The Kalam Cosmological Argument and Fine-Tuning: A Documentary
About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery
This beautifully made documentary features arguments and evidence for God through the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Fine-Tuning Argument (sometimes known as the Teleological Argument and Design Argument). These arguments are defended by monotheistic religionists, like Christians, Muslims and Jews. In fact, this documentary was actually made and edited by Muslims (Alimane Studios), even though it freely uses Christian materials (BTW I'm a Christian). Figures, since both Christians and Muslims agree on the Cosmological and Fine-Tuning arguments. Science and philosophy scholars (who are Christian, Muslim, Jew, agnostic, etc.) are shown in this documentary. People like Michael Strauss, John Lennox, William Lane Craig, Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, John Polkinghorne, Rodney Holder, Peter S. Williams, etc. are speaking. The music used is "Various-Agnus Dei" by SME.
Comments
-
stupid
-
The first few seconds of this video "lies" about the big bang. There was "not" a big black empty space with a fireball and explosion from a central point. There is no evidence for that..... the big bang model does not claim any such thing, the inflationary model does not claim any such thing. Shame on the religious liars.
-
GOD hides through all these things so he can see what is in our heart.
-
theres is a WILL behind it all ... thats cool
-
The issue is not the dismantling of evolutionary atheism, but the uneasy feeling that we just might be accountable to a transcendent knowable creator.
-
This is wrong from the very start. Lol
-
Fine tuning is shown in Universal evidence of equilibrium.... see: https://www.academia.edu/4228885/Is_the_universe_in_equilibrium
see also: https://www.academia.edu/15609497/Beyond_the_Universe_How_Planck_scale_determinism_arises_to_inform_quantum_mechanics -
matter and energy have never been observed to begin and exist, they have just been seen to change form. Matter and energy have never been destroyed either; again, they have only been observed to change to different states in equal amounts to their previous state.
-
I suppose there wouldn't be a cause for the first cause, since a zero cause wouldn't cause anything.
-
A cause of existence does not equal a supernatural deity behind it. Just because we don't know (right now) what "caused" the universe to begin to exist, does not put a god in it's place by default. Besides, why would god even need to cause a big bang when he could have just ordered it up like he seems to have done everything else he's 'created'. And let's take a look at gods actions throughout the biblical text... the magnitude that is the big-bang and all that goes with it, isn't even consistent with his works in the bible. Someday science will tell us for certain how and exactly when the universe began and god will have to take a back seat..
-
hawking said there was no before the big bang an if that is true-then is he saying gravity is his god. cmon now
-
Clusterfuck. A most spectacular display of every species of intellectual dishonesty.
-
"These arguments are defended by monotheistic religionists, like Christians, Muslims and Jews."
Satanists also believe this as well. Do not forget about the Satanists. -
WLC: "In order to recognize that an explanation is the best, you don't have to be able to explain the explanation"
This guy cracks me up.
His entire argument relies on the fact that we still can't explain the origin of the universe based on naturalistic processes, therefore, something else is needed. Apparently one doesn't need to explain how the universe can exist or even potentially begin to exist for natural reasons alone to recognize it's the best explanation. After all, we know the natural realm exists. We know of all sort of things with demonstrably naturalistic explanations and none with a supernatural explanation.
The infinite regress absurdity he points out is precisely what makes his argument about causality moot. You don't need the universe to have an explanation (or cause) more than you need to make up one explanation (god) that doesn't need an explanation (or cause). IT'S THE SAME CAUSALITY HE NEEDS TO ASSUME TO PROVE GOD, THAT LEADS TO THE INFINITE REGRESSION THAT CAN ONLY BE ESCAPED BY BREAKING CAUSALITY WITH AN UNCAUSED GOD. So to avoid the infinite regression, the most sensible thing to do is to dismiss the uncaused cause, not to stop asking for a cause of "THE" cause
I have an explanation for god though. It's a human invention. Don't ask me to explain it cause we all know that's the best explanation and according to WLC I don't need to anyway. -
More Christian bullshit. The KCA is just another knockoff of Thomas Aquinas' cosmological argument of first cause. It too ended up "begging the question". Please try learning some actual science and philosophy before making these claims so you don't end up entangled in logical fallacies.
-
there was no "primordial fireball".
that's because the universe is a type of software instantiation.
it's based on rules but the "physics" is only an illusion to us.
which means that information has dominion over physics.
which means that some sort of intelligence/God was responsible for the universe/spacetime. -
this 'kalam' argument does not in itself claim a magical creator god as the first cause. in fact the magical creator god is not even remotely inferred by this argument. it only states that the universe had a beginning, and is the effect of a cause or state that existed before the beginning of the universe. the argument itself makes no claims about the nature of that cause. the teleological argument makes no sense when viewed in proportion to the size of the universe where this fine tuning effect can actually be seen as inevitable and so does not require a magical creator god. finally, by your own standards shown in this video you have shown me that your god is an abstract idea. and as noted in the video, abstract ideas can not produce anything, including a universe.
-
This guys does not destroy anything. In one of his latest book, misleadingly entitled The Grand Design, Steven Hawking makes the adventurous claim that “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Think about that.
Dr. John Lennox (Professor in Mathematics at Oxford University) responds to Hawking’s assertion that “the universe can and will create itself from nothing” with; “That sounds to me like something out of Alice in Wonderland ... it’s not science!”
If I say “X creates X,”
I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X.
To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent.
Or put simply; “From nothing, nothing comes!” or “No-thing cannot do anything!”
In relation to Hawking's latest idea Dr. Lennox rightly concludes; "What this all goes to show is that nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists".
0 + 0 = 0 The universe cannot have created itself!
-
No Kalam video would be complete with out the dishonest William Lane Craig completely (and intentionally) getting the science wrong.
-
If the universe was so fine-tuned, it wouldnt be so hostile towards life. Life can only exist in some parts of the earth, SOME of the time. If the conditions for life were so perfect, there would be more life, thriving. Not nearly extinct like our species almost was 200 thousand years ago, in a population of about 11,000.
Talk to any theoretical physicist, there are numerous models that can produce life. It is true you can't tweak forces without destroying life but that's not a surprise to me. Another model that produces life couldn't be adjusted to match ours without killing all of the life it produced. You can't mess with a foundation. But it is FALSE to say that there are no other combinations of constants that could produce life.
41m 6sLenght
128Rating