@tiggster13 Everyone has access to common human reason. If they use this reason it will lead them ultimately to God if they are willing to follow the evidence where it leads. This is possible in the absence of an apologist formally teaching such persons the classical arguments. But this is academic. Apparently you yourself have heard the arguments. What have you yourself done with them? And you have had the oppurtunity to read the Bible. What have you done with this oppurtunity?
@tiggster13 The arguments of classical apologetics take what is painfully obvious and flesh out the implications of said data. While it certainly is possible for a person to not have connected all the dots, and also disbelieve in God, it is not possible for a rational person who follows the evidence where it leads in an honest and unbiased way to be ignorant of God's existence.
@evangelical1 Also, if it is even possible for people to be unaware of the arguments for God's existence, it is evidence against God. Why would an all-powerful God that wants everyone to be saved (according to 1 Timothy 2:4) not show himself to everyone? Again, not because of Free Will because knowledge does not negate choice. The most coherent answer is because that God does not exist.
@evangelical1 While there are many ignorant atheists (I agree), there are also many Christians ignorant of their own beliefs. Unfortunately this has nothing to do with our argument. What matters are the actual evidences and arguments for each side. You must understand that it is up to you to prove there IS a God, not me to prove there ISN'T one. And since you have agreed that it is possible that God could show himself to everyone, you have supported my argument.
@evangelical1 If God literally showed himself to every single person through sight or the sound of his voice or any means not doubt-able in any way, that would be proof without argument. Yet he fails to do this. This is exactly what TheoreticalBS was talking about. An argument might "persuade" someone that God exists, but it by no means proves that he exists. For it to be proof there must be ABSOLUTELY no doubt-ability. And yet Atheism flourishes...
@Category120 Ok, I guess in that sense there could potentially be proof without argument. But atheism seems to flourish on the basis of ignorance on the part of the atheist not on account of lack of real doubtability. In my experience, atheists are atheists either because they have misunderstood the attributes of God or because they have misunderstood (or,are unaware) of the modal ontological argument.
The Cos' arg' fails because all it argues for is a first cause which tells us nothing about the nature of the cause apart from that it is one that is supernatural.
The tele' arg' fails because you've not demonstrated what the purpose is. You have to identify the goal and work forwards, not your position & work backwards.
I've got no time for the ont' arg' at all.
They've all been refuted 1000s of times & thus are not clear proof. And because of this your rebuttal falls flat on it's ass. Sorry.
@evangelical1 I cant dispute it. So yes but, (ofcourse there's a but! I'm not here to agree. That would be dull! =D). I don't see how you get from a supernatural cause to the God of the Bible or Qu'ran. It doesn't even follow that the supernatural has to still exist after the event. You can make a case for a supernatural element in the Universe after this and work forward from there. But presupposing that is Yahwey(or whatever) is working backwards & you've still got all your work to do.
@MrLittletomdj I don't recall saying anything about the idenitity of the supernatural cause. I guess that is you reading more into the argument than I. And, I agree with you and Philo that the supernatural agent need no longer exist.
@evangelical1 Well you mentioned God a number of times in the video & your tag is "evangelical1" & you also made the claim that "we do know God exists". If you're not referring to the God of the Bible, what are you referring to? You say these arguments "prove" God exists, I disagree, but you've not defined what God is. Is it conscious? Is it supernatural, omnipotent, eternal or moral? If it's not any of these things, then I don't know what proposition you're arguing for...
@evangelical1 On further reflection, there is another problem. Let's say that we agree that before the natural there must've been something supernatural by default (I think we can, for now). The problem is, that causality is a description of the natural processes. So prior to the natural, the cause needn't apply. If you then say well there can't be a supernatural dimension, you've destroyed the arguement entirely. It's a dilemma. You could also add other dimensions & ideas of causal loops.
@MrLittletomdj If causality is defined in terms of, say, physical locomotion, then yes, the pre natural would be acausal. But I see no reason to arbitrarily restrict causality in such a way.
@evangelical1 I've already responded to one of your two comments. I've got to admit I'm totally stumped. I have know idea what your argument is. If you're not compositing God as the first cause & claiming that that being is uncaused, then (again) what is your argument? I can't think of any version of causality that isn't applicable to an analogy of physical locomotion. Are we talking about "first cause", "big bang", "God did it" or are we not?
