Kalam Cosmological Argument 2.Physicists and Philosophers strike back

preview_player
Показать описание
This is the second film we have made, critiquing the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Our first assembled many leading physicists and philosophers to offer what they think is wrong with the argument.
It clearly got the attention of William Lane Craig as he made a four part series responding.
In this film we reply to his reply. There are yet agin many leading experts here including Sean Carroll, Carlo Rovelli, Niayesh Afshordi, Adrain Moore, Alex Malpass and others.
All opinions expressed are those of the person expressing them and should be taken as a collective opinion. Nevertheless, we sent this to everyone involved to make sure no one objected to it. None did.

Timecodes

0:00 Introduction
3:10 metaphysical absurdity
6:27 infinite subtraction
11:25 infinite future
14:27 Potential infinity
17:25 angels, God and infinity
18:49 infinite countdown
21:32 Grim Reaper Paradox
23:28 Absence of Evidence
23:49 Big Bang Singularity
26:46 Quantum Gravity
27:23 Hartle Hawking Model
29:37 BGV Theorem
32:25 Quantum Eternity Theorem
34:00 Cherry Picking
36:00 Collapsing Universe
40:46 Reversing the arrow of time
41:46 entropy
42:50 Wall theorem
44:27 singularities again
45:19 Neo Lorentzianism
54:10 models with a beginning
55:47 causality and QM
1:02:00 causes and cats
1:04:33 metaphysical principle
1:06:19 simultaneous causation
1:07:48 time travel
1:08:40 free agent
1:12:47 desperate atheists
1:14:35 summing up

Cast:
Adrian Moore
Graham Priest,
Wes Morriston
Alex Malpass
Daniel Linford
Sean Carroll
Niayesh Afshordi
Carlo Rovelli
Barry Lower
Chris Hitchock
Susanne Schander
Abhay Ashtekar
Arif Ahmed
Aurelien Barrau
Alistair Wilson
Alan Guth
Alex Vilenkin
Simon Saunders
Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

An exceptional and worthy undertaking which offered a significant, accessible and highly academic response to cosmological arguments which often are revered by believers and go unchallenged. I believe in God, I am a Muslim, but I feel apologetics that try to use philosophy to pontificate upon things which defy our evolved intuitions prevents us from fully appreciating and enjoying what only science has, and can, uncover. The answers are out there, not within. Incredible work, Phil.

sahb
Автор

The amount of effort it takes to refute Craig's rhetoric (often dripping with an unwarranted smugness and certitude) in a debate is vast, which is why he usually appears to do so well, but here skydivephil et al do all that heavy lifting and firmly remind him what intellectual honesty looks like. Brilliant.

Datokah
Автор

One thing I noticed from all these exceptional physicists is that every single one of them admits that there are all kinds of models and theories and they are not sure about which one is the correct one.

Then there is WLC.

johnwick
Автор

Thanks to all involved for this stellar effort. I’ve long considered Craig’s argumentation to be naive, self-serving and based entirely on - and made entirely in support of - his unwarranted religious presuppositions. Not only that but his responses to criticisms are all too often glib misrepresentations or misunderstandings (punctuated with incredulous giggling), and his cherry-picked cosmological models often rule out his preferred conclusions. He’s better educated and more polished than most other Christian apologists, but Craig is as much working toward a predetermined conclusion as a common used-god salesman like Ray Comfort.

hank_says_things
Автор

It's interesting that according to WLC the very physicists who created the theories he uses as "proof" for his ideas are wrong about the physics that he is using as "evidence".

