The cosmological argument for God's existence rests on the premise that if the universe has a finite past (meaning it began to exist), then its cause cannot be part of the universe itself because anything within the universe would be subject to the same constraints (space, time, matter, energy) that the universe has. Therefore, the cause must be transcendent—existing outside space, time, and matter. This argument distinguishes between 'beginning' (having a first moment) and 'creation' (having a creator), noting that things can have beginnings without creators (like crystals forming naturally). The argument also addresses the Hawking-Hartle no boundary proposal, which suggests the universe could have a first moment of time without a temporal boundary, but this doesn't eliminate the need for an explanation of why reality exists rather than nothing.
Theist is CONFUSED about cosmological argument for an hour
Added:Okay. So we'll just say this. Okay. So uh space time matter energy began to exist. Finite past second law BGB therm.
If the universe began its cause cannot be part of the universe. That's what transcendent means. Not subject to space time or m. Let me just finish. So the inference is not uh like so it's from the nature of causation. So whatever causes the beginning of spacetime cannot itself be within spaceime.
>> Matthew.
>> Dr. Blitz. Dr. Blitz.
>> Hello >> Matthew David. How's it going?
It's going good.
>> Glad to hear it. Um, Matthew, do you believe that the world was created?
>> I believe that the universe began. Yes.
Can I go get my charger? Can you give me one sec?
>> Yeah, sure.
>> All right. Yeah, my charger. My phone's already at 2%, please. Hold on.
>> You're fine.
One second.
I'm I'm already waiting.
[snorts] >> Oh, I can find my charger.
>> Matthew.
>> Yeah. you find it?
>> Uh, yeah, here it is. Okay, so Matthew, you think that the earth you think that the universe has a beginning? That wasn't my question. Do you think it was created?
>> Yeah, if it was if it began it was created.
>> Well, I'm not sure if those two things are the same. I mean, the way that I'm using created is that there is a an agent that we would call the creator of a thing.
>> Yeah. Mhm. And so if the earth was created then you're saying that there is indeed a creator. I don't think that that follows for things that have beginnings though. Uh for example we could talk about like a crystal forming through the natural process of you know water dripping in a cave with some sort of dissolved mineral in it and it gradually forms over time. We would say that that crystal has a beginning. The crystal didn't exist until it did exist.
But to say that it has a creator is probably a mistake because you know there's there's no there's no agent that's directing the uh beginning of this object. It's just a thing that happened through some natural process.
So that's the distinction I'm making.
>> Oh, okay. So creationist isn't like Oh, okay. Wait, so this creator is it like the cause of the universe though?
>> Well, I don't think that there is such a thing. I'm asking you if you think that there is a creator for the universe. for the world.
>> Okay. Why should I think that there is?
>> So, um, the universe, uh, well, obviously you think that the universe is eternal, right?
>> No, not necessarily.
>> Oh, really?
>> Yeah.
>> So, you think Oh, okay. So, there could be a transcendent reality.
>> I don't see how that follows.
>> Okay. So, if the universe is not eternal, that means that uh that it could have began, right?
>> Yeah. There could be a first moment of time. Sure.
Okay. So, uh if there is a first moment like does that imply that there was a prior state in which it did not exist?
>> No, there are no prior states if there's a first moment.
>> So, in other words, universe is eternal just with a first moment.
>> Eternal means that there is no first moment that every moment has a prior moment. A first moment means that there is a first moment meaning that there are no prior moments. I don't know what the confusion is.
Oh, wait. So eternal means that there's a always a moment prior.
>> Yeah, that's what it Yeah. For for every moment there is a moment prior to it.
That's what it would mean to be eternal.
>> Okay. So from my understanding of eternal uh Okay. So what is the where is where does this definition come? Okay. I know that there's distinctions between definitions, but the definition I'm using is just uh does not begin So would you say that something that doesn't exist is eternal under that definition?
Like is Voldemort eternal? Because Voldemort doesn't exist.
>> Hence he never began. He never began.
>> Okay. So you're saying just because Okay. So if something did not begin, does that mean it's eternal?
>> No. So I'm saying for something that already exists, right, that has no beginning, not something that does not exist. So something like let's say the universe right now exists, right? We can say that the universe had no beginning.
So this only applies in things that actually exist.
>> Yeah. So if your claim is just that things that exist but have no beginning, and by beginning, I assume you mean a first moment. Yeah. Then we could probably say that those things are past eternal. It doesn't necessarily imply that they're future eternal, but we could say that they're past eternal.
Okay. Yeah. So that's all I wanted to know. So um as long as we're Okay. So what I'm this the whole entire reason we're talking about this right now is whether or not I'm trying to see if you think that there's a transcendent reality. So if you think that the universe if if there so there was no prior state uh the universe's existence.
Right?
>> If the universe if the universe is not past eternal then there are then there is a moment there is a a moment of time in which there are no prior moments of time.
Okay. [snorts] So, well, yeah. So, is there Okay. So, is there a spatial boundary? I guess I could just say that.
>> Is there a spatial boundary?
>> Yeah. Is there anything beyond the universe is basically what I'm asking?
>> I don't think so.
>> Okay. So, you're not conceding to transient reality. Okay. So, all the universe is all there is then, right?
>> I mean, yeah, I think that that's a reasonable definition of what the universe is.
>> Okay. So, [clears throat] um uh yeah. So, you're not claiming that we have an infinite past, right?
>> I'm not claiming that. No, I think that I think that that's poss a possibility.
Um, but I also don't think that it's been empirically shown.
>> Okay. So, you think that the universe is always Okay. So, do we have is the universe cyclic?
>> Uh, it's I think it's a possibility.
>> Okay. So, what do you what do you think?
Like what is your worldview? I'm confused.
>> My worldview is that creationism is false.
>> Yeah, I understand that. And when you say the universe has a first moment, right?
>> No, I say that that's a possibility.
>> Is the universe infinitely expanding?
>> Is is the universe currently expanding?
Yeah, sure.
>> No. Is it infinitely expanding? Is it ever going to contract?
>> Oh, that I don't know.
>> Okay. So, Oh, you don't know? Okay.
Yeah.
>> Well, okay. What I'm trying to say is it's either the universe is infinitely going to expand into the future or it's going to contract. And if it's going to infinitely expand to the future, then that means that we're going to meet reach maximum entropy eventually, which doesn't really matter. But as long as uh it doesn't matter. All I need to know right now is that uh we have a finite past. Correct.
>> Well, no. I mean like I'm I'm willing to grant a finite past. I don't know how that gets you to a creator.
>> Okay. So, we have a finite past uh then that means that uh when we go far back enough then we reach a boundary, right?
>> Space and time.
>> No, it doesn't mean that.
>> Okay. So, if there's not a finite past uh Okay. Well, wait. Now I'm confused.
Okay. So if the the past is not finite.
>> Mhm. No, I'm willing to grant the past is finite.
>> I'm willing to grant that the past is finite. Yeah.
>> Yeah. The past is not infinite. The past is finite. So if the past is finite, then that means that there's a boundary.
>> No, it doesn't mean that. Are you familiar with Hawkings no boundary or the Hardle Hawking no boundary proposal?
>> Uh no, I never heard of that. So this is a proposal and I don't have to get into the details but the no boundary proposal is merely that there is a moment of time where if you try to trace a trajectory past that first moment of time that your trajectory is no longer timelike. It becomes space-like and the spatial the spatial universe that you're in which doesn't have any time. The spatial portion of the universe that you're in that doesn't have any time doesn't have a boundary. It's just like a a cap. And there's a nice diagram I can show you.
Um, which might explain things.
Let me pull it up really quick.
Oops. It's one sec.
Uh, I don't know why this isn't Well, okay.
I do know why it's in Spanish because it's probably a Spanish source, but um, yeah. So, here's the here's the Where'd he go?
Why'd he leave?
God damn it. Okay. Well, we did our best. We did our best, y'all.
Um, all right. We have uh some super Oh, he's back. Let's bring him up.
>> I don't know what happened. My TikTok closed out.
>> You're good. Okay. So, I was just showing you a diagram. Um, so here's the picture. It's obviously it's cartoon.
