but god is not considered as something that came into existence rather in traditional theism god is conceived as an eternal object. so ur attacking the wrong god. what ur attacking is the kind of god that came into existence and no one believes in that kind of god anymore. Infact by definition its not god rather its some finite diety that came into existence and then made the universe
You're missing the point. The theists argument is founded on the idea that complex things must have a cause. Now if a god can exist without being created - then the same could be said of the Universe - which defeats the original argument.
The argument is thus: if a highly complex 'thing' like god can exist without cause, then a significantly less complex thing like the universe certainly can.
Im not attacking god - im attacking the idea that the universe MUST be created.
@TawntheAtheist well i think the modern theist's idea is that not everything has a cause instead only those things that
1) beings to exists AND
2) are complex
needs an intelligent cause. but god doesnot satisfy condition 1 (by way of definition). but the objects within the universe like you , me , planets etc does satisfy both of the conditions so they need an intelligent cause. of course we can alway refer to evolution and other natural process to refute requirement 2 of the argument..
yes i also agree that such things dont need an intelligent cause (me agnostic) but my point was that the way the modern theist describe the concept of a cause we cannot apply it to god cos god dosnt meets requirement 1. but then ur objection about god compounding the complexity problem would not work because u will be attacking the kind of god that the modern theist dont believe in. dont u agree?
The Christian answer will of course be that God IS above the logic he supplied our world with, and therfore need not be created. But the bottom line is that there is absolutely no indisputable evidence for either the existence, or nonexistence, of God or gods. We don't know. End of Story
If we can readily accept the notion of higher intelligence manifesting itself in the form of extra-terrestrials, and if theoretically we can support the idea that an intelligent entity can arrive at a point of comprehending all universal laws, why do we recoil at the notion of a supreme intelligence which we euphemistically call "God"?
Ah, but your applying logic of this universe to it. Since God created this universe, it stands to reason that he is not bound by the principles of it. Ergo your argument is flawed. Its like the people who say "Who created God", they are flawed in their reasoning because they assume God conforms to the linar space time model, IE everything requires a cause of some kind. If God created time, it stands to reason he is not bound by it, thus from our perspective he is eternal
You must have missed the end of the video... remember that this vid is only a refutation of a common argument used to try to logically prove there must be a god - im not trying to prove there cannot be a god.. just trying to show that there is no rational, logical reason to believe there is a god. Perhaps there is a god outside of logic, but regardless, you have no good reason to believe in it that I know of.
Your refutation fails, because you are applying infinite regress to God, but infinite regress only works within linar space-time (cause and effect can only exist within a space-matter-time enviroment, an enviroment which by logic, God exists beyond). Since God created LST he is thus not bound by its principles, thus your refutation fails.
"but infinite regress only works within linar space-time (cause and effect can only exist within a space-matter-time enviroment, an enviroment which by logic, God exists beyond)"
How do you know this? I think you're just ad hoc'ing your way through this argument. Someone makes a logical argument for why any god cannot be eternal, so you weasel your way out by saying, "Oh well the rules of logic don't apply to god." How convenient. And creative.
I'm not ad'hocing. If God created time logically he is not bound by it. Thus from our perspecitve he looks eternal, but the reality is there is no time for him.
And since your refutation fails, the argument of complexity still stands, which is a fair reason to believe in God. It does not prove God to 100% certianty, but it certianly means that belief in God is not irrational
The logic you are using only works if God is within this universe. The reason I can apply the logic of cause and effect to the universe and not God is we know the law of cause and effect applies in this universe. If God made the universe, ergo it does not apply to him. So your question at the end of your video "Why do you think you can apply logic to the universe and not God" is because God created logic, and thus is not bound by it.
Thank you for picking up on the line of argumentation..
"we know the law of cause and effect applies in this universe. "
Cause and effect certainly works WITHIN this universe but to the universe itself? When I talk of the 'universe' I am referring to the very fabric of reality itself. If it makes it easier, think of the universe as an unthinking god.
