Comments by "Chef Chaudard" (@chefchaudard3580) on "Kalam Debate: @CapturingChristianity vs. @rationalityrules – Steve's Closing" video.

  1. In short, the Grim Reaper paradox just proves that an infinite regress has no "actual" start. For Cameron, this proves that infinite regress is impossible. That's stupid: it is like saying that as the tangent of a 90° angle has no "actual" value, right angles cannot exist.
    1
  2. Well, logic is used in mathematics. Maths is just a tool that uses logic. So, it is possible to predict that something exists using logic, through maths eventually. So, in theory, we could potentially logically build a model of the universe through logic, and it may include God, or gods, or whatever else. The issue with the God or gods as defined by the theists is that, by definition, it can be an explanation for anything, from the existence of a fart up to the Universe, making the claim unfalsifiable.
    1
  3.  @stefankuhne6103  " Do you have an example of something being proven to exist by logic alone?", Well, humans and animals do that since they exist: this grass is moving, there is a lion smell in the air: logical conclusion 1, there is a predator in the grass waiting for me. Logical conclusion 2: run away! Logic is just a process that links existing information, being observational, presupposed or hypothetical, to new information. Logic is just a process applied to information. We agree. But logic can gives you new information. For an argument to be "sound" (it gives you new information that complies with reality), it must be "valid" (follow logic), and based on"true" premises. It may be the case that, in the future, we find premises that are "true", that lead us to the existence of a God, or gods (or some other model). Through mathematics eventually, as there are just, as mentioned, logical tools And we agree, the Kalam is probably not the best argument. Its premises are flawed, and even the logic needs some arm twist, like the "Grim Reaper Messenger" argument or the "perfect being" to fit logical requirements. In short: when trying to demonstrate the existence of God, the Kalam is flawed at every step.
    1
  4. An infinite past is possible, in theory, if for example the duration between every moment that compose it is equal to zero.. coming from any time to any other later time takes zero seconds.
    1
  5.  @skrm5311  We don't know if quantum mechanics and our laws of physics apply to what was before the Big Bang, as it is when our current physics collapses. We don't even know if "before the Big Bang" means anything. " If it is true that matter just pop into existence then your theory will work otherwise it will lead to infinite regression.." On the contrary, my model explains how an infinite regression is possible. Maybe the Cosmos, our space/time Universe is part of, existed for all eternity. And never "pop into existence". "And also your theory also has to be based on static universe model which doesn't change but everything else in it changes. To remind you scientists already abandoned and proved wrong the statice universe model.". You are right when speaking about our space/time universe, which is estimated to be 13.8 billion years. But no scientist knows what gave birth to our space/time universe. It may have existed for all eternity, or time did not exist, or something else. In short, I would agree that it is likely that an infinite regression is not possible in our space/time universe, because of planck's constant. But that does not say anything about what gave birth to it. And an infinite regress is possible.
    1
  6.  @skrm5311  "I know I am replying very late, I was caught up in something so sorry for that." No worry, the Universe can wait for you, or me ;o) "So your theory is that outside big bang it's a eternal, infinite world which is always there. And from that our universe came from and we don't know the laws of physics outside the big bang." That's it! "Now only saying we don't know, won't throw out God from the equation." Sure. It throws actually nothing and let everything open. "Because one doesn't know how God does things in laws of physics terms, but one can say God created the big bang. " Yes, or that several gods did it. Or some unknown natural process that includes no god at all. I would go for two gods, who fought together and killed each other. Our space/time universe being their remains. This one sounds good, don't you think? "As I heard from Jordan Peterson lecture, if two allegedly different things has zero percent in differences i.e 100% percent correlated then we are talking about one thing, another way to say is, they aren't two things, but one thing. " Yes. But I can't see how it could answer the question about what was before the Big Bang. You can make up any explanation, based on our current knowledge of physics or not, our intuition or wild imagination, we currently have no way to know if one is right. So, stating that the universe was created is not a given , as I demonstrated that an infinite regress IS possible.
    1
  7.  @skrm5311  "So the point is, as the atheists alleged to theists that they worship the God of the gaps, this carbon dating proved that atheists also worship the world of unknowns.Although atheists allegations were never proven." Atheist "worship" nothing, they acknowledge the existence of things, like anybody else. There is no "atheist allegation". Atheist lack a belief in God or gods, they "alledge" nothing, they simply don't accept that gods exist until such a statement is backed up with convicing evidence. "So in short, after already seeing the history, one smart person would be delusional or gone crazy to follow the mistakes of the history unless there is no unknowns." Sorry, I can't understand what you try to say. "And lastly if our universe doesn't existed before then it either pop into existence or by other mechanisms without unknowns otherwise leads to unsolvable infinite regression or it was the GOD." I don't understand where you go with that. Our universe poping into existence: Intuitively, nothing can come from nothing (the absence of anything). "Nothing" cannot exist. So, intuitively, "something" must exist. That "something" must have existed for all time. It does not say, however, what this "something" is. So, an infinite regress is the most likely explanation. But, knowing that using our intuition is a bad way to really understand things, I will stay with "I don't know anything about what is/was outside our space/time universe. And nobody knows. It can be, litterally, anything. We don't even know if "is/was" means something outside our space/time universe."
    1