Um, but it hopefully it'll explain what I mean. So in this part of the diagram there's time and in [snorts] this part of the diagram there's only space.
There's no time.
And so at this boundary it's like an imaginary boundary. It's just like a transition period between the timeless state to the time full state is where the first moment of time is. That's where t equals 0 is. But then if you keep winding the so so there is a first moment of time because if you keep winding the clock back you're no longer talking about time. You're talking about space. But then there's no boundary as you keep going backwards along a trajectory. You just kind of run back into where you started. You just would loop around. Right.
Okay. So Okay. So you said that there is like an imaginary but I'm confused.
There's like there's an imaginary.
>> So it's it's just a transition and you can like you can like draw a line there to like demarcate the transition but it's like a smooth transition from time time time time to space space space.
>> Okay. So what is this called and like what are you trying to like what is this? Uh >> it's called it's called the Hardle Hawking no boundary proposal. This was proposed by James is it James Hardle and Steven Hawking in 1984 or in the 1980s anyway. And the idea is merely this is a way that you can have a universe that has a first moment of time. So that's where this uh this like inflation is.
It's that first moment of time. [snorts] And yet there is no boundary because in some sense if you keep trying to go back further beyond that first moment of time you just end up at space. You just end up in space rather than time. And that spatial region doesn't have any boundaries.
So this is all to say it is at least mathematically consistent with our known laws of physics to have a universe that has a first moment of time and yet has no boundaries.
>> Okay. So what you said was that you just end up in space rather than >> rather than time >> like that spatial region >> would you say doesn't have like what a boundary?
>> Yeah. In the same way like the surface of the earth doesn't have a boundary, right?
>> The surface of the earth doesn't have a boundary.
>> Yeah. It's it's just like even though it's finite, >> it just doesn't have a boundary.
>> I'm understand. So what is this like showing us? Like what does this mean?
>> It's it's just a proposal for the way the universe could be. I'm not saying it's [clears throat] the way the universe is.
>> No, no, I'm not saying that either. I'm just saying like if this was the case if this >> if this was the case what this means is that there would be a first moment of time and as you keep going as you try to go as you try to try to wind the clock back further like you know you run your calculations so that t go t becomes negative instead of being positive you find out that t is no longer a temporal variable it's a spatial variable um and and then you wind up back at you know this kind of bullshaped thing a way to think about this is imagine everything north of the north pole Imagine that like you're on the earth and your latitude lines north of the north pole correspond to times and your latitude lines south of the north pole or sorry your latitude lines north of the equator correspond to times and your latitude lines south of the equator correspond to places and so there's time time and then you get to the equator which is t equals 0 and you keep going further and now there's just space but there's no boundary anywhere even though there is a first moment of time the first moment of time being the equator >> [snorts] >> Okay, I understand a little bit more now. So, so you're talking about like Okay, so there's no boundary and you're saying that this suggests that the universe has a finite path but no initial boundary like >> Yeah, >> like the North Pole.
>> So, in this case, neither the North Pole or the South Pole are boundaries.
They're just like it kind of closes off, right? But there's there's not like a >> You're saying like you can't go north of the North Pole, >> but the North Pole I'm [clears throat] not saying that.
What I'm saying is that as you So, forget about what's going on in the northern hemisphere because it's just normal time stuff happening there. As you go further back past tals 0, you find that you're purely spatial. There's no time anymore. It's just space. But the [snorts] space just caps off.
There's no boundary there. There's no edge.
>> Okay? So what I'm saying is that >> it's a contingent reality and any and any contingent reality whether it has a temporal boundary or not still requires an explanation for what exist.
>> Okay, that's a complete pivot from where you were going but okay.
>> So >> why did you bring why did you bring up at all? If it has a first moment then it has a past boundary. Why'd you bring that up at all if you were just going to pivot to you know some sort of contingency argument?
Well, no. No. I'm saying Well, no. No.
It doesn't eliminate the need for a cause. It only eliminates a temporal boundary.
>> It eliminates any boundary.
>> Well, I would just Well, what do you mean? I I think it only eliminates a temporal boundary from the way >> there there's no spatial boundary either.
>> Well, from what you the way that you've been describing that describing it, it's like a self-contained spaceime that is finite in the past, right?
>> Yep.
>> And and that's not nothing, right? It's a specific structure contingent reality and any contingent reality whether it has bound or >> it's a specific structure. I don't know what that has to do with contingent reality.
>> Um yeah, I don't really Yeah, what I'm trying to say is that any contingent reality, whether it has a temporal boundary or not, still requires an explanation for what exists rather than nothing.
>> Okay, so there's two things going on here. First, you're asserting that the that the conting that the universe is indeed a contingent reality, which that requires justification. Second, you're just assu you're just asserting the principle of sufficient reason, which you know is probably not the kind of thing that you want to just assert and believe in wholeheartedly. So, do you want to defend either premise?
>> Okay. So, you said I'm I'm Okay. So, you said I'm asserting PSR and you said what the universe is the universe is contingent.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. And I'm asserting that the universe is contingent. So, um yeah, I'm not going to do a special pleading, but I thought well I mean we've talked before. I don't really think that I would have to go too deep into why I think that the universe is contingent.
I'm using weak PSR, not strong. Anyways, uh >> so that doesn't wait. So, so the weak PSR is that it may have an explanation, not that it does have an explanation.
>> What' you say?
>> The weak PSR is that it may have an explanation.
>> Yeah, but weak the distinction between weak would if it's strong then that means that God would also need explanation or something.
>> Yeah. So why does so the the weak the weak PSR just says that it's possible that there's an explanation for a contingent thing >> which also means that it's possible that there is not an explanation for this contingent thing. So even if I granted that the universe was contingent if you're using the weak BSR then it just doesn't follow that there has to be an explanation for it.
>> Okay. Well let me respond to what you said first. So I'm you said I'm asserting the principle of sufficient reason at least. So I'm saying that contingent things have an explanation for their existence. And yes, I'm also asserting that the universe is contingent. We need to exist.
>> So the first statement that you made contingent things have an explanation for their existence. That is the strong PSR.
>> Wait, what' you say?
>> That contingent things I mean it's a subset of the strong PSR, but that contingent things have an explanation for their existence. That's the strong PSR. That's not the weak PSR.
>> Okay. Uh weak PSR does not imply that it may have a beginning. It just implies that uh whatever begins has a cause. But it doesn't PSR doesn't >> No, no. Strong PSR means everything that exists needs a cause. Weak PSR does not claim that.
>> Weak PSR. No. So the weak PSR states that contingent things may have a cause.
They possibly have a cause.
The strong PSR is that contingent things, sorry, not cause explanation.
The weak PSR is that contingent things do or may have an explanation. The strong PSR is that contingent things must have an explanation.
>> Well, I mean, I think the real question here is how a finite pass gets us a beginning. Whether or not, you know, PSR applies to any of these things, we'd have to first demonstrate how a finite pass would even give us a beginning in the first place.
>> How a finite pass >> how a finite pass would even give us a beginning uh of the universe in the first place. So, a finite pass by definition would like if it's if there's a finite pass, that means that there's a first moment. That by definition is the beginning. Um, by the way, there's some background noise. I don't know if you could handle that, but >> uh Oh, yeah. I can go get my headphones.
Let me go get my headphones.
>> Okay.
>> Man, it's hot. [sighs] Uh, I never seen you appeal uh to this. You usually don't argue. This must be like something new that you learned or something. I don't know. No, I'm I've been familiar with the PSR for a long time. It you >> No, not this. I'm talking about what was it called? The >> the hard hawking state. I bring it up.
>> I never heard I never even seen you bring it up.
>> Really? Like I don't know recently maybe. I don't know.
>> No, no, no. I've like I mean I've been using this as a counter example for the claim that you've been uh that you know people bring up for like two or three years now.
So if the universe has a finite past, then that means that there are only like an a finite number of moments stretching back, right? So there's a first moment.
>> Well, that's that's a separate issue.