What im saying is we do not truly understand the fundamental nature of the universe and whether it needs to be intelligently created or not.
No, your not and I'm not. Reality is made only out of those three things. Matter, Time and Space. I believe however that God created all these things, and as such is not bound by their rules (such as the rules of nessecity of first cause). Thus your application of infinite regress to god is inapropriate, because if God is the first cause of all that needs first cause, then he himself did not need first cause.
No, this reality is only made of time space and matter. God created all those things, thus he is not bound by those rules. The law of increasing complexity that you are refering to applies within this reality, thus it is apropriate to apply the logic to this reality but not to God himself
"No, this reality is only made of time space and matter."
THIS reality? There is only one reality and god is either a part of it or he is not.
"The law of increasing complexity that you are refering to applies within this reality, thus it is apropriate to apply the logic to this reality but not to God himself"
If god is real, then he is a part of reality.. - ie what is real. The law therefore cannot apply to reality but not to god.
The use of the word "Reality" here is unhelpful. The word "Universe" is better. God created matter, space and time. He thus is not bound by the rules that bind matter, space and time. Thus the rules you mention apply to space, matter and time, but not God.
"The use of the word "Reality" here is unhelpful. The word "Universe" is better."
Yes, that is where you are misunderstanding me. I am talking about reality, not the physical universe. If I was talking about the physical universe only, you'd be right... but I am not.
This is a common mistake. The big bang did not 'create' the universe. There is a limit called the Planck limit, and it stretches back to a few factions of a second after the big bang. Below this limit we know nothing of the universe. NOTHING. So logically we cannot say what the state of the universe was at this 'time'. It may well have always existed in one form or another. We just don't know.
It only fails if we accept your ad hoc "God is not bound by logic therefore...".
Logic applies to reality. A always equals A, and A never equals !A. If you're arguing that god does not exist in reality, then we are in complete agreement.
There is only one reality. Reality means a state or quality of being real. There is the set of real things; ie. Reality, and its compliment; !Reality. If nothing unreal exists and god does not exist in reality, god does not exist. Period.
"I can demonstrate that it is possible "
Indeed. And I can demonstrate that universe building pixies are possible. This is a long way from an actual truth.
The mistake you're making is to equivocate on the terms 'reality' and 'universe', and then to assume that A = A is only true for the universe. There are not many realities; there is only what is real and what is not. One reality. You're making too many a priori assumptions for your argument to be tenable.
"Since God created this universe, it stands to reason that he is not bound by the principles of it. Ergo your argument is flawed."
Incorrect. You argument stands on an assertion, aside from the obvious one, ie. that god exists. You're assuming that logic ONLY applies to this universe, and not all reality. You have no reason to assume this is true.
Fine, god is possible. We all accept this... but by your own admission he is illogical.. which makes the Atheists point of view astronomically more likely and the only sensible and rational position to hold.
I think saying god operates outside logic is a cop out.. you havent really thought through what that would entail.
Angels are spirits, devils are spirits, created by god ??? So, who created the spirit that you call "God" ? Did he/she create him/herself, before creating anything else Peace !!
The definition of complex, as is used in these discussions and as used by Richard Dawkins himself, is something that is made up of many parts, and is therefore complicated, intricate, and complex. But God isn't made up of any parts: he's spirit. Therefore, he is by definition simple, not complex.
What song is this?
BreezyTheGreat 9 months ago
@BreezyTheGreat
Oh it comes from Mechwarrior 2.. a game that came with my first PC!
TawntheAtheist 8 months ago
but god is not considered as something that came into existence rather in traditional theism god is conceived as an eternal object. so ur attacking the wrong god. what ur attacking is the kind of god that came into existence and no one believes in that kind of god anymore. Infact by definition its not god rather its some finite diety that came into existence and then made the universe
Dathinkingman 11 months ago
@Dathinkingman
You're missing the point. The theists argument is founded on the idea that complex things must have a cause. Now if a god can exist without being created - then the same could be said of the Universe - which defeats the original argument.
