Peter Kreeft The Existence of God part 3 of 8 apologetics

[railroadtrash09]

The way it sounds, he is saying God does not look like a man.... I am still waiting for some proof.

[SeptemberCatholic18]

I'm not sure whether or not you realize that this is not my video, but nevertheless, I will defend Peter Kreeft.

I am astounded by your inability to recognize that here Kreeft argues the same arguments I presented in my other videos you "watched." In fact, this is the same man who was speaking vicariously through me in my videos.

As painful as it may be for you to hear, you are terrible at philosophy, and need some serious practice with logic and reason. This is coming from a philosophy major.

[AbdielAbiram]

Good video

[outtaker]

Take a computer for example..it has programming, like the animals before mentioned, and acts on its programming only because the human creator made it so. Programming requires a will and a mind...so not only does the Creator-Being have a will of his own, (i.e., he's not some universal quality or just thought), and he must have an intellectual mind (programming is both simple and complicated).

[outtaker]

building is not just a personal action, limited to persons. Animals do it, too. Animals are "what"s. Persons are "who"s. Even so, the instincts that these animals use in order to do these things, damming a river, making a nest, are quite natural to the, and because they're illogical creatures, one can't say their instincts are influenced by any sense of a "will" on their part. Their instincts had to be placed there, I used the word "programming," by a creator-being....

[Ephemerance]

08:20

So our own perception determine what is intelligently designed? Perhaps this is simply a shadow our own awareness, not a bona-fide exterior phenomenon. God is a component of experience. On whatever level the dreamer sees fit.

[mrqsilveira]

hum... I liked it! It is a thought starter and combines wonderfully with your yt nickname!

[greatsea]

I much prefer the speaking voice of Kreeft over Lane Craig.

[elroy2112]

I think there both pretty darn good in there own unique gifted ways.

[julzabro]

If I see the Empire State building and don't know HOW or WHO built it, assuming a god is not rational. It's logical to assume it was "built" only because it is NOT NATURAL. And it would be ILLogical to assume....because I don't know the answers...that a god built it. Nature appears to be built or ordered but that doesn't mean IT MUST HAVE a builder nor does a builder HAVE TO BE a WHO...it may be a what!!!!

[elroy2112]

If we found this empire state building on mars with no other signs of life, and we used Intelligent Designs Explanatory filter by first eliminating Law, then Chance, then we could make a reasonable inference to the best explanation of Design, even if we have no idea who the designer was. Scientists say if humanity died out tomorrow all our technology would disappear within a few thousand years, one of the few things that would survive would be Mnt Rushmore, aliens would know it was designed.

[elroy2112]

Julz>Nature appears to be built or ordered but that doesn't mean IT MUST HAVE a builder nor does a builder HAVE TO BE a WHO...it may be a what!

elroy> you could try and posit imaginary universes each with a different sets of laws to "explain" away that we survive in one with a perfect set of Laws but this breaks down when we see the design continuing way beyond survival and continuing into beauty, knowledge for knowledges sake, a universe ordered for science, whats don't do this whos do.

[baldwalrus7]

"a builder nor does a builder HAVE TO BE a WHO...it may be a what!!!!" This seems to be a contradiction in terms: building is by definition a personal action, therefore, one who builds is a person.

[outtaker]

Do not animals build things to aid themselves? Beavers dam up rivers with many logs...a barricade was created, if you will. Birds build nests to place their eggs in...etc..Do these acocunt for "construction" only by a who? I think not ! And why then do these animals do these things? They're not rational, as we are, thereforeit's illogical to assume they don't do it by instinct. Their programming proves a creator-being.

[julzabro]

I guess even the natives mentioned here understand that believing in A god is the only necessary explaination for the UNexplained (ie nature....such as leaves and stars!) Natives, our ancestors, created god IN ORDER TO explain things like....leaves and stars! Needing an explaination for the unexplained does not make a created explaination the answer!!!!

[elroy2112]

God reappears everywhere, on Islands in remote jungles etc. showing God is a natural rational inference that normally functioning minds come to, insisting something other than God No matter how unlikely or preposterous it may be must have "designed" it or "created" it is the domain of the Ir-Rationalists, if they had been educated in India instead of a state run school they would not be atheists. they are not Brights but Gullibles.

[elroy2112]

julz >>Needing an explaination for the unexplained does not make a created explaination the answer!

Elroy >> The first creator does not need an explanation, and a first creator is logically necessary, effects need causes, not the first cause.

[sustaincain]

09:10 Interesting, these 'disbelief in God' surveys of scientists vary, some say high disbelief among darwininsm infected biologists and higher belief among physicists exposed to the glory of the unified field. The stats seem altogether 'soft-minded'. Plus: Creationists in the Science Establishment are as Jews were in Nazi Germland, the slightest hint of allowing evidence on its behalf and its excommunication, no matter how highly previously esteemed.

[elroy2112]

Remember atheists, God is outside of time,

note >> "outside of", not "before" as there can be no concept of "before".

[DADShadowFox]

We can argue philosophy all you want, but the truth of the matter is, the first cause argument has its weakpoints, whether you subscribe to it or not.

