you did exist before you were born. it was simply a very, very small part of you.
in fact the objection is sound. because matter is conserved, and has been since the moment of the big bang, if you cannot demonstrate the cause of the big bang, you cannot claim that "nothing begins to exist without a cause".
The problem is that WLC draws a straw man fallacy from this argument. Saying, "Did I ever begin to exist?" is not answering the critique and in no way addresses how physical things come into existence. "I", firstly, is not physical but conceptual and is the end result of the brains experience of itself. Your "I" is just a result of your physical mind and that mind is made of matter. This matter has never been show to come into existence but only changes form. Sorry WLC is wrong.
@BirthofReason If moronic atheists are saying everybody never began to exist due to the first law of thermodynamics, it makes sense to ask whether you existed or not. That is not a strawman, genius. but common sense. More common sense would dictate that the first law does NOT say nothing began to exist. Sorry your wrong.
The answer to whether we exist or not depends on one's definition of existence. Certainly, none of the atoms which make up my physical body "began to exist", and in that sense, I do exist, but only as a reordering of pre-existing matter. In order for WLC's Kalam argument to work, he must demonstrate that this is, in fact, untrue. He fails in this, merely dismissing the notion as absurd because his intuition says "everything begins to exist" so he doesn't need to examine it.
I don't know whether a god exists or not, and I make no affirmative statement in regards to that, but I highely doubt it. I guess it also comes down to how you define god. There is not enough evidence for me, personally, to believe in a god or gods. As far as the god of the bible, yes, that god can and has been disproven.
@Ricardius1710 "how you define god" exactly! the definitions of what god is (or is supposed to be) are just about the vaguest things ever. and yeah the bible is a joke and the fact that some people take so srsly and literally is an even funnier joke
There you have it, get the word out to every thoughtful and brilliant philospher out here. alifeofreason has solved the problem, the concept of God is illogical. Saying the concept of God is illogical without saying why, is basically saying that you don't believe in God. So when KATLDEATH asks "Why can't people just believe in god", you respond with "I don't believe in god because I don't believe in god". To be fair a stupid question deserves a stupid answer.
Cows, chairs, stars, humans, water, clouds and planets are all the same thing: matter that makes up the universe. It is all the same entity X .Over time matter has switched around and changed form, such as forming into a “watch”. But it is only a “watch” because we consider it a “watch”. Labels are not properties of the universe but inventions of man. "Dr Craig" physically began to exist 14 billion years ago. Part of the universe was labeled "Dr craig" some 60 years ago.
@drcraigvideos “Only once the universe is brought into existence the laws work” Agreed. If natural laws only exist if the universe does then physical logic only exists if the universe does. There was no logic before the universe. So why couldn’t the universe come from nothing? It's only illogical once the universe exists. Its illogical for matter and engery to be created, but it happened.
@atheist3124 . I think you're just a little confused. Can something come from nothing? In reality, no. We see no examples of anything coming from nothing. Logic in this sense presupposes the creation of the universe, seeing as how the laws themselves exist out of necessity. So the laws did exist before the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics. And thus, logic (in it's abstract form) existed before the universe, and will exist after the universe. God bless :)
@drcraigvideos What is wrong with these utube atheists?? They claim to be sooooo intellectually superior but when they begin to talk they sound like ignoramouses par excellence. Do they know nothing of philosophy and history??
@atheist3124 You'd simply have to restate the argument as such.
1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. Matter began to exist.
3. The universe is matter.
4. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
That example alone justifies the first premise. If matter began to exist, then we find that the universe has a cause. However, even if matter didn't begin to exist, the KCA's first premise is universally accepted as a reasonable statement.
well if the laws of logic existed before theuniverse then how was matter and engery created? Its a law of logic they cannot be created. But they were created 14 billion years ago.
@atheist3124 The laws of logic are not dependent on matter and energy. The laws of logic are immaterial and invariant and universal. They don't have an expiration date or a birth date.
@drcraigvideos If abstract logic pre-exists the universe then there is only one way the universe can be. The physical laws of nature must fit in with the “Logic” that already exists. But as Dr. Craig says in his fine tuning argument “ The tuning is not due to nessesity, it could have been otherwise”. There could not have been “logic” before the universe. So the physical logic that forbids spontanous coming into being did not exist.
@atheist3124 You really don't know what you're talking about do you? It doesn't matter which way the universe would be the laws of logic are necessary no matter what. When Dr. Craig said "The tuning is not due to nessesity, it could have been otherwise” he wasn't talking about the nature of logic.
@atheist3124 A law of logic? You mean the first law of thermodynamics? That exists within the universe. It doesn't limit the creation of the universe ex ni hi lo. That comes down to meta-physics and God Himself. :) you're right, though. Naturally the universe could not come into being out of nothing. Only God can create the universe like He did. God bless you!
@Addy4473 Logic is physical. Abstract logic comes from higher animals “thinking” or “contemplating” physical logic. Language and symbols are arbitrary. The physical laws that forbid spontaneous coming into being didn’t exist prior to existence. Just as the physical laws that forbid energy to be created didn’t exist. If another type of universe had been created, perhaps one were things did pop into being un-caused, then the laws of logic would be different physically and mentally to us.
@Addy4473 But that's the entire point, which I think you're missing. Anything that begins to exist has a cause. How do you know this? We have never seen anything begin to exist, so we can't know that anything that began to exist has a cause. This is an assumption that is not obvious based on our current state of knowledge. We do know that the universe began to exist, but that's the only thing we know of that had a beginning. However, we don't know that it was caused. This is the problem.
@atheist3124 You are extremely confused. You are confusing the COMPONENTS that something is made from with the form that it takes, and the final combination that gives rise to its exact form. You have also missed the point of Dr Craigs proof entirely that "whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause" whatever form. All you have done is admit that matter BEGAN to exist 14 billion years ago instead of "X" years ago. You have acknowledged that matter " Began to exist", and you haven't disproven a cause!
It seems as though Dr Craig draws a distinction between a 'person' and...the materials out of which that person's body have been fashioned, including the brain of course. I can consider this premise and what arguments i've heard Dr Craig make, and realize that, given that premise or a similar one, follows most of Dr Craig's arguments.
Of course, I then would wonder what he would have to say if he was asked about this most fundamental idea, in his thought. Can you justify it so fundamental?
Well I would consider a galaxy to be made out of material stuff, as well as stars, and planets, and all the way down to elementary particles and such. So....since we're not considering people but matter, and as such we can still claim that all materials we've seen has been fashioned out of other materials.
Unless of course you with to consider when 'people' began, certain ones, or all of them, or w.e
But personally I'm much more concerned with from what _galaxies and stars_ came.
So Hawking's recent research suggests that the universe can into being spontaneously, without being created. The work of Lawrence Krauss supports the notion of a universe coming from nothing as well. Literally, the universe coming from zero, not some idea of nothing that isn't really nothing. These would seem to contradict what is said here.
In addition, the assertion that "Whatever begins to exist was created" needs to be clearer. What is meant by creation in this statement?
Ok, 2 things. In the Thermo vs Cosmo vid, you say that everything in the Universe has always been like it is. Here in this vid, you say there were no galaxies 10 billion years ago. That confuses me. The 2nd thing I want to add is that you cannot call yourself a believer of God when the Bible clearly states that God created all things at the moment of Creation to include you and your distant descendants.
@wordword31 "...everything in the Universe has always been like it is. " Where in the world did Craig say that in the Therm. vs Cosmo. video. He said the universe needed to have a beginning. And why can't someone believe in God who created creation. You're not making any sense at all.
This is what we observe within our universe of space & time. But the 'cause' (if there was one) occurred outside of our universe of space & time, of which we know very little, right?
How do we know that this statement holds true outside of the bounds of our universe?
WLC merely states that it is 'intuitively obvious' in his essay.
Is there a logical argument to PROVE his assertion, or is it merely extrapolated from observation?
E.g. The 'cause' is 'non-temporal' & 'non-spatial' with reference to OUR time & space. It may exist in its own time & space - or not. We don't know.
E.g. it is POSSIBLE that outside of our universe there exist a set of natural laws & environment which make it v. easy for universes (like ours) to be created & burst into existence completely naturally, with or without a cause. We don't know.
@MrMk1G "It may exist in its own time & space - or not. We don't know." The cause does not live in "its own time and space." The cause is beyond it. Get Craig's "Time and Eternity." 6 isn't an appeal to ignorance because Craig never said we're not sure thus X. Nor is it a false dichotomy because Craig didn't say it's either X or Y or that's it. I truly doubt that you were listening to that video close enough.
Also - even if we grant the properties WLC deduces about the cause of the universe,
that doesn't say anything about proving that 'every effect has a cause' - which was my original question. I still want to know how we prove that every effect has a cause, esp. when we are talking about effects occurring outside of our universe of space-time & our natural laws.
@MrMk1G You asked "But the 'cause' (if there was one) occurred outside of our universe of space & time, of which we know very little, right?" And I'm saying we know what this cause is. Your question wasn't dodged.
But now if you think that it's obvious that every effect doesn't have a cause, then have it your way.
I'm pleased with how our discussion turned out, with me making the most sense and you revealing your ignorance of science and logic. Your implication that time-space is merely an abstract idea was a nice touch.
With that being said, I'm done. I hope you have fun wasting your time (and everyone else's who reads your comments) preaching your nonsensical ideas in response to a YouTube video of a man who is many times more accomplished, intelligent, and educated than you will ever be.
@Internet7Nobody More accomplished? If you only knew what I have accomplished, at half the age of WLC, you would have to retract that statement.
I appreciate how you run away, calling names and hurling insults as you go, because you refuse to or cannot deal with questions that challenge your preconceptions. You may consider it wasting time, which is your prerogative, but others of us consider it a learning experience.
