Kalam's Cosmological Argument Fails (response to DawahAddicts Video)

[FaceLikeTheSun]

Decent refutation but the last point that was made is wrong. Infinity cannot exist as a physical reality but is entirely plausible in the immaterial of metaphysical reality. anyone who uses the KCA will tell you the same. Also, KCA only shows a rational argument for there being a cause for the universe. It doesn't say therefore the cause is God.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@FaceLikeTheSun

"Infinity cannot exist"

Baseless assertion.

"KCA only shows a rational argument for there being a cause for the universe."

No, it's a completely irrational argument based on human intuition.

[imwatchuvideo]

you got it right when u said you are "bound" you are bound to this life of the world. you have a soul..u have a mind.you have the abillity to recognize right from wrong. your obviously smart but this earth and this universe this body and all its complexity is by design my friend. read the quran and the "scientific" information provided in that book and you will ask yourself...how did this man in the middle of the desert know this. how could he? doesnt mean u will believe but it will make u think

[TheEarthAbides]

@imwatchuvideo If that book (quran) really contained scientific info why didn't any muslim know it did until a christian said (it in order to sell a book). It's the same thing with Nostradamus - really all you need are vague passages that can be twisted to mean whatever anyone wants them to later. That info you are talking about convinces no one. you said this universe and us are by design. Scientific info (like the kind you say exists in the quran) says otherwise.

[SASSJMSCBC]

@TheEarthAbides please could you tell how sentific info states that the universe is not desing?

[imwatchuvideo]

michio kaku is an illuminati puppet

[BreakoutLuceal]

you do know that Quantum fluctuations does not take place in absolute nothingness. It actually takes place out of a larger quantum field ,which is a part of physical reality, that enables particles to come in and out of existence, So you would need to address that because the scientist out there who assert this as a explanation certainly do not.

[kingspider1000]

you said infinity is impossible, yet was quite unclear as to the reasons for believing that. infinity isnt composed of an indefinite number of smaller finite parts, if that is what youre thinking.

infinity by definition means unrestricted and unlimited in every way whatsoever. how does the finite mind detect infinity using gadgets that are designed to study finite objects ?

[kingspider1000]

your argument : cause and effect do not apply to particles at the quantum level

my argument : yet , if you admit that all particles at a quantum level behave in the same manner and their behaviour is true in all cases, then it strongly suggests a law based on which these particles are behaving in such a predictable way. laws suggest a design or constricted path of behaviour out of many paths of behaviours, which in turn reveals a mind or intelligence designing that.

[kingspider1000]

your argument : space and time has always existed eternally in a cycle of rebirth. meaning, an unexplained predictable process repeated itself indefinitely from the past.

my argument : logic also shows that a process (something that is predictable and follows a certain pattern) cannot exist without a beginning. so that theory of the universe's beginning is wrong.

[shadoeboi212]

he isnt very smart his argument is self refuting and he refuses to believe it. his argument is refuted because as he said everything has a cause therefore god had to have a cause

[hexusziggurat]

@shadoeboi212 "he isnt very smart his argument is self refuting and he refuses to believe it. his argument is refuted because as he said everything has a cause therefore god had to have a cause"

Not at all...everything that BEGAN to exist had a cause....God never began to exist. He is an eternal uncaused being. Thats the premise of the arguement.

[TheEarthAbides]

@hexusziggurat Could a god with a finite existence be responsible for creating the universe?

[hexusziggurat]

@TheEarthAbides I can't be certain, if a finite being could create the universe...maybe....you might qualify as inifinite & finite in the same being though. If you take the phoenix for example, who lives then dies of ancient aging then is reborn anew. So the being is both finite & infinite in the same sense. So if we look at it this way...then it may be possible. Though in the Christian outlook, God is infinite existing beyond "time" (which He is not affected by...in the sense of aging).

[shadoeboi212]

@hexusziggurat so what your saying is there is no god i like that argument

[hexusziggurat]

@shadoeboi212 I am not sure where you read those words "what your saying is there is no god" or how you inferred that from what i said since i started the paragraph with "I can't be certain" and reiterated with the word "maybe". The I gave an example to spark the imagination. Then I gave the example as believe by some (cause i cannot be absolute in my certainty for all beings) in Christianity as to their belief of Hod's attributes. Its still seems to be a stretch to infer what you said.

[hexusziggurat]

@shadoeboi212 actually i spent some time reading back through what you said...and i didn't really see any evident "point" being made...just a whole bunch of assumption and finger pointing. So please if you could (so i can address your point) restate the point i seem to be missing.