silverwolfmonastery
Автор

A great follow-up. Covers a great deal of my issues with Craig's approach. My impression is that he is quick to assert knowledge of the nature of the universe based on his own intuition, despite that many people who study it empirically would not reach that conclusion because they do not believe there is enough information to warrant it.
I think he is working backwards to support his conclusions, trying to use deductive reason (the only way is... somehow imagining and eliminating all other possibilities) to try and determine the nature of reality, which seems more reliably understood via inductive reasoning.
If Craig actually cared about being taken seriously, it would be wise for him to demonstrate a model, and publish in reputable peer-reviewed physics journals, that 1) satisfies the vast majority of most reliable empirical data, 2) has specific, testable falsification criteria, 3) generates predictions that can be tested, either through simulation or empirically, and 4) has successfully predicted phenomena that were not implicit in the model.
However, since I think Craig's ambition is not to gain credibility among publishing physicists but rather to proselytise for his religious convictions, his approach of asserting knowledge beyond that of careful researchers and dismissing objections as irrelevant or as a misunderstanding of the concepts, is probably the best he can do. Personally, I think if someone could convince the world's foremost scientists that a creator God was necessary for the universe to exist, it would go a long way towards bringing millions of people to believe it as well. I guess he doesn't care about salvation as much as I thought...

pesilaratnayake
Автор

Craig doesn't stand a chance against this (that is, when physicists themselves explicitly and clearly reject his premises). I know he won't admit it, but this is really bad for his apologetical project.

CosmoPhiloPharmaco
Автор

As a physicist I can’t stop praising your excellent work on YouTube. 😄👍

maujo
Автор

I enjoyed hearing the experts’ criticisms and loved the music and animations. I think it’s very important to remember that if the kalam’s conclusion is false it’s either because the universe began to exist without a cause or the universe has existed forever.

anonymoushuman
Автор

"That's just hand-waving, an appeal to the unknown." Well, there goes skeptical theism.

kamilgregor
Автор

Regarding the claims of some physicists in the video that there are quantum events without causes: The issue that is constantly being confused is determinism and causality.

The pre-existence of quantum field (for example) would be a causally necessary condition for quantum fluctuation while the pre-existence of atomic nuclei and the so-called weak nuclear force would be causally necessary conditions for beta-decay, in the absence of which the beta-decay would not occur (Bussey 2013, p. 20). The difference between supposed quantum indeterminism and (say) the supposed uncaused beginning of the universe(1) is that the former lacks a causally sufficient condition whereas the latter lacks a causally necessary condition. The kalam proponent claims there has to be a causally necessary condition for an event. He is not claiming that there must be sufficient conditions for its beginning (which is consistent with quantum indeterminacy).

elihaitov
Автор

Thanks for the amount of effort you put into these videos and getting interviews with so many great minds. These videos do so much more than disproving Craig’s argument because they’re incredibly informational in the process. I honestly learned some new scientific knowledge here, unrelated to the argument itself. It’s really cool to see so many diverse minds talk about such deep topics like infinity and theoretical cosmology. Looking forward to part 3!!

bendavis
Автор

Craig is almost too polite in butting these non-sequiturs. It's really not too difficult to understand the difference between 1) a mathematical infinite and 2) an actual infinite that is substantiated in the real world. What possible proof, other than one based on reason/intuition/metaphysics, can someone provide that an actual infinite is not realizable?

bakedalaska
Автор

Scientists tend to go wherever the science leads them.
WLC tends to lead the science wherever he wants to go.

fred_
Автор

This is fantastic! So many of my favorite academics in one place 👏🏻 great work, great sound and photography... thanks for creating this!

bensmithoriginals
Автор

Carroll’s “quantum eternity theorem” doesn’t require any cosmological model to be past eternal. It only demonstrates that if an eternal universe existed, then Schrodinger’s equation would be able to calculate the wavefunction anywhere along an infinite timeline. But everyone working in QM knew that already.

elihaitov
Автор

The most absurd thing about Craig's argument is that it becomes clear that his God has clearly only meant for Dr. Craig to understand it.

ddavidjeremy
Автор

Keep up the great work, Phil! Can't express my appreciation enough!

atheologica
Автор

Probably a long shot but Capturing Christianity has a call in show scheduled for this Friday with Frank Turek. It would be highly entertaining for any of you guys to call in and ask him some questions on his Kalam argument.

pnkekff
Автор

You got Wes on to comment that’s so incredibly responsible of you given how thoroughly he’s crushed Craig in the academic literature e.g. unsatisfiable pair diagnosis with Alex Malpass who you also interviewed! Wow I’m subscribing and visiting your patreon page. If this quality is a persistent feature of this channel then please enjoy my money lol!

anitkythera