@Internet7Nobody P.S. I am glad that you are pleased, however you may want to reevaluate the benefits of having a conversation and never considering the other side's argument. It is your choice, but it seems to me you miss out in life if you simply insult others, call them stupid, and refuse to engage in a legitimate debate.
You never really addressed the following: When talking about an ultimate sentient being (God), it makes no sense to conclude He does not exist simply because we can't sense or test Him for two reasons. One, our technology and senses are limited. Two, it may be God's will to avoid discovery. Consequently, the question whether or not God exists is first and foremost a philosophical one. I'd like to also add that because of this science can only substantiate the existence of God, not disprove it.
@Internet7Nobody Actually, you are wrong about science. It is the job of science and the scientific method to falsify hypotheses. You can never really prove anything, only disprove something. We can support hypotheses, but never really prove them. That was the whole point of my post on the nature of knowing.
This whole argument rests on a redundant, inconsequential, logically flawed premise. We can demonstrate the problem by looking that the contrapositive, which must be true if the original is true.
Original: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Contrapositive: Whatever does not have a cause does not begin to exist.
If the argument is to hold water this cannot be true because god cannot be an uncaused cause and have the argument hold true. Based on the Cosmological Argument, god does not exist
@L571J You're reasoning doesn't even follow. If the universe had a cause we can deduce what properties this cause has: watch?v=vD6Ci0KK9DQ. It's just common sense, if something BEGINS to exist it obviously has a cause. Dr. Craig never argued that EVERYTHING needs a cause.
@drcraigvideos Common sense is often misleading, often wrong, and very ill-equipped to deal with the complexities and scale of the universe. Dr. Craig's argument, as pointed out, does nothing to further the discussion of the existence of god. The argument itself says nothing about the cause of the universe. It does not say that it was god, a sentient being, or simply the normal fluctuations of matter and energy. The argument is pointless if he intended to prove god.
@L571J The argument makes no mention of God, because it doesn't need to. It's only upon metaphysical grounds we can deduce God exists: watch?v=l9Me8Y-HmRo. You skipped everything that was said in the video link I supplied in the first place only to babble on and on.
@drcraigvideos I watched the video, but it makes no sense. It is just another example of WLC not proving God's existence of even getting close to proving it. Tell me how it is that you get from the KCA to the existence of god?
@drcraigvideos L571J's reasoning is clearly correct. You wrote 'if something begins to exist it obviously has a cause'. This, therefore, means that if something does not have a cause it cannot begin to exist. I don't see how someone cannot follow that reasoning. I'm sure Dr Craig would argue with the rest of L571J's comment but the beginning is perfectly reasoned
@alsoknownasallenkeys I didn't dispute his premise. I doubt you're even following the argument so far. His "contrapositive" doesn't refute the cosmological argument.
@L571J I agree with your logic but your conclusion is flawed from the logic. God does not BEGIN to exist. Therefore God is not caused. God is eternal and always existed. That is why the contrapositive is also true. An uncaused God outside of time and space perfectly fits this logic. You can disagree over whether there is or isnt a god. However, Craig's logic is sound.
@ddisil The term "begin" is just a word-play, it does not change the nature of the argument. How is it that something that does not begin to exist can exist at all? If it did not begin, then it does not currently exist, right? You are saying god never "began," therefore I conclude that he does not currently exist either. If you are claiming that god is "eternal," why can the same not be applied to matter and energy? They always existed, and were simply in a diff form before the universe.
@ddisil My point is simply that this argument does not further the cause for god. It in no way applies uniquely to god and in no way proves that a god did or must exist. I don't think it gets us anywhere in terms of proving or disproving that god exists. It is a complete non-sequitor in the argument about god's existance.
@ddisil In addition, the universe "began to exist" in its current form 14 billion years ago, but that does not mean that it did not exist in a different form prior to that. Remember that time is a relative, abstract thought and only exists in reference to something. We can only claim time because we can measure back to the beginning of the universe. We cannot measure beyond that point, but that does not mean that matter and energy did not exist prior to that point.
@L571J I am sorry but you completely miss the point of this logic. You can disagree with the validity of the premises. you can even argue that the universe is eternal. However, you cannot discredit the logic because you say that it is word play. For example, take this arguement:
A square has four even length sides connected at 90 degree angles.
God has four even length sides connected at 90 degree angles.
God is a square.
The logic flows. u can disagree with the premises but not the logic
@ddisil I think you completely miss my point. There is no logic to this argument, it is purely circular and purely based upon a single word (begins). Tell me, what is the difference between something beginning to exist and something existing? Your analogy about squares is irrelevant and not applicable. Prove to me that anything that begins to exist has to be created. If you can prove that, then we will talk about logic.
@L571J you should watch the video. I am refuting your original comment, not others you might have made:
Original: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Contrapositive: Whatever does not have a cause does not begin to exist.
If the argument is to hold water this cannot be true because god cannot be an uncaused cause and have the argument hold true. Based on the Cosmological Argument, god does not exist
This is not logically disprove God for the reasons I have previously stated.
@ddisil I'll tell you what. I disagree with your reasoning, but will nonetheless give you this argument as a gift. You and I both know that the Kalam has been disproved in numerous ways by numerous people. It is a flawed argument, does not even come close to proving god, and like all matters of religion requires blind faith without evidence. There are loads of refutations to this argument, some I have mentioned and some I have not. In the end, it is not the proof of god WLC claims.
@ddisil Your god argument is outside the realm of the KCA. If you take the KCA as it is stated, all it tells us is that something that begins to exist is created. This says nothing, whatsoever, about god except that he did not begin to exist. Now your claim is that he had no beginning, which is simply an assertion. If god is eternal as you claim, why can we not just put something else in there, like matter, energy, etc.? Why does it have to be god and how is it that the KCA proves it must be?
@L571J what u just said is an argument against God. you can say matter and energy always existed... of course I disagree with this concept for several reasons. I think that God is a good explanation for the universe existing. that is why the KCA is used because some people think God follows. But explanations 4 the cause of the universe r many. That is why WLC follows the argument that the big bang caused the universe then God is the cause of the big bang. which u have refuted to an extent
@ddisil I agree that there are many explanations for the universe. Unfortunately, as the god hypothesis is currently stated, it is untestable and therefore unknowable. That does not mean that you can not hold it as true, you certainly can. I cannot, however, because there is no way to verify it and no way to determine its accuracy. As I say though, this does not mean a person cannot believe it is accurate.
@L571J Again, my only point which I hope we both can agree on is from a logic standpoint. The contrapositive cannot be used as an argument against God's existence, unless you are someone who believes that God began to exist or is finite. Other arguments like the KCA is not a direct argument for God can be used.
@ddisil I understand your point and I think that it is accurate if you subscribe to the notion that the KCA leaves room for something that does not "begin to exist." My only problem with it is that the KCA really says nothing about infinite existence. It only states that something that begins to exist has been created and says nothing about infinity or eternity. I fail to see how the jump can be made to an eternal entity from the KCA or how it furthers the understanding of the universe or god.
@L571J God is eternal and has always existed. It is not word play. Theists believe this. Therefore, God does not need a cause because he has always existed. you cannot argue this point. you can argue that no such being exists, but you cannot say that the logic that shows that the universe needs a cause can also be used to refute God. it does not logically follow for the reasons I have stated.
@ddisil That is not a part of the cosmological argument though. In fact, the cosmological argument says nothing about god and nothing about the beginning of the universe. It is a circular argument in which the premise proves the conclusion and the conclusion proves the premise. In the end, you are no closer to proving god with this argument than you were when you started. It is not evidence and it is in no way a logical proof for the existence of god. It is pure rubbish.
What is meant by "begin to exist"? When matter is re-arranged new forms begin to exist that have new properties . These properties are what began to exist, not the materials out of which they were made. When Dr. Craig says "I" he is referring to an emergent property of his material body. This is a non-material thing. When we speak of the universe we mean the material. Is there a material thing that has begun to exist after the universe came into being? Please clarify.
In Physics terms he is most obviously wrong with his first counter example: himself.
He did not start to exist at his conception because the him who exists now is different from the him who existed the previous instant. Add to that the fact that there may be multiple versions of him depending on your interpretation of QM and your faced with a choice. Either his probability waveform has always existed or it has never existed before this instant.
I am just flabbergasted at Craig's response to the arguments that nothing 'began to exist'.
Of course there is no 'beginning' to anything that we observe. Things come about over a period of time, in fact I might argue that all things have been coming together since the early period (beginning as I see it) of the universe and maybe even before.
Where you there during the period of the dinosaurs Mr. Craig? Yes, you were, you just do not remember it.
3) The universe had a cause. (from 1 and 2) Firstly, it does not follow that the cause of the universe must also be the Christian God; we could, to take an outlandish example, exist in a computer simulation. But quantum physics falsifies the first premise; matter does come into existence from nothing, apparently without cause.
@ElevatingMoment Dr. Craig never said the cosmological argument necessarily has to argue for the Christian God: watch?v=G1IWoIw6fUU. So I don't see how that's a problem, when it's already been conceded. And quantum physics does NOT say something came from nothing: watch?v=g6kMWSo-Jz0
@drcraigvideos Dr Craig has, however, asserted that the cause of the universe must be a personal, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and enormously intelligent being. As far as I can see, this does not follow. And most physicists would regard the temporary appearance of energetic particles from the quantum vacuum as uncaused. Similarly, most scientists believe that radioactive decay is spontaneous. Does this not falsify the first premise?
@ElevatingMoment Those traits that Dr. Craig just described (personal, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, etc.) DOES follow: watch?v=1SZWInkDIVI.
I don't think you can falsify the first premise (that whatever begins to exist has a cause). If something BEGINS to exist it obviously has a cause.
@drcraigvideos Everything demands an explanation and a cause except God himself, right? This is where Craig's argument is flawed. While he's certainly able to articulate his argument, it only takes a moment of critical thinking to realize it's fallacious. Nobody knows how the universe began. While many scientists think it had a beginning, it's certainly not a proven fact. The notion that God is infinite and always existed is a ridiculous assumption which is supported by nothing.