The argument is thus: if a highly complex 'thing' like god can exist without cause, then a significantly less complex thing like the universe certainly can.
Im not attacking god - im attacking the idea that the universe MUST be created.
TawntheAtheist 11 months ago
@TawntheAtheist well i think the modern theist's idea is that not everything has a cause instead only those things that
1) beings to exists AND
2) are complex
needs an intelligent cause. but god doesnot satisfy condition 1 (by way of definition). but the objects within the universe like you , me , planets etc does satisfy both of the conditions so they need an intelligent cause. of course we can alway refer to evolution and other natural process to refute requirement 2 of the argument..
Dathinkingman 11 months ago
@Dathinkingman
(I assume 1 was supposed to read 'begins to exist'.)
Well I can't agree that things that meet both conditions need an INTELLIGENT cause. A cause yes..
My point is that I don't think the universe (i.e. reality) meets these conditions either.
TawntheAtheist 11 months ago
Comment removed
Dathinkingman 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
yes i also agree that such things dont need an intelligent cause (me agnostic) but my point was that the way the modern theist describe the concept of a cause we cannot apply it to god cos god dosnt meets requirement 1. but then ur objection about god compounding the complexity problem would not work because u will be attacking the kind of god that the modern theist dont believe in. dont u agree?
Dathinkingman 11 months ago
its not 42 seconds its 43
ImIndoPeople 1 year ago
"God is beyond our understanding? So is the universe."
Wonderfully well thought-out video, Sir.
theteacher010 1 year ago
Inteligent design needs an intelligent designer. By "chance" isn't intelligent enough to create anything but an accident.
DeeStinger1 1 year ago
@DeeStinger1
Sure, but the universe and life is not intelligently designed. The world we live in is an accident.
TawntheAtheist 1 year ago
The Christian answer will of course be that God IS above the logic he supplied our world with, and therfore need not be created. But the bottom line is that there is absolutely no indisputable evidence for either the existence, or nonexistence, of God or gods. We don't know. End of Story
Reverend0Locrian 1 year ago
If we can readily accept the notion of higher intelligence manifesting itself in the form of extra-terrestrials, and if theoretically we can support the idea that an intelligent entity can arrive at a point of comprehending all universal laws, why do we recoil at the notion of a supreme intelligence which we euphemistically call "God"?
444age 2 years ago
These are bloody good. I completely agree, and try to keep everything under 5 minutes, most under 3. What needs to be said can be said quickly.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Aint special pleading a wonderful thing.
Textra1 2 years ago
How else do you defend a ridiculous belief?
TawntheAtheist 2 years ago
Good point.
Textra1 2 years ago
Ah, but your applying logic of this universe to it. Since God created this universe, it stands to reason that he is not bound by the principles of it. Ergo your argument is flawed. Its like the people who say "Who created God", they are flawed in their reasoning because they assume God conforms to the linar space time model, IE everything requires a cause of some kind. If God created time, it stands to reason he is not bound by it, thus from our perspective he is eternal
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
You must have missed the end of the video... remember that this vid is only a refutation of a common argument used to try to logically prove there must be a god - im not trying to prove there cannot be a god.. just trying to show that there is no rational, logical reason to believe there is a god. Perhaps there is a god outside of logic, but regardless, you have no good reason to believe in it that I know of.
TawntheAtheist 3 years ago
Your refutation fails, because you are applying infinite regress to God, but infinite regress only works within linar space-time (cause and effect can only exist within a space-matter-time enviroment, an enviroment which by logic, God exists beyond). Since God created LST he is thus not bound by its principles, thus your refutation fails.
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
"Your refutation fails..."
Ermm.. you really aren't following me are you?
I want to respond, but Id simply be repeating what I just said. Perhaps read again? Especially last line.
