The point the videomaker makes at the beginning of the vid is that just beacause our universe may have had a beginning it doesn't necessarily mean that it has a cause - he's right.
I didn't get that one. I think that if something has a beginning, it has to have a cause.
In addition, even if we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the universe had a beginning it still doesn't prove the existence of God. Of course our current cosmological theory, the big bang theory and inflationary cosmology in its stand-alone form, does suggest our universe had a beginning i.e. that everything came into existence from a singularity of pure vacuum energy.
Right.
However this does leave us with a couple of uncomfortable choices
1) We choose to have faith in these multiverse/cyclic cosmology theories even though we accept we will never be able to prove the theories. This has the advantage that the first law of thermodynamics is not violated.
2) We fully embrace the big bang theory in it's current form - this is a testable theory of science which has made some excellent predictions, and we belive that the energy that gave birth to our universe may have appeared from out of nowhere and that the universe had a definite beginning. This would imply faith that a supernatural creator created the universe from nothing and hence a violation of the first law of thermodynamics
Wait a second! It does not imply that a supernatural creator created the universe. May be the universe itself came in to existence at that point and has been evolving ever since?
Which option do we choose? I choose option 2
I just proposed a third option!!
and my reasoning is the following. Something which I feel is quite often overlooked in these sorts of discussions are the laws of physics themselves. For example the laws of physics are so beautifally elegant, it seems almost impossibe, to me at least that there is no inteligence behind them.
That assumes there is an intelligent creator separate from the creation, which is not necessary.
Physicists are often in awe of these laws and are humbled by them - they spend their entire lives stumbling around like children trying to uncover their beauty. It is my opinion, and I think a crucial point that the veido maker missed is that the first law of thermodynamics along with all the other laws of physics may have come into existence when the Creator created the universe. Before the creation event these laws may not even have existed. Thus when God creates the universe out of nothing he does not violte the first law of thermodynamics because it simply didn't exist. Only the instant when the universe was created that?s when all the laws of physcis themselves came into existence, space came into existence and time started ticking. Of course there is no scientfic basis for the creation event itslef (i.e. this is real creation not the transformation of energy/matter to different forms the videomaker explained) but it's something we have to take on faith.
Reasonable enough. But what I proposed does not require a creator God, and still makes your argument valid. So why my proposition should be considered better than yours? Because we know that the universe exists; the same cannot be said about a creator God.
The reason I find this more appealing than option 1 is that with option1 we are still left with the question of where all these truly magnificent and beautiful laws of physics came from. It would be entirley unsatisfactory just to think 'well that's just the way that nature is'. Surely there must be some intelligence behind them?
See above.
Topic: The Kalam/Cosmological Argument for God.