Theoretical Bullshit
Nature, Existence, and Beer... (Part 1)
updated
Josh’s Article: joshualrasmussen.com/does-every-beginning-have-a-cause.html?fbclid=IwAR2Cro2_DEPr0t20c5r-3GMIehLMoPwVcnMD92Ao2PKzry1EM1LlUnECK9c
“I Kalam Like I See ‘Em”: youtube.com/watch?v=aD9MtIma5YU&t=292s
My dialogue with Dr. Craig on CapturingChristianity: youtube.com/live/TmYCwjU_5Wc?feature=share
DEFINITIONS:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
“efficient cause” — either the entity, or the action, which is responsible for bringing the thing into existence. If we take the example of a marble sculpture, its efficient cause would be either the sculptor or the act of chiseling (both would work).
“material cause” — the previously existing stuff that the thing is created out of. In the wooden table example, the material cause would be the nails, wood and lacquer. In the example of the marble sculpture, the material cause is the marble.
“creatio ex nihilo” — latin for “creation out of nothing”
“creatio ex materia” — “creation out of material”
“mereology” — the study of the relations between parts and wholes
“mereological nihilism” — the position that objects with proper parts do not exist, and only basic building blocks without parts exist, and thus the world we see and experience full of objects with parts is a product of human misperception (i.e., if we could see clearly, we would not perceive compositive objects).
Braxton's video: youtube.com/watch?v=uXhWIMT_9r8
FOOTNOTES:
00:35 — "Onto-Illogical" youtube.com/watch?v=YLQ0DnUTyX8
1:35 — If you're already familiar with modal logic and possible world semantics, you can skip ahead to my criticism of Plantinga's MOA, at the 4:38 mark.
12:27 — This moment has been edited to make a correction; a previous upload of this video (which is now unlisted) mistakenly had premise (2) as, "If God exists, the proposition 'God does not exist' is not self-contradictory". My apologies. Link to the original video and all its comments: youtu.be/IPQUaEOakNk
13:25 — Swinburne's paper, "What Kind of Necessary Being Could God Be?": http://users.ox.ac.uk/~orie0087/pdf_files/Papers%20from%20Philosophical%20Journals/Swinburne_2012-necessary.pdf
30:40 — I suppose there is one thing we could conceivably claim enjoys necessary existence: "reality". The statement, "Reality doesn't exist" does seem to entail a contradiction. But this is because what we mean by "reality" is just whatever happens to be the case. So saying reality doesn't exist would be equivalent to saying it is the case that nothing is the case—a contradiction. (Of course, I think this is probably just a trick of English language. It's a stretch to think of reality itself—that which is the case—as a "being" or "object".)
I'm on Twitter a lot, nowadays. Find me there at @TheoreticalBS
Sorry, as usual, for the long hiatus. It's good to be back.
(Also: I know. I need a haircut.)
A reply to Randal Rauser (@RandalRauser on Twitter) whose video can be seen here: randalrauser.com/2019/11/if-an-atheist-says-they-dont-think-hell-will-be-so-bad-what-do-you-say-in-reply
facebook.com/MorningJoe/videos/10153565506118762/?pnref=story
If that doesn't work, try this:
http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/huckabee--jesus-did-talk-about-same-sex-marriage-522156099902
Suffice it to say, I'm not saying anything here that hasn't already been said better (and more succinctly). Mostly, I produced this as a point of reference, the next time I encounter someone defending Davis.
Feel free to pass it along to your infuriating Tea Party father-in-law.