[RedLetterChristian]

hugo's videos have been taken down as such I haven't seen his argument however, the argument as william lane craig states it is sound as this series of video's prove the point quite well by addressing the 2 biggest/only objections

all are about 6 minute long but you would be most interested in second one

first watch?v=pcpezT5CWBY

second watch?v=SKp2-g8EbvE

third  watch?v=v3gYNJLTHLE

they are all well done and in an english accent too, which always sounds more authoritative :-)

[RedLetterChristian]

the expansion contraction argument is purely theoretical and is complete conjecture that can not ever be tested but should it be true space and time stop existing for a moment before they come back into existence meaning for all intensive purposes the universe began when space and time began because prior to that there was literally no universe. this theory is lacking a mechanism that allows for a collapsed universe to come back again. from what we can tell now the universe is ever expanding

[TheEarthAbides]

@RedLetterChristian right. but see how you just dismissed the contracting & expanding universe based on conjecture- the point is, to say there is a human-like entity outside of space and time that willed it all into existence is beyond conjecture and should be dismissed based on the same reasoning. except we know for certain that the universe IS expanding, so at least there is some evidence for the former theory. you must dismiss the Christian god for the same reason, that's the point.

[RedLetterChristian]

@TheEarthAbides yes and no. craigs point is simply that it is more reasonable to believe in God as the uncaused cause than it is reasonable to believe that some other agent or prepossess is the cause of the universe. kalams argument does not prove god (christian, hindu whatever floats your boat ) it proves that it is much more likely than not.

[TheEarthAbides]

@RedLetterChristian - you're getting it wrong. a natural explanation requires nothing beyond a natural catalyst. if the energy that caused the big bang was always there, then it requires no other explanation. BUT to posit that the energy was not always there, it was willed into existence by an entity, the only thing you have done is shift the problem onto that entity- where did it come from, how did it get there, why did it will the energy into existence. it's far more complicated & needless

[RedLetterChristian]

@TheEarthAbides so your arguing that energy was pre-existing our universe making it truly infinite. now I am no physicist but this energy you speak of would have to be quite dynamic to allow for the incredible fine tuning of the (I believe it is 50 odd) constants and other important theoretical numbers that act in consert to allow life to exist plus more matter than antimatter in said singularity and the correct expansion rate to make it work.

[TheEarthAbides]

@RedLetterChristian you are forgetting that pesky Law of Conservation of Energy, matter and energy can't be created not destroyed. Matter can become energgy and energy can become matter. For all we know there have been billions of big bangs, but ours- the one that caused us just so happened to have the right fluctuation and distributions to cause matter to clump together, thus causing atoms, dust, planets, proteins and life. natural causes.

[RedLetterChristian]

@TheEarthAbides beyond that energy naturally dissipates,what natural occurrence brought that amount of energy together and kept it in a neutral form allowing for the build up to not prematurely explode so as to even allow for such a singularity to exist at all, what is this natural catalyst that started the reaction,if you have this energy and a natural catalyst you necessitate space and time before there was space and time or are both immaterial? what mechanism would allow for billions of bangs

[RedLetterChristian]

@TheEarthAbides as far as we have been able show when producing antimatter you get equal amounts of matter, the 2 would simple annihilate each other in the big bang and neither you nor I would be having this conversation.

[TheEarthAbides]

@RedLetterChristienergy the law refers to a closed system, but the universe itself is the system, so the energy would be contained. as for matter and antimatter NOT annihilating each other, this is a matter for science and I'm sure great minds have theories on it, but just because there may not be a reason that YOU find satisfactory does not mean it's ok to stick a god in as a place holder. it's actually OK to say "i don't know". just because we exist isn't good enough to say, God did it.

[RedLetterChristian]

@TheEarthAbides yep! the universe sure is a closed system but before we had a universe as far as you are concerned there was all this free energy floating around there is no known way to gather all that energy into a point smaller than an atom b/c energy naturally dissipates.antimatter and matter when they come into contact do actually annihilate each other that's why there had to be more matter than antimatter in the big bang. next God is NOT a place holder but he is holding the place together

[RedLetterChristian]

@TheEarthAbides you are absolutely correct in saying that i don't know is a valid answer what you guilty of is completely writing off a theory that has more credibility than anything brought forward thus far simply because you don't like the idea of a God. how wonderfully scientific of you. next - God created in such a way so as to let us figure stuff out, (scientifically). yes this is terribly illogical isn't it?. we can learn much about God through knowing more about his creation.

