how did the universe begin was it a big bang or did something else cause it to come into existence
was it always here or did a creator have a hand in it apparently all atheists and non-believers sweat
at the mere mention of what we're about to look at the kalam cosmological argument
hello i'm the skeptic i watch videos on youtube that make extraordinary claims whether that's
flat earth or strange conspiracies but mostly the claim that a god is real and then explain
why i can't accept their position before we get into today's video please do subscribe hit that
bell notification to be alerted for my next video and drop a like that would be superb i encourage
thinking about things as it naturally leads to asking questions so i was happy to find a youtuber
called tiny thoughts even small thoughts are good right i noticed in the description of this video
he said his ultimate goal is not to get atheists to sweat but to reconsider their beliefs and
ultimately come to be saved by jesus well okay then let's see so today we're going to be looking
at perhaps one of the most powerful arguments for god's existence and this is an argument that's
been around for quite some time and i believe that every christian needs to know this argument
every christian huh what about all the other religions why wouldn't they need to know this
argument has been a thorn in the side of atheists why just atheists does this argument only offer
backup for christianity surely if it was correct it would prove that muslims hindus scientologists
and all the others aren't right either and if you've ever seen an atheist interact with
this argument in a debate usually they struggle to respond to this argument well which is why i think
this argument is so powerful oh now i'm nervous so first i'm going to give an overview of the
argument and then we're going to go through the argument step by step and we're going to look
at some of the more common objections and some of the more powerful objections to the argument
and how we can respond to these objections so let's dive right in yes please so this
argument known as the kalam cosmological argument goes as follows everything that begins to exist
has a cause the universe began to exist therefore the universe has a cause just to clarify the kalam
cosmological argument is one of many arguments for the existence of stuff due to a god most
cosmological arguments state that everything had a cause and so when this is offered it's
perfectly reasonable to suggest that a god or gods that apparently created the universe would also
require a cause going back and back and back down an infinite path of causation the column makes
a minor adjustment to other arguments stating that everything that begins to exist has a cause
but that a god has always existed with that being said looking at these premises let's just say that
we accept the definition of begins to exist as what we see colloquially since it can be argued
that things have always existed in a sense of energy and matter and that universes could cycle
in and out of existence just because it's stated that things need a cause nowhere on these premises
does it say a god so i'm not sure how this can demonstrate one now additionally you can add two
more steps to this argument to really drive the argument home and these last few steps are if the
universe has a cause then an uncaused personal creator of the universe exists who without the
universe is beginningless changeless immaterial timeless spaceless and enormously powerful why
whoa whoa that's a huge jump how on earth did you get to a personal god that's the same as saying
everything needs a cause i can't understand a natural one so it must have been a god well i
might change premise four to if the universe has a cause then uncaused universe creating elves did it
or universe creating unicorns or universe creating gryphons if you're going to insert a god into this
you'd need to demonstrate that actually was a god to insert and then finally the last step therefore
an uncaused personal creator of the universe exists who without the universe is beginningless
changeless immaterial timeless spaceless and enormously powerful so basically saying a
god exists because you said so this would mean my universe creating griffins exist if only i'd said
universe creating dragons existing dragons would have been call ah darn it so let's take a look at
this argument step by step the first premise is that everything that begins to exist has a cause
now this first premise seems undeniable it seems common sense right well in that we know that the
current observable local universe had a moment in time that it came into existence yes but
who's to say the reason that this universe came to be wasn't because of another universe ending
the universe is bounce in and out of existence all the time nothing can begin to exist without
a cause you and i did not begin to exist without a cause but we can also explain our beginning to
exist with natural explainable chemical reactions so so why would that equal a god our parents came
together in procreation which caused us to come into existence there is a cause to our existence
now if this first premise weren't true then there wouldn't really be any good reason as to why we
don't see things popping into existence uncaused all the time in fact there's no counter example
that anyone can produce of something coming into existence without a cause fine that can be
accepted but you can't just then jump to a floaty sky man did it even the big bang theory suggests
what caused it to happen ideas that are observable and testable not plucked out of thin air so how
