Beautiful YouTube treatment of Kalam cosmological argument by skydivephil

[Marshall]

This just came out on YouTube in the past couple of weeks. It is 28 minutes of natural beauty and intelligent reasoning with short contrasting clips of interviews with some top cosmologists and pulpit eloquence (both Islamic and Christian) woven in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baZUCc5m8sE

I saw it a couple of weeks ago and liked it, so want to share.

The two people most responsible for making it go by the name of "Skydivephil" one word, so you can get it by going to YouTube and putting
"Kalam skydivephil" in the search box.

there are several YouTube things already out that take down the Kalam Argument. If you have watched some, or have a favorite, please comment and give a link. Especially if you have one that you think compares favorably with this new one by Skydivephil.

I think they did an exquisite job and so I'm guessing I won't find another on this theme I like better, but I would be glad to find one. The whole idea of YouTube as a channel for making and rebutting arguments is interesting.
Like the "music-video" was earlier, it seems to be a new craft of expression that is coming up and could have potential.

If you aren't familiar with the Kalam Argument, there is a Wikipedia article.
A Medieval invention of Islamic theologians which the Christian apologist William Lee Craig has resurrected and modernized, with highly selectives reference to modern cosmology. I expect some here know far more than I have learned about it, on short acquaintance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument

 

[Brian-M]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe.

My refutation...

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

This is only known to apply to particular arrangements of matter and energy, not matter or energy itself. We have never observed matter or energy begin to exist (except possibly virtual particles, which apparently do begin to exist without cause), therefore we cannot assume that it needs a cause to do so.

2. The universe began to exist.

The Big Bang is the beginning of the universe as we know it, but not necessarily the ultimate beginning of the universe. We simply don't know what happened before that because the known laws of physics break down at that point.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This conclusion has not been demonstrated.

4. This cause is the God of Classical Theism [...]

Non-sequitur. This conclusion does not follow from the argument presented even if you accept all the preceding statements as true. The only way this can make any kind of sense is if interpreted as a definition of "God".

But the term "God" as normally used implies an intelligent entity. Unless you can demonstrate that the (hypothetical) cause of the universe is intelligent, you cannot define "God" as being the cause of the universe.

You could just as easily define "Leprechauns" as being the cause of rainbows and conclude: If rainbows have a cause for their existence, that cause is Leprechauns. Therefore Leprechauns exist.

[...] , and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe.

Non-sequitur. There's nothing anywhere in the argument that supports this claim.

 

[Brian-M]

If you thought the Kalam Argumant was interesting, look up the Transcendental Argument. It's pretty thought provoking (and much more fun to refute).

Well, at least the versions that involve abstract concepts and laws of physics can be interesting. The versions of the Transcendental Argument based on the the existence of morality tend to be a bit boring if you already understand the evolutionary basis of morality.

 

[Marshall]

...
I think they did an exquisite job and so I'm guessing I won't find another on this theme I like better, but I would be glad to find one. The whole idea of YouTube as a channel for making and rebutting arguments is interesting.
Like the "music-video" was earlier, it seems to be a new craft of expression that is coming up and could have potential.

What I want emphasize about this is the talent. What these young people have done is intellectually engaging but also attractive and entertaining.

Combining nature, fiery sermons, lively interviews with clever people, world travel, space, an intelligent young woman commentator...

You could say it has "production values": Woven together with remarkable skill, but also with something of the freshness of an amateur movie. In case anyone's new to the thread, here's the link to what I'm talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baZUCc5m8sE

 

[TimCallahan]

Even were we to go along with the theists' Kalam argument, or if we were to use the "six numbers" fine-tuning argument, this wouldn't give us a personal God who actually cared, one way or the other, about our existence. I would ask any theist, "Where was this God of your's in 2004, when an earthquake under the Indian Ocean generated a tsunami that claimed the lives of about 230,000 people? And where was this God of your's in 2010, when an earthquake in Haiti, followed by a cholera epidemic resulting from the subsequent break down of infrastructure, took the lives of 300,000 people? In the case of those dying cholera after the quake, a disproportionally high number of them were children.