TawntheAtheist 3 years ago
"but infinite regress only works within linar space-time (cause and effect can only exist within a space-matter-time enviroment, an enviroment which by logic, God exists beyond)"
How do you know this? I think you're just ad hoc'ing your way through this argument. Someone makes a logical argument for why any god cannot be eternal, so you weasel your way out by saying, "Oh well the rules of logic don't apply to god." How convenient. And creative.
Textra1 2 years ago
I'm not ad'hocing. If God created time logically he is not bound by it. Thus from our perspecitve he looks eternal, but the reality is there is no time for him.
SFRobertsDickClarke 2 years ago
And since your refutation fails, the argument of complexity still stands, which is a fair reason to believe in God. It does not prove God to 100% certianty, but it certianly means that belief in God is not irrational
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
"And since your refutation fails, the argument of complexity still stands, which is a fair reason to believe in God."
My refutation does not fail because it INCLUDES the consideration of a god which is outside of space-time.
Can you not get it into your head that I had already PREDICTED a response like yours? The video even addresses the very point you are making.
TawntheAtheist 3 years ago
The logic you are using only works if God is within this universe. The reason I can apply the logic of cause and effect to the universe and not God is we know the law of cause and effect applies in this universe. If God made the universe, ergo it does not apply to him. So your question at the end of your video "Why do you think you can apply logic to the universe and not God" is because God created logic, and thus is not bound by it.
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
Thank you for picking up on the line of argumentation..
"we know the law of cause and effect applies in this universe. "
Cause and effect certainly works WITHIN this universe but to the universe itself? When I talk of the 'universe' I am referring to the very fabric of reality itself. If it makes it easier, think of the universe as an unthinking god.
What im saying is we do not truly understand the fundamental nature of the universe and whether it needs to be intelligently created or not.
TawntheAtheist 3 years ago
Cause and effect does apply to the universe itself, see the big bang. It clearly has an origin point of some kind.
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
Im confusing you by using the term universe. Im sorry.
The big bang is an example of cause and effect occuring WITHIN the universe.. but lets use the word reality instead.
Re-read my last comment carefully.
TawntheAtheist 3 years ago
No, the big bang created the universe. The big bang is not just matter and time, it is also space.
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
"The big bang is not just matter and time, it is also space."
Yes, but im talking about something more fundamental than simply time, matter and space. As are you.
TawntheAtheist 3 years ago
No, your not and I'm not. Reality is made only out of those three things. Matter, Time and Space. I believe however that God created all these things, and as such is not bound by their rules (such as the rules of nessecity of first cause). Thus your application of infinite regress to god is inapropriate, because if God is the first cause of all that needs first cause, then he himself did not need first cause.
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
"Reality is made only out of those three things. Matter, Time and Space."
So god is not real? Think about that carefully because you REALLY arent getting what I am saying.
TawntheAtheist 3 years ago
No, this reality is only made of time space and matter. God created all those things, thus he is not bound by those rules. The law of increasing complexity that you are refering to applies within this reality, thus it is apropriate to apply the logic to this reality but not to God himself
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
"No, this reality is only made of time space and matter."
THIS reality? There is only one reality and god is either a part of it or he is not.
"The law of increasing complexity that you are refering to applies within this reality, thus it is apropriate to apply the logic to this reality but not to God himself"
If god is real, then he is a part of reality.. - ie what is real. The law therefore cannot apply to reality but not to god.
TawntheAtheist 3 years ago
The use of the word "Reality" here is unhelpful. The word "Universe" is better. God created matter, space and time. He thus is not bound by the rules that bind matter, space and time. Thus the rules you mention apply to space, matter and time, but not God.
ChaptersFromNotes 3 years ago
"The use of the word "Reality" here is unhelpful. The word "Universe" is better."
Yes, that is where you are misunderstanding me. I am talking about reality, not the physical universe. If I was talking about the physical universe only, you'd be right... but I am not.