[TheEarthAbides]

@RedLetterChristian I love that you think it's scientific to conclude there is an entity beyond space and time that has the ability to conjure up universes. Also, there is no "theory" called god. a theory is a body of work, testable and falsifiable. How do we know the universe is expanding? Because of hundreds of years of scientific study & testable, verifiable observation. Logically, the universe is expanding from an event. You call the event God, to science it is yet to be determined...

[hexusziggurat]

@TheEarthAbides "Also, there is no "theory" called god. a theory is a body of work, testable and falsifiable."

Thats also a presumed absurdidty to place yourself in a box governed by current scientific testability. To think there is nothing (that exixts) beyond that which can be tested by science is an affront to basic science itself. If there was nothing beyond then theered never be a need for advancement in fringe or mainstream science. Science cannot find everything that exists.

[TheEarthAbides]

@hexusziggurat "Science cannot find everything that exists" ... why not?

[hexusziggurat]

@TheEarthAbides A good reason is that if science could find everything that exists (currently) there would never be any need for advancement...and every time science advances...we find out we didn't know something. Also it we be a massive assumption to say that we could invent a machine to sense all things...the restraints of the mechanics around machines just won't allow us to do some things b/c of the materials they are made from. Well perhaps until we start using unobtanium to craft things ;)

[Gnomefro]

@RedLetterChristian There is nothing credible about blatantly asserting that an entity with a whole range of attributes exists without being able to demonstrate it. Elves and Santa are in this category as well.

However, the worst thing about introducing "god" in this context is that it doesn't explain anything. It's just giving ignorance a name. Why in the world do you think introducing an eternal "universe factory" that wants you to murder gays makes more sense than assuming nature is eternal?

[TheEarthAbides]

@Gnomefro well put dude! i love this line:

Why in the world do you think introducing an eternal "universe factory" that wants you to murder gays makes more sense than assuming nature is eternal?

cheers~

[hexusziggurat]

@Gnomefro actually it has been the conclusion of cosmology (a real science) that professed the idea (soon by other science & theologians) that you cannot have an infinite universe. All mainstream science concludes that the universe did indeed have a beginning.

[thecrashingfalcon]

@hexusziggurat

Technically, they've only concluded that the universe's expansion had a beginning, and currently they're relying on quantum field theory to explain t0, not Yahweh. And what if cosmology shifts to Neil Turok's theory?

All the theists will then switch to claiming that an eternal universe is only possible if it's sustained by an eternal god. Let's not pretend that theists really give a shit about conclusions from cosmology.

[hexusziggurat]

@thecrashingfalcon "they're relying on quantum field theory to explain t0, not Yahweh" and whats your point? Theists often use God as an explaination to illustrate that, "there is a possibility which should not be discluded"

"what if cosmology shifts" let it! The theist isn't bothered by the morphing nature of science..science is merely a tool. "Let's not pretend that theists really give a shit about conclusions from cosmology."

Lets not pretend thats completely an assumption.

[thecrashingfalcon]

@RedLetterChristian Have you considered that the complex life forms on the planet we see today are not the result of fine tuning , but the result of simpler metabolic forms having to fight their ass off to exist long enough to evolve to our complexity?

Also, have you considered that down syndrome, harlequin icthyosis, conjoined twins, miscarriages, etc., kind of fly in the face of the fine tuning argument?

[TheEarthAbides]

@thecrashingfalcon good point.

[hexusziggurat]

@thecrashingfalcon "Also, have you considered that down syndrome, harlequin icthyosis, conjoined twins, miscarriages, etc., kind of fly in the face of the fine tuning argument?"

Have you ever considered that humans eat poison and chemicals & are chronically exposed to extreme toxicity levels of composite materials that harm us & wreak havoc on our bodies daily? Have you thought that mankind (though not neccessarily the only instigator) causes many of its own problems usually seeking profit?

[thecrashingfalcon]

@hexusziggurat "Have you thought that mankind (though not neccessarily the only instigator) causes many of its own problems usually seeking profit?"

You might as well have said:

It's not the designer's fault; it's the design's fault!

What you wrote doesn't help you in making a case for a divine omnipotent designer... You now have to tackle the question of why an all knowing designer would purposefully create a species so irrational & so short sighted to the point of self destruction.... 

[hexusziggurat]

@thecrashingfalcon apparently He created angelic beings as well....but some rebelled against Him. That only shows that when one designs a being with free-will....thats its a double edged sword. Theres no "fault" ..it simply is what it is. If you were seeking fault then you may as well say:

I'm looking for something to blame for things with which i cannot cope!