@evangelical1 You say it is possible to know that God exists through your arguments. If I was deaf and illiterate, could you prove to me that God exists WITHOUT your arguments?
Even if the arguments FOR god were sound (do some research, they are not) it still does not hold that god exists. Just because someone CAN know that god exists (through your arguments), does not mean that they DO know. I guarantee that not every single person in the world has heard of your arguments (nor will this ever be true). Because of this simple fact, TheoreticalBullshit's premises are still sound and your rejection of them is not.
@Category120 I have done enough research to know all the standard objections to the theistic proofs. Invariably they are based upon misunderstandings of the original arguments, misunderstandings of science, very weak objections, etc. I am open to reconsideration if you have something better to provide though. If the arguments are sound then it is undeniable that God exists. That's the whole point of deductive arguments.
I know this comment is way after the fact, but I can't resist. Your arguments, the cosmological, the ontological, and the teleological can all be granted. (I think they are horribly flawed, but I'll grant you them all as true.) How can you, from those arguments alone, know that god STILL exists? After all god could have started everything in motion and then ceased to exist. None of these arguments need a persistent god.
@ampere11 That objection would probably hold for the teleological argument. However, with the ontological argument, remember, God is said to be the greatest conceivable being. It is greater for a being to continue in existence than to pass out of existence. And, the cosmological argument ends with a necessary creator. A necessary being can't pass out of existence for that which has to exist, but doesn't, is nonsensical. So that is how I know God is persistent, given the three arguments.
@evangelical1 Let's, for giggles, grant you all your arguments. Now show where, in any of the arguments, does it point to the particular sub-cult of the particular religion you believe in? There are literally tens of thousands of choices here. And if you pick the wrong one, you broil for eternity!
No we don't. All the arguments you've put forth cosmological, etc, they have all been refuted to the point where they are not compelling in the slightest.
The arguments are genuinely faulty, and that you don't know the problems with the Kalam argument is actually rather amazing. It fails at premise 1
@mordinvan The two main reasons premise 1 is said to fail are a. quantum indeterminacy and b. there is no such thing as a before the big bang. Does that cover your reluctance to accept premise 1?
I'd be happy not with a consensus but with a single reputable physicist who agrees with you. You study physics? There are only two ways this can be done. A. you have an advanced degree in physics and work professionally in a lab. Or B. you read what professional physicists qua physicists have to say. All you have to do is point me to what you've read. Unless, of course, you're willing to conceed premise 2?
You seem nice, so I don't want to offend you. You forgot to mention a fourth reason for rejecting all arguments for the existence of god; because they utterly fail and they're deeply flawed. If someone came up with a full-proof argument for the existence of god, it would be all over the news. It would be irrefutable; the smartest people in the world would acknowledge god's existence. But that hasn't happened; it doesn't mean god does not exist; it means that it cannot proven in an argument.
There is not only one, but many full-proof arguments for the existence of God. Among others, there are the modal ontological argument and the kalam cosmological argument. If your interested, check out my series "A Proof of Christianity". Shalom out.
The Kalam, even if it was completely sound, only goes so far as a general creator/first cause. There's no justification for belief in a specific God, in this case the Christian one.
De4sher, do you mean that there might be uncaused creation at the quantic level or that there is uncaused creation at the quantic level? If the latter, then you are in error. If the former, then perhaps there is uncaused creation in certain rare cases. But this is only a possibility and it is surely more plausible than not, prima facie, that things to not spring into existence uncaused even at the quantum level. So 1 is more likely true then not so God probably exists, at the very least...
...As for the big bang theory, De4sher, it does include the beginning of the universe itself. Indeed, that is why it was so unpopular at first and cosmologists from Hoyle on have tried to construct alternate models. So 1 is more likely than not and 2 is true so the conclusion that God exists, is at the very least, highly epistemically probable.
We don't have data to claim anything about whether the universe "began".
We don't know if all things require a cause.
Trying to explain the beginning of the universe with the big bang theory is futile. It can not do that. We need a more detailed model, and more proof to be able to say anything about that moment.