An explanation does not need an explanation if the original explanation is sufficient. That's logic 101, shit eater. Now, if you're going to continue to claim that all explanations need an explanation, then that would lead to an infinite regress of everything, including science itself. Think about Junior. You can ask for an explanation of an explanation and an explanation for the explanation of the explanation and so on and so forth.
@Internet7Nobody The "God" explanation is sufficient? Okay, how did he create the universe? Or better yet, the earth? How did he create a planet full of diversity and complex life? With a magic wand? Or did he just conceive the whole thing in 30 seconds and BAM, we came into existence? I think anybody with half a fucking brain would admit the God explanation is NOT an explanation. All it does it raises further questions about the creator himself: Who created God?
@ElevatingMoment Quantum physics is based on a mathematical equation that has ten different outcomes (physical descriptions), none of which are reliable enough to confirm. However, even based on the mathematical equation, a vacuum that consists of a fluctuation of energy that emits and absorbs particles at a spontaneous and absurdly swift rate is just out of the question; where did the energy come from? Matter is neither created or destroyed, merely manipulated; so how did it get there? You have
@ElevatingMoment to understand that something CAN NOT come out of nothing. Nothing physical comes out of nothing. Besides, scientific and philosophical research concludes that the universe could never have been eternal; it is indeed finite. God is here, and He loves you very much so. He sent His Son to die for you; and yet you refuse Him. Please accept Him, before it's too late. God bless you, sir (or madam). :)
Atheists are constantly rejecting the existence of God because of the question who created the creator. In other words, they reject God because of not having an explanation for the explanation but then when faced with the cosmological argument, they argue that nothing ever begins to exist? Christians are irrational? Really?
@kstret We reject god not because of a lack of explanation, but because of a lack of evidence. You can create logical arguments all day long, but until you back them up with evidence, they mean nothing (this is not to say that I find you arguments logical to begin with, but only to clear away the clutter and get to the salient point). A god may exist, but there is no evidence that that is the case and thus no reason to accept it as true.
@L571J I was pointing out that a frequent question atheists ask, is who designed the designer. They reject God because they need an explanation of the explanation. Then when faced with the cosmological argument, they abandon that rationale and argue that nothing really begins to exist. It's logically incoherent. Also a lack of evidence does not always equate to evidence of non existence. If you want to make that argument, you need to make that case.
@kstret I agree that absence of evidence is not proof that something does not exist. However, it is suggestive. In addition, absence of evidence is not proof of existence either. Unfortunately, without evidence the claim remains an unsupported hypothesis.
The cosmological argument has several flaws that render it false. Besides, the existence of god cannot be proved or disproved through logical argument. Only evidence can make the case and there currently is none.
No Christian uses the absence of evidence as an argument for God.It is the atheists who use that argument. There are cases were that is true and cases where it isn't. If I say there is a flee in the room are you going to argue that there is no evidence of that so you don't believe it? Of coarse not. However, if I say there is a ten foot 500lb Sasquatch in the room and you can't see it, then it would count as evidence against it.
@kstret Yes, that is exactly the point. God is hardly a flee and therefore you need some darn good evidence to support such an idea. God requires even more evidence than the Sasquatch and yet I would argue that the level of evidence is equivalent.
You are cherry picking what you like from what I said. God is hardly a 500 lb ten foot Sasquatch. Comparing a physical being to a non physical being yields an invalid comparison.Now you are going to bring up a fictitious creature, which will result in us bantering back and forth and will end in your robbing God's attributes and applying them to whatever creature you made up.
@kstret I am not making the argument that lack of evidence is equal to non-existence. I am saying that lack of evidence means you have a hypothesis that is unsupported. If there were nothing else to fill that gap, then we would still go with it. However, there are other theories, with evidence, that we can work with. The problem with the god theory is that it is not useful. We cannot learn more about nature from it, we cannot advance technology with it, and so forth.
"Actually, that is not what the big bang theory states. It actually says nothing about what happened before the big bang"
If you want to split hairs, technically there was no before the big bang because there was no time. I really don't know how to phrase that correctly when referring to the theory. However, time, space and matter came into existence with the big bang. This makes your argument that nothing came into existence demonstrably false.Why don't you explain your point of contention?
@kstret I'm not splitting hairs, I am stating what the theory does and does not say. In science, theories tend to be very specific and the Big Bang Theory is. There are scientists who have put forth theories to supplement that BBT that offer hypotheses about what may have occurred prior. Those are mostly untested.
The BBT itself says nothing about what came first and only says that time as we know it started with the Big Bang. That does not mean all time started then.
Time as we know came into existence with the big bang still refutes your premise that nothing comes into existence. Time as we know came into existence. You are also conflating ingredients with the finished product. You still haven't addressed the atheist hypocrisy by arguing that nothing comes into existence with the cosmological argument and then turning around asking who created God.
@kstret You are playing games with semantics, which seems to be a favorite game of those trying to assert that there is a god and that we should all worship him.
You are the one arguing that god never began to exist. How do you explain that? If he/she/it never began to exist, tell me how it is that he/she/it is here now. After all, you are claiming that the universe had to begin to exist and that the earth had to begin to exist or they would not be here. Why is god exempt? Can you explain that?
@L571J I am not playing games with semantics and you are dodging the logical inconstancies of the atheists position. You can not argue that physical things never come into existence and then turn around and ask who created God. On top of that, the fact that the universe came into existence with the big bang proves your contention that nothing comes into existence demonstrably false.
@kstret Let's assume for a second that god exists. How do you know that god did not come into existence with the big bang as well? Perhaps everything came into existence at that point, god included, and prior to that there was nothing. It is probably the only way you can explain how god exists without having him/her/it violate the rules you are setting forth for everything else. Every time you define god, you contradict the rules that apply to everything else.
@L571J "How do you know that god did not come into existence with the big bang as well? "
The entire cosmological argument is based on the the premise that all physical things have a cause. Out of nothing, nothing comes. The cause of the big bang would to be nonphysical, outside of time or timeless, etc. which infers God. If God come into existence with the big bang, you still need an explanation of what caused the big bang.
@kstret Can you make your definition of god consistent or will you always have to add qualifiers about how god does not conform to the rules that everything else must obey? The problem with theist arguments for god is that they always include an escape clause to let god out of rules of nature. It usually boils down to something along the lines of "because he is god." How do you know that. What proof do you have that the rules that govern everything else are ever violated?
@L571J "Can you make your definition of god consistent"
You are conflating the physical universe and laws of nature with a nonphysical creator. God is not a physical person. This is like asking why the rules and world of a novel don't apply to the author
@kstret Okay, fine. Give me a definition of god that you find acceptable, that is all I am asking. I am not conflating anything, I am only asking you for a definition, so let's have it.
@kstret Okay, when it comes down to it you know you are making it up as you go along and you know that if you give me a solid answer, you won't be able to back it up in the future. Take care!
@L571J "you know that if you give me a solid answer, you won't be able to back it up in the future."
Is you plan get go off in a bunch of side issue debates to take the attention off of the fact that you are arguing that nothing comes into existence? Your contention was nothing comes into existence but you can ask who created God?
@kstret That was not a contention, so much as a question. Why does the universe have to come into existence, why cannot it not simply be the current iteration and of an ever-changing conglomeration of matter and energy? That was my only point. I am not necessarily arguing that nothing comes into existence, but I can attest to the fact that no one on this planet has seen something come into existence and has only seen rearrangements of preexisting material.
@L571J"but I can attest to the fact that no one on this planet has seen something come into existence and has only seen rearrangements of preexisting material"
You are conflating ingredients with the finished product. People with children don't see them come into existence?
@kstret Parents see the production of a novel entity from already existing products, nothing more and nothing less. New, but not created from nothing.
What about my question as to why the current iteration of the universe is not simple one of many in an ever-changing conglomeration of matter and energy? Why rule that option out?
@L571J When I say God is imputable, omnipresent, Omnipotent, omniscient, loving, Good, eternal, sovereign etc., are you going for the problem of evil/ human suffering or taking all God's attributes and applying them to a fictitious monster that you made up?
@kstret Well, since you apply those attributes to a fictitious monster that you made up (i.e. god), why can I not apply attributes that I think are cool to a monster that I make up and claim it is the creator of the universe? For instance, I will take everything you said about god, but my monster is not going to be loving at all. It is going to be just like you and me, capable of hate, anger, revenge, etc. How do you know that being did not create the universe?....
@kstret No, my monster is somewhat different than yours. Mine is not loving, for instance. Mine also is actually one of many god monsters that inhabit the universe. Now, prove that they don't exist.
@L571J "How do you know that being did not create the universe?"
For one thing, I can trace the monsters invention to you. No one has ever talked about the monster other than you. There is no other person or historical record mentioning the monster other than you.
@kstret Lots of people believed in multiple gods, like Apollo, Zeus, etc. Why aren't those valid? Why is there only one? Why not many? It stands to reason that a single god would be lonely and looking for another god to hang out with.
@kstret Who cares who you can trace it to? Historical record is not evidence and in no way supports the legitimacy of a hypothesis. For instance, it is a matter of historical record that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Many great scientists believed this in their time as well. Does that prove the Earth is the center of the solar system?
@L571J If you want to make that argument you need to make the case that God is the equivalent of a Sasquatch that you should be able to see. If you want to argue that that the cosmological argument is flawed; make the case. It is not enough to proclaim that it is flawed and not offer any substance to your argument.
@kstret I see you choose to ignore my example of computer input/output, perhaps you missed it just below these comments. You have made a claim that god exists and yet you have no way of providing evidence for that. Asserting that the universe had to have a creator does not make it true. Just because you don't know the answer does not me you can put god in there and claim that as proof. It is not proof, it is not evidence.
"You have made a claim that god exists and yet you have no way of providing evidence for that."