TawntheAtheist 3 years ago
"No, this reality is only made of time space and matter."
There is only one reality. The universe is a subset of reality. Though there is no reason to assume the anything other than the universe exists.
Textra1 2 years ago
"Reality is made only out of those three things. Matter, Time and Space."
Incorrect. The Universe is made of matter, time and space. Reality is everything that is real. Matter, space, time or otherwise.
Textra1 2 years ago
"No, the big bang created the universe"
This is a common mistake. The big bang did not 'create' the universe. There is a limit called the Planck limit, and it stretches back to a few factions of a second after the big bang. Below this limit we know nothing of the universe. NOTHING. So logically we cannot say what the state of the universe was at this 'time'. It may well have always existed in one form or another. We just don't know.
Textra1 2 years ago
"And since your refutation fails"
It only fails if we accept your ad hoc "God is not bound by logic therefore...".
Logic applies to reality. A always equals A, and A never equals !A. If you're arguing that god does not exist in reality, then we are in complete agreement.
Textra1 2 years ago
God does not exist in this reality. While I cannot demostrate it conclusively, I can demonstrate that it is possible
SFRobertsDickClarke 2 years ago
God does not exist in this reality.
Congratulations. You are an atheist. Reality is everything that is real. If god is not a part of reality, god is not real.
TawntheAtheist 2 years ago
"God does not exist in this reality."
There is only one reality. Reality means a state or quality of being real. There is the set of real things; ie. Reality, and its compliment; !Reality. If nothing unreal exists and god does not exist in reality, god does not exist. Period.
"I can demonstrate that it is possible "
Indeed. And I can demonstrate that universe building pixies are possible. This is a long way from an actual truth.
Textra1 2 years ago
The mistake you're making is to equivocate on the terms 'reality' and 'universe', and then to assume that A = A is only true for the universe. There are not many realities; there is only what is real and what is not. One reality. You're making too many a priori assumptions for your argument to be tenable.
Textra1 2 years ago
"Since God created this universe, it stands to reason that he is not bound by the principles of it. Ergo your argument is flawed."
Incorrect. You argument stands on an assertion, aside from the obvious one, ie. that god exists. You're assuming that logic ONLY applies to this universe, and not all reality. You have no reason to assume this is true.
Textra1 2 years ago
I am not saying there is a reason to infer this, I am suggesting that it is not unreasonable to suggest it as a posibility.
SFRobertsDickClarke 2 years ago
Fine, god is possible. We all accept this... but by your own admission he is illogical.. which makes the Atheists point of view astronomically more likely and the only sensible and rational position to hold.
I think saying god operates outside logic is a cop out.. you havent really thought through what that would entail.
TawntheAtheist 2 years ago
I dug it.
damienwater 3 years ago
pwnd neocons.
bigmac364 4 years ago
Angels are spirits, devils are spirits, created by god ??? So, who created the spirit that you call "God" ? Did he/she create him/herself, before creating anything else Peace !!
Philos2006 4 years ago
No, God is certainly NOT "more complex."
The definition of complex, as is used in these discussions and as used by Richard Dawkins himself, is something that is made up of many parts, and is therefore complicated, intricate, and complex. But God isn't made up of any parts: he's spirit. Therefore, he is by definition simple, not complex.
PatrickDunnevant 4 years ago
"But God isn't made up of any parts: he's spirit."
Well its certainly an inventive answer.. (Its also a complete cop out).
TawntheAtheist 4 years ago
that ending was really good
Ezplain 4 years ago
SMACKDOWN!
HanifXHier 4 years ago
I agree with you and all but that was 43 seconds :P
undirish159 4 years ago
bah i think it was 0.2 of a second over and it added a blank screen at the end.. heh :)
TawntheAtheist 4 years ago
Just like all you atheists lying about the basic facts and trying to get away with "fuzzy math" ;)
Hopeful71 4 years ago