What you call in daily speech "beginning" is not what talks about.
We do not know whether there was a moment when nothing existed, and then our universe existed.
The big bang theory only takes over after the "big bang", it says nothing about whether there was or was nothing before, hence you can't really assume you know what "the beginning" of the universe is.
I don't deny science, i am just trying to be cautious and responsible when i talk about stuff.
The big bang only starts after the big bang? I think you've badly misunderstood the big bang. According to the big bang model the world began about 13 billion years ago. So premise 1 is true. And the acausal is only one interpretation of QM. Other equivalent interpretation deny acausality. To say stuff happens for no reason doesn't make any sense. Kalam is a sound argument.
The big bang theory only describes the evolution of the universe a very very short amount of time after the big explosion.
The big bang theory however is not a complete theory, as all theories are. Its limitation is precisely that it can not say anything about whether the universe began, or how it did that.
Common sense is often wrong when it comes to science, so i don't care what makes sense or not, i only care about evidence.
And what was the "big explosion"? It was the big bang or the beginning of the universe. Premise 2 is correct. Why don't we each try to find a quote from a reputable physicist, to settle our disagreement once and for all? You only have to find a single reputable physicist who agrees with your understanding. It shouldn't be difficult if what you are claiming is true. And I'll do the same. Agreed?
cannot exist because the basis he is defined upon is false. Today we know that the bible is full of contradictions and fairy tales, so one can reach a conclusion that the GOD Christians believe does not exist. The evidence of nonexistence of your particular GOD is in the history of your religion and the bible.
Asking if we know if God exists is a wrong question. Why? Because hundreds of religions have a different view on what GOD is. So before you ask if GOD exists, you need to define GOD. Then you can ask if this defined GOD can exist. Since you are a christian, your definition of GOD will come from the bible. It can't come from somewhere else since you never saw GOD. So if one can prove that the bible is a book of fairy tales and full of contraditions, then one can say , the GOD you just defined...
Interesting video. But TBS's argument that we don't know that God exists is still valid, because there are still atheists. Even one atheist in the world proves that God didn't make his existance known, at least not to everyone. And when Christians say that they "know" God exists, they don't really mean "know" in the same way that they know that grass is green or that the sky is blue. They mean "I'm really really sure" that God exists.
@tiggster13 Everyone has access to common human reason. If they use this reason it will lead them ultimately to God if they are willing to follow the evidence where it leads. This is possible in the absence of an apologist formally teaching such persons the classical arguments. But this is academic. Apparently you yourself have heard the arguments. What have you yourself done with them? And you have had the oppurtunity to read the Bible. What have you done with this oppurtunity?
evangelical1 2 months ago
@tiggster13 The arguments of classical apologetics take what is painfully obvious and flesh out the implications of said data. While it certainly is possible for a person to not have connected all the dots, and also disbelieve in God, it is not possible for a rational person who follows the evidence where it leads in an honest and unbiased way to be ignorant of God's existence.
evangelical1 2 months ago
@evangelical1 Also, if it is even possible for people to be unaware of the arguments for God's existence, it is evidence against God. Why would an all-powerful God that wants everyone to be saved (according to 1 Timothy 2:4) not show himself to everyone? Again, not because of Free Will because knowledge does not negate choice. The most coherent answer is because that God does not exist.
Category120 2 months ago
@evangelical1 While there are many ignorant atheists (I agree), there are also many Christians ignorant of their own beliefs. Unfortunately this has nothing to do with our argument. What matters are the actual evidences and arguments for each side. You must understand that it is up to you to prove there IS a God, not me to prove there ISN'T one. And since you have agreed that it is possible that God could show himself to everyone, you have supported my argument.
Category120 2 months ago
he has the looks and everything :D
Skelros 2 months ago
@evangelical1 If God literally showed himself to every single person through sight or the sound of his voice or any means not doubt-able in any way, that would be proof without argument. Yet he fails to do this. This is exactly what TheoreticalBS was talking about. An argument might "persuade" someone that God exists, but it by no means proves that he exists. For it to be proof there must be ABSOLUTELY no doubt-ability. And yet Atheism flourishes...