Whether or not there's an infinite number of mines or a finite number of moments is it's it's like how how many moments are between now and 10 minutes from now, right? Is there an infinite number or finite number?
>> Well, no. Okay, Dr. Blitz, we've already agreed that it doesn't have an infinite infinite past. No, I mean there could be an infinite number of moments between now and 10 minutes from now. It depends on whether or not time is infinitely >> number of moments between now and 10 minutes from now.
>> Yeah. Depends on whether or not time is infinitely divisible. Right.
>> Okay. Well, we're not talking about the future. We're talking about the past.
>> There could be an infinite number of moments between now and 10 minutes ago.
It depends on whether or not time is infinitely divisible or not, right?
Uh, wait. I'm so confused. Okay, so does it have an infinite past or not?
>> There can be a first moment and there it could still be the case that there have been an infinite number of moments between now and that first moment. That would require that those moments are in the number of divisible numbers.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So we could talk about days there like it's possible that there is a first day and then if that's the case then there's a finite number of days between that first day and now.
>> Okay. So well that's not the kind of infinity the colum is concerned with is it though?
>> It's not the kind of what?
>> That's not the kind of infinity that the colum is concerned with. The colum is concerned with you weren't making the colum argument. You were making a contingency argument.
Uh, no, no, no. We're talking about No, no, no, no. I told you that we're going to have to establish whether or not a finite pass uh means a beginning or not.
>> I just dropped a beginning.
>> Wait, a finite pass by definition means a beginning?
>> Yeah.
>> As in a first moment >> or beginning of the universe?
>> A first moment.
>> Yeah, that's just assuming that the universe did not begin then.
>> Oh, it's not. If it did, it does. If it if there's a first moment then the universe like look if by begin you mean that there was a like as far as I'm concerned begin means first moment. I don't I don't know what else you mean by begin if not first moment.
>> So by begin it's pretty simple to exist at a finite point such that there is a prior state in which the entity did not exist.
>> Okay. So a prior state in what sense?
Like a temporal prior state or what kind of >> So obviously no. Well, I mean it depends on what we're talking about, but specifically for time, uh, no, not temporal priority.
>> Okay. So, then what kind of priority are you using here?
>> Onlogical dependence, logical priority.
>> Well, okay. So, I don't grant that moments have ontological dependence on prior moments anymore than they have ontological ontological dependence on future moments.
>> Well, that's just smuggling in tempor language.
My point is is I I don't grant that there is ontological dependence between events at all.
>> Well, you don't grant that there's onlogical moments.
>> No, I don't grant that there's onlogical dependence or logical dependence for that matter. I don't even know what that means.
>> What's the argument for that assertion?
>> I'm saying I don't grant that. That's not an argument. I'm saying that I'm not grant I'm not willing to grant some assertion that you made.
>> Uh well, you're Oh. Oh, so Oh, okay. I'm making the assertion is what you're saying.
>> Yeah. You're you're making the assertion that that there's even this notion of a state having ontological dependence on some other thing like a state that the universe is in having onlogical dependence on some I don't want to use the word prior because we're trying to talk about what we mean by prior, but um on some prior state.
>> You don't have to leave temporal priority. I'm not going to >> I'm not talking about temporal priority.
I'm just talking about talking about what's logical or logical. Now, what I could say is that there's >> so what I am happy to say is that there's some geometric relation >> between the first moment the first like t equals 0, the universe in the state that the universe was in at t equals 0 and the the state that the universe was in in some geometrically prior state.
I'm happy to say that that thing is possible.
>> Okay. Okay. So, yeah. Um, I can just give you the argu Well, I mean, how can I even So, if you're are you saying that the universe is necessary, right? So, that it could not exist.
>> Could it not exist?
>> I'm not making that claim. I think that's I think that's like plausible.
Um, but I'm not making that claim. No.
>> Okay. Is the universe all there exist right now? Yes or no?
>> As far as I'm concerned, yeah.
>> Okay. So, there is no spatial boundary.
There's no transcendent reality. We've already established that. Yeah.
>> So, you're saying that the universe is necessary, that it could not exist.
>> That doesn't follow from anything that I just said.
>> Uh, well, we've already established that the universe is all that there is. So, if you're going to say the universe is all there is, and there's no such thing as a transcendent reality because beyond the universe is impossible if the universe is all there is.
>> Yeah. How does that get you to the universe is necessary?
>> If the universe is all that there is, then that means that there's nothing beyond it. So, it'll be the ultimate uh reality.
>> How does that mean that the universe is necessary?
Okay. So, um well, okay. So, are you saying that the universe could fail to exist?
>> I mean, again, like it's conceptually plausible. Sure. Or conceptually possible. Like it I'm I'm not committed to uh that the universe is necessary or that the universe is brute. Like it could be one or the other. I'm not I'm not committed to any one in particular.
>> Okay. So if the universe could fail to exist then I mean in terms then that would just imply that it's not necessary and if it's not necessary then that means that I can fail to exist and if it can fail to exist and that mean >> that means it's not necess so if it's not necessary then that means it didn't always exist.
>> It doesn't mean that it didn't always exist but to be clear we're talking about the state of the universe as a whole which is and time is like a part of that thing. So to talk about it always existing is probably the incorrect incorrect language.
>> I feel like on Okay, I honestly feel like >> we're not even getting anywhere. Like I feel like we're not even talking about I I feel like Well, I feel like we're trying to talk about something. I feel like we're trying to talk about something, but it's just not working [clears throat] out.
>> Well, it's So So you haven't presented an argument. That's why. Um and instead, you're just trying to like figure out how you can weasle my how you can weasle my worldview out.
>> No, I'm just trying to figure out show that it's false. Like like the point is is make an argument for the claim that you're making.
[clears throat] >> No, no. I'm trying to figure out whether or not like if you think that the universe is necessary, if you think it felt to exist to exist, but if it failed to exist and that means that >> I don't hold a stance on that. I I think that like I think that so I'm talking about like epistemology here. Like I'm talking about epistemological possibility. I think that's epistemologically possible that the universe is necessary. I think it's epistemologically possible that the universe could have failed to exist and hence uh but and the fact that it does exist is a brute fact. I think that both things are like like I I could conceive of those things. I I I don't have a I don't have a particularly strong argument against either one of them. So I don't see a reason to accept one or the other.
>> Okay.
>> So are you just like >> I'm pretty agnostic about like the ontology of the universe. What I am not agnostic about >> agnostic? Yeah, I was going to say that.
>> What I'm not agnostic about is that the universe doesn't have a creator.
>> Oh, okay. So, if the universe doesn't have a creator and you already admitted that it could either be necessary or fail to exist. Um, so if the universe, let's just say that it could fail to exist, right? If it could fail to exist, then that means that it hasn't existed eternally, right?
>> No, that doesn't mean that.
>> Okay. So if okay so what does eternal mean by definition >> according to I guess what definition are you holding to and where are you getting this definition from >> I'm just using a standard English definition that eternal means that for every day there's a date before it.
>> For every day there's a day before it.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Where does this definition come from?
>> It's just the the way that I use the word like you know I've lived on this earth for 32 years. I've used the word and read the word eternal. you know, over the course of those 32 years, this is how I understand what the word means.
>> Okay, I feel you. That's uh Yeah. Yeah.
Okay, I get it. Um >> yeah, I don't really think that there's anything for us to disagree with here.
>> There's really no argument.
>> Look, >> I could grant >> like there's nothing for me to like if you're not going to make any uh claims or >> So, my claim my claim is that there's not a creator.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. And the reason I make this claim is that it seems like a creator.
>> Do you have like a premise to premise for this? So I can actually like I would have to reject the premise.
>> I'm gonna I'm gonna walk you through it.
Um I mean like if you want I could syllogize it for you. Um >> yeah, I feel like I would just have to reject a premise at this point.
>> Well, no. So So I'm I'm just going to walk you through the reasoning and then we can just talk about it if you want.