[thecrashingfalcon]

@hexusziggurat WRONG! It's not apparent that "He created angelic beings"! That's just you taking bronze age mythology @ face value, until you provide evidence otherwise.

So if you truly believe your will is free, then please feel free to sprout wings out your back & fly down an angel to show us what's "apparent".

[hexusziggurat]

@thecrashingfalcon "WRONG! It's not apparent that "He created angelic beings"! That's just you taking bronze age mythology @ face value, until you provide evidence otherwise."

So you seek to condemn God via the Bible yet somehow it cannot be used as a basis for further conversation? Interesting double standard.

[thecrashingfalcon]

@hexusziggurat "So you seek to condemn God via the Bible yet somehow it cannot be used as a basis for further conversation? Interesting double standard"

You're accusing me of a double standard when there isn't one.

Address my points or don't bother writing..

[thecrashingfalcon]

@hexusziggurat And while we're on "free will", I guess you think rape victims are to blame since they had the free will to be raped or not. And babies who are shaken to death are to blame since they had the free will to be shaken or not.

[thecrashingfalcon]

@hexusziggurat "If you were seeking fault..."

Seeking fault is EXACTLY what YOU were doing! You were blaming the maladies of man (viruses/diseases/birth defects) on men seeking profit! Theists have always blamed what's natural in life's struggle, be it earthquakes or plagues, on "original sin"... Science copes with these by trying to come up with cures & structurally sound architecture! Theism copes by making death acceptable through the promise of a mansion on a street of gold.

[TheEarthAbides]

@thecrashingfalcon well said!

[hexusziggurat]

@thecrashingfalcon i wasn't blaming them... iwas trying to open up other possibilities to answers you were seeking. As in there isn't just one simple answer for all the worlds problems ...like blaming it all on religion...that would be absurd. In communities where there isn't prevalent religion they still have problems, big & small. Hmm mansion on a street of gold ...i don't remember hearing about that angle, interesting.

[thecrashingfalcon]

@hexusziggurat "i wasn't blaming them...... to answers you were seeking."

You dodged or missed my point about free will.

Nobody's blaming ebola or cancer on religion.

What questions do you think I'm seeking answers to?

Ask yourself if you're really open to any possible answers other than Jesus is your lord & savior.

[hexusziggurat]

@thecrashingfalcon "Have you considered that the complex life forms on the planet we see today are not the result of fine tuning , but the result of simpler metabolic forms having to fight their ass off to exist long enough to evolve to our complexity?"

If you pray at the altar of science & be a good practitioner of science you must be open to the idea that there very well could be a being out there that did fine tune it all. Good science practiced well remains open to possibilities.

[thecrashingfalcon]

"you must be open to the idea that there very well could be a being out there that did fine tune it all."

And what evidence do have that the default state, before a supposed fine tuner came along and supposedly tinkered with it, wasn't itself capable of producing the universe's current state? The only evidence uncovered so far points that agency is a product of evolution, while there's no evidence that evolution is a product of agency.

[i7o999]

And (He has created) horses, mules, and donkeys, for you to ride and use for show; and He has created (other) things of which ye have no knowledge.

Quran 16:8

[TheEarthAbides]

wow dude.

what the heck was the point of all that?

what did you think copy and pasting that stuff would accomplish?

do you have any opinions that are your own, or do you spend all day copy and pasting verses from one book?

if you want to play that game i can copy and paste verses from that book as well. i can also copy paste verses from other books too.

seriously dude, what was the point of that, besides spamming this comment section?

[ndjm00]

@i7o999 Proper Douche!

[TheEarthAbides]

@ndjm00 haha, you read that guys rambling eh lol. yea that was weird.

[ndjm00]

@TheEarthAbides Ya... that gut is properly fucked in the head!

[i7o999]

Verily Allah knows (all) the hidden things of the heavens and the earth: verily He has full knowledge of all that is in (men's) hearts.

Quran 35:38

"He (alone) knows the Unseen, nor does He make any one acquainted with His Mysteries,-

Quran 72:26

[alianchild]

@i7o999 You really need to seek psychiatric help.

[i7o999]

It is He who created the heavens and the earth in true (proportions): the day He saith, "Be," behold! it is. His word is the truth. His will be the dominion the day the trumpet will be blown. He knoweth the unseen as well as that which is open. For He is the Wise, well acquainted (with all things).

Quran 6:73

[i7o999]

But to Allah belong all things in the heavens and on earth: And He it is that Encompasseth all things.