These two natural disasters alone took the lives of over half a million people. Even if you can prove the existence of some kind of God, what difference does it make? This God of yours presumably could have intervened to prevent these disasters, but chose not to. Why would I want to worship such a God?

 

[Marshall]

As you may have gathered, what especially interests me in this thread is basically the artistic craft of this particular 28-minute YouTube. I would like to see the same talent applied to other philo/scientific debates&controversies.

Can you think of some other issues that people with this kind of communication talent could constructively address?

Tim and Brian, I am glad that both of you have your own ways of refuting the Kalam argument! I have mine too. But for me the issue is that this YouTube was an eyeopener for me as a way of communicating ideas. It's beautiful, it could reach a wider audience than just me and you. It engages the imagination. It leaves a lasting pleasant effect. It entertains as well as teaches.

Anyway, that is what I think. If you watch it you may get a different opinion, which I would like to hear. (I mean watch with fresh eyes, not necessarily those of one who has already long since refuted the Kalam for himself or herself.)

 

[PixyMisa]

Edit: Never mind.

 

[DC]

liked the video alot.

had to giggle when i read J. Richard Gott

but somehow still not a big fan of the notion that something can come from nothing^^

 

[TheRedWorm]

liked the video alot.

had to giggle when i read J. Richard Gott

but somehow still not a big fan of the notion that something can come from nothing^^

Maybe a new definition of nothing is in order?

 

[DC]

Maybe a new definition of nothing is in order?

all the smart guys in the video had no problem with it so i guess its me.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Well, truth be told, I've always thought of the concept of nothing as to be a bit artificial. Even in a vacuum, space-time still exists.... I think.

 

[FireGarden]

Good video.
Thanks.

 

[FireGarden]

liked the video alot.

had to giggle when i read J. Richard Gott

but somehow still not a big fan of the notion that something can come from nothing^^

Do you have an answer to the question in the video:
Where do you go to observe nothing?

If you can't observe it, then how can you confidently describe its behaviour? Such as "something cannot come from nothing".

 

[DC]

Do you have an answer to the question in the video:
Where do you go to observe nothing?

If you can't observe it, then how can you confidently describe its behaviour? Such as "something cannot come from nothing".

whe cannot observe nothing, there is always something where ever we are or have been.

 

[The Norseman]

Do you have an answer to the question in the video:
Where do you go to observe nothing?

If you can't observe it, then how can you confidently describe its behaviour? Such as "something cannot come from nothing".

An excellent question to ask theists about their god(s).

 

[Marshall]

liked the video alot.

had to giggle when i read J. Richard Gott

but somehow still not a big fan of the notion that something can come from nothing^^

all the smart guys in the video had no problem with it so i guess its me.

Do you have an answer to the question in the video:
Where do you go to observe nothing?

If you can't observe it, then how can you confidently describe its behaviour? Such as "something cannot come from nothing".

Without presuming expert authority I would say what you have here is a perfectly good crit of the YouTube. They overemphasized some rather dated professional speculation mainly from the 1990s about "universe could arise from a quantum fluctuation".
Those who promoted the idea were respected academics who had earned the right to speculate, but they were never very clear IMHO about what what the "nothing" was that experienced the fluctuation.

Alex Vilenkin was one. Hawking another. Some of the more extravagant "eternal inflation" thinkers like Andrei Linde, contributed.

I think that stuff is less fashionable now. And remained at the level of speculation (which scientists do indulge in---they don't always behave like straightlaced empiricists.)

What has become more prominent since 2001 and especially since 2007 are ways of modeling and understanding the start of expansion that allow extrapolating back before, and to make testable predictions based on the models. This basically kicks the problem of existence down the road.

Maybe it didn't start in a "big bang", maybe we can model the universe (testably by future observation) going back to earlier conditions, like a contraction phase. So let's think about that now and not worry about "why does existence exist?"