So my reasoning is is first it seems like that there are a lot of worldviews that are compatible with the data that compatible with the data that we have uh that are not obviously um internally inconsistent that can explain the data that we see without appealing to a creator.
the question of you know origins of the universe whether it's past eternal whether it has a finite past but has no boundary all of these things these are at least plausible given the data that we have and they don't require a creator they don't require anything outside of the physical world that we live in [snorts] and so it seems at least on you know AA's razor ground there's not there's probably not a good reason to posit that there is a creator unless you have some piece of unexplained data and it's as far as I'm As far as I can tell, there just isn't some piece of unexplained data. Then there's the additional uh the additional facts that talking about a creator, some sort of metaphysical entity that gets you to a whole bunch of the in order to believe in such a thing, in order to think such a thing exists, there's a whole bunch of metaphysical buyin that you need to ascribe to. For example, you need to ascribe to this idea that it's possible for a mind to exist without a body. And given all the data that we have access to, that seems like it's not the case, right? Right? It seems like, you know, all the minds that we've ever, you know, encountered, they're always attached to like brains.
And we have good reason to think that in fact they're intrinsically linked to brains. Whether or not like there's some sort of like dualism happening here, it seems like they have to be tied to brains in order to exist. At least that's what all of our data seems to suggest. Then there's further issues with a being, an agent even existing, what what it even means for an agent to exist in a metaphysical reality where there is no time, there is no space.
Well, typically what do you call something that doesn't exist at a place at a time? You say it doesn't exist, right? And so, as far as I'm concerned, [clears throat] >> no, I'll call it spaceless and timeless.
>> Yeah. So, where is it? Nowhere, when is it, know when it it sounds like it doesn't exist. But more to the point, it sounds like it it seems like you're going to have a really hard time making sense of what an agent even is. If it has none of if if it has no extension, if it has no temporal uh temporal experience, it seems like that there's nothing there to be an agent. It seems like agents require these things like temporal extension um and perhaps spatial extension. So there's just a lot of metaphysical bi that you need to that you need to accept and you need to make sense of if you want to say that there's a creator. And given that the creator doesn't seem to buy us anything uh explanatorily, um it just seems like there's no reason to buy into the the view at all.
>> Um so yeah. Yeah, I guess I understand what you're saying.
uh you know mostly you said a lot but what I really want to touch upon what you said is you brought up um what would a what would a a being even like be that's outside of like I guess how can we say I don't want a straw man like that's outside of like space and time right >> what what would it mean for it to be an agent that can make decisions >> okay yeah I understand okay I don't want my phone to die okay So I guess like so Oh wait what happened am I still here?
Oh I thought I got kicked or I mean I thought I got disconnected things got louder but anyways so I think that I remember you said that world views are compatible with the data right or something like that.
>> Yeah so we have we have a lot of we have a lot of like kind of physical >> you said like many worldviews can accommodate the same data right?
>> Yeah. Yeah. We we have we have like a lot of physicalist kind of conceptions of the origins of the universe that are different but they're compatible with the data. question is but the question is which world view provides the best explanation >> right and so what is unexplained >> what is unexplained >> on the um what is [snorts] unexplained that needs explanation on the um on any sort of physicist worldview that is explained on the creator worldview >> uh consciousness morality >> well consciousness doesn't seem like it's explained on the creator creationist world view and reality. It's not clear to me that that's the category of things that needs explanation.
>> We typically talk about explanations being reality.
>> Well, it depends. So, if there is a creator to the universe, then it depends on whether or not it's personal or impersonal.
>> Uh, and if it's personal, then I would argue >> to be clear, if it's impersonal, I wouldn't even call it a creator.
>> Well, yeah, I would just say it's a cause then of the universe.
>> Yeah. And I'm like I'm fine like I I don't think that there's such a like metaphysical thing, but like that that's irrelevant to the conversation of creationism in my view.
>> So what I'm trying to say is the column isn't claiming that no other view is possible. It's claiming that the that a transcendent cause is the most reasonable inference from the uh finite suit of the past. So the contingency of the universe and the reality of causality.
>> So look, as far as I'm concerned, explanations are the kinds of things that exist within reality. Like we talk about thing A being explained by thing B within reality.
>> Yeah. Yeah, I understand. You're saying that explanations exist within reality, but reality itself would need an explanation. That's the thing we're saying here.
>> What I'm saying is that is that reality doesn't seem like the kind of thing that would have [snorts] an explanation because explanations are, you know, as far as like all of our explanatory processes go as far as like the entire endeavor of philosophy and all of this stuff is always talking about stuff in reality. We're always talking like the explanations are things in reality. So you can't talk about an explanation for reality itself because then that explanation could not be a thing in reality.
>> No, we're not talking about an explanation in reality. We're talking about an explanation of reality, >> right? What I'm saying is that you can't have an explanation of reality because the explanation of reality would necessarily have to be disjoint from reality or it would have to be, you know, it could be identical to reality.
>> Well, I mean it depends on what you're defining as reality. I mean for you >> whatever whatever reality is >> surely an explanation from reality is not a sensible thing to ask for >> transcendent reality so a transcendent reality compared to the universe is like two different things right >> no no sure suppose that I grant that there's like some transcendent whatever that there's like a metaphysical reality whatever it might be um the point is is that it wouldn't make sense to ask for an explanation of the sum total reality right >> oh so you're saying it wouldn't even uh make sense to explanations that transcendental reality exist too.
>> Yeah. Because explanations are things that exist within reality, right?
>> Um it depends on what you mean. So explanations, yes, obviously of course explanations exist within reality.
>> So then explan you can never have an explanation for reality.
>> But to say that just because we explain things within reality is not to say that reality itself cannot be explained. That doesn't follow.
>> I Okay. So what would be a candidate explanation for reality?
Whatever you think of whatever you make make whatever you make of reality.
Whatever the sum total of reality is. If you think that there's like some transcend trans transcendental stuff, if you think that it's just physical, whatever you might whatever it might be, what would a candidate explanation look like?
>> So I guess the best explanation, like I said, would just be the column.
>> No, no. I'm I'm asking for an explanation of why reality exists. The sum total of reality.
>> Yeah. cologne. Oh, you're talking about even if it's a transcendent reality also.
>> Yeah, even if there's a transcendent like the sub total of whatever whatever you think the subtotal of reality is.
>> Well, that would just be a category error.
>> That's what I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to talk about an explanation >> for the transcendent reality that would be a category error universe.
>> Wait, hold on. So, so this is just a question of scope. If it is the case that the universe is everything, >> then it doesn't make sense to ask for an explanation.
>> That's not my worldview. That's your worldview.
>> No, I I know. But what I'm saying is that if your worldview is that the universe is indeed everything, then it's a category error. Like this is then it's it's a failed internal critique to say that the universe needs an explanation.
>> No, you don't understand why I'm saying it's a category. So I'm saying it's a category error to say that a transcendent reality would require a cause.
>> We're not talking about cause. We're talking about explanation.
>> I mean, no, no, an explanation. Yeah.
Yeah. An explanation. My bad. Uh you're asking that that I'm saying that's a category error because inside the universe's causes are ordinary like physical obviously because those are precisely the so the thing I'm trying to uh tell you is processes operate like under like physical laws and stuff like inside the universe but you can't uh you can't so we're not arguing well I mean I understand >> we're not talking about processes either actually now I understand what you're trying to say now this makes sense you're trying to uh >> that makes sense actually >> so like whatever the category of ontology that you think that there is like if if ontology is just physical stuff or maybe ontology is just mental stuff or maybe ontology is physical stuff plus transcendent stuff whatever it is >> but do you think that something immaterial would require an explanation >> it perhaps >> something that's necessary like do you think well okay I actually have a I have a very very very good thing to tell you you're minding me so hard okay so if everything needs an explanation then that means that we would never actually reach uh a foundation and then there would never be anything. So there needs to be something uh that's independent of all contingent things. That's why I'm telling you >> everything cannot be contingent. There would have to be something.
>> Well, if that okay, if it can be brute, then why can't God be brute?
>> God could be brute.
>> Oh, okay. So, oh wait, is it possible that God exists?
>> Uh like conceptually, sure, I can conceive with it.
>> Really? Yeah, but we're talking about like um but I'm talking about like epistem epistemological possibility here. I'm not talking about like um >> I think something changed possibility.