Quran 4:126

With Him are the keys of the unseen, the treasures that none knoweth but He. He knoweth whatever there is on the earth and in the sea. Not a leaf doth fall but with His knowledge: there is not a grain in the darkness (or depths) of the earth, nor anything fresh or dry (green or withered), but is (inscribed) in a record clear (to those who can read).

Quran 6:59

[i7o999]

To Allah belong the east and the West: Whithersoever ye turn, there is the presence of Allah. For Allah is all-Pervading, all-Knowing.

Quran 2:115

[i7o999]

He Who created Death and Life, that He may try which of you is best in deed: and He is the Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving;-

Quran 67:2

[i7o999]

There is no god but He: It is He Who gives life and gives death,- The Lord and Cherisher to you and your earliest ancestors.

Quran 44:8

To Him belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth: It is He Who gives Life and Death; and He has Power over all things.

Quran 57:2

[i7o999]

No vision can grasp Him, but He grasps all vision. He is Al-Latif (the Most Subtle and Courteous), Well-Acquainted with all things.

Quran 6:103

1 Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; 2 Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; 3 He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; 4 And there is none like unto Him.

Quran/Chapter 112

[i7o999]

He is the First and the Last, the Evident and the Immanent: and He has full knowledge of all things.

Quran 57:3

He is the First and the Last, the Evident and the Immanent: and He has full knowledge of all things.

Quran 57:3

Glory to the Lord of the heavens and the earth, the Lord of the Throne (of Authority)! (He is free) from the things they attribute (to him)!

Quran 43:82

[i7o999]

Allah. There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth.

[i7o999]

Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory).

Quran 2:255

[rusty2029]

I also wanted to follow up on your idea that the atheist is limited. You may mean that a materialist is limited. A materialist must reject even the first principles of logic like the excluded middle as mental concepts are not proven materially. Otherwise please flesh out how atheists are limited? Is this a mental limitation so that they can a-priori refuse any clues about God's expressed love for us all? Where in logic is reason and rationality limited only to material reality. --a paradox

[rusty2029]

A ? is a ? until further information is available? Do you mean a science of the gaps? Atheism may be effecting your better judgment if you think any other universe has been confirmed to a scientific certainty. Your attempt at refutation seems logical to you but does not mean it's truthful either. Do you know that this universe is considered to be open and not subject to collapse or rebirth under current understandings of dark matter/energy. The Universe is not like the quantum realm.

[TheEarthAbides]

this sums it up here:

watch?v=oZxzvdQ85zU

[rusty2029]

And now I can save you the step and assure you that God communicated with us regarding the reality of the big bang long before science stumbled upon it blindly. Sagan does not have an answer as man does not have an answer but what comes from God. Man can keep himself in darkness but that does not mean God has not communicated sufficiently so as we can know God and understand the loving relationship required. Our foreknowledge of the big bang stands as clue and point of evidence for God.

[dawahaddict]

"Atheism may be effecting your better judgment"

This statement is one that I would like to hear much more often.

[TheEarthAbides]

that's funny because the statement is illogical.

atheism is the lack of belief for which there is no proof or even corroborating evidence for something.

so how does the lack of a faith based dogma affect your judgement?

let me ask you this-

what would it take for you to disbelieve Islam?

[mustno3]

All the proofs that I would share with you are relative to me. And basically it is a long story, ie how I came to believe.

I personally don't think that the complexity and the beauty of nature and the universe have come spontaneously. Causality is THE fundamental core of all of Physics. So saying that something could have come randomly & spontaneously from the void is against physics itself.

I understand when you think someone may have written the bible from his own writings.

[TheEarthAbides]

based on what you said

1) how did we come to be (there must be a god)

2) who caused the cause (must be a god)

3) he is personal to me

4) the creator must be one (why?)

all of the examples you listed are either based on ignorance (how else could we be here, i don't know...) or based on personal bias (it's not like you feel in your heart of hearts that Brahman is the one true god. no it just happens to be the god that you were exposed to... the god of the bible.

[TheEarthAbides]

...so the evidence required to prove this is actually the case is no difference from anything else in our lives. if you heard there is a pill that once swallowed will turn you invisible, what proof would YOU require? testimony? only concrete evidence!

what if everyone in Australia believed that kangaroos were given to people as rewards from the gods. wouldn't you think it's interesting that only Australians believe this & there just so happens to be kangaroos in australia? it's so telling

[TheEarthAbides]

(part 3)

now when it comes to the god of the bible, who was earlier the god of the jews, and who was earlier one of many gods worshiped by the Canaanites along with his wife Ashera, what makes him so special? it's not like humans aren't related to chimpanzees, it's not like we CAN'T trace our lineage back for millions of years. it's not like we CAN'T explain how the universe came to be. so why believe this mythical character did any of it? there is absolutely no reason to believe it anymore.

