An alternative to the first cause argument is that the cosmos is a simple energy field, but divisions in this substance might cause a chain reaction producing particles that can interact and combine without returning to the original 'smooth' energy field. These particles might combine and produce more types of larger particles and so on upwards, with each type of particle having different properties that combine in different ways, produce a huge number of different phenomena.
three states the usual you can't get something from nothing (unless your god) it's not a logical reasoning or proof it's a hypothesis about god's superpowers. granted that at the time and from his perspective no-one would have challenged this as he's basically saying "cause we all know god exists he must have this superpower"
he wasn't a psychologist so i won't attack his poor statementrs on morality in 4 but it's fair to say their wrong. 5 similar thing.
@TataRoids continue.. then why does it make that said statement (nothing will only produce nothing) and yet think that if you ad god nothing can produce everything? thats a superpower. they realized that things can't poof into existance so they said "unless gods about".
4 states that goodness comes from god rather than natural emotions like empathy and groop instinct.
5 states trhat intelligence comes from god. we now know it's just brainpower.
@TataRoids well actually the correct interpritation would be the contextual interpritation. i recomend you watch the video this is a response to. and you will understand that he was basically saying that from the perspective he was at and the knowledge he knew these are reasonable hypothesis to why god exists.
i'm saying that they weren't without flaws even atr it's time hence why i didn't attack anything not of his time.
to his knowledge the reason for goodness was a greater goodnes.
"we must stop somewhere, otherwise there wil be no first causeof the change, and, as a result, no succeeding." what about the posibility of perpetual causation if there is no end must their be a begining? infinacy is abundant in nature. also the existance of non linear time would discount the idea of a first cause. the second point was the same as the first accept a hint of watchmaker argument. not worth adressing.
@TataRoids if time wasn't linear then their wouldn't be a first because non linear things don't have a start or an end. if you honestly want to deny that then you will need some serious evidence.
the watchmaker is a fallacy and has been ruled out of being used in philosophy because it is simply "affirming a consequent". it is nothing more than that.
your bsically saying if i drop an egg it will break. this egg is broken therefore i must of dropped it. and that is a fallacy. tbc
@TataRoids i wasn't claiming that there was no start to time (and you acuse me of strawmen?) i said that he was affirming the consequent by saying because god could cause he did cause. you however are taking the other side because in light of the fact that their other ways to"break an egg" you now deny the antecedent "Your analogy was a fail if it was meant to be a fallacy".
so present me an analogy of the "affirming the consequent" fallacy because you claim mine was wrong. tbc
There is no reason to assume that the law of causality applies outside of our universe.
SuperBspb 3 weeks ago
For more proof of God visit my channel!
delphos1223 2 months ago
Good work on the video, even though I disagree with it's content.
Pgaither84 7 months ago
Comment removed
marin904 1 year ago
An alternative to the first cause argument is that the cosmos is a simple energy field, but divisions in this substance might cause a chain reaction producing particles that can interact and combine without returning to the original 'smooth' energy field. These particles might combine and produce more types of larger particles and so on upwards, with each type of particle having different properties that combine in different ways, produce a huge number of different phenomena.
perrin6 1 year ago
our creator (mother earth) thinks christians suck
radgrindintom 1 year ago
@radgrindintom God created mother Earth.
MrAlexo333 9 months ago
three states the usual you can't get something from nothing (unless your god) it's not a logical reasoning or proof it's a hypothesis about god's superpowers. granted that at the time and from his perspective no-one would have challenged this as he's basically saying "cause we all know god exists he must have this superpower"
he wasn't a psychologist so i won't attack his poor statementrs on morality in 4 but it's fair to say their wrong. 5 similar thing.
superchang847 1 year ago
Comment removed
TataRoids 1 year ago
@TataRoids continue.. then why does it make that said statement (nothing will only produce nothing) and yet think that if you ad god nothing can produce everything? thats a superpower. they realized that things can't poof into existance so they said "unless gods about".
4 states that goodness comes from god rather than natural emotions like empathy and groop instinct.
5 states trhat intelligence comes from god. we now know it's just brainpower.
they didn't know that so i'm not gunna bite.
superchang847 1 year ago
Comment removed
TataRoids 1 year ago
@TataRoids well actually the correct interpritation would be the contextual interpritation. i recomend you watch the video this is a response to. and you will understand that he was basically saying that from the perspective he was at and the knowledge he knew these are reasonable hypothesis to why god exists.
i'm saying that they weren't without flaws even atr it's time hence why i didn't attack anything not of his time.
to his knowledge the reason for goodness was a greater goodnes.
superchang847 1 year ago
Comment removed
TataRoids 1 year ago
"we must stop somewhere, otherwise there wil be no first causeof the change, and, as a result, no succeeding." what about the posibility of perpetual causation if there is no end must their be a begining? infinacy is abundant in nature. also the existance of non linear time would discount the idea of a first cause. the second point was the same as the first accept a hint of watchmaker argument. not worth adressing.
superchang847 1 year ago
Comment removed
TataRoids 1 year ago
@TataRoids if time wasn't linear then their wouldn't be a first because non linear things don't have a start or an end. if you honestly want to deny that then you will need some serious evidence.
the watchmaker is a fallacy and has been ruled out of being used in philosophy because it is simply "affirming a consequent". it is nothing more than that.
your bsically saying if i drop an egg it will break. this egg is broken therefore i must of dropped it. and that is a fallacy. tbc
superchang847 1 year ago
Comment removed
TataRoids 1 year ago
@TataRoids i wasn't claiming that there was no start to time (and you acuse me of strawmen?) i said that he was affirming the consequent by saying because god could cause he did cause. you however are taking the other side because in light of the fact that their other ways to"break an egg" you now deny the antecedent "Your analogy was a fail if it was meant to be a fallacy".
so present me an analogy of the "affirming the consequent" fallacy because you claim mine was wrong. tbc
superchang847 1 year ago
Very nice video.
chrisman737 1 year ago
thank you for sharing this video very lovely... and the tune fits the words...GBU
TheVeiledCatholic 2 years ago