thunderf00t vs william lane craig? who created God?

[shimwah]

Well if we get every human being on the planet to place their hand on a hot stove at the same time that would be what 7 billion burnt hands. That would prove my point and satisfy your challenge in a split second.

I am not sure we agree on the definition of faith.

When mankind knows truth and lives it there will be unity. The debating will end, we will all be in agreement and everyone will be a winner.

[shimwah]

God is defined by what you believe. A belief is a belief. I don't base my life on beliefs. I base my life on KNOWN S and possibilities. I KNOW it will burn and hurt if I stick my hand on a hot stove. Its a good POSSIBILITY it will heal with time. Its a vague possibility that if I pray to God it will heal in a shorter period of time.

[DeJay14]

@shimwah you know and trust that the next time you do something like burn your hand it will be the same result but in reality something else could happen you never truly know you trust. Now you could say easily that you tried it and it has the same result but if you tried it a million years from now what if one time your hand didn't burn. You have faith reality is the way it is and that it wont change outside of your five senses

[shimwah]

@DeJay14 Yes you made my point. Something else might happen. Its possible my hand will not burn, but not likely. Faith would be putting my hand on the stove with the belief it will not burn. I know it will burn. I trust it will burn. 'What if I try it once and it does not burn?' Show me! Show me the power of your faith and win a Nobel prize in physics while you are at it.

[DeJay14]

@shimwah isnt that a clever trick to show you, I have faith it wont as well it goes both ways either way we both have faith but it cant be proven we just trust in previous experience and what not but it isn't 100 percent true each time forever because you cant be here a million years to prove me wrong and I certainly dont have the attention span to try to prove one person on youtube wrong, so we are at a stand still but Im done here I know this isnt winnable no one who really debates here wins

[shimwah]

So basically if you agree that everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause. Then make the something that created it all WITHOUT a beginning, you automatically eliminate the need to explain its existence. It's an argument you can't win. The conclusion is already per-determined.

[jhuan0]

This video should only be 5 seconds long. "Who created God?......God is eternal" (according to believers, which i am not.

[Robcartl]

God did not begin to exist, therefore He does not have a cause. The Bible tells us that God always existed, a concept that our finite minds cannot comprehend, just like the universe having no end is impossible to contemplate, we have to just accept it as true.

[infinity730]

@Robcartl

All things that exist have a cause

God did not begin to exist

Therefore He does not have a cause

Therefore God does not exist

Thanks :)

[Robcartl]

@infinity730 Your inept response proves your inability to grasp such a basic theological concept as the eternal existence of an uncreated God. For if God was created then who created that God, and so it would go on until eventually we would find a God that exists eternally and is uncaused. But as it is, the God of the Scriptures is the beginning and end and was before all things and created all that is. Again, our finite minds cannot fathom an eternal uncaused God.

[infinity730]

@Robcartl Good job with that ad hom, but does my logic follow from the premise in the argument I made? Yes, and being that you can't refute it without committing a logical fallacy or personally attacking me or asserting that which you can't demonstrate, then I feel you have lost whatever debate we could have had.

Have a nice day.

[Robcartl]

@infinity730 Oh come on infinity703, that's ridiculous. You made an inept observation of basic theology, your argument and its premises are flawed and easily corrected.

All things that 'begin to' exist have a cause (they have to have one to begin to exist)

God did not begin to exist (Because he is eternal)

Therefore God does not have a cause

Therefore God just is, and always existed, and is an uncaused existence.

[infinity730]

@Robcartl "All things that 'begin to' exist have a cause (they have to have one to begin to exist)"

For anything to exist at all, requires the existence of matter or energy in one form or another, that is the essence of that which we can say we know is existent. Because everything we know to exist has an essence that relies on this principle, we cannot therefore argue into existence anything, much less a being, much less one that does not hold to this rule.

[Robcartl]

@infinity730 What you are doing is applying natural laws to a supernatural existence that is not governed by the very laws which He instituted.

[infinity730]

@Robcartl Supernatural things don't exist by definition. If something exists, it is by definition, natural.

[Robcartl]

@infinity730 By whose definition do spiritual things not exist? This is the conundrum, your a naturalist, who only believes in the naturally observed world, and I'm a Christian who believes in both the natural world and the spiritual world as described in the Bible. Therefore our views collide and cannot be reconciled, unless one of us gives up our view. For me to give up my view, I would have to declare that infinity730 is more authoritative than the Bible, a thing which is not going to happen.

[infinity730]

@Robcartl Supernatural things, not spiritual, and by the dictionary. Im not a naturalist, I avoid "ists" whenever possible. I can be swayed by evidence. Claims require evidence, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which no one has ever been able to provide. If you really wanted me to convert, and you truly believed what you say you do, then pray for your god to reveal himself to me. Go ahead I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

[Robcartl]

@infinity730 Bless ya ininity730. I have a newfound respect for you. I will pray for you, and I pray that God will reveal Himself to you in a way that you will have all the evidence you need to believe, and from that point onwards to pursue Him, even into the after life. God bless ya.

[Robcartl]

@infinity730 Also God is not matter but Spirit, and God created energy therefore is not dependant upon anything we depend upon like air, water etc.

[infinity730]

@Robcartl "God is not matter but Spirit" Spirit means "breath".

"God created energy"

Whoa there, excuse me, lets concern ourselves with weather or not this thing exists before we get into what it can and can't or has and hasn't done. Cart before the horse, dude.