Category120 3 months ago
@Category120 Ok, I guess in that sense there could potentially be proof without argument. But atheism seems to flourish on the basis of ignorance on the part of the atheist not on account of lack of real doubtability. In my experience, atheists are atheists either because they have misunderstood the attributes of God or because they have misunderstood (or,are unaware) of the modal ontological argument.
evangelical1 2 months ago
The Cos' arg' fails because all it argues for is a first cause which tells us nothing about the nature of the cause apart from that it is one that is supernatural.
The tele' arg' fails because you've not demonstrated what the purpose is. You have to identify the goal and work forwards, not your position & work backwards.
I've got no time for the ont' arg' at all.
They've all been refuted 1000s of times & thus are not clear proof. And because of this your rebuttal falls flat on it's ass. Sorry.
MrLittletomdj 4 months ago
@MrLittletomdj So you accept that the cosmological argument is deductively sound as an argument to a First Causer?
evangelical1 3 months ago
@evangelical1 I cant dispute it. So yes but, (ofcourse there's a but! I'm not here to agree. That would be dull! =D). I don't see how you get from a supernatural cause to the God of the Bible or Qu'ran. It doesn't even follow that the supernatural has to still exist after the event. You can make a case for a supernatural element in the Universe after this and work forward from there. But presupposing that is Yahwey(or whatever) is working backwards & you've still got all your work to do.
MrLittletomdj 3 months ago
@MrLittletomdj I don't recall saying anything about the idenitity of the supernatural cause. I guess that is you reading more into the argument than I. And, I agree with you and Philo that the supernatural agent need no longer exist.
evangelical1 3 months ago
@evangelical1 Well you mentioned God a number of times in the video & your tag is "evangelical1" & you also made the claim that "we do know God exists". If you're not referring to the God of the Bible, what are you referring to? You say these arguments "prove" God exists, I disagree, but you've not defined what God is. Is it conscious? Is it supernatural, omnipotent, eternal or moral? If it's not any of these things, then I don't know what proposition you're arguing for...
MrLittletomdj 3 months ago
@evangelical1 On further reflection, there is another problem. Let's say that we agree that before the natural there must've been something supernatural by default (I think we can, for now). The problem is, that causality is a description of the natural processes. So prior to the natural, the cause needn't apply. If you then say well there can't be a supernatural dimension, you've destroyed the arguement entirely. It's a dilemma. You could also add other dimensions & ideas of causal loops.
MrLittletomdj 3 months ago
@MrLittletomdj If causality is defined in terms of, say, physical locomotion, then yes, the pre natural would be acausal. But I see no reason to arbitrarily restrict causality in such a way.
evangelical1 3 months ago
@evangelical1 I've already responded to one of your two comments. I've got to admit I'm totally stumped. I have know idea what your argument is. If you're not compositing God as the first cause & claiming that that being is uncaused, then (again) what is your argument? I can't think of any version of causality that isn't applicable to an analogy of physical locomotion. Are we talking about "first cause", "big bang", "God did it" or are we not?
MrLittletomdj 3 months ago
@evangelical1 You say it is possible to know that God exists through your arguments. If I was deaf and illiterate, could you prove to me that God exists WITHOUT your arguments?
Category120 4 months ago
@Category120 I'm not sure what you mean by "proof without argument". I don't think the concept is coherent.
evangelical1 3 months ago
Even if the arguments FOR god were sound (do some research, they are not) it still does not hold that god exists. Just because someone CAN know that god exists (through your arguments), does not mean that they DO know. I guarantee that not every single person in the world has heard of your arguments (nor will this ever be true). Because of this simple fact, TheoreticalBullshit's premises are still sound and your rejection of them is not.
