DRIVETIME CHAT: THE AMAZING ATHEIST: Episode 32

[MrVarhansen]

dude if i had to be trapped in a car with you for your little "Drive-Time-Chat" i'd get out and walk

[jandrodavid]

The only reason why the infinite regress would never end is because it would be based on opinions and hypothesis of different scientists, meaning that it won't end until we get scientific proof. And that won't happen for a while since we still haven't been able to travel outside our solar system. But that's a lot more proof and assurance than the bible which was written by man, and several different man at that. What was it though, did they write what was dictated by god? Cause i think that's t

[Noxus909]

I'm unsure about this, but if someone claims that the universe existed forever, could they not also believe that no cause is required for it if it has always been there? Also, why go one step further to say God existed infinitely, instead of the universe? But that my not be your stance on God, so I'm not going to put words into your mouth.

[robertpiercy]

@Noxus909 A universe that has existed forever would require an infinite number of finite causes (AKA an infinite regress), which is absurd. See Hilbert's Paradox of the Grand Hotel for clarification.

To say that God existed forever is probably not the best way to say it, because it makes it sound as if God exists within space and time, which He does not. Rather, He transcends space and time. According to modern cosmology, space and time are interdependent and came into existence simultaneously.

[HeedfulGibbon]

i have questions..... which god is the real one?? which faith is actually telling the truth??? what faith do u belong too robertpiercy??? how come religon causes sepratism?? and last question...what happenes to the people that cant keep up with that fine religous line u walk??? does god kill them or send them to hell?? VERY IMPORTANT  PLZ REPLY

[robertpiercy]

@HeedfulGibbon Great questions! We're told to 'test everything; hold fast that which is good' (1 Thes. 5:21), so I would say that the claims of Christianity are rooted in evidence. Therefore, our faith is not a blind leap into the dark. However, to embrace Christ as one's greatest treasure is not the same as merely coming to terms mentally with a set of facts or statements. Instead it is a change of the heart, which comes from the gospel.

[HeedfulGibbon]

@robertpiercy I dont understand what that means. You didnt answer any of the questions... every christian on youtube is giving me the same b/s reply. Those questions are very important, because its life or death if you chose the wrong faith. Well thats what the bible teaches.

[robertpiercy]

@HeedfulGibbon I don't have enough room here to address every question, so if you need further explanation, msg me, and we can continue the conversation that way. OK... I belong to the Christian faith. Which god is God? Well, if God is infinite and we are finite, then there is no way for us to ever come to know God unless He condescends to reveal Himself to us, which is what the Bible is--God's revelation of Himself to man. So the Bible--not people--is our final authority on who God is.

[robertpiercy]

@HeedfulGibbon Furthermore, the Bible can be trusted through abundant manuscript and archaeological evidence, predictive prophecy, and statistical probability. Finally, remember that the entire Christian faith hinges on the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. No resurrection... no Christianity. There is also sufficient reason for believing the resurrection was in fact a historical event. If you want to get into these topics further, just let me know. Thanks!

[zpgJiggleBilly]

@robertpiercy And so can Nordic mythology.

[UnthoughtLies]

he's fake, deal with it

[MechanicalCrowds]

This question applies to both atheists and theists alike! Theists think they've solved this problem by introducing a new concept, i.e. god. And to introduce this concept you have to make infinite assumptions (god defined as infinite) while not really answering anything at all. No answer is provided by theists on the origin of god except self-definition. So theism really compounds the problem...

[robertpiercy]

@MechanicalCrowds If God were defined as just another cause in the series, then I would agree with you. But as it is, God exists independently of space and time, which is why God is not just another step down the chain of causes.

[jrersinghaus]

sir you obviously aren't familiar with brane cosmology. your arguments are sound, however their direction are in lack of that actual word. They are indeed directionless. The amazing Atheist is a logical man in most cases, he embraces science as the way to explain physical phenomena occurring in this universe. Ergo your infinite regression is out of the water, eh also to my predictions he might subscribe to the mathematical theories of string theory.

[MTCstrength33]

very good video. Keep it up

[fruitofspirit]

I'm no enemy of science - I thank God for it. And by His grace, we are learning more about how His universe works. But the discovery OF His methods, does not simultaneously negate His involvment. We must see the whole forest, not just the trees. If God choses to explain the order of creation to primative people, does He begin with theories of gravitational/electromagnetic fields, light expansion, & deoxyribonucleic acid? Or does He just tell them: I said, "Let there be..."

[foon42]

And be careful driving!

[robertpiercy]

Thanks!

[fruitofspirit]

LOL - I think we all should be concerned about Bro. Robert's driving.

[foon42]

A gravitational field is only a spacewarp - curved space. The energy locked up in a spacewarp can be converted into particles of matter and antimatter. This occurs, for example, near a black hole, and was probably also the most important source of particles in the big bang. Thus, matter appears spontaneously out of empty space.

Just possibilities to think about.

Thanks.

[robertpiercy]

More infinite regression.