>> You're you're different now. I don't know what changed, >> but there's something very very different. I just don't know what it is.
There's I feel changed.
>> I don't know. I might be just tripping.
I don't know.
>> You might be tripping.
>> I don't know. You're not the like from the last time I talked to you.
>> I don't know. Things aren't the same.
Like I I could have swore the last time that we talked you were more like pushing on the fact that the universe uh did not begin, that the universe is eternal.
>> Are you sure you didn't Are you sure not you're not thinking of Ian?
>> No, no, no. Well, I mean, >> no, no, no, no.
>> Because like I've been pretty consistent about being agnostic about whether or not the universe had a first moment for like years.
>> I don't know. Maybe I just uh misunderstood you then. I don't know.
But I mean, I'm trying to understand.
So, what do you think is the most plausible like explanation for like why the universe would be eternal?
>> I don't think that I don't like have a belief that the universe is eternal.
>> Really?
>> Yeah. I'm pretty agnostic about it.
>> Okay. I thought that you thought that the universe was all that there is.
>> I do think that the universe is all that there is.
>> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. And I thought that you know I thought that you thought that the universe would be eternal because the univer I thought that you thought that the universe cannot fail to exist.
>> No I mean like conceptually like the universe can fail to exist.
>> So the thing is if the universe can fail to exist that would obviously mean that it's contingent in by definitions and terms.
>> So what I'm trying to say is that you know if the universe okay this is just going to bring us back to like >> philosophy. This is like the most basic uh question of philosophy. So, >> uh, if everything were contingent, then, um, that doesn't explain why there's anything at all. So, >> yeah.
>> Um, I mean, you can you can obviously say everything that begins. I mean, everything doesn't always need a cause, but then that's just appealing to a brute.
>> Hold on. You keep confusing causes with explanations.
>> Well, uh, explanation. Okay. So, >> explanations. So, causes are a kind of explanation. Causes as typically used are temporal explanations.
>> Okay. So look, if if the universe requires an explanation, is that explanation temporal?
>> Not necessarily.
In fact, probably by definition >> onlogical dependence.
>> Well, no. So look, look. So if if the universe, meaning like all of spaceime requires some sort of explanation, if it does, maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.
If it requires some sort of explanation, then it has to be an explanation that is outside of spaceime. So it can't be temporal. It can't be spatial. At least not in the sense that we think of for our universe there. Maybe there's some maybe there's like hyper time or something like that where there's some like like maybe our universe is explained in the simulator's time and the simulator like their time is passing by and they turned on their simulation at a certain time on you know in their universe whatever it might be. But like the point is is it just can't be an explanation that exists within our universe of of that kind.
>> Yes. So, I understand. So, this is like Yeah, I haven't actually um talked about it in a way like this in a while. So, it's pretty simple and I'm pretty sure that you already understand. Uh but if everything were contingent, then there would be uh no ultimate explanation. If there's no ultimate explanation, then nothing ever really begins. And if nothing ever doesn't follow, >> suppose there's no ultimate explanation.
Why does that mean that nothing ever begins? If there's no ultimate explanation, so if there isn't something that's okay, so this if there's nothing that's ultimate and independent of all contingent beings, okay, then how can anything have an explanation at all?
>> No, >> cuz things don't just pop into existence, right?
>> The claim is hold on. That's >> do things pop into existence from nothing. [clears throat] >> Maybe universes do. Um but >> maybe universes do. Let's argue for that.
>> I'm I'm just saying it's like conceptually it's like conceptually possible, right? Um, I'm not I'm not making like some some like I'm not making some claim here.
>> It would be possible for a universe to pop into existence from a guy like yesterday. I think what was it >> like wave function Hamiltonian?
>> Sorry, what's the claim?
>> I think the only way that a universe would be wait are you trying to say that a universe can pop into existence via like a wave function or like a Hamiltonian?
No, I'm saying that like there could have been nothing and then in some like non-temporal sense all of a sudden there is the universe.
>> There could have been. Okay. Wait, hold on. Hold on.
>> Yeah. Yeah. In some in some nonor in some non-temporal bin sense, maybe there was nothing and then there was something uh with in some sort of non-temporal sense, whatever that might mean.
>> But but [laughter] look, all I'm saying is that like >> it's just because something doesn't have an explanation doesn't mean that it doesn't begin to exist >> or that it can't begin to exist. Like this is this is like the universe the universe existence could be >> fact thing I'm saying that things don't pop into existence >> the universe's existence could be a brute fact right it could be the kind of facts that it could have failed it could have failed to exist but it didn't and there's no reason as to why it didn't there's no explanation it just didn't [snorts] um so what I'm trying to say is this is uh okay what we're really what we're currently really really talking about right now is philosophy fundamentally, right?
>> So, what I'm trying to say is like I'm pretty sure you already sent I mean you already understand like where I'm coming from, what I'm trying to say here, >> right? But it's mistaken. Like just because something is contingent doesn't Just because something is contingent doesn't mean that it needs some sort of explanation for why it exists.
If you think that that's true, then you're just asserting the strong PSR.
>> So, okay. So, if something No, no. Okay.
So you're saying if something is contingent, that doesn't automatically mean that it needs an explanation, >> right? Unless you accept the strong >> things can just begin to exist from nothing. Okay. So uh yeah, I understand what you're trying to say. Okay. But have we ever observed something popping into existence from nothing?
>> We've depends on if universe can pop into Probably not.
>> Wait, just let me just say something really fast. If universes can pop into existence from nothing, uh, can you at least say it might be plausible that another universe would have just spawned into existence into our universe by now?
>> Well, no. I mean, our universe isn't nothing. So, if universes do pop into existence from nothing.
>> No, I'm not saying that the universe is nothing. I'm saying that the universe >> hear me out. So, suppose that suppose like conceptually, maybe it's like farfetched, but suppose that universes can pop into existence from nothing, right? That means that in order for a universe to pop into existence, there there's got to be nothing. Now our universe now exists. So there isn't nothing. So that means that even if universes can pop into existence from nothing. Well, there's no nothing. So there's no nothing for the for another universe to pop into existence.
>> Now now there's no nothing. But that's already presupposing that something can pop into existence from nothing. Cuz now there's nothing obvious. Now something.
But that presupposes that something can come.
>> I'm not presupposing anything. It's a hypothetical. What I'm saying is suppose that it's possible that things can pop into existence from nothing. It does not then follow that or suppose it's possible that universes can pop into existence for nothing. It does not then follow that another universe could pop into existence in our universe.
>> That doesn't follow.
>> Okay. Well, I can just say suppose God is real. That doesn't actually give you >> Yeah, you could. And then we could examine that. What my point is is you made an incorrect uh conditional. Namely, you made the claim that or you were inferring the claim that if the if universes can pop into existence from nothing, then it would be reasonable to think that a universe could just pop into existence within our universe. But that's false. It doesn't follow.
>> No, not even just that. I'm saying if things can pop even just that strictly, if things can pop into existence at all, why have we never observed something pop into existence from nothing ever then?
>> Well, because there's no nothing around.
>> Well, no, no. The thing you're not understanding is [snorts] uh there is nothing >> cuz if nothing if you're going to say that there's nothing >> if you're going to say exactly if you're going to say there's nothing that that implies nothing exists like that that's what >> so so suppose in some state there was a state of affairs where there was nothing >> there could have never been I don't believe in nothing >> okay great great if you think that there could have never been nothing then it follows necessarily that a universe must have existed in one >> that follows necessarily that something always had to exist Not always. Not nec not always. That's using temporal language.
>> No. Cuz No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. You can that. No. Okay, that's you can say that, but that's not what I would think. But I mean, I can see how you say that, but listen to say that uh there can't there can be nothing is to imply that nothing.
>> Look, it's actually my view that nothing ever existed. It's actually my view that like even though conceptually nothing could exist, even like even though we can like conceive of like emptiness, >> I don't actually think I don't think it's actually possible for there to be nothing. Yeah, I think reality in one form or another is necessary.
>> I don't think that >> I think that I think that reality in one form or another is necessary. Now, I don't know if it's if it's necessary that our universe as it is is necessary.
