing, it is the arrogance which is the problem, but hey no wonder these scientist's get arrogant when people subconciously worship these guys as gods, people give away their own authority to these guys so easily, which is sad.
The worship has gone from God to humans, and humans have been wrong countless times and it is changing constantly with new theories coming out and what not.
But this is not to say that I feel that many scientist's are brilliant thinkers, but when the arrogance shows itself, yeah well then it is extremely frustrating to watch, because instead of addressing the issue on the topic they hand wave it away like it's nothing, putting their head in the sand and trying to ridicule the other side is pathetic, sadly alot of the defenders of these scientist do not see it at all, because they refuse to see the truth of the matter.
To me personally it is extremely ridiculous to not see a creator for the world we inhabit, there is just to much perfectly ordered structures in reality, and that we even have the possibility know something about reality, everything changes YET the most important laws do not, and it is without them that we wouldnt survive, just like video game designers put the structure and order of the laws governing the game to set the tone of the kind of creation/world that they want to build, things are happening and changing in video games too, but usally the core foundation of it does not, and I feel that it is ridiculous to deny a creator of the game, or a law maker, to say that it can assemble a 10/10 game in case of structure and order out of nothing or out of unreasonable and unintelligent particles without an intelligent mind behind it setting its purpose or action is to me the height of absurdity.
I find it funny that alot of humans worship these as gods, yet, the " gods" are saying that you are a fluke, a cosmic fart in a random universe which popped out of nothing, instead of seeing the obvious that, there is intelligence in creation, just look at everything, how it is moving and behaving, how it does not collapse, how a new xbox does not suddenly appear with a new triple AA game in my living room ready to play at an instant, or that I should somehow fear a non existent piano coming into existence and falling on my head when I am in the Woods walking, there is logic in nature, and that logic comes from the Logos, the Mind behind the universe.
Just look how our minds work and how it can create amazing tools, amazing art, amazing games etc, but we are inside of creation, a limited manifestation, then you imagine a mind that does not have any restrictions or limitations upon itself, you would easily then see that, this mind can easily imagine a story of our universe and in so doing, it becomes real and the character's become real as well, because this Mind, is limitless, there is nothing outside of it that can stop it since it imagines a prior and an after, a where and a how, laws and rules.
Also, a infinite unrestricted mind could easily sync up a uncountable amount of beings, rules, laws etc, since our human minds can create petty silicon chip which lets millions of people play together in a fictional world.
But I understand the temption to dismiss God and play God ourselves, but I can close my eyes and wish that a robber does not exist, but he will rob me and I will face the consequence nevertheless my fantasy about it, same it is with God.
God is both knowable in creation and in a revelation and personal experiences through prayer and other means.
There just is to much to dismiss and hand wave away for people like this and it saddens me that some people do not even see it.

[servantofjesuschrist]

Trent should give a defence of the traditional authorship of the Peterine epistles.

[Vicpoint]

It's amazing how much they struggle with Kant's analogy. Even if we say "Forget about the ball and pillow existing from past eternity" and imagine that they both come into existence at the same moment, we can see just as well that the ball is the cause of the indent in the pillow. Simultaneous causation is quite simple and well-understood.

[Mark-cdwf]

I think Skydivephil forgot to pull his ripcord in this video…..🤔

Excellent critique, Trent! You’ve outdone yourself.😁👍

[OnlyTruthLove]

One view of God I have is that God is all possibilities all at once. The universe, or our "experience" of God is a tiny insignificant sliver of what God actually is. This is why God is unchanging. It is rather our consciousness that comes into contact with different realities which are all part of God.

In this sense, the universe is God (a tiny part of Him). And in this sense, the universe has always existed, it is our ability to recognize it that changed.

[ericgatera]

Interesting. Looks like Dr. Craig has also started responding to the same video on his weekly Question of the week.

[JazzyUnderscoreTrumpeter]

I feel smart for understanding about 2/3rds of this...may need to rewatch a couple times, this shit's DENSE 😭🙏
Very intriguing, nevertheless, thank you for sharing an intellectual interpretation of faith.

[hectorromero]

Atheists, no matter what field of knowledge they are expert on, will never understand the kalam, even when it is expressed in its most simple way. WLC has demonstrated God's existence once and for all eternity for all the possible worlds. WLC will win the Berggruen prize hands down. WLC can rest in peace. His elementary propositions are unassailable because they are flawless. But if there is some flaw, no worries, reasonable faith is inferior to pure faith which is the one that 99.9% of believers have and need. After WLC's kalam, the next subject is: who is going to be saved? Because all boils down to this question.

[marilynmelzian]

Doesn’t contingency come into this, too? Everything that happens in a quantum field is contingent on that quantum field existing. How would you show that the quantum field itself is not contingent

[gsoifml]

Anyone else catch the irony in the claim that an animal can't pop into existence yet we're willing to make the case a universe can?

[LarghettoCantabile]

I'm not sure that the brick-pane interaction at the instant of impact of a brick hitting a glass pane is a good instance of simultaneous causation. But, in the case of creation, we are talking about agency. So a better example would be the mental-cum-physical complex event of raising one's arm. The precise moment I, as a subject, raise my arm is also the moment at which my muscles start contracting to effect the raise. The mental facet of the event is the cause of its physical facet, and these are simultaneous.

[cactoidjim]

The first objection boils down to, "OMGeee! Philosophers adjusted their theories based on evidence! They can't do that!"

😐😐😐

[maxmaximus]

Great video, Thanks. I’d be very careful about trusting our basic intuitions too much. I think that we might be completely wrong about how we interpret reality. The various interpretations of quantum mechanics is only one indicator that we could be fundamentally wrong on what we perceive as being “real”. I’m also wondering whether the concept of causality breaks down in the absence of time and it’s implication on the Kalam with regards to agency and intent (as in the brick example).

It’s also interesting that the definition of god is quite similar to the definition of nothing, spaceless, timeless … and Trent uses a temporal expression to describe how god acts in the same sentence. I’d wish that we use the same, humble approach when we talk about how much we trust these scientific theories, when it comes to our our understanding of what god actually is.