Maybe existence is an infinite regress with no beginning and every explanation we can event has some deeper explanation, ad infinitem, but lets not worry about that. It is more immediately interesting to try to understand what could have been happening around the start of expansion and immediately preceding.

whe cannot observe nothing, there is always something where ever we are or have been.

DC, I think your reaction is on track. Talking about universe from nothing may be getting passé. The interested layman is left holding bag that Vilenkin and Hawking and Linde gave him back in 1990s. May just be irrelevant.
Just a catchy idea. Maybe there has always been something and we just need to try to understand what we can of it better.

 

[Marshall]

Skydivephil are a talented team. I really like their video. But they didn't HAVE to get into that "something fluctuating out of nothing" stew at the end.
There doesn't have to be a beginning.
Some newer models of the cosmos crank on back in time before the 'big bang' and do not develop a "singularity" breakdown.
The "big bang" does not look so formidable, or even so real, as it may have 20 years ago, or as it still looks on Discovery Channel. There's a research literature about testing the various models that extend back earlier in time. I'll get a link if anyone is interested.

But it's hard for me to imagine how the makers of the YouTube could have accommodated that kind of information and retained clarity and broad appeal. They needed to stay with what the audience already had some familiarity with.

 

[Leumas]

Skydivephil are a talented team. I really like their video. But they didn't HAVE to get into that "something fluctuating out of nothing" stew at the end.
There doesn't have to be a beginning. Some newer models of the cosmos crank on back in time before the 'big bang' and do not develop a "singularity" breakdown. The "big bang" does not look so formidable, or even so real, as it may have 20 years ago, or as it still looks on Discovery Channel. There's a research literature about testing the various models that extend back earlier in time. I'll get a link if anyone is interested.
But it's hard for me to imagine how the makers of the YouTube could have accommodated that kind of information and retained clarity and broad appeal. They needed to stay with what the audience already had some familiarity with.

The Bibg Bang was started out of the mind of a CATHOLIC PRIEST. A Jesuit priest proposed the idea with some mathematical magic.

The MEDIA loved it.....the THEISTS loved it and still do .....and some math magicians loved it too.

MANY MANY of its predictions have been contradicted by observations after observations.

Every time we widened the horizon of observation and knowledge it has proven the Big Bang to be INCORRECT....but yet the legerdemain of mathematical contortions on a white board kept coming out with MORE AND MORE RIDICULOUS INVENTIONS to keep apologetics for the Big Bang going.

Does that sound FAMILIAR????????

Dark Matter that we cannot observe.....sounds familiar?
Singularities that we cannot explain.....familiar????
Something from nothing.....familiar???
Beginning and Ending.....familiar???
Other dimensional REALMS......familiar?????​

The bloody big bang is nothing but a SCIENTIFIC ALTERNATIVE TO GOD.

There are MANY other theories old and new. BUT....BUT....they are not TRENDY enough for the MEDIA and the sensational press.

They are not acceptable enough by the PUNY religion atrophied minds of most humans.

This book is old (see the newer ones below) .....but its theories and hypothesis for alternatives that precede the big bang, explain the universe in a PROPER scientific way rather than by some LEGERDEMAIN of math created in the first place by a JESUIT PRIEST. I would advise anyone to read this book…..it is not just about the Plasma theory…..it is a review of History of religion vs. science and a review of philosophy related to science and overall it is an informative and wonderful book to read.

It is also a fascinating account of how the big bang has failed to tally up with observations after observations. It also explains how the proponents of the big bang kept CONTORTING the theory in an apologetics style in keeping with the philosophy of its inventor. Nothing but mathematical sleight of hand.

The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe ​

Here also is a GREAT book that is a lot newer....but I prefer the above more.

The Static Universe: Exploding the Myth of Cosmic Expansion ​

There are other books too...many...here is one I think is GREAT.