>> I don't think that the universe is all that there is. I think that something beyond there's something beyond it. And I think that existence itself is necessary. I don't think that the universe is existence itself.
>> Okay. I don't think that existence itself is even a thing.
>> Existence is like a it's a property.
It's like a >> I don't I don't know what it means for I don't know what existence itself is.
Existence of what?
>> Okay. So existence I guess you can it's not like a thing existence. So existent. Okay. So look this very so existence doesn't exist within existence. Existence is like existence. I don't really know how to explain it. But what I'm trying to say, you understand what I'm trying to say?
>> No.
>> Well, I'm saying that the universe isn't all. Okay, let me just say it in a better way. Okay. The universe isn't all that there is. I think that something uh is beyond the universe. And I think that that thing that's beyond the universe uh is fundamental for reality.
>> Okay. I think that some sort of physical existence is fundamental for for reality.
>> I don't think that's the universe.
>> I said physical existence. Some sort of physical stuff. Physical something.
Yeah. Uh I don't think that that could be the universe because if the universe is fundamental for reality then that means that the universe always exists and if the universe always existed then we have to be a maximum energy by now.
>> No it okay look >> and just because of energy is not well defined.
>> It doesn't follow that just because the universe is necessary that the universe extends into the past eternally. That doesn't follow.
>> Okay. If the universe is necessary by definition that means that it cannot fail to exist. It means that there was never a time where the universe didn't exist, I guess.
>> Exactly. That means that it never not existed. Exactly. That's literally what I just said is >> But there can still be a first moment of time, right?
>> Okay. Yeah. That that that doesn't mean anything. Okay. We are the universe.
That's what it means. If if there's a moment of time, then it's not eternal.
>> Okay. Okay. So, if the is the univer is the universe necessary?
>> Uh I don't know. Maybe. I think that like some sort of physical reality >> probably let's say the universe necessary right >> let's say the universe is necessary right let's say the universe is the fundamental reality okay >> if the universe is the fundamental reality can it fail to exist >> no >> okay so doesn't have a beginning does that mean it doesn't have a beginning >> does that mean it it could have a beginning >> okay so something that cannot fail to exist cannot have a beginning cuz that's just a that's a contradiction contradiction It doesn't follow cuz we're talking about the whole space.
>> If it cannot fill if No, no, listen. Let me explain. Okay.
>> Okay.
>> If it cannot fail to exist, it cannot begin to exist.
>> So that's just a cont.
>> When I say So when I say beginning, I'm just referring to a first moment of time.
>> Yes. That would imply >> you can have a first moment of time and still have like a fully encapsulated spaceime that doesn't that is uh like that that fully encapsulated spaceime must necessary. It must exist. I understand what you're saying, but if you're going to imply that there's a first moment that that that follows that there's a beginning and we're trying to say that there is no beginning. So if it's >> if by beginning you mean like that there was nothing before it.
>> There's nothing prior. Yes.
>> Yeah. No. Okay. So it doesn't follow that a first moment means that there's nothing prior.
>> No, I'm saying okay if the universe is fundamental right and if it's fundamental that means that it cannot fail to exist. Okay. If it cannot fail to exist. Okay, I understand what you're trying to say. But there is no before for it to existent because it is itself now, right? There's no before.
>> Yeah. So there can still be a first moment.
>> I'm not saying that there's an infinite amount of time going infinitely into the past. I'm just saying there was no beginning.
>> Well, if by beginning you just mean that there was never nothing >> in some sort there was never I'm saying there was never a prior state in which the universe did not exist.
>> Yeah, I I would agree with that. Yes, I I would agree with I would agree with the statement that there was never a state where the universe didn't exist.
>> And you're saying that it has a finite past, correct?
>> That's at least possible. Yeah.
>> Mhm. So, uh, well, I mean, if you're the alternative is less rational. I'm pretty sure you already know why.
>> I don't even know what you mean by the alternative here.
>> Oh, the alternative would just have to be infinite past, would it not?
>> Oh, I think that they're both pretty reasonable.
>> Is there a third option or is that just like a false?
>> Um, I mean, yeah, sort of. There there is kind of a third option. Um you could have like a non-trivial topology of time.
>> Um so you could have just a finite past, you could have an eternal past and then you could have a a path that loops a past that loops back onto the future.
>> Okay. So well, I'm just saying that like Well, I mean I don't really Well, I mean to be honest, we're both just honestly giving our ideas. There's nothing for us. Well, when it comes to you, there's nothing really for me to disagree with for you because you're not really affirming anything. You're just giving us possibilities.
>> Well, but I what I did give is I gave you reasons why I think that a creator is not reasonable to believe in.
>> So, I'm not sure. But >> you do understand you do understand that all possibilities aren't equally valid though, right?
>> Sure.
>> Okay. So, like I said earlier, what best explains reality, the origin of the universe, >> whatever it is, it's definitely not a creator. Okay. So, there's fin. Okay.
Um, yeah. So, you talked about uh what was it? You said, okay, you talked about AAM's razor. You say a creator isn't needed because there's no unexplained data. But the universe uh the universe's existence is itself the data. So, why is there something rather than nothing?
That's not a small gap. It's the biggest question.
>> But see, see, and we've been over this again, so we might just have to call it here, but I'll just summarize. The point is is if the universe is indeed all it is all there is which is all we have data for by the way then there is there then there is nothing that can explain the universe.
>> Yes I understand I was going to finish and say a brute fact universe says no explanation which is intellectually unsatisfying and classical the provides an explanation. I provide an explanation.
>> Well right but so all you're doing is pushing the buck back. Why does the transcendental universe exist rather than not exist? Uh that's a category error >> and I could say it's a category error to ask why the universe exists rather than not rather than not.
>> So like I've already said if everything needs so if everything needs an explanation then nothing ever really begins. This is the same.
>> I agree that not everything needs everything cannot be contingent.
>> I I agree. So I agree that reject that rejecting the strong PSR is reasonable.
And so I just say that look it is um if if indeed so all the data that we have is the physical universe, right? That's all that's all the data that we have. um it's like the stuff and so it is reasonable to conclude that that is indeed everything and if that is indeed everything then it follows that there is no explanation for that everything.
>> So let me just say this. So you said earlier that there's no reason to buy into the view. So let me just finish what I'm about to say. But you haven't offered a better explanation for why contingent finite past boundary reality exists at all. And saying we don't know is honest but it's not a saying we don't know.
>> Just let me just let me finish. ical theism gives an answer and if you reject it the burden is on you to explain why brute contingency is more rational than a necessary cause. So the universe is is not necessary and I'm going to argue that it's not it's contingent and I I I can argue that and I think that you've already said that it's not necessary.
How >> I'm saying that I'm willing that I'm not committed to either one like it could be necessary it could be brute brutally contingent in either one's >> okay like I said if it is necessary then that means that it never began to exist.
I've already established that beginning to exist is not the same thing as being is not the same thing as being >> explanation for why it exists.
>> Look, if the univer critique and say it doesn't it's not satisfactory, then you have to buy into the internal the internal uh world or the worldview which is that the universe is indeed everything. And if the universe is indeed everything, then there is no sense in asking what is the explanation for the universe.
So like the the internal critique fails.
If you want to make an external critique and you say, "Oh, well, you know, the universe isn't everything." Well, now you have to Why why would why should anybody accept that there's anything beyond just this universe that we live in?
>> So you're saying why should anybody accept there's anything outside of the universe?
>> Yeah, we have no data at all that supports that.
>> Okay. So if the univer Okay, so let me just make sure like we're both on the same understanding. So if the universe never failed to exist, do you think it's plausible to at least say that we can't actually uh know how long it's existed for?
>> If the universe never failed to No, the universe could have >> physics breaks down the universe could have a finite a finite past and still never failed to exist.
>> Could be that the universe is necessary and still have a finite past.
>> Okay. And you're saying like what explains a transcendent reality?
I'm saying why would anyone ever believe that there is anything beyond the universe at all?
>> Yeah, I understand. So, it's pretty easily uh explain explained.