does anyone object to this premise well a really bad but commonly used objection that isn't really
much of an objection to this premise is what about god who created god well you'd have to suggest
that a god did it for that to be asked i might ask who created the universe created dragons i forgot
to imagine into existence earlier if someone asked this question you can immediately tell that
maybe they're just not familiar with the kalam cosmological argument or they just haven't really
grappled with it seriously the first premise only applies to things that begin to exist which would
not apply to god because god has always existed and that's where issues start to arise you
can't just say a god has always existed without demonstrating it to be the case i think atheists
sweat because it gets annoying that theists assume asserting things to be the case means
in their mind it's the truth and in fact we have a name for so-called gods that began to exist
these gods are called idols and we know that idols could not have created the universe since
they themselves were created i'm not asserting this to be the case but how on earth could you
know that if there was a god it hadn't created universe creating idols to do its work for it
when you say that something created the universe the list of things that could have done it is
endless he then goes on to talk about quantum mechanics and states he doesn't understand it
but still spends a good two minutes talking about it i wouldn't pretend to understand where it's
going but he ends up reading things which i don't think offer anything more to the argument maybe he
just wanted to sound more smart i don't know check it out if you wish the link is in the description
now the next premise is that the universe began to exist now this premise too seems undeniable
all the evidence that we have points to the universe beginning to exist of course
science demonstrates that there was in fact a point where our local universe began to exist
still failing to see how that points to a god and what has been taught by christians for
centuries has only recently maybe in the past 60 years or so become more commonly accepted
in the scientific community uh no christians for centuries have been saying god created the
heavens and the earth where in science has that ever been accepted unless i've missed something
that's just untrue in fact the notion that the universe began to exist started to gain popularity
in the scientific community when friedman and lumatra predicted an expanding universe
which if we would have gone backwards would have meant that the universe would have had a beginning
but that's not exactly what christians have been saying so twisting this to fit a narrative is a
little dishonest lamatra actually proposed the big bang even though he faced resistance from
some of the leading scientists at the time such as arthur eddington and fred hoyle who sarcastically
coined the term big bang to insult the theory now even lawrence krauss as hostile as he is
to theists admits that all the evidence suggests that our universe had a beginning
all the evidence suggests our universe had a beginning so what's the objection to this premise
well the objection to this premise is well the universe has always existed but there
are a couple problems with this objection the first is the second law of thermodynamics which
teaches that in a closed isolated system the entropy is always increasing what this means
is that there'll be less and less usable energy as time goes on useful forms of energy get converted
to heat every time work is done so there's less and less usable energy in the universe
now if the universe had always existed that means that there'd be no usable energy right now because
an infinite amount of time would have elapsed allowing all the useful energy to be converted
to entropy to heat and we wouldn't be able to move our hands we wouldn't be alive there would be
no useful energy left in the universe which is clearly not the case so because we can move it
demonstrates that the universe had a beginning did i just sum up all that in one pointless sentence
pointing to laws of thermal dynamics again something of which i know nothing about doesn't
demonstrate a god or gods it merely contributes to the assessment that our local universe probably
did have a point where it started so what i think many folks were already convinced of that and you
don't just have to take my word for it listen to what physicist alexander the lincoln writes in
grappling with the idea of an eternal universe the lincoln writes there is another way that
the universe might be eternal in the past let me cut you off there whether the universe did
or didn't have a point of coming into existence is irrelevant to there being a creator let's jump to
the next point as this next bit is basically just waffle which just to remind you you can see on the
original video in the description now i want to point out that alexander the lincoln himself is
not a christian he's not a theist and in fact he ultimately rejects the kalam cosmological argument
and instead he tries to propose something called quantum tunneling now in volinkan's quantum
tunneling model ultimately the universe comes into existence from mathematical laws from mathematical
equations but there's a problem with that mathematical laws and equations don't cause
reality they have no impact on reality they're abstract objects i would think a more accurate
description would be an abstract science rather than object maths isn't a physical object it's a
method and description used to explain stuff and you see that even the lincoln himself ultimately