Atheist make the claim that God doesn't exist and have no evidence of that either There are many reasons to believe in God, you just don't like or agree with them. Here comes the burden of proof and you can't prove a negative.
@kstret Yes, atheists make that claim. However, we are only responding to your claim that he does exist. Unfortunately, if you want others to agree with your hypothesis, you are going to have offer some evidence. I agree that you cannot prove a negative, which is why the burden of proof falls upon you and other theists.
You can prove a negative and even if you can't prove a negative you can refute the claims and attributes made about whatever it is you are attempting to disprove.Atheists do have a burden of proof. It is a diametrically opposing position of theism. Both sides are making a claim and both sides have a b.o.p.
If you assert that there is a God, then you're a theist.
If you assert that there is no God, then you're an atheist.
If you assert that the existence of God is unknowable, irrelevant, or you believe evidence is not sufficient to draw any sort of conclusion in regards to God's existence, then you're an agnostic.
@Internet7Nobody Atheists will seldom claim "there is no God." Rather, they say there's no reason to believe that there is one. There's a very important distinction there and I really wish you'd understand it.
@Internet7Nobody Not quite. Some would state that there is sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that there is no god. These people are also atheists. Your definition is too narrow.
How is what I wrote, "If you assert that there is no God, then you're an atheist" contradictory to what you wrote, "Some would state that there is sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that there is no god." Evidence has no bearing on the fact that an assertion is being made.
@Internet7Nobody Two points. First, rejecting the existence of god because of lack of evidence is a conclusion, not a claim.
Second, why do you insult me by calling me kid? That is rude and as it turns out, I am older than you according to your profile. Ad Hominem attacks are a sign of a weak opponent who is unable to formulate rational rebuttals and thus resorts to petty name calling.
A conclusion and a claim are not mutually exclusive. To reject God's existence based on evidence (what evidence?) is to claim God does not existence. Whether or not there is evidence does not change the fact that a claim is being made (God does not exist).
@Internet7Nobody You can stop with the word-play any time you would like. Why don't you do this, define what you mean by claim so that we can agree on a definition and then work from there. Most people, when discussing religion, use claim to mean unsubstantiated belief. If that is not what you mean, then we are argueing over semantics and not substance as we are using two different connotations of the same word. Let me know what the definition is you are working from and we can go from there.
Also, it is evident by my posts that I'm more than capable of rebutting your so-called arguments. The problem lies with you not knowing what the hell you're talking about.
@Internet7Nobody Ad hominem attacks are hardly capable rebuttals and you have turned to them yet again in this very post ("you not knowing what the hell you're talking about."). Try attacking the argument and not the person, then you might gain some credibility in this debate. So, define the meaning you give to the word "claim" and then offer and argument based on that and we will see where that takes us.
As far as I'm concerned you don't have any argument and you're just wasting our time. There are three options: You believe God exists; you don't believe God exists; or you believe there is insufficient information to draw any kind of conclusion in regards to the existence of God.
@Internet7Nobody First of all, you have failed to respond to my request to define what you mean by "claim." Second, if you feel this is a waste of your time, you do not have to continue responding. Third, you have missed at least two options, which are that an individual feels there is sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that God does not exist/ an individual feels there is no way to testing the god hypothesis and it is therefore not a viable option.
If you do not know the definition of "claim," then I suggest consulting a dictionary. This is indeed a waste of our time (mine especially) because you're not making any point. An individual who feels there is sufficient evidence to conclude God falls under option two.The last scenario given by you falls under option three. Finally, you still haven't shared with us what your belief is, which indicates to me you'd rather argue in circle over trivial matters and waste time.
"An individual who feels there is sufficient evidence to conclude God falls under option two" should read, "An individual who feels there is sufficient evidence to conclude God does not exist falls under option two."
@Internet7Nobody The problem with your definition is that believing god does not exist is not the same as concluding that evidence suggests god does not exist. The first is based on faith and the second is based on evidence. Even if you consider the evidence to be scant or unreliable, it is still different from belief.
I told you the definition of "claim" that I work under, I was simply asking what yours was so we could avoid confusion in the future. You chose to be crass about that...
@L571J To conclude God does not exist without absolutely knowing whether or not God exists is by nature a belief. You may believe there is a very good evidence (What evidence do you have?) to conclude God does not exist, but we both know you do no have certain knowledge. Consequently, the only means to breach that gap of knowledge--however small you think it is--is through belief. If you're interested in knowing the definition of "claim" that I use, then let me again refer you to the dictionary.
@Internet7Nobody Now you are getting into the nature of knowing and how much we can actually know about anything. That is a different argument. In the end, we do not have certain knowledge about anything, to say that is to misrepresent what it means to know something. To the extent that we can know anything, I conclude on available evidence, that the god hypothesis is not a good one and that there are better explanations for the existence of the universe.
My point is your so-called conclusion is partly based on evidence (What evidence is that again? You keep forgetting to provide some in your comments) and partly based on belief.
Finally, there are things you can know. For example, I know that adding a group of objects to another group of objects increases the number of objects.
I think we're hitting upon something, namely that you have poor reading comprehension. You do not know for a fact that God does not exist, but you're asserting that God does in fact not exist based on whatever evidence. If you do not know for a fact that God does not exist, then you're left with believing that God does not exist. What I've written here is in no way contradictory to the dictionary's definition of "claim."
@Internet7Nobody My statement has evidence, and thus is not an assertin and thus not a claim. It is conclusion based upon available evidence. I dont' know for a fact that you exist, but I have evidence to support the hypothesis that you do. Thus, it is not a claim that you exist, but a supported hypothesis.
you did exist before you were born. it was simply a very, very small part of you.
in fact the objection is sound. because matter is conserved, and has been since the moment of the big bang, if you cannot demonstrate the cause of the big bang, you cannot claim that "nothing begins to exist without a cause".
kittehprimo 1 year ago
@kittehprimo I'm taken aback by people who use junk science all the time. Get your facts straight: watch?v=hf90iRas-Xk
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
The problem is that WLC draws a straw man fallacy from this argument. Saying, "Did I ever begin to exist?" is not answering the critique and in no way addresses how physical things come into existence. "I", firstly, is not physical but conceptual and is the end result of the brains experience of itself. Your "I" is just a result of your physical mind and that mind is made of matter. This matter has never been show to come into existence but only changes form. Sorry WLC is wrong.
BirthofReason 1 year ago
@BirthofReason If moronic atheists are saying everybody never began to exist due to the first law of thermodynamics, it makes sense to ask whether you existed or not. That is not a strawman, genius. but common sense. More common sense would dictate that the first law does NOT say nothing began to exist. Sorry your wrong.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos
The answer to whether we exist or not depends on one's definition of existence. Certainly, none of the atoms which make up my physical body "began to exist", and in that sense, I do exist, but only as a reordering of pre-existing matter. In order for WLC's Kalam argument to work, he must demonstrate that this is, in fact, untrue. He fails in this, merely dismissing the notion as absurd because his intuition says "everything begins to exist" so he doesn't need to examine it.
towneslives 1 year ago
@towneslives *BIG LONG SIGH* Please throw the junk science away: watch?v=hf90iRas-Xk
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
I don't know whether a god exists or not, and I make no affirmative statement in regards to that, but I highely doubt it. I guess it also comes down to how you define god. There is not enough evidence for me, personally, to believe in a god or gods. As far as the god of the bible, yes, that god can and has been disproven.
Ricardius1710 1 year ago 2
@Ricardius1710 "how you define god" exactly! the definitions of what god is (or is supposed to be) are just about the vaguest things ever. and yeah the bible is a joke and the fact that some people take so srsly and literally is an even funnier joke
superextremelaser 1 year ago
@Ricardius1710 really? you are wrong because I have experienced this God of the Bible personally.
necr0sys 1 year ago
I feel really sorry for William Lane Craig. I feel exactly the same way he does...
Zaphenath4 1 year ago
At 1:20 An example of something that began to exist? Sure you and your sheer retardedness. (sadly)
Zaphenath4 1 year ago
You disable everything you moron!
alifeofreason 1 year ago 2
Why can't people just believe in god.
KATLDEATH 1 year ago
@KATLDEATH Because the concept of God is illogical.
alifeofreason 1 year ago
@alifeofreason, on the contrary.
metal87power 1 year ago
@alifeofreason
There you have it, get the word out to every thoughtful and brilliant philospher out here. alifeofreason has solved the problem, the concept of God is illogical. Saying the concept of God is illogical without saying why, is basically saying that you don't believe in God. So when KATLDEATH asks "Why can't people just believe in god", you respond with "I don't believe in god because I don't believe in god". To be fair a stupid question deserves a stupid answer.
Jim1905 1 year ago
Cows, chairs, stars, humans, water, clouds and planets are all the same thing: matter that makes up the universe. It is all the same entity X .Over time matter has switched around and changed form, such as forming into a “watch”. But it is only a “watch” because we consider it a “watch”. Labels are not properties of the universe but inventions of man. "Dr Craig" physically began to exist 14 billion years ago. Part of the universe was labeled "Dr craig" some 60 years ago.
atheist3124 1 year ago
@atheist3124 The law of conservation of energy doesn't apply to this. Far too many atheists get it wrong: watch?v=hf90iRas-Xk
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos “Only once the universe is brought into existence the laws work” Agreed. If natural laws only exist if the universe does then physical logic only exists if the universe does. There was no logic before the universe. So why couldn’t the universe come from nothing? It's only illogical once the universe exists. Its illogical for matter and engery to be created, but it happened.
atheist3124 1 year ago
@atheist3124 . I think you're just a little confused. Can something come from nothing? In reality, no. We see no examples of anything coming from nothing. Logic in this sense presupposes the creation of the universe, seeing as how the laws themselves exist out of necessity. So the laws did exist before the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics. And thus, logic (in it's abstract form) existed before the universe, and will exist after the universe. God bless :)
Addy4473 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos What is wrong with these utube atheists?? They claim to be sooooo intellectually superior but when they begin to talk they sound like ignoramouses par excellence. Do they know nothing of philosophy and history??
agnostaxian 1 year ago
@atheist3124 You'd simply have to restate the argument as such.