I I really um so because the universe itself it's how can I explain? So, the universe itself spacetime matter energy began to exist and I'm going to explain why now.
>> So, okay. Suppose you just well when you say began to exist do you mean finite past or do you mean that there was a state where nothing exist >> or there was a state where there was a state of affairs where the universe didn't exist okay so if you just mean finite past I can grant that >> okay so we'll just say this okay so uh space time matter energy began to exist finite past second lawb if the universe began its cause cannot be part of the universe that's what transcendent means not subject to space time or m let me just finish so the inference is not uh like so It's from the nature of causation. So whatever causes the beginning of spacetime cannot itself be within spacetime.
That's just like logical necessity.
>> Yeah. So it's I I I don't know what you're if the universe is if >> I don't know what you're what you're picking up, but the universe the universe could be necessary.
>> The thing you're not understanding is if if time and matter has a fun then that means it has not existed eternally. That means it's not fundamental. And if it's not fundamental that means it could fail to exist.
It can be fundamental.
>> That means that there has to be an explanation for look listen.
>> It can be fundamental and have a finite pass. Like you're just confused.
>> Okay. Wait, hold on. Let me just explain this really quick. Okay. If the universe has a finite past, okay, it has a finite past. Correct? So, meaning that there's a first moment. No, it doesn't mean there was no prior state in which it did not exist prior, right? It there is no prior state. There was no before, right?
Because time didn't exist before.
>> So, look, we So, so we have to be a little bit careful here. What I'm saying is that it's possible for there to be a finite past. Meaning there is a t equals z and there's no time before that. That is the first moment. And yet there is ne there there are no states of affairs.
The state of the there there's no state of affairs where the universe doesn't exist. Of all the state of affairs that make up reality, none of them don't include a universe.
So, I'm just like trying to explain to you how if the universe has a finite past, because I feel like we're really about to get to where I I feel like we're getting somewhere right now. So, if the universe does have a finite past, I'm trying to explain how if it does have a finite past, then that would necessarily mean that it can't be fundamental. So, listen. So, you're saying that the universe could be finite in the past and still be fundamental, meaning it doesn't require anything outside itself to explain it.
>> So, Okay. So you're saying that uh finitude alone doesn't automatically imply contingency or dependence, right?
And that's fair, right?
>> So let me let me let me let me clarify my position. Okay.
>> Sure.
>> So the colum doesn't argue that finitude alone proves a cause. It argues that beginning to exist does and beginning to exist means there was a state of affairs where the universe did not exist uh followed by a state where it does exist.
So >> why should I why should I accept that?
Why should I accept that there's that there's ever a state of that among all of the states of affairs of reality?
>> What about >> that any of them don't include the universe?
>> What' you say?
>> Why should I think that there's that there are any that among all the state of affairs that describe the universe or that describe reality that any of them don't include a universe? Why should I think that?
>> Why should you think that any of the state affairs don't include Well, I'm sorry. I didn't understand your question. Why should I think that there is at least one state of affairs that's you know okay >> why should you think that there's one state of affairs [snorts] so so we have reality reality can be described as like a collection of states of affairs that are perhaps different from one another right um and you know we we call those state like it depends on you know what your view on time is but regardless you have a collection of states of affairs in at least some of them there's a universe right surely we agree on that why should I think that there are any of >> I don't agree that universe can pop into existence from nothing.
>> That's not I didn't say that. You agreed that in at least one of the states of affairs.
>> Wait, but if there's always going to be a state of affairs where there's a universe, >> I didn't I didn't say that either.
Listen.
>> Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
>> Your brain is leaking out of your like [ __ ] hair. So, we have a whole bunch of states affairs that describe reality. This is true on your view. It's true on my view. It's how we talk about reality, right?
There's just like a way that the a way that the reality is in a certain configuration, right? Some of those at least one of those states of affairs includes the universe because we exist and this is a we we exist in a state of affairs, right? So at least one of those states of affairs in this some in this collection of states of affairs includes the universe.
>> Now what I'm asking is why should I think that any of the states of affairs don't include a universe?
Oh, okay. So, you're saying um why should you think that any of the states of affairs don't include a universe, >> right?
[sighs] >> Okay. So, uh I feel like this is just kind of circular. Um so, yeah. Um I'm saying Okay. So, let me just make sure let me clarify that I'm understanding what you're saying entirely. So you're saying we have a collection of states of affairs that describe reality and at least one of them includes the universe.
>> Yep.
>> And namely you're saying the actual Okay, I understand. So you're saying why should I think there's any state of affairs that doesn't include a universe?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> In other words, why think the universe could have not existed?
>> Yeah.
>> Could not have existed. Okay.
>> So because if the universe couldn't have >> just just a quick quick question. I'm not saying why could the universe have not existed. What I'm asking is why do you think that one of the states of affairs indeed does not include the universe? Namely, that not just that it could have not existed, but that it indeed didn't exist in one of the states of affairs.
>> Okay. So, you're saying why do you why do you I think Well, I mean, why Okay.
Why do why should anybody think one of the states of affairs doesn't include the universe?
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So, you're saying why should I think there's any state of affairs that doesn't include a universe?
>> Yeah. In actual reality, like there's possible realities where maybe maybe there isn't a there maybe there's a possible reality where nothing exists.
Maybe there's a possible reality where like a 100 universes exist, whatever.
But in in the actual reality, >> yeah, that's the same thing as >> in the actual reality.
>> In other words, it's just why I think the universe could not exist.
>> So, in the actual reality though, you're making the claim that one of the states of affairs that is part of actual reality doesn't include a universe, at least one. It's the one where God kind of exists without the universe.
>> Okay. So if the universe couldn't have failed to exist, if every possible state of affairs includes a universe, then the universe is necessary and not contingent. And if it's necessary, the colum's premise that the universe began to exist doesn't automatically give you a cause in the same way. So let me just let me respond to that. So we can conceive we I mean yeah, we can conceive of no universe. That doesn't prove metaphysical possibility, but it shifts the burden. If you think the universe, if you think a universe must exist in every possible state of affairs, you need to explain why because that's a strong claim. Also, the universe has contingent features, it could have uh it could have had different physical constants, right? Different laws, >> maybe >> different initial conditions. And if those features could be different, then the universe as a whole could be different. That's just not necessary.
And even even if the universe well wait even if the universe is necessary in some broad logical sense that doesn't give us an explanation why these laws and why this finite necessary universe is just a brute fact as model coding.
>> Just to be clear suppose that the universe is necessary in a broad sense that namely that there has to be some kind of universe >> maybe you think it's impossible for there to be no physical univer maybe it's maybe it's the case.
>> You're confusing me.
>> Okay so maybe it's the case. So you know for the sake of argument hypothetically suppose that the universe broadly that a universe must exist some sort of physical universe must exist. It doesn't therefore follow that this universe is the one that exists and maybe there's some deeper explanation as to why it's this universe specifically rather than some other different universe with like you know different physical laws. Or maybe there's not an explanation and that's a brute fact that it was this universe specifically rather than some other universe. But the question of whether or not a universe had to exist at all, that's separate from why the universe is this kind of universe rather than some other kind of possible universe.
>> Oh, okay. So, basically, let me just make sure uh you're asking uh what was it? You're saying what was you saying?
You're saying why the universe is this kind of universe rather than some other kind of possible universe.
>> What I'm saying is that's a separate question, right? We're currently investigating why there is a physical universe at all. Whether or not that's the kind of thing that needs an explanation, whether a physical universe could ever have failed to exist. That's the that's the question that we're getting at.
>> So, you're saying why the universe?
Okay. Why this universe? Oh, but that Okay, wait.
>> Not why this universe, why a universe?
>> Yeah. Why a universe at all rather than no universe, >> right?
>> Okay. So, it's just existence versus non-existence of any physical reality.
Yeah. And as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't see there doesn't seem to be any better reason to think that physical reality could have failed to exist than there does to think that physical reality could have not failed to exist.
>> I don't want to straw man you, but you seem to be suggesting that maybe a universe like some universe is necessary.