wrestles with this point he writes in his book many worlds in one does this mean that the laws
are not mere descriptions of reality and can have an independent existence of their own
in the absence of space time and matter what tablets could they be written upon
the laws are expressed in the form of mathematical equations if the medium of mathematics is the mind
does this mean that the mind should predate the universe it's a fun concept to imagine mind's
predating universes but it doesn't sound as though velenkin is asserting that merely asking questions
to make you think and ask questions now when i hear the lincoln write that i just want to say
that's why you need god i don't assume that's the conclusion he was aiming for and you shouldn't
get to go i can't explain x therefore god math cannot create reality uh mathematical equations
do not cause things to come into being tell me you don't understand the concept of mathematics
without telling me you don't understand the concept of mathematics and actually
i'm reminded of john chapter 1 which says in the beginning was the word and the word was with god
and the word was god he was in the beginning with god all things were made through him and without
him was not anything made that was made i mean at this point it would make sense to point to
a book that still hasn't even been demonstrated to be the word of a god so carry on god is that
word god is that logos that caused the universe to come into being and that answers stephen hawking's
question that he posed in a brief history of time what is it that breathes fire into the equations
and makes a universe for them to describe universe creating dragons universe creating dragons i mean
at least they breathe fire god does so we get all the way through all of that just for you to say
it was a god without actually offering anything other than the bible to demonstrate it
the original argument doesn't even mention a god you just added some extra bits in there to make it
work for you now the conclusion of the traditional kalam cosmological argument is therefore the
universe has a cause the conclusion isn't something that someone can object to because this
is a deductive argument which means that if the premises are true the conclusion must necessarily
follow and there's still no mention of the word god other than what you put in yourself but let's
take a look at the two additional steps that can be added onto the kalam cosmological argument
and these have really been popularized by william lane craig oh no so the next
step is if the universe has a cause then an uncaused personal creator of the universe exists
who without the universe is beginningless changeless immaterial timeless spaceless
and enormously powerful where did that come from so why would this be true well if the universe
has a cause this means that the cause must be beginningless changeless and timeless because
time itself came into existence with the beginning of the universe time is something that we use to
explain progression of existence as a whole our local universe had a start point in that time
but that doesn't mean you get to assert that outside of that time didn't exist how could you
possibly even know that it must be immaterial because matter came into existence with the
universe it must be spaceless because space itself uh came into existence with the universe or you
could think outside the box in a naturalistic way and not just assume that this is it and it must be
enormously powerful to cause the universe to come into existence and on top of that the cause must
be personal so why must the cause be personal well if the cause transcends time and space
and matter it must be immaterial it must be timeless it must be this and it must be that
well sir it must be demonstrated to be the case and there are only two types of things that can be
timeless and immaterial only two really the first is abstract objects like numbers or mathematical
objects but numbers or mathematical objects cannot cause anything to happen they can't cause anything
in reality to change to happen now the second type of immaterial reality is a mind so it makes sense
that an unembodied mind caused the universe to come into existence out of nothing maybe it makes
sense to you since you're already a believer but how is that undemonstrated nonsense supposed to
convince someone that doesn't agree with a mind creating the universe you've basically just said
it must be this because you can't understand what science suggests which i'm not saying i
understand it either or you can't imagine universe creating dragons which is sad in my head they're
pretty cool so finally to drive the conclusion home therefore an uncaused personal creator of
the universe exists who sounds the universe is beginningless changeless immaterial timeless
spaceless and enormously powerful just saying it doesn't make it true you can't jump from something
caused x to a god did it because my definition of a god fits universe causality now hopefully
you guys found this video helpful i wish it did i just found myself sweating a lot with frustration
hang on a minute i'm still not convinced that the cosmological argument proves a god
since you can say anything created the universe but what do you think does this strengthen a
theist's position let me know in the section below i'm just going to skeptic this off as
not convincing me that a god had anything to do with the moment the universe came to be don't
forget to hit the like button and subscribe if you haven't already from me the skeptic stay safe keep
thinking logically and ask questions skepticism is the first step towards truth see you next saturday