[foon42]

incorrect

[foon42]

The creation of matter from a state of zero energy. This possibility arises because energy can be both positive and negative. The energy of motion or the energy of mass is always positive, but the energy of attraction, such as that due to certain types of gravitational or electromagnetic field, is negative. Circumstances can arise in which the positive energy that goes to make up the mass of newly-created particles of matter is exactly offset by the negative energy of electromagnetic gravity.

[robertpiercy]

You're still left with the question of where energy comes from. It's yet another link in the infinite regress of finite causes.

[foon42]

incorrect

[riversonthemoon]

The question of origins is a perplexing one. The most we can say is that existence as a whole cannot have a cause, because that cause would be something that exists and then we're back where we started. The word 'cause' presupposes existence. No way around it. No special pleading required.

However, God DOES require special pleading, and positing a God leads us to absurdity.

God is eternal. Now YOU have two options. Either he exists for an infinite time (you said something about actual...

[riversonthemoon]

...infinities being a fallacy?) or he exists 'without time' which means he cannot do anything such as create time, for action presupposes time.

Also, if we are going to take induction so seriously (the idea of cause and effect is an inductive one) then how can we account for the strange ontology of God pre-universe? We never see consciousness without a brain, knowledge is learned, and morality involves distinct agents (of which there was only one agent, God before he created any others),...

[riversonthemoon]

...and omnipresence is nonsensical before there were places to be. But you ASSUME (not induce) a being with all these qualities prior to a universe, that JUST ALWAYS WAS. No explanation - just always there, with consciousness (but no brain), power to create out of nothing, knowledge that wasn't learned, morality with no other agents, and being everywhere when there was nowhere to be. ABSURD.

[robertpiercy]

Omnipresence does not infer a physical presence (as in God residing within space). Rather, it deals with His being or essence.

To illustrate: you cannot say that a "part" of God is here and another "part" is there for God is simple insomuch that He is not a being composed of parts. Do a quick search on divine simplicity. This may help.

[riversonthemoon]

I hadn't refreshed the page and saw this post. I will check out divine simplicity.

I hope you will deal with the other issues I raised.

For now, I have to get to bed. I look forward to continuing this tomorrow.

:-)

[robertpiercy]

You are assuming that God exists within space and time, which He does not.

[riversonthemoon]

I didn't assume that. What I did was state explicitly what is usually implicit in the Christian understanding of the cosmological argument.

I think I covered both the no space and no time options in my post. No space - no omnipresence. No time - no action.

Oh, and if you say he exists 'outside' (a spatial notion) of space, I hope you won't proceed to make up rules for this non-space. That would be rather ad-hoc.

[robertpiercy]

When we say that God exists "outside of" time and space, it is to say that God exists "independent of" time and space.

The point is that God is not a contingent being and needs absolutely nothing.

[robertpiercy]

Good to see that you deny an infinite regress of causes.

[riversonthemoon]

I looked into the doctrine of divine simplicity. It strikes me as a kind of sophistry, and one that creates more problems than it solves. It says that God IS his properties. But that is ridiculous. If God is property A, and God is property B, then it follows that A is B. But how can omnipotence be identical with say, loving? My mother is loving, but that isn't to say she is powerful. Or (another objection that I came across) how can justice be identical with mercy?

[riversonthemoon]

In any case, I don't see how this addresses what I said. In what way does the word 'omnipresence' have any meaning at all without places to be present? In what way can he 'do' anything without changing and thus time passing? My objection is that these concepts contain spacio-temporal notions implicitly, and are meaningless without them.

My other objection is that we have never seen a consciousness without a brain, nor have we seen knowledge without some method of learning.

[riversonthemoon]

So on what basis do you attribute these things (eternally and identical with!) the first cause?

All I'm trying to show here is that the problem situation that TJ or any non-believer is in regarding the origins of existence is not solved (and in my estimation actually exacerbated by) invoking a magical God.

[robertpiercy]

God does not take up space. Therefore, space is not required for His omnipresence to be realized.

[robertpiercy]

This is a false dichotomy... or a false assumption at best. By saying God "IS" A or B, we're not saying that God "IS MADE UP OF" A or B. Therefore, your deduction is faulty.

However, you do ultimately come to a dichotomy in the doctrine, which is a result of our inability to wrap our heads around the idea of absolute unity.

[justbekindtooall]

I do not understand why people must drive and make videos. phones responsible for 6% -- or 636000 -- crashes, leading to 2600 deaths annually.

What will happen when you kill someone or yourself.

[philhellenes]

You like causality? OK. What caused God? And There are MORE than 2 options.

You lose, and you'll carry on losing.

[robertpiercy]

You are belaboring under the assumption that God had a beginning, which is not the case. If an entity has no beginning, it has no cause.

Perhaps you could present a third option.

[Bl1nd420]

you know what would be cool?

if you had a wreck while driving, and then SOMEHOW the video got put on youtube and played slowly in an OWNAGE VIDEO.