Category120 4 months ago
@Category120 I have done enough research to know all the standard objections to the theistic proofs. Invariably they are based upon misunderstandings of the original arguments, misunderstandings of science, very weak objections, etc. I am open to reconsideration if you have something better to provide though. If the arguments are sound then it is undeniable that God exists. That's the whole point of deductive arguments.
evangelical1 4 months ago
:s oh dear
upliftzippy 9 months ago
I know this comment is way after the fact, but I can't resist. Your arguments, the cosmological, the ontological, and the teleological can all be granted. (I think they are horribly flawed, but I'll grant you them all as true.) How can you, from those arguments alone, know that god STILL exists? After all god could have started everything in motion and then ceased to exist. None of these arguments need a persistent god.
ampere11 10 months ago
@ampere11 That objection would probably hold for the teleological argument. However, with the ontological argument, remember, God is said to be the greatest conceivable being. It is greater for a being to continue in existence than to pass out of existence. And, the cosmological argument ends with a necessary creator. A necessary being can't pass out of existence for that which has to exist, but doesn't, is nonsensical. So that is how I know God is persistent, given the three arguments.
evangelical1 9 months ago
@evangelical1 Let's, for giggles, grant you all your arguments. Now show where, in any of the arguments, does it point to the particular sub-cult of the particular religion you believe in? There are literally tens of thousands of choices here. And if you pick the wrong one, you broil for eternity!
obijan42 9 months ago
Here's another reason why i don't believe in god.... no offense :D
kingsleykinglin 1 year ago
as to your statement "we know god exists".
No we don't. All the arguments you've put forth cosmological, etc, they have all been refuted to the point where they are not compelling in the slightest.
The arguments are genuinely faulty, and that you don't know the problems with the Kalam argument is actually rather amazing. It fails at premise 1
mordinvan 1 year ago
@mordinvan The two main reasons premise 1 is said to fail are a. quantum indeterminacy and b. there is no such thing as a before the big bang. Does that cover your reluctance to accept premise 1?
evangelical1 1 year ago
@evangelical1 For a start, sure. They have yet to be dealt with adequately.
mordinvan 1 year ago
I didn't know Wormtongue from Lord of the Rings was a Christian.
andyissemicool 2 years ago
I don't need quotes from physicists, i study physics, i know how it works.
Single physicists are well known to make mistakes. Until there's no consensus on the matter and no proof to support theories, they stay put.
Regarding the bigbang, i am willing to say therefore that i can't even say that it was a beginning or not.
I refuse to model a phenomenon such as this with my "common sense" as it fails horribly in the realm of physics.
Quotes are irrelevant. Scientific consensus is less so.
De4sher 2 years ago
I'd be happy not with a consensus but with a single reputable physicist who agrees with you. You study physics? There are only two ways this can be done. A. you have an advanced degree in physics and work professionally in a lab. Or B. you read what professional physicists qua physicists have to say. All you have to do is point me to what you've read. Unless, of course, you're willing to conceed premise 2?
evangelical1 2 years ago
i'll send you a msg with my response, as it's longer than 500 characters :)
It will make you happy ;)
De4sher 2 years ago
There is no convincing argument about the existence of god. Moreover, those that exist, are logical fallacies.
We find ourselves in the position of not having an argument or any evidence for the existence of god. Therefore, god does not exist.
It is by proof that existence is demonstrated, it is logical suicide to simply assume god's existence.
De4sher 2 years ago
You seem nice, so I don't want to offend you. You forgot to mention a fourth reason for rejecting all arguments for the existence of god; because they utterly fail and they're deeply flawed. If someone came up with a full-proof argument for the existence of god, it would be all over the news. It would be irrefutable; the smartest people in the world would acknowledge god's existence. But that hasn't happened; it doesn't mean god does not exist; it means that it cannot proven in an argument.
Celephaith 2 years ago
There is not only one, but many full-proof arguments for the existence of God. Among others, there are the modal ontological argument and the kalam cosmological argument. If your interested, check out my series "A Proof of Christianity". Shalom out.
evangelical1 2 years ago
@evangelical1
The Kalam, even if it was completely sound, only goes so far as a general creator/first cause. There's no justification for belief in a specific God, in this case the Christian one.
RPFS2008 2 years ago
And?
evangelical1 2 years ago
@evangelical1
and isn't the whole "peek a boo" argument with regards to the Christian God?
RPFS2008 2 years ago
Kalam is flawed because
1:we don't know whether all things that "begin to exist" are caused (as we can see at quantic level)
2:We don't actually know that the universe "began" to exist (the Big Bang theory, only takes over AFTER the universe begins)
3:What more can I say here?
As Matt Dillahunty would put it, it is fractally wrong, wrong at every conceivable level.