1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. Matter began to exist.
3. The universe is matter.
4. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
That example alone justifies the first premise. If matter began to exist, then we find that the universe has a cause. However, even if matter didn't begin to exist, the KCA's first premise is universally accepted as a reasonable statement.
Addy4473 1 year ago
well if the laws of logic existed before theuniverse then how was matter and engery created? Its a law of logic they cannot be created. But they were created 14 billion years ago.
atheist3124 1 year ago
@atheist3124 The laws of logic are not dependent on matter and energy. The laws of logic are immaterial and invariant and universal. They don't have an expiration date or a birth date.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos If abstract logic pre-exists the universe then there is only one way the universe can be. The physical laws of nature must fit in with the “Logic” that already exists. But as Dr. Craig says in his fine tuning argument “ The tuning is not due to nessesity, it could have been otherwise”. There could not have been “logic” before the universe. So the physical logic that forbids spontanous coming into being did not exist.
atheist3124 1 year ago
@atheist3124 You really don't know what you're talking about do you? It doesn't matter which way the universe would be the laws of logic are necessary no matter what. When Dr. Craig said "The tuning is not due to nessesity, it could have been otherwise” he wasn't talking about the nature of logic.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@atheist3124 A law of logic? You mean the first law of thermodynamics? That exists within the universe. It doesn't limit the creation of the universe ex ni hi lo. That comes down to meta-physics and God Himself. :) you're right, though. Naturally the universe could not come into being out of nothing. Only God can create the universe like He did. God bless you!
Addy4473 1 year ago
@Addy4473 Logic is physical. Abstract logic comes from higher animals “thinking” or “contemplating” physical logic. Language and symbols are arbitrary. The physical laws that forbid spontaneous coming into being didn’t exist prior to existence. Just as the physical laws that forbid energy to be created didn’t exist. If another type of universe had been created, perhaps one were things did pop into being un-caused, then the laws of logic would be different physically and mentally to us.
atheist3124 1 year ago
@Addy4473 But that's the entire point, which I think you're missing. Anything that begins to exist has a cause. How do you know this? We have never seen anything begin to exist, so we can't know that anything that began to exist has a cause. This is an assumption that is not obvious based on our current state of knowledge. We do know that the universe began to exist, but that's the only thing we know of that had a beginning. However, we don't know that it was caused. This is the problem.
EpigeneticEngineer 1 year ago
@atheist3124 You are extremely confused. You are confusing the COMPONENTS that something is made from with the form that it takes, and the final combination that gives rise to its exact form. You have also missed the point of Dr Craigs proof entirely that "whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause" whatever form. All you have done is admit that matter BEGAN to exist 14 billion years ago instead of "X" years ago. You have acknowledged that matter " Began to exist", and you haven't disproven a cause!
9114steve 1 year ago
@atheist3124 ohhh boy, another member of the utube atheist doofus possey. Read moron
agnostaxian 1 year ago
It seems as though Dr Craig draws a distinction between a 'person' and...the materials out of which that person's body have been fashioned, including the brain of course. I can consider this premise and what arguments i've heard Dr Craig make, and realize that, given that premise or a similar one, follows most of Dr Craig's arguments.
Of course, I then would wonder what he would have to say if he was asked about this most fundamental idea, in his thought. Can you justify it so fundamental?
pjnlsn 1 year ago
Errr.....
Well I would consider a galaxy to be made out of material stuff, as well as stars, and planets, and all the way down to elementary particles and such. So....since we're not considering people but matter, and as such we can still claim that all materials we've seen has been fashioned out of other materials.
Unless of course you with to consider when 'people' began, certain ones, or all of them, or w.e
But personally I'm much more concerned with from what _galaxies and stars_ came.
pjnlsn 1 year ago
So Hawking's recent research suggests that the universe can into being spontaneously, without being created. The work of Lawrence Krauss supports the notion of a universe coming from nothing as well. Literally, the universe coming from zero, not some idea of nothing that isn't really nothing. These would seem to contradict what is said here.
In addition, the assertion that "Whatever begins to exist was created" needs to be clearer. What is meant by creation in this statement?
TheJaguarLover 1 year ago
Ok, 2 things. In the Thermo vs Cosmo vid, you say that everything in the Universe has always been like it is. Here in this vid, you say there were no galaxies 10 billion years ago. That confuses me. The 2nd thing I want to add is that you cannot call yourself a believer of God when the Bible clearly states that God created all things at the moment of Creation to include you and your distant descendants.
wordword31 1 year ago
@wordword31 "...everything in the Universe has always been like it is. " Where in the world did Craig say that in the Therm. vs Cosmo. video. He said the universe needed to have a beginning. And why can't someone believe in God who created creation. You're not making any sense at all.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
"Whatever begins to exist has a cause".
This is what we observe within our universe of space & time. But the 'cause' (if there was one) occurred outside of our universe of space & time, of which we know very little, right?
How do we know that this statement holds true outside of the bounds of our universe?
WLC merely states that it is 'intuitively obvious' in his essay.
Is there a logical argument to PROVE his assertion, or is it merely extrapolated from observation?
Thanks.
MrMk1G 1 year ago
@MrMk1G From the beginning of the universe there are a number of things we can deduce about the properties of this cause: watch?v=1SZWInkDIVI
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraig Thanks for link
The 'proofs' are flawed though:
E.g. The 'cause' is 'non-temporal' & 'non-spatial' with reference to OUR time & space. It may exist in its own time & space - or not. We don't know.
E.g. it is POSSIBLE that outside of our universe there exist a set of natural laws & environment which make it v. easy for universes (like ours) to be created & burst into existence completely naturally, with or without a cause. We don't know.
(6) is appeal to ignorance / false dichotomy
MrMk1G 1 year ago
@MrMk1G "It may exist in its own time & space - or not. We don't know." The cause does not live in "its own time and space." The cause is beyond it. Get Craig's "Time and Eternity." 6 isn't an appeal to ignorance because Craig never said we're not sure thus X. Nor is it a false dichotomy because Craig didn't say it's either X or Y or that's it. I truly doubt that you were listening to that video close enough.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraig
'The cause is beyond it' - beyond what? Our space & time? Agreed.
My point is - the cause exists outside of our universe. But we have no idea what is (or isn't) outside of our universe.
There may be other dimensions of space &/or time outside of our universe. There may not. We don't know. However, WLC makes assertions about it.
Or am I wrong? Do you know what environment exists outside of our universe. If you do - I would love to know HOW you know..
MrMk1G 1 year ago
@drcraig
(6) Well, I listened again, and heard the same as the first time:
"cause MUST be personal" 'cos:
6.1 "The only entities we know of [...] are either X or Y. Not X, therefore cause MUST be Y"
- We don't know what (other) entities exist outside of our universe. Therefore this is a false dichotomy. There are other choices
6.2 "Only way [...] is a personal agent with free will"
Again, we don't know what's out there, so other there are other poss. options. FD.
Summary similar.
Still false
MrMk1G 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos
Also - even if we grant the properties WLC deduces about the cause of the universe,
that doesn't say anything about proving that 'every effect has a cause' - which was my original question. I still want to know how we prove that every effect has a cause, esp. when we are talking about effects occurring outside of our universe of space-time & our natural laws.
MrMk1G 1 year ago
@MrMk1G You asked "But the 'cause' (if there was one) occurred outside of our universe of space & time, of which we know very little, right?" And I'm saying we know what this cause is. Your question wasn't dodged.
But now if you think that it's obvious that every effect doesn't have a cause, then have it your way.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraig
No. I was asking about knowing about 'outside of our universe'. Not the cause.
WLC's knowledge of what the cause 'is' is built on knowledge of what is / not beyond our universe
e.g. no time, no space, only minds & abstract objects allowed, etc.
I am curious how we know any of this.
I asked if you could PROVE that every effect has a cause.
I.e. is the first premise of KCA proven?
- in an environment (outside our universe) of which we know so little
I think NOTHING is obvious here.
MrMk1G 1 year ago
I'm pleased with how our discussion turned out, with me making the most sense and you revealing your ignorance of science and logic. Your implication that time-space is merely an abstract idea was a nice touch.
With that being said, I'm done. I hope you have fun wasting your time (and everyone else's who reads your comments) preaching your nonsensical ideas in response to a YouTube video of a man who is many times more accomplished, intelligent, and educated than you will ever be.
Internet7Nobody 1 year ago
@Internet7Nobody More accomplished? If you only knew what I have accomplished, at half the age of WLC, you would have to retract that statement.
I appreciate how you run away, calling names and hurling insults as you go, because you refuse to or cannot deal with questions that challenge your preconceptions. You may consider it wasting time, which is your prerogative, but others of us consider it a learning experience.
L571J 1 year ago
@Internet7Nobody P.S. I am glad that you are pleased, however you may want to reevaluate the benefits of having a conversation and never considering the other side's argument. It is your choice, but it seems to me you miss out in life if you simply insult others, call them stupid, and refuse to engage in a legitimate debate.
L571J 1 year ago
@Internet7Nobody Please do not resort to personal attacks. It is very poor form.
ddisil 1 year ago
You never really addressed the following: When talking about an ultimate sentient being (God), it makes no sense to conclude He does not exist simply because we can't sense or test Him for two reasons. One, our technology and senses are limited. Two, it may be God's will to avoid discovery. Consequently, the question whether or not God exists is first and foremost a philosophical one. I'd like to also add that because of this science can only substantiate the existence of God, not disprove it.
Internet7Nobody 1 year ago
@Internet7Nobody Actually, you are wrong about science. It is the job of science and the scientific method to falsify hypotheses. You can never really prove anything, only disprove something. We can support hypotheses, but never really prove them. That was the whole point of my post on the nature of knowing.
