Here's an important note: When I say "... since [the laws of nature] were as inexistent BEFORE the beginning of the universe as the universe itself, to which they apply, was inexistent" this wording isn't quite accurate for the following reason: Time only came to exist with the beginning of the universe, and so with the universe not existing, there is no "before" because there is no time in the first place. What would be more accurate to say is that the laws of nature are inexistent WITHOUT the universe and its beginning. Though I'm fully aware of that, I chose the "before"-wording since a 1-min short only gives you a limited amount of time to make a point. By default, most people think that there is a "before" the beginning of the universe, though, again, this notion is not coherent. I chose to go with that since I would have had to explain why "without the universe" is a more accurate way of talking (and again, 60 seconds aren't quite enough to mention all of this). Thus, my explanatory note here. Also, I will have a longer video come out on the topic of the personality of the cause which the Kalam cosmological argument deduces, and there, I will mention the very issue described here.

свернуть