Furthermore, so are all the other arguments for the existence of god
De4sher 2 years ago
De4sher, do you mean that there might be uncaused creation at the quantic level or that there is uncaused creation at the quantic level? If the latter, then you are in error. If the former, then perhaps there is uncaused creation in certain rare cases. But this is only a possibility and it is surely more plausible than not, prima facie, that things to not spring into existence uncaused even at the quantum level. So 1 is more likely true then not so God probably exists, at the very least...
evangelical1 2 years ago
...As for the big bang theory, De4sher, it does include the beginning of the universe itself. Indeed, that is why it was so unpopular at first and cosmologists from Hoyle on have tried to construct alternate models. So 1 is more likely than not and 2 is true so the conclusion that God exists, is at the very least, highly epistemically probable.
evangelical1 2 years ago
We don't have data to claim anything about whether the universe "began".
We don't know if all things require a cause.
Trying to explain the beginning of the universe with the big bang theory is futile. It can not do that. We need a more detailed model, and more proof to be able to say anything about that moment.
Therefore, your god stays in the box
De4sher 2 years ago
The big bang model says that the universe began to exist. Do you deny science?
evangelical1 2 years ago
What you call in daily speech "beginning" is not what talks about.
We do not know whether there was a moment when nothing existed, and then our universe existed.
The big bang theory only takes over after the "big bang", it says nothing about whether there was or was nothing before, hence you can't really assume you know what "the beginning" of the universe is.
I don't deny science, i am just trying to be cautious and responsible when i talk about stuff.
De4sher 2 years ago
The big bang only starts after the big bang? I think you've badly misunderstood the big bang. According to the big bang model the world began about 13 billion years ago. So premise 1 is true. And the acausal is only one interpretation of QM. Other equivalent interpretation deny acausality. To say stuff happens for no reason doesn't make any sense. Kalam is a sound argument.
evangelical1 2 years ago
You're wrong.
The big bang theory only describes the evolution of the universe a very very short amount of time after the big explosion.
The big bang theory however is not a complete theory, as all theories are. Its limitation is precisely that it can not say anything about whether the universe began, or how it did that.
Common sense is often wrong when it comes to science, so i don't care what makes sense or not, i only care about evidence.
Kalam is a begger argument.
De4sher 2 years ago
And what was the "big explosion"? It was the big bang or the beginning of the universe. Premise 2 is correct. Why don't we each try to find a quote from a reputable physicist, to settle our disagreement once and for all? You only have to find a single reputable physicist who agrees with your understanding. It shouldn't be difficult if what you are claiming is true. And I'll do the same. Agreed?
evangelical1 2 years ago
I have to admit i don't understand you reasoning.
What i meant however, was that we don't have sufficient data to say that at the quantic level, things must have a cause.
De4sher 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have to admit i don't understand you reasoning.
What i meant however, was that we don't have sufficient data to say that at the quantic level, things must have a cause.
De4sher 2 years ago
i am god the creator of all
i created me in this form so i could come on youtube and dis you cos your a religious nut job also known as a zealot
bondsan 2 years ago
I am God's equal. So, what now?
charlesfloyb 2 years ago
cannot exist because the basis he is defined upon is false. Today we know that the bible is full of contradictions and fairy tales, so one can reach a conclusion that the GOD Christians believe does not exist. The evidence of nonexistence of your particular GOD is in the history of your religion and the bible.
gskowal 2 years ago
Asking if we know if God exists is a wrong question. Why? Because hundreds of religions have a different view on what GOD is. So before you ask if GOD exists, you need to define GOD. Then you can ask if this defined GOD can exist. Since you are a christian, your definition of GOD will come from the bible. It can't come from somewhere else since you never saw GOD. So if one can prove that the bible is a book of fairy tales and full of contraditions, then one can say , the GOD you just defined...
gskowal 2 years ago
Interesting video. But TBS's argument that we don't know that God exists is still valid, because there are still atheists. Even one atheist in the world proves that God didn't make his existance known, at least not to everyone. And when Christians say that they "know" God exists, they don't really mean "know" in the same way that they know that grass is green or that the sky is blue. They mean "I'm really really sure" that God exists.
LibertineEagle 2 years ago