L571J 1 year ago
This whole argument rests on a redundant, inconsequential, logically flawed premise. We can demonstrate the problem by looking that the contrapositive, which must be true if the original is true.
Original: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Contrapositive: Whatever does not have a cause does not begin to exist.
If the argument is to hold water this cannot be true because god cannot be an uncaused cause and have the argument hold true. Based on the Cosmological Argument, god does not exist
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J You're reasoning doesn't even follow. If the universe had a cause we can deduce what properties this cause has: watch?v=vD6Ci0KK9DQ. It's just common sense, if something BEGINS to exist it obviously has a cause. Dr. Craig never argued that EVERYTHING needs a cause.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos Can you explain how there is a difference between existing and beginning to exist?
L571J 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos Common sense is often misleading, often wrong, and very ill-equipped to deal with the complexities and scale of the universe. Dr. Craig's argument, as pointed out, does nothing to further the discussion of the existence of god. The argument itself says nothing about the cause of the universe. It does not say that it was god, a sentient being, or simply the normal fluctuations of matter and energy. The argument is pointless if he intended to prove god.
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J The argument makes no mention of God, because it doesn't need to. It's only upon metaphysical grounds we can deduce God exists: watch?v=l9Me8Y-HmRo. You skipped everything that was said in the video link I supplied in the first place only to babble on and on.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos So what, then, is the point of the KCA?
L571J 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos I watched the video, but it makes no sense. It is just another example of WLC not proving God's existence of even getting close to proving it. Tell me how it is that you get from the KCA to the existence of god?
L571J 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos
"It's only upon metaphysical grounds we can deduce God exists"
Which boils down to admitting that we can't deduce your god's existence from facts. Thanks for pointing that one out.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos L571J's reasoning is clearly correct. You wrote 'if something begins to exist it obviously has a cause'. This, therefore, means that if something does not have a cause it cannot begin to exist. I don't see how someone cannot follow that reasoning. I'm sure Dr Craig would argue with the rest of L571J's comment but the beginning is perfectly reasoned
alsoknownasallenkeys 1 year ago
@alsoknownasallenkeys I didn't dispute his premise. I doubt you're even following the argument so far. His "contrapositive" doesn't refute the cosmological argument.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@alsoknownasallenkeys please read my whole discussion with L572J
ddisil 1 year ago
@L571J I agree with your logic but your conclusion is flawed from the logic. God does not BEGIN to exist. Therefore God is not caused. God is eternal and always existed. That is why the contrapositive is also true. An uncaused God outside of time and space perfectly fits this logic. You can disagree over whether there is or isnt a god. However, Craig's logic is sound.
ddisil 1 year ago
@ddisil The term "begin" is just a word-play, it does not change the nature of the argument. How is it that something that does not begin to exist can exist at all? If it did not begin, then it does not currently exist, right? You are saying god never "began," therefore I conclude that he does not currently exist either. If you are claiming that god is "eternal," why can the same not be applied to matter and energy? They always existed, and were simply in a diff form before the universe.
L571J 1 year ago
@ddisil My point is simply that this argument does not further the cause for god. It in no way applies uniquely to god and in no way proves that a god did or must exist. I don't think it gets us anywhere in terms of proving or disproving that god exists. It is a complete non-sequitor in the argument about god's existance.
Like a smoke-screen, it just clouds the issue.
L571J 1 year ago
@ddisil In addition, the universe "began to exist" in its current form 14 billion years ago, but that does not mean that it did not exist in a different form prior to that. Remember that time is a relative, abstract thought and only exists in reference to something. We can only claim time because we can measure back to the beginning of the universe. We cannot measure beyond that point, but that does not mean that matter and energy did not exist prior to that point.
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J I am sorry but you completely miss the point of this logic. You can disagree with the validity of the premises. you can even argue that the universe is eternal. However, you cannot discredit the logic because you say that it is word play. For example, take this arguement:
A square has four even length sides connected at 90 degree angles.
God has four even length sides connected at 90 degree angles.
God is a square.
The logic flows. u can disagree with the premises but not the logic
ddisil 1 year ago
@ddisil I think you completely miss my point. There is no logic to this argument, it is purely circular and purely based upon a single word (begins). Tell me, what is the difference between something beginning to exist and something existing? Your analogy about squares is irrelevant and not applicable. Prove to me that anything that begins to exist has to be created. If you can prove that, then we will talk about logic.
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J you should watch the video. I am refuting your original comment, not others you might have made:
Original: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Contrapositive: Whatever does not have a cause does not begin to exist.
If the argument is to hold water this cannot be true because god cannot be an uncaused cause and have the argument hold true. Based on the Cosmological Argument, god does not exist
This is not logically disprove God for the reasons I have previously stated.
ddisil 1 year ago
@ddisil I'll tell you what. I disagree with your reasoning, but will nonetheless give you this argument as a gift. You and I both know that the Kalam has been disproved in numerous ways by numerous people. It is a flawed argument, does not even come close to proving god, and like all matters of religion requires blind faith without evidence. There are loads of refutations to this argument, some I have mentioned and some I have not. In the end, it is not the proof of god WLC claims.
L571J 1 year ago
@ddisil Your god argument is outside the realm of the KCA. If you take the KCA as it is stated, all it tells us is that something that begins to exist is created. This says nothing, whatsoever, about god except that he did not begin to exist. Now your claim is that he had no beginning, which is simply an assertion. If god is eternal as you claim, why can we not just put something else in there, like matter, energy, etc.? Why does it have to be god and how is it that the KCA proves it must be?
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J what u just said is an argument against God. you can say matter and energy always existed... of course I disagree with this concept for several reasons. I think that God is a good explanation for the universe existing. that is why the KCA is used because some people think God follows. But explanations 4 the cause of the universe r many. That is why WLC follows the argument that the big bang caused the universe then God is the cause of the big bang. which u have refuted to an extent
ddisil 1 year ago
@ddisil I agree that there are many explanations for the universe. Unfortunately, as the god hypothesis is currently stated, it is untestable and therefore unknowable. That does not mean that you can not hold it as true, you certainly can. I cannot, however, because there is no way to verify it and no way to determine its accuracy. As I say though, this does not mean a person cannot believe it is accurate.
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J Again, my only point which I hope we both can agree on is from a logic standpoint. The contrapositive cannot be used as an argument against God's existence, unless you are someone who believes that God began to exist or is finite. Other arguments like the KCA is not a direct argument for God can be used.
ddisil 1 year ago
@ddisil I understand your point and I think that it is accurate if you subscribe to the notion that the KCA leaves room for something that does not "begin to exist." My only problem with it is that the KCA really says nothing about infinite existence. It only states that something that begins to exist has been created and says nothing about infinity or eternity. I fail to see how the jump can be made to an eternal entity from the KCA or how it furthers the understanding of the universe or god.
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J God is eternal and has always existed. It is not word play. Theists believe this. Therefore, God does not need a cause because he has always existed. you cannot argue this point. you can argue that no such being exists, but you cannot say that the logic that shows that the universe needs a cause can also be used to refute God. it does not logically follow for the reasons I have stated.
ddisil 1 year ago
@ddisil That is not a part of the cosmological argument though. In fact, the cosmological argument says nothing about god and nothing about the beginning of the universe. It is a circular argument in which the premise proves the conclusion and the conclusion proves the premise. In the end, you are no closer to proving god with this argument than you were when you started. It is not evidence and it is in no way a logical proof for the existence of god. It is pure rubbish.
L571J 1 year ago
What is meant by "begin to exist"? When matter is re-arranged new forms begin to exist that have new properties . These properties are what began to exist, not the materials out of which they were made. When Dr. Craig says "I" he is referring to an emergent property of his material body. This is a non-material thing. When we speak of the universe we mean the material. Is there a material thing that has begun to exist after the universe came into being? Please clarify.
SkeenteaEstPotentea 1 year ago
In Physics terms he is most obviously wrong with his first counter example: himself.
He did not start to exist at his conception because the him who exists now is different from the him who existed the previous instant. Add to that the fact that there may be multiple versions of him depending on your interpretation of QM and your faced with a choice. Either his probability waveform has always existed or it has never existed before this instant.
kandtell 1 year ago
I am just flabbergasted at Craig's response to the arguments that nothing 'began to exist'.
Of course there is no 'beginning' to anything that we observe. Things come about over a period of time, in fact I might argue that all things have been coming together since the early period (beginning as I see it) of the universe and maybe even before.
Where you there during the period of the dinosaurs Mr. Craig? Yes, you were, you just do not remember it.
baldrick98007 1 year ago
@baldrick98007
Never go full retard.
Internet7Nobody 1 year ago
@Internet7Nobody : i'll try, but let me know if i ever get there please .. i rely on your expertize in this matter
baldrick98007 1 year ago
well there were galaxies 10B yrs ago
blasphemite 1 year ago
The cosmological argument, as I understand it:
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) The universe had a cause. (from 1 and 2) Firstly, it does not follow that the cause of the universe must also be the Christian God; we could, to take an outlandish example, exist in a computer simulation. But quantum physics falsifies the first premise; matter does come into existence from nothing, apparently without cause.
ElevatingMoment 1 year ago
@ElevatingMoment Dr. Craig never said the cosmological argument necessarily has to argue for the Christian God: watch?v=G1IWoIw6fUU. So I don't see how that's a problem, when it's already been conceded. And quantum physics does NOT say something came from nothing: watch?v=g6kMWSo-Jz0
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos Dr Craig has, however, asserted that the cause of the universe must be a personal, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and enormously intelligent being. As far as I can see, this does not follow. And most physicists would regard the temporary appearance of energetic particles from the quantum vacuum as uncaused. Similarly, most scientists believe that radioactive decay is spontaneous. Does this not falsify the first premise?
ElevatingMoment 1 year ago
@ElevatingMoment Those traits that Dr. Craig just described (personal, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, etc.) DOES follow: watch?v=1SZWInkDIVI.