[mustno3]

Parallel Universe Theory is just a theory, mathematical dreams that have no exprimental proofs my friend.

While the Big Bang is not just a theory, or rather is the only theory that have seen more experimental proofs than any other (philosophical mathematical string) theory. Universe expansion is may be the most crystal clear proof. (Even string theorists assume the BB while they cannot provide any shred of evidence for their alternative explanations)

Enjoy

[TheEarthAbides]

yes I realize it's a theory with no actual proof. it is a theory inferred from what we know of the universe. this is different from assuming a disembodied intelligence willed the universe into being. instead, it is one of a few naturalistic possible causes for the current state of our universe.

[mustno3]

No it's a theory inferred from beautiful mathematics, little to do with what we observe physically. Till today no one saw two world membranes colliding in the 11th dimension!!! LOL

You say "this is different from assuming". but you forget that what you believe are also mere assumptions as long as there s no physical proof

So we both have our assumprions, the only difference is that a God's assumprion does not conradict any of the others. And it's the only one with all the answers in it.

[mustno3]

Now if you demand to see God Himself in order to believe in Him, this would be like demanding to see your grade before you finish taking the exam. You have to wait in order to see him. It would also be like demanding to be put into the fire in order to believe how hot it can be.

[TheEarthAbides]

i'd have to disagree. i'll adress your error using your own simile.

"in order to believe in Him, this would be like demanding to see your grade before you finish taking the exam"

when you write an exam you know there is an answer. and that answer is based on the questions, and the questions were based on what you learned.

god is more like the unknown impossible answer to an invisible test that no one can prove we are taking and studying would involve guessing what textbook to read

[mustno3]

Then let's push the simile further.

The exam here is whether to believe or not, u r totally free to choose. The teacher showed you how to prepare in order to make th right choice. He will not give you the answer on an easy-to-read piece of paper, cause then the exam becomes pointless. How did he help ? ... Well .. with the textbooks he gave you. Here also you r totally free to ignore the textbooks. and try to find your own way to the right answer.

[mustno3]

Remember, teacher gave you hints about the answer, it's up to you to find it.

I know that you would argue that there's no proof of an ongoing test at all. right. But I would ask you: what kind of proof would you be satisfied with?

Imagine that now your demand for a proof is granted, what kind of proof would you ask for?

Just curious ... Cause, I myself have enough proofs, I reached my proof satisfaction limit. What is your limit?

[TheEarthAbides]

proof that isn't personal or based on hearsay / garbled "testimony" etc.

The proof should equal the gravity of the claim. To say there is a creator of the universe and he cares about us is a monumental claim. you can't just point to the bible and say "that's all the proof you need". because it's not, especially when any bronze age barbarian could have written it.

what proof would you consider should be sufficient?

i'll believe it if it's proven. so what is your proof?

[mustno3]

But I was dead sure that there is a creator. What it is like, I don't know. Now it surely makes sense that if there's something which created everything, this sthg would try to communicate with me, and that there is a purpose why it created me. How would it communicate with me. talking to me directly .. possible. But Messengers would also be another possible way of commuincation.

[mustno3]

Talking to me directly, I think would be too much. Cause otherwise why not talking o me directly all the time then.

Then it is obvious that since that thing is not showing itself directly, then messengers are the other way of telling me about himself. Now let's see ... it is reported that there were many people claiming to be messengers. Looking at what they say I see that they all agree on 1 thing, there is a creator and he's one. Period, that's enough for me.

[mustno3]

Of course the story is much longer than this.

Now it's your turn. You still didn't give me am example of proof that would satisfy your ego. You described how the proof should be, but you know that everything is relative, and that description without an example may mean anything.

Give an event or a piece of evidence that would 100% convince you.

(P.S proofs of equal gravity have been already reported, ie miracles performed by messengers, repeatedly reported in at least 3 historical books :)

[CHAS1422]

Great video. Nice ending. The theists are always claiming proof by logic alone (along with their holy book as evidence). When the use the "Universe MUST have a beginning" arguement but then exempt God from having to have a beginning, They claim that God exists "outside of space and time". This also exempts them from producing evidence for God, angels, heaven, hell etc...And yet, they know so much about him...go figure

[TheEarthAbides]

Thanks Chas~

Yea it's quite remarkable how the theist is able to rationalize the absurd that way, isn't it. To use logic and reason to prove there is a god and then completely abandon logic and reason to have that god exist.