Big Bang Blasted​

Here is what the book descriptions has to say:

Is the Universe really expanding? When the Big Bang Theory was first conceived it looked good - but since then, result after result has gone against the theory. Instead of rejecting the model, as we are told 'real Science' should do, mainstream scientists have continued to invent patch after patch in a bid to save it - but in doing so, the theory has lost its experimental support. What the author has done here is to go back to the beginning and start again. He follows the history of the Big Bang and the characters involved - explaining at every step how it was done.

He then introduces 'Ashmore's Paradox' and shows that after all these years of searching for the Hubble constant, all they ended up with was something any schoolchild could have found by recalling three very common physical constants from their calculator memory!

Lyndon explains that redshift - originally thought to show that the Universe is expanding, is just an effect caused by photons travelling through space and losing energy to electrons. From this, he goes on to explain the CMB and other observations normally associated with an expanding Universe.

​

 

[Marshall]

Leumas you do not seem to have any concept of what new models are being worked out for early universe cosmology, trying to understand what was happening around the start of expansion (no "big bang").

The things you are talking about seem out-dated and neither interesting nor relevant, from my perspective, so I welcome your comments and hope that you will present them to your heart's content, but there seems no particular reason to respond.

If you get curious about what is currently going on and want to read some recent scientific papers, let me know and perhaps I can help with links.

 

[Leumas]

Leumas you do not seem to have any concept of what new models are being worked out for early universe cosmology, trying to understand what was happening around the start of expansion (no "big bang").

So pray tell....how does that differ from what I am advocating....

I have been a big bang opponent ever since I heard of it… my reasons were not from any detailed mathematical of physics facts….though what little I knew did contribute.

My reasons were purely LOGICAL….. it sounded to me utterly theological in its nature…. Ending and beginning with mysteries only understandable by the initiated elites and we just have to accept what they tell us even though it does not make sense for they only hold the keys to the inner circles of knowledge. And whenever new knowledge contradicted them they came out with a new explanation that requires even more FAITH to accept as an explanation.

All the big bang did was to make the universe a god and cosmology a faith and cosmologists holy priests.

By the way….the first book I mentioned expounds greatly on what I say above. It helped me feel BETTER. Because I was starting to feel very bad. I was asking myself....Why am I the only one who rejects the big bang. Are there other people like me out there? Why am I different from all those people who seem to know better? Why am I so arrogant to think that what my teachers tell me is true must be wrong? Am I just stupid? Is there something wrong with me? Am I a freak of nature? Should I end it all?

So you see the book helped me realize that there are other people out there who are A-bigbang-ists. I felt that I can come out of the closet and declare to my teachers that I am an A-Bigbang-ist.

But the newer books also have helped in bolstering even further my A-bibang-ism when I had any agnostic recurrences every now and then. They helped me to stay on the wagon.

The things you are talking about seem out-dated and neither interesting nor relevant, from my perspective, so I welcome your comments and hope that you will present them to your heart's content, but there seems no particular reason to respond.

Ah….but you ARE responding….. logic?

If you get curious about what is currently going on and want to read some recent scientific papers, let me know and perhaps I can help with links.

I have read different books from yours that say the same thing in a different way.....sorry I have not read YOUR stuff.....but since I am not a math conjuror or physics magician I cannot catch the sleight of hand and tricks and science legerdemains that these accomplished con artists can DAZZLE people with.

The best way to DEBUNK a conjuror is to have another accomplished conjuror do it.

So I read books that DEBUNK big bang advocates’ claim to INFALLIBILITY.....sorry they are not the same ones as yours....but they seem to arrive at the same conclusions as yours.

If the books I happened to have read don't interest YOU.... I am sorry.... I apologize for not being at your level.... Most cosmology today is mainly FANTASTICAL conjectures. When the scientists finally arrive at a PROVEN (as far as science can take it) THEORY and most scientists agree….then I might read once and for all to see if I can understand it…. But I fear I will be dead before this happens….

But “I welcome your comments and hope that you will present them to your heart's content”….. I will definitely try to read them …. But you have dismissed the books I mentioned without even having had any look at them …didn't you?