[grandconjunct]

"No cause" is beyond weak. "Universe causes itself" is even weaker.

only 2 options for universe, Event causation (exp. energy) and Agent causation (such as first creator)

the only way an event cause can yield a finite, temporal event is if a change occurs in the cause itself, But then this entails that the cause itself must be caused by something else - and so the problem resurfaces! You still need a cause for your energy. Universe requires a personal explanation, not a law explanation.

[chrisman737]

well said grandconjunct -- and thanks for posting these great gems. Kreeft is awesome.

[DADShadowFox]

"No cause" is beyond weak." I agree

"Universe causes itself" is even weaker." How so? Is it as weak as "god causes itself"?

"You still need a cause for your energy."

Likewise, one still needs a cause for a "first causer". Saying that a "first causer" doesn't need a cause is exactly the same as saying that the universe can exist without an outside cause. Only difference is, I submit that nobody knows how it works, you submit an all powerful "magic" analog to a complex biological organism

[elroy2112]

Dadshad>> Is it as weak as "god causes itself"?

elroy >> Yes but thats because no one believes God causes himself , all christians believe God is uncaused not selfcaused , atheists misunderstand this.

Dadshad> Likewise, one still needs a cause for a "first causer".

elroy> Wrong what ever the first cause of all causes and universe is, it does not need a Cause by definition, its the first cause not the second , this is what religious folk name GOD, if it was the second cause it would not be God

[elroy2112]

Dadshad >> Saying that a "first causer" doesn't need a cause is exactly the same as saying that the universe can exist without an outside cause.

elroy>> Not at all, There needs to be a first cause of all causes this is a necessity, a first cause by definition would be uncaused not self caused, the universe began to exist 13 billion years ago it was caused not uncaused or self caused, Either the universe is eternal or first cause is , but we know universe is not eternal, God is.

[elroy2112]

Dadshad >> you submit an all powerful "magic" analog to a complex biological organism

elroy > I submit God created the universe and the design within in it even the design of darwins brain to trust what darwin observed and concluded his brain must be designed and trustworthy .

A great magician and designer in sky may be difficult for you to understand, but the atheists Magic without the Magician is even more ridiculous . though atheist brains do often appear Unintelligently designed for sure!

[elroy2112]

DAD >it must be shown that the universe, something we know to exist, isn't already the largest abstraction of reality.

elroy>> yes atheists are stuck with universe being all of reality, and the universe does not explain itself but points to something beyond itself, beyond time space and matter, I.E. something immaterial, timeless etc.

There is no known magical energies that self cause a universe.

[DADShadowFox]

"all of the known energy in universe can't do that either" You're making blind assertion here. At the beginning or before "time", all the energy in the present universe already existed it ALWAYS EXISTED. There also CANNOT be a "cause" in the classic sense without time, it wouldn't produce an effect! The problem with the first cause argument is that it assumes there must be a cause when there clearly can't be. Like the "podim holding the paper", spacetime didn't have a causal action.

[elroy2112]

No proof that Energy has always existed this is an assertion with no evidence,

All space time and matter/energy started at the singularity, the infinitely dense point of matter and energy, Many secular astronomers admit this is just Nice way of saying OUT of Nothing. Energy starts in the singularity its not something beyond matter that causes the singularity, it's part of it, God is not the temporal cause of universe, but logical cause, atheists are stuck without a cause period.

[DADShadowFox]

"No proof that Energy has always existed this is an assertion with no evidence"

Nice assertion there. Try "first law of thermodynamics". ALL the energy of the universe existed at the big bang and therefore existed at all times.

[HammerofHeretics]

I'd say your assumption that energy existed before the Big bang is a nice assumption. What scientific methodology did you use to determine that. Was there a control group?

[elroy2112]

Dad>but all the energy required ALREADY EXISTED AT THE BEGINNING.

Grand>Even tiny amounts of the universe such as a black hole, Nothing can escape a black hole not even light yet something caused the entire mass of the universe to explode away from each other at the same point, matter doesn't do that, all of the known energy in universe can't do that either, but it sounds like something a God could do, Atheists have a universe causing itself which is illogical and pseudo-scientific

[DADShadowFox]

What is being asked is to ponder a situation of "cause and effect" devoid of the function of time (which undeniably happened at the "beginning" of the universe). It is suggested that a god must have controlled it, but there is no explanation of why the universe itself is incapable of this very thing.

[elroy2112]

Science says the universe began in a singularity of infinite density 13.7 billion years ago, Logic asks how many days preceded this one? Logic then negates the irrational "Answer" that an Infinite number preceded this one. Saying God caused space time and matter is rational, saying Nothing caused it is irrational, believing more matter caused it is insane. Asking who created and designed the atheists brain is the real brain twister, Not who created the first creator that's stupid by definition

[havock89]

I love listening to this guy. He has a nice way about him.

[Oisin29]

the question is if the first cause is movable and if is self movable or possible of move

[tioedong]

basic Philosophy from a great teacher.

Alas most people discussing the existence of God prefer bombastic nonsense to logic.

[CAndiron]

Dude, where do you get these lovely graphics?