[6Untitled9]

[ "A question mark is a question mark until further information is available" ]

I like it, because it's as succinct a reason I have come across to drop the term 'Atheism'. The religious have transmogrified atheism into an alternative belief system, allowing them to transfer the burden of 'disproof'.

In reality, there is no coherent or even comprehensible description of any God from anywhere. Until one is forthcoming there is nothing to disbelieve or disprove.

[TheEarthAbides]

ah, exactly. seems so simple doesn't it...

[noproofforjesus]

you got it a little wrong here, this is why. the quantum theory tells us how the super small works and relativity tells us how the very big works these theory both work but they conflict some, michio is trying to find a way to blend the 2 but as of now it still alludes us because we cant test it. but that being said you are right

[TheEarthAbides]

... of deleting "everything" he wrote.

i don't think he was lying, but i do think he was confused as I never delete messages.

I wished he wasn't so combative, because if he actually had a good point, I wasn't able to see it. so at the end of the day he just provided me with a bad experience lol.

if you could gleam a worthwhile point out of his tirade please let me know...

[TheIrrationalAtheist]

LMFAO, you deleted everything I said refuting all of this video, you're just like VenomFangX, fundamentalist bigotry.

[TheEarthAbides]

I deleted nothing.

I wouldn't delete any response, no matter how belligerent it was.

[TheEarthAbides]

I deleted nothing.

I would never delete a response, no matter how belligerent it was.

[ginraisama]

i was reading this exchange you had and couldn't quite understand what your position was.

are you trying to imply kalam's cosm. argument is valid to try and justify any god's existence? or are you saying this was just a bad refutation of it?

none of these pseudo philosophical arguments does anything to make it more likely that a christian or whatever religion's god exists, only try and open a possibility for a nameless deity. going from that to a personal god is a GIANT leap. do you agree?

[TheEarthAbides]

ah yea, this was my first video and i was trying to meet that guy half way. My position is that the kalam argument is garbage. the one thing i was trying to have the "believe" understand is that you have to make many assumptions, plus you need to have god in the premise of the argument in order to conclude a god exists, which is circular reasoning.

if you want to believe there must be a first cause, how does that produce an entity that fits a God description and not a natural accident

[ginraisama]

yeah, i fully understand your position as a rebuttal to the original video, what confused me was 'TheIrrationalAtheist' exchange with you... i was wandering where he was standing on this one.

if he was just criticizing you for not presenting the best debunking of kalam's argument or if he actually agrees with kalam's cosm. argument.

hope it's not just a bitchy defense of philosophy over science type of thing on his part though :)

[TheEarthAbides]

Oh yea, that guy. Well, from what I could gather, he seems like a real angry individual. He was just picking at my video but not really giving clear reasons, like he said i lost credibility when i showed a book written my Michael Shermer, but not saying why since I obviously think he IS credible.

He said some weak points that, like you said, was a defense of philosophy over science, I gave what I thought was a clear answer to it, and he disappeared only to come back weeks later accusing me...

[TheEarthAbides]

Irrational, you seem to be implying that you are well studied and know far more then I could ever hope to know and look what it got you-

philosophies change over time, science is a slave to philosophy would be true if it wasn't able to retain truths and discard falshoods. on the other hand you seem to be a slave to your emotions. for someone as well read and versed as yourself, you think you would be able to offer a proper critique instead of insisting every valid point is a "card".

[TheIrrationalAtheist]

I never said I was well studied, I am still in high school, I was pointing out your innocence towards this.

"science is a slave to philosophy would be true if it wasn't able to retain truths and discard falshoods. "

I want you to answer two things for me. What is truth? And how does science get at that Truth?

-in order to DO anything, you must use philosophy

"every valid point is a "card". "

The thing is, your points aren't valid

[TheEarthAbides]

Irrational,

Why assert a point is wrong without giving a reason? Do you concede you might be wrong? (considering you are not well studied and are still in high school as Dhorpatan correctly guessed). For example, what makes you think I didn't take philosophy in university? For all you know I'm a professor but you spout off something like, "You lost all credibility with the Michale Shermer book". That's an opinion based on what?

Open a dialogue with people & you might learn something

[TheEarthAbides]

1)

"What is truth? And how does science get at that Truth?"

This IS a philosophical question, it's called Epistemology. Truth in this context is what we call reality. So how do we know we are taking an accurate account of reality- Science seeks out natural explanations for phenomena by empirical evidence that relies on EXTERNAL VALIDATION <-- this means that a scientist in another country, in another time and another zeitgeist can test the theory. This transcends the philosophy of the time.