I don't think you can falsify the first premise (that whatever begins to exist has a cause). If something BEGINS to exist it obviously has a cause.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos Everything demands an explanation and a cause except God himself, right? This is where Craig's argument is flawed. While he's certainly able to articulate his argument, it only takes a moment of critical thinking to realize it's fallacious. Nobody knows how the universe began. While many scientists think it had a beginning, it's certainly not a proven fact. The notion that God is infinite and always existed is a ridiculous assumption which is supported by nothing.
Soprano2321 1 year ago
@Soprano2321
An explanation does not need an explanation if the original explanation is sufficient. That's logic 101, shit eater. Now, if you're going to continue to claim that all explanations need an explanation, then that would lead to an infinite regress of everything, including science itself. Think about Junior. You can ask for an explanation of an explanation and an explanation for the explanation of the explanation and so on and so forth.
Internet7Nobody 1 year ago
@Internet7Nobody The "God" explanation is sufficient? Okay, how did he create the universe? Or better yet, the earth? How did he create a planet full of diversity and complex life? With a magic wand? Or did he just conceive the whole thing in 30 seconds and BAM, we came into existence? I think anybody with half a fucking brain would admit the God explanation is NOT an explanation. All it does it raises further questions about the creator himself: Who created God?
Soprano2321 1 year ago
@ElevatingMoment Quantum physics is based on a mathematical equation that has ten different outcomes (physical descriptions), none of which are reliable enough to confirm. However, even based on the mathematical equation, a vacuum that consists of a fluctuation of energy that emits and absorbs particles at a spontaneous and absurdly swift rate is just out of the question; where did the energy come from? Matter is neither created or destroyed, merely manipulated; so how did it get there? You have
Addy4473 1 year ago
@ElevatingMoment to understand that something CAN NOT come out of nothing. Nothing physical comes out of nothing. Besides, scientific and philosophical research concludes that the universe could never have been eternal; it is indeed finite. God is here, and He loves you very much so. He sent His Son to die for you; and yet you refuse Him. Please accept Him, before it's too late. God bless you, sir (or madam). :)
Addy4473 1 year ago
Atheists are constantly rejecting the existence of God because of the question who created the creator. In other words, they reject God because of not having an explanation for the explanation but then when faced with the cosmological argument, they argue that nothing ever begins to exist? Christians are irrational? Really?
kstret 1 year ago
@kstret yes . they are - seen in your lack of understanding of the argument ...
symelian 1 year ago
@symelian I get it. Nothing begins to exist. It's a ridiculous argument.
kstret 1 year ago
@kstret We reject god not because of a lack of explanation, but because of a lack of evidence. You can create logical arguments all day long, but until you back them up with evidence, they mean nothing (this is not to say that I find you arguments logical to begin with, but only to clear away the clutter and get to the salient point). A god may exist, but there is no evidence that that is the case and thus no reason to accept it as true.
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J I was pointing out that a frequent question atheists ask, is who designed the designer. They reject God because they need an explanation of the explanation. Then when faced with the cosmological argument, they abandon that rationale and argue that nothing really begins to exist. It's logically incoherent. Also a lack of evidence does not always equate to evidence of non existence. If you want to make that argument, you need to make that case.
kstret 1 year ago
@kstret I agree that absence of evidence is not proof that something does not exist. However, it is suggestive. In addition, absence of evidence is not proof of existence either. Unfortunately, without evidence the claim remains an unsupported hypothesis.
The cosmological argument has several flaws that render it false. Besides, the existence of god cannot be proved or disproved through logical argument. Only evidence can make the case and there currently is none.
L571J 1 year ago
No Christian uses the absence of evidence as an argument for God.It is the atheists who use that argument. There are cases were that is true and cases where it isn't. If I say there is a flee in the room are you going to argue that there is no evidence of that so you don't believe it? Of coarse not. However, if I say there is a ten foot 500lb Sasquatch in the room and you can't see it, then it would count as evidence against it.
kstret 1 year ago
@kstret Yes, that is exactly the point. God is hardly a flee and therefore you need some darn good evidence to support such an idea. God requires even more evidence than the Sasquatch and yet I would argue that the level of evidence is equivalent.
L571J 1 year ago
"God is hardly a flee"
You are cherry picking what you like from what I said. God is hardly a 500 lb ten foot Sasquatch. Comparing a physical being to a non physical being yields an invalid comparison.Now you are going to bring up a fictitious creature, which will result in us bantering back and forth and will end in your robbing God's attributes and applying them to whatever creature you made up.
kstret 1 year ago
@kstret How does a non-physical being interact with the physical universe? Can you define what you mean by non-physical?
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J If you want to make the argument that no evidence equates to not existing, you need to make the case why that is with God.
kstret 1 year ago
@kstret I am not making the argument that lack of evidence is equal to non-existence. I am saying that lack of evidence means you have a hypothesis that is unsupported. If there were nothing else to fill that gap, then we would still go with it. However, there are other theories, with evidence, that we can work with. The problem with the god theory is that it is not useful. We cannot learn more about nature from it, we cannot advance technology with it, and so forth.
L571J 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@L571J "Unfortunately, no matter how logical your argument it is not evidence."
What evidence would you expect to find for God? A shirt that has his name on it? God is non physical, you are not going find physical evidence.
kstret 1 year ago
@L571J "However, there are other theories, with evidence, that we can work with."
The particular theory that you are attempting to use to disagree with the cosmological argument is a fallacious one.
kstret 1 year ago
@L571J "You don't know that there was no matter or space."
If you want to challenge that contention, take it up with a astrophysicist. That is what the big bang theory states.
kstret 1 year ago
@kstret Actually, that is not what the big bang theory states. It actually says nothing about what happened before the big bang.
L571J 1 year ago
"Actually, that is not what the big bang theory states. It actually says nothing about what happened before the big bang"
If you want to split hairs, technically there was no before the big bang because there was no time. I really don't know how to phrase that correctly when referring to the theory. However, time, space and matter came into existence with the big bang. This makes your argument that nothing came into existence demonstrably false.Why don't you explain your point of contention?
kstret 1 year ago
@kstret I'm not splitting hairs, I am stating what the theory does and does not say. In science, theories tend to be very specific and the Big Bang Theory is. There are scientists who have put forth theories to supplement that BBT that offer hypotheses about what may have occurred prior. Those are mostly untested.
The BBT itself says nothing about what came first and only says that time as we know it started with the Big Bang. That does not mean all time started then.
L571J 1 year ago
Time as we know came into existence with the big bang still refutes your premise that nothing comes into existence. Time as we know came into existence. You are also conflating ingredients with the finished product. You still haven't addressed the atheist hypocrisy by arguing that nothing comes into existence with the cosmological argument and then turning around asking who created God.
kstret 1 year ago
@kstret You are playing games with semantics, which seems to be a favorite game of those trying to assert that there is a god and that we should all worship him.
You are the one arguing that god never began to exist. How do you explain that? If he/she/it never began to exist, tell me how it is that he/she/it is here now. After all, you are claiming that the universe had to begin to exist and that the earth had to begin to exist or they would not be here. Why is god exempt? Can you explain that?
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J I am not playing games with semantics and you are dodging the logical inconstancies of the atheists position. You can not argue that physical things never come into existence and then turn around and ask who created God. On top of that, the fact that the universe came into existence with the big bang proves your contention that nothing comes into existence demonstrably false.
kstret 1 year ago
@kstret Let's assume for a second that god exists. How do you know that god did not come into existence with the big bang as well? Perhaps everything came into existence at that point, god included, and prior to that there was nothing. It is probably the only way you can explain how god exists without having him/her/it violate the rules you are setting forth for everything else. Every time you define god, you contradict the rules that apply to everything else.
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J "How do you know that god did not come into existence with the big bang as well? "
The entire cosmological argument is based on the the premise that all physical things have a cause. Out of nothing, nothing comes. The cause of the big bang would to be nonphysical, outside of time or timeless, etc. which infers God. If God come into existence with the big bang, you still need an explanation of what caused the big bang.
kstret 1 year ago
@kstret Can you make your definition of god consistent or will you always have to add qualifiers about how god does not conform to the rules that everything else must obey? The problem with theist arguments for god is that they always include an escape clause to let god out of rules of nature. It usually boils down to something along the lines of "because he is god." How do you know that. What proof do you have that the rules that govern everything else are ever violated?
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J "Can you make your definition of god consistent"
You are conflating the physical universe and laws of nature with a nonphysical creator. God is not a physical person. This is like asking why the rules and world of a novel don't apply to the author
kstret 1 year ago
@kstret Okay, fine. Give me a definition of god that you find acceptable, that is all I am asking. I am not conflating anything, I am only asking you for a definition, so let's have it.
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J You honestly don't know what the definition of God is? Why don't you just skip to your point?
kstret 1 year ago
@kstret Okay, when it comes down to it you know you are making it up as you go along and you know that if you give me a solid answer, you won't be able to back it up in the future. Take care!
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J "you know that if you give me a solid answer, you won't be able to back it up in the future."
Is you plan get go off in a bunch of side issue debates to take the attention off of the fact that you are arguing that nothing comes into existence? Your contention was nothing comes into existence but you can ask who created God?
kstret 1 year ago
@kstret That was not a contention, so much as a question. Why does the universe have to come into existence, why cannot it not simply be the current iteration and of an ever-changing conglomeration of matter and energy? That was my only point. I am not necessarily arguing that nothing comes into existence, but I can attest to the fact that no one on this planet has seen something come into existence and has only seen rearrangements of preexisting material.
L571J 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@L571J"but I can attest to the fact that no one on this planet has seen something come into existence and has only seen rearrangements of preexisting material"
You are conflating ingredients with the finished product. People with children don't see them come into existence?
kstret 1 year ago
@kstret Parents see the production of a novel entity from already existing products, nothing more and nothing less. New, but not created from nothing.