>> Yeah, that maybe that is the case. Like look, I'm not I'm not like committed to that view, but that that at least seems like plausible.
>> Okay, that is okay. So you're saying like it's impossible for there to be no physical reality whatsoever though, right? Only the specific features are contingent.
>> Well, so to be clear, my worldview is more like I don't think it's possible for nothing to exist. And as far as I'm concerned, the only things that can exist are physical things. Therefore, it would follow that there must be some sort of physical reality.
>> Okay. So only physical things. There always has to be something physical, right?
>> Yeah.
Okay. So, always something physical has to >> look I could be wrong about that. So, what I'm asking is on what grounds do we have for thinking that there could have been no physical thing >> or rather that there was no physical thing at some point in one of the states of affairs.
>> So, I think that there couldn't have been something that was non-physical like immaterial. Well, so look, so the the so if if I'm understanding your worldview correctly, it's something like there's the physical universe and then kind of on top of that there's like the metaphysical or the transcendental universe, right? Or the transcendental reality, right?
>> And so in your worldview, the transcendental reality that's always there. It can't fail to exist, >> the transcendental [snorts] reality. But there was a state of affairs where there was only transcendental stuff and there wasn't >> physical stuff universe. Yeah.
>> And [clears throat] so what I'm so and so and so that would correspond to a state of affairs where there is no physical reality. And so all I'm asking is on what grounds do we have for thinking that there could ever be no physical reality that that's like a valid state of or like a like a valid state of affairs that describes the reality that we live in?
>> So is a null state of affairs like absolutely nothing, no space, no time, no matter, no laws, no minds genuinely impossible?
>> I mean I I pro I think that that's reasonable. Yeah.
>> Okay. Well, I mean, yeah, it is reasonable. And I'm not I'm not saying that, you know, I agree with that. I'm saying, you know, most philosopher thinks it's logically possible and nothing about the laws of logic forbids it, you know. So to claim it's metaphysically impossible, you need an argument.
>> Wait, wait, hold on. So then >> look, I mean like like I could just grant that like I just have this intuition that that just says this and I don't have a good argument for it. But if you're saying that that's like a like a logical possibility, then you need that then that means that the transcendental reality could have failed to exist logically. I'm not saying I'm I'm just going along with the possibilities here, right? I'm just going with the possib I don't >> Yeah. Like lo like logically like surely you agree logically God could not exist.
Like there's no contradiction that you derive if you say that God doesn't exist. Like it's just not >> Well, I mean no no under the evidence in the worldview I I wouldn't I mean I want to I wouldn't want to admit that it's logically possible for God not to exist obviously. But obviously >> the logical possibility logical possibility is just like really really weak. Like like it's logic.
>> It's logically it's logically obviously it's logically possible. It's not logically impossible obviously.
>> Right.
>> So all I'm saying is that like yeah it's like logic like maybe you can make an argument or maybe you can maybe >> contradiction would be like well like I said earlier it's the same thing.
Actually I want to backtrack on that. I don't think that um everything can be contingent. I think that something would have to be necessary and either which way you put it that necessary being would necessarily uh just be God. I don't think that the universe is necessary. We have to tie down something necessary. What is necessity?
>> I don't even think it follows that there has to be a necessary thing.
>> Okay. Well, what's the ultimate reality for you? I should have asked a long time ago.
>> Well, I think that physical reality is all that there is.
So, whatever physical reality is, whatever it is at the bottom, I think that that's ultimate reality, whatever it might be.
Okay. Maybe there's no >> So, is that implying like a universe or is just like physical things like in general?
>> So, I mean, in so far as like >> like maybe >> what does physical reality mean to you?
What does that even mean? I mean, when I think of physical reality, I think of a universe, but like it could be that that's like that that that the way that I think of a universe is sort of elucory and that there's something kind of deeper like maybe there's like a wave function is what like you know it's it's one one view is that like the wave function is all there is and that's like a physical thing and you know that it could like the universe emerges from >> Yeah, this is what I was trying to say earlier. I feel like but like like there could be other kind of confused things.
>> This is what I was trying to say. I feel like you're trying to say that like >> it's the wave function. I'm not sure if that's what you're trying that's what it sounds like you're >> giving Matthew I was giving you I was giving you that as an example >> just as like the kind like a way that you can have a physical reality without having a universe right now I don't know if that's like like that's it's not my position that that is what physical reality is that it's just the wave function I mean like I think that probably like quantum mechanics is fundamental but I or it sorry let me rephrase I think that quantum mechanics is probably true I don't know if it's fundamental I don't know if like the wave function is like the bottom of reality or if there's something deeper I don't know if like you know maybe like I could be wrong and there's just some other physical thing that's not the wave function maybe like Copenhagen interpretations or whatever whatever it might be but all I'm saying is that like there's some way of talking about a physical reality it might just be in the normal way that we talk about universes there might be something deeper though that we would still call physical >> yeah so >> but look Matthew you've you've now been on for over an hour >> I know I know I know >> I should probably let you say this one more thing and then I promise >> go ahead Okay, so this we've been stuck on this, you know, we've been going in circles a little bit. So, let me just say this one one thing really quick.
Okay, so you know, I'm not going to say it's logically impossible for physical reality to be fundamental. So, if physically uh it's it's, you know, it's a coherent position. Okay, but we need to ask which position is better supported, right? So, if physical reality is fundamental, then it's either past eternal or it began to exist uh finitely. Uh if past eternal you face entropy problem in BGB theorem. Uh if it began finitely then you have a finite physical reality that just popped into being from nothing. Like I've already said I don't believe that things can pop into existence from nothing. I think that's something needs to be necessary since there's nothing non-physical to cause it. That's metaphysically. Listen listen listen.
>> If it began finitely, okay, then you have a finite physical reality that just popped into since Oh, wait. Just let me finish. Since there's nothing non-physical to cause it, that's metaphysically problematic. So saying physical reality is fundamental doesn't explain why it exists, why it has the laws it does, or why it's finitely past bounded. It just labels the mis listen.
Okay?
>> All listen listen.
>> I'm going to look I' I've been listening. I haven't been talking.
>> I've been listening. The confusion is the confusion. Your view says physical reality just is no further explanation.
I'm asking why is that more reasonable?
>> If physical reality is all there is, then it doesn't need an explanation.
>> Why is that more reasonable than a theistic explanation?
>> Because we know that physical reality at least exists, >> right?
>> Yeah. But seeing it just is no further explanation is not >> look look we're going to we're going to end up at at regardless of what your worldview is at some point at some point you end up at some place where there just is no further explanation. Maybe because explanation isn't needed or maybe because no explanation exists period. The point is is we will end up somewhere wherever your worldview terminates with something that doesn't have an explanation. And so all I'm saying is we if you take this worldview that all that there is is physical stuff is the a universe. Um then there is no deeper explanation because an explanation would have to be outside of the thing that you're trying to explain and there's nothing outside of the thing. So in whether whether we're in your worldview or in my worldview in both cases we terminate it something that doesn't need an explanation.
>> Wait, I think I found a key. I found the key. Okay. Wait.
>> All right. Make it quick.
>> Nothing outside of it. Does that mean that it's isolated? No.
>> Shut up, Matthew. You're done.
[music]
Related Videos
The Price of Freedom Is Rejection — Epictetus
NullSOPHY
500 views•2026-06-13
PAUL WAS NEVER THE HERO
VersusNexusHQ
380 views•2026-06-08
The fates guide the willing, but drag the unwilling. | Cleanthes
forged.in.stoicism
138 views•2026-06-10
Kant and Hume: When Reason Undermined Itself | Church History 121
DavidGuzikEnduringWord
148 views•2026-06-12
The Narrow Ascent | The Path to Eternity (Matthew 7:13)
chichigreat8955
211 views•2026-06-11
Cliffe Knechtle Debates the Problem of Suffering: Why Does God Allow Cancer?
Bible_Alive
3K views•2026-06-10
Morality Without God || A Conversation with Two Former Christian Ministers
timmygibsonkc
382 views•2026-06-10
Witnessing Suffering Brings the Greatest Empathy
SisyphusHQ
261 views•2026-06-10