[TheEarthAbides]

2)

Look at Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection. During his time the philosophy was that all life was created instantly by God

His theory changed this widely accepted philosophy to one that was less dogmatic to one that was more natural. As time went on the social philosophy Eugenics took root. it used Darwins theory as a means to direct and explain human traits. As we progressed it was deemed cruel and false and was discarded. We still hold on to Darwins's theory though-

[TheEarthAbides]

3)

And the reason we hold on to his theory is because it is always independently verified. Archeologists, Geologists, Geneticists, Zoologists, Sociologists (the list goes on) all verify the theory without exception. Why do we know it's the truth? because Darwin produced the theory after 20 years of careful study 150 years ago. When the molecular structure of DNA was discovered 100 years later it solidified Darwins theory. It's the truth as much as we can tell because it is externally verified.

[TheIrrationalAtheist]

..Yikes, not only does it lack emperical evidence, but does nothing to the metaphysical question of God. How does the existence of multi-universes do anything to the Christian God? Squat.

[TheEarthAbides]

OMF'ing G. Dude, i read your comments on Dhorpatan's video and I could barely get through it all. In fact you lost me during your tirade. You spew this hate filled cascade of paragraph's one after another with no hope to engage anyone in a dialogue.

Here is your problem, and it's obvious. You are angry, you don't apply what you hear to what it's responding to and you seem to expect to hear an answer in place of the refutation.

[TheEarthAbides]

#1) you began by trying to discredit me by belittling the books i filmed in my video. how does one bastardize metaphysics?

#2) kalams argument as applied to the big bang was what the video proposed that i was responding to so i ran with it-

#3) the multiverse card? it proves that ther eis more then 1 theory for the beginning of our universe (related to video i was responding to)

#4) proposing to divide an infinity by an infinity is a what i meant by thinking of it in finite terms.

[TheEarthAbides]

Irratiunal one-

did you watch the original video i was responding to?

would you accuse dawah addict of basterdizing logic, cosmology and metaphysics as well?

Would one do well to conclude that "god did it" when information runs out?

Using the kalam argument is just a vehicle to get to a point that science doesn't readily have an answer for and a convienient place to stick a god of the gaps.

this is what i am pointing out, your responses to my video suggest you didn't see the big picture.

[TheIrrationalAtheist]

"Using the kalam argument is just a vehicle to get to a point that science doesn't readily have an answer for . "

Ahh yes, the ol' science will answer it in the future garbage. Considering you read SOOO many books about logic and philosophy, I think you would know that the origin of the universe(s) is no scientific question, but a metaphysically one. Science is a slave to philosophy, ooops. Seems you didn't know that one either.

[TheIrrationalAtheist]

"the multiverse card? it proves that ther eis more then 1 theory for the beginning of our universe (related to video i was responding to)"

Yes the Kalam still applies

[TheIrrationalAtheist]

..listen to yourself...saying that something contingent has always existed infinitely into the past. Well if there was a infinite amount of time before this point, a beginningless series of events, we never would have reached this point in time. Actual infinites are mere concepts and do not exist in reality, our universe, is a potential infinite, learn the difference. LMAO, then you pull the multiverse card, well, I don't disagree with the theory, but per say, how does this disprove the kalam?

[TheIrrationalAtheist]

First off, the Kalam does NOT need to use the Big Bang theory, nor does it need any theory of how the universe expanded. Even though, the Standard Model, which has stood the test of time, is still favorited by most cosmologists today. Second, the impossibility of traversing an actual infinite, actual infinites do not exist, if you think they do, I want you to divide infinity by infinity and see what you get. Theny you pulled the "the universe is eternal card", I almost died when I heard this...

[TheIrrationalAtheist]

Well, now that you're done entirely bastardizing philosophy, cosmology, and metaphysics, I suggest you drop those "Logic" books and takes some philosophy courses. Not only did this video make me cry, but laugh very hard at moments, you lost all credibility when you brought out the Shermer book.

[dawahaddict]

Hey, I have that last book! Nice bro.

Now, we've discussed most, maybe all of these issues in the comments on my video. I would like to make a response video to this, but I wouldn't expect it soon. For now, anyone, including you Earth, can refer to our discussion back and forth all over my comments page lol. To be confrontational, I will accuse you of publicizing arguments I have already responded to in an attempt to give the impression that I have not responded to them, with the hope that...

[dawahaddict]

...people will be too lazy to go back and read all of our comments. To be amicable, I say to you, well done sir ;-)

[dawahaddict]

PS- Thanks for calling me "a really smart guy."