For more on civil rights and same-sex marriage, see my video on Proposition 8: youtube.com/watch?v=VPSKojRWRV4
Further reading: washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/when-does-your-religion-legally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job
Join the challenge or donate here: http://www.alsa.org/donate
Below are links to the source material for all quotations that appear in the video:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/morriston.html
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/must-the-beginning-of-the-universe-have-a-personal-cause-a-rejoinder
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/objections-to-the-causal-principle
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/must-the-universe-have-a-material-cause
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/causal-premiss-of-the-kalam-argument
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-time-and-eternity
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/must-everything-that-begins-to-exist-have-a-material-cause
Also, Wes Morriston says similar (better) things here and here:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/wes/wes2craig1.pdf
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/wes/wes2craig2.pdf
THE MANUAL: http://www.drfayesnyder.com/shop
My defense of the Argument from Nonbelief, which we reference:
http://youtu.be/FCGCjLEJF_g
My argument: Nonbelief and Peek-A-Boo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF_lK7BxmNU
Noah's response: Against the Argument from Nonbelief
vimeo.com/44634543
Follow me on Twitter @CliftonsNotes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRn-mVPIl60
Craig's response:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8869
Noah's Tuesday Arfternoon article addressing my argument (above):
http://12tuesday.com/the-future-discussion-of-causation
My Tuesday Afternoon response to Noah:
http://12tuesday.com/on-causality-and-experience-a-response-to-noah
The Craig-Smith debate:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith0.html
Quentin Smith's paper:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/causation.html
Follow me on Twitter!
@CliftonsNotes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRn-mVPIl60
Craig's FB response:
http://www.facebook.com/williamlanecraig/posts/227577413925318
For the record I am using different terminology in this video than my last, in order to accommodate Craig's own choice of words. "Efficient Cause" may be seen as synonymous with my "A" in the last video, and "Material Cause" synonymous with "B".
http://hr-hr.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=150792504987652&comments
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8846
Theo Warner's Tuesday Afternoon article:
http://12tuesday.com/william-lane-craig-is-not-theoreticalbullshit
Go here to submit questions to Dr. Craig:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/Survey?SURVEY_ID=1180&ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS
Klraifying Kalam Kraziness:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmeZ_BAWAhQ
A written version of this video is available at the Tuesday Afternoon website:
http://12tuesday.com/on-causation-and-the-ethics-of-discourse
Email Lisa at newsletter@12tuesday.com
Follow me on Twitter at:
http://twitter.com/#!/CliftonsNotes
http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/prop8/FF_CL_Final.pdf
Also! For a brilliant, charming, and MUCH more comprehensive presentation of the ruling against Prop 8, check out ProfMTH's "How Proposition 8 Went Down":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV3fkpR74Ak&feature=related
Follow me on Twitter at:
http://twitter.com/#!/CliftonsNotes
P1: Nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist to begin existing.
P2: Given (1), Anything which begins to exist was not caused to do so by something which exists.
P3: The universe began to exist.
P4: Given (2) and (3), the universe was not caused to exist by anything which exists.
P5: God caused the universe to begin to exist.
C1: Given (4) and (5), God does not exist.
The Kalam Argument for God:
P1. Anything which begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The universe began to exist.
C. The Universe has a cause.
The Kalam Argument AGAINST God:
P1: Nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist to begin existing.
P2: Given (1), Anything which begins to exist was not caused to do so by something which exists.
P3: The universe began to exist.
P4: Given (2) and (3), the universe was not caused to exist by anything which exists.
P5: God caused the universe to begin to exist.
C1: Given (4) and (5), God does not exist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY1gEXYhfIM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZZNirHPwKw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKwDDkjXeU8&feature=channel
Telemantro's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g6ijSG3H8c
DawahFilm's Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNt1xAqQGM8
Follow me on Twitter at:
http://twitter.com/#!/CliftonsNotes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gMiFl5nMfo&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAmJ3qfyq4I
http://twitter.com/#!/CliftonsNotes
Follow me on Twitter at:
http://twitter.com/#!/CliftonsNotes
http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/forumdisplay.php?f=46
I think it's a valid question that Jack should have to answer before making his claim.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb1mfKJU6bo
For parts 1, 2 and 3 click here:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C494E2C093CDF2E1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb1mfKJU6bo
For parts 1, 2 and 4 click here:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C494E2C093CDF2E1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb1mfKJU6bo
For parts 1, 3 and 4 click here:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C494E2C093CDF2E1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb1mfKJU6bo
For parts 2, 3 and 4 click here:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C494E2C093CDF2E1