What about my question as to why the current iteration of the universe is not simple one of many in an ever-changing conglomeration of matter and energy? Why rule that option out?
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J When I say God is imputable, omnipresent, Omnipotent, omniscient, loving, Good, eternal, sovereign etc., are you going for the problem of evil/ human suffering or taking all God's attributes and applying them to a fictitious monster that you made up?
kstret 1 year ago
@kstret Well, since you apply those attributes to a fictitious monster that you made up (i.e. god), why can I not apply attributes that I think are cool to a monster that I make up and claim it is the creator of the universe? For instance, I will take everything you said about god, but my monster is not going to be loving at all. It is going to be just like you and me, capable of hate, anger, revenge, etc. How do you know that being did not create the universe?....
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J All you are doing is changing God's name to the monster you made up when you rob his attributes and give them to a monster.
kstret 1 year ago
@kstret No, my monster is somewhat different than yours. Mine is not loving, for instance. Mine also is actually one of many god monsters that inhabit the universe. Now, prove that they don't exist.
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J "How do you know that being did not create the universe?"
For one thing, I can trace the monsters invention to you. No one has ever talked about the monster other than you. There is no other person or historical record mentioning the monster other than you.
kstret 1 year ago
@kstret Lots of people believed in multiple gods, like Apollo, Zeus, etc. Why aren't those valid? Why is there only one? Why not many? It stands to reason that a single god would be lonely and looking for another god to hang out with.
L571J 1 year ago
@kstret Who cares who you can trace it to? Historical record is not evidence and in no way supports the legitimacy of a hypothesis. For instance, it is a matter of historical record that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Many great scientists believed this in their time as well. Does that prove the Earth is the center of the solar system?
L571J 1 year ago
@kstret ...For that matter, how do you know you got god's attributes right at all?
L571J 1 year ago
@kstret As I asked earlier, how do you know god's attributes? How do you know you didn't get one wrong, miss one, or add one that shouldn't be there?
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J If you want to make that argument you need to make the case that God is the equivalent of a Sasquatch that you should be able to see. If you want to argue that that the cosmological argument is flawed; make the case. It is not enough to proclaim that it is flawed and not offer any substance to your argument.
kstret 1 year ago
@kstret I see you choose to ignore my example of computer input/output, perhaps you missed it just below these comments. You have made a claim that god exists and yet you have no way of providing evidence for that. Asserting that the universe had to have a creator does not make it true. Just because you don't know the answer does not me you can put god in there and claim that as proof. It is not proof, it is not evidence.
L571J 1 year ago
"You have made a claim that god exists and yet you have no way of providing evidence for that."
Atheist make the claim that God doesn't exist and have no evidence of that either There are many reasons to believe in God, you just don't like or agree with them. Here comes the burden of proof and you can't prove a negative.
kstret 1 year ago
@kstret Yes, atheists make that claim. However, we are only responding to your claim that he does exist. Unfortunately, if you want others to agree with your hypothesis, you are going to have offer some evidence. I agree that you cannot prove a negative, which is why the burden of proof falls upon you and other theists.
L571J 1 year ago
You can prove a negative and even if you can't prove a negative you can refute the claims and attributes made about whatever it is you are attempting to disprove.Atheists do have a burden of proof. It is a diametrically opposing position of theism. Both sides are making a claim and both sides have a b.o.p.
kstret 1 year ago
@kstret I'm not making a claim, I am disagreeing with yours. I think you are confusing atheism with something else.
L571J 1 year ago
@L571j
If you assert that there is a God, then you're a theist.
If you assert that there is no God, then you're an atheist.
If you assert that the existence of God is unknowable, irrelevant, or you believe evidence is not sufficient to draw any sort of conclusion in regards to God's existence, then you're an agnostic.
Internet7Nobody 1 year ago
@Internet7Nobody Atheists will seldom claim "there is no God." Rather, they say there's no reason to believe that there is one. There's a very important distinction there and I really wish you'd understand it.
Soprano2321 1 year ago
@Internet7Nobody Not quite. Some would state that there is sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that there is no god. These people are also atheists. Your definition is too narrow.
L571J 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@L571J
How is what I wrote, "If you assert that there is no God, then you're an atheist" contradictory to what you wrote, "Some would state that there is sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that there is no god." Evidence has no bearing on the fact that an assertion is being made.
Internet7Nobody 1 year ago
@Internet7Nobody It's not an assertion if there is evidence. If there is evidence, there it would be called rejecting a hypothesis.
L571J 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@L571J
Then it'd be a claim. You're not making any point.
Internet7Nobody 1 year ago
@L571J
To reject the existence of God is to claim God doesn't exist.
This isn't rocket science, kid.
Internet7Nobody 1 year ago
@Internet7Nobody Two points. First, rejecting the existence of god because of lack of evidence is a conclusion, not a claim.
Second, why do you insult me by calling me kid? That is rude and as it turns out, I am older than you according to your profile. Ad Hominem attacks are a sign of a weak opponent who is unable to formulate rational rebuttals and thus resorts to petty name calling.
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J
A conclusion and a claim are not mutually exclusive. To reject God's existence based on evidence (what evidence?) is to claim God does not existence. Whether or not there is evidence does not change the fact that a claim is being made (God does not exist).
Internet7Nobody 1 year ago
@Internet7Nobody You can stop with the word-play any time you would like. Why don't you do this, define what you mean by claim so that we can agree on a definition and then work from there. Most people, when discussing religion, use claim to mean unsubstantiated belief. If that is not what you mean, then we are argueing over semantics and not substance as we are using two different connotations of the same word. Let me know what the definition is you are working from and we can go from there.
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J
Also, it is evident by my posts that I'm more than capable of rebutting your so-called arguments. The problem lies with you not knowing what the hell you're talking about.
Internet7Nobody 1 year ago
@Internet7Nobody Ad hominem attacks are hardly capable rebuttals and you have turned to them yet again in this very post ("you not knowing what the hell you're talking about."). Try attacking the argument and not the person, then you might gain some credibility in this debate. So, define the meaning you give to the word "claim" and then offer and argument based on that and we will see where that takes us.
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J agreed
ddisil 1 year ago
@L571J
What is your argument?
Internet7Nobody 1 year ago
@L571J
As far as I'm concerned you don't have any argument and you're just wasting our time. There are three options: You believe God exists; you don't believe God exists; or you believe there is insufficient information to draw any kind of conclusion in regards to the existence of God.
What do you believe?
Internet7Nobody 1 year ago
@Internet7Nobody First of all, you have failed to respond to my request to define what you mean by "claim." Second, if you feel this is a waste of your time, you do not have to continue responding. Third, you have missed at least two options, which are that an individual feels there is sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that God does not exist/ an individual feels there is no way to testing the god hypothesis and it is therefore not a viable option.
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J
If you do not know the definition of "claim," then I suggest consulting a dictionary. This is indeed a waste of our time (mine especially) because you're not making any point. An individual who feels there is sufficient evidence to conclude God falls under option two.The last scenario given by you falls under option three. Finally, you still haven't shared with us what your belief is, which indicates to me you'd rather argue in circle over trivial matters and waste time.
Internet7Nobody 1 year ago
@Internet7Nobody
"An individual who feels there is sufficient evidence to conclude God falls under option two" should read, "An individual who feels there is sufficient evidence to conclude God does not exist falls under option two."
Internet7Nobody 1 year ago
@Internet7Nobody The problem with your definition is that believing god does not exist is not the same as concluding that evidence suggests god does not exist. The first is based on faith and the second is based on evidence. Even if you consider the evidence to be scant or unreliable, it is still different from belief.
I told you the definition of "claim" that I work under, I was simply asking what yours was so we could avoid confusion in the future. You chose to be crass about that...
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J To conclude God does not exist without absolutely knowing whether or not God exists is by nature a belief. You may believe there is a very good evidence (What evidence do you have?) to conclude God does not exist, but we both know you do no have certain knowledge. Consequently, the only means to breach that gap of knowledge--however small you think it is--is through belief. If you're interested in knowing the definition of "claim" that I use, then let me again refer you to the dictionary.
Internet7Nobody 1 year ago
@Internet7Nobody Now you are getting into the nature of knowing and how much we can actually know about anything. That is a different argument. In the end, we do not have certain knowledge about anything, to say that is to misrepresent what it means to know something. To the extent that we can know anything, I conclude on available evidence, that the god hypothesis is not a good one and that there are better explanations for the existence of the universe.
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J
My point is your so-called conclusion is partly based on evidence (What evidence is that again? You keep forgetting to provide some in your comments) and partly based on belief.
Finally, there are things you can know. For example, I know that adding a group of objects to another group of objects increases the number of objects.
Internet7Nobody 1 year ago
@Internet7Nobody Which dictionary would that be? Let's be specific so as to avoid confusion.
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J
Any English dictionary will do.
Internet7Nobody 1 year ago
@Internet7Nobody Very well, this is according to dictionary[dot]com
Claim: an assertion of something as a fact: He made no claims to originality.
Assertion: a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason: a mere assertion; an unwarranted assertion.
That means I am using "claim" correctly and you are not. A claim does not have support (i.e. evidence), just as I said earlier.
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J
I think we're hitting upon something, namely that you have poor reading comprehension. You do not know for a fact that God does not exist, but you're asserting that God does in fact not exist based on whatever evidence. If you do not know for a fact that God does not exist, then you're left with believing that God does not exist. What I've written here is in no way contradictory to the dictionary's definition of "claim."
Internet7Nobody 1 year ago
@Internet7Nobody My statement has evidence, and thus is not an assertin and thus not a claim. It is conclusion based upon available evidence. I dont' know for a fact that you exist, but I have evidence to support the hypothesis that you do. Thus, it is not a claim that you exist, but a supported hypothesis.
L571J 1 year ago
@L571J
Your statement is not a fact but carries with it the assertion that it