[Robcartl]

@infinity730 ??? We establish His existence by describing who God is, how else do we get an understanding of His existence?? Anyway according to the dictionary the spirit is the nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character. Also the Spirit is God and comes out from God and is God. There are multiple meanings for spirit, your just pulling up a contradictory one for the sake of confusion in this argument.

[infinity730]

@Robcartl We don't establish existence through debate as if reality is consensus based. If something can be said to exist, then it should be demonstrated, not argued.

Spirit comes from the Latin 'Spiritus', meaning breath. Its not a definition its etymology.

[Robcartl]

@infinity730 Yes, your correct. that terminology came from the Scriptures where God breathed into Adam the breath of life, he received the spirit and became a living being. Also, the Spirit of God is the breath of God. I'm not quoting Scriptures here for you to believe what they say, but simply as an example as to how the breath is spirit as we know it. Have a good day.

[AgApE010]

God is, by very definition, eternal and uncaused. So to ask "what caused God?" is equal to asking "what caused the uncaused?" Clearly a nonsensical question.

[TheCartesianTheist]

Nice job! Funny too.

[DeJay17Revolution]

@TheCartesianTheist thanks glad you like our style if yu enjoyed this youll like the rest of them :) and if you have subjects for us let us know

[YOURINQUIRER]

The error made in your video is that it Craig's rebuttal answered by Sagan's own words. If you had bothered to view further, you'd see that Sagan said if you are going to postulate that your god has already existed, then why cannot one just as well say the same for the universe.

As we can see, Craig's "Village Christian" rebuttal is nothing new. I'm also glad Thunderf00t is able to show William Lane Craig is not the gentleman pretends to be, but often engages in ad hominem.

[herbiepop]

Nothing that we observe begins to exist ex nihilo, things that we give new labels to are just rearranged pre-existing matter. Therefore 'whatever begins to exist has a cause' only has meaning if we accept that things that begin to exist in our experience are formed out of pre-existing elements. The only thing that we have a problem thinking about where it comes from is matter itself. However the nature of matter is linked to the nature of time itself and the very notion of beginning.

[drcraigvideos]

I think the fact that someone like Ray Comfort actually beat thunderf00t in a debate speaks wonders about the thought process of thunderf00t. Anyway, for your interest: watch?v=9fSluNqGxRA.

[DarkEmergence]

@drcraigvideos Actually, it only speaks wonders to Thunderfoot's inability to call Comfort on his fallacies. Thunderfoot says he can't know what happened in the beginning, Comfort claims he does. All thunderfoot had to do, as TAE did, was ask "how?"

[infinity730]

@drcraigvideos "Ray Comfort actually beat thunderf00t in a debate " The video itself was never labelled a debate, it was a "conversation" about each-others beliefs. A debate has a vastly different structure, which includes a topic, a mediator, and set times to allow each person to speak, usually to a live audience.

Follow-up questions: Did you misrepresent the Ray Comfort/ Thunderf00t video on purpose? Or were you simply mistaken? Why did you claim someone won when it wasn't a debate?

[DeJay17Revolution]

@drcraigvideos hey thanks for watching its really cool that you took the time to check us out :)

[markderosa]

Wanted to reply but I think you responded to the clip very well. How is there a contradiction between saying "Everything that beings to exist has a cause" and saying "an eternal entity exists".

Yes, we should conclude universe being eternal first and not postulate God right away, but we have good reasons to think that the universe ISN'T eternal (Big Bang states 14b years ago) and therefore the universe must require a cause.

Also, to some atheists here not all Christians are creationists.

[DarkEmergence]

@markderosa The big bang only explains the "universe" going from one state to another. We know a concentration of energy expanded and created time and space, but can't know at this point if that energy itself is eternal, part of some loop where the creation and collapse of the universe repeats itself, or some temporal loop where time goes back to the beginning. There are still plenty of hypotheses.

[infinity730]

People created god(s). Not any one person, but groups of people all over the world invent "spiritual" answers to unknown events (ie: creation stories).

Once those questions are answered, like human evolution and cosmology, those "spiritual" answers no longer are needed, so they are thrown away.

Big bang cosmology can only go so far back, and creationists use the lack of knowledge as a wedge to insert their favorite deity in our gap of knowledge.

Classic "God-of-the-gaps" fail argument.

[DeJay17Revolution]

@infinity730 I think believers which are classified as more than just creationists(yes some people who believe in God aren't creationists)

It cant be demostrated humans created God thats your opinion overall

Some things in science have explained alot about the nature of things but also science makes it harder to be an atheist

we arent retreating and filling God in the Gaps in fact we are using the information and applying it and drawing the best conclusion unbiasedly not just ruling out God

[infinity730]

@DeJay17Revolution But it's a problem of confirmation bias at that point, they already have a belief, then use whatever evidence they agree with to reinforce that belief, while ignoring or arguing against evidence or a logical rebuttal to what they claim is evidence in favor. Even if they were correct, it doesn't change the nature of how they are coming to the conclusions. They are shooting the arrow first, then painting the target around it.

[DeJay17Revolution]

@infinity730 that makes sense people can enter that mindset I was a skeptic at one point actually

but if you leave open the possibility of Theism being true don't you think atheists could have(not all) that same mindset

[infinity730]

@DeJay17Revolution Most atheists I've met were theists at one point, then their search for truth has led them away from their belief. I also say that the best way to make a believer into an atheist is to have them actually research their own theology.

I'm open to any possibility that lends itself credibility through demonstrable evidence and sound, logical reasoning. Which is why I am such a loudmouth when I see unfalsifiable claims or ridiculous illogical arguments.

[DeJay17Revolution]

@infinity730 many were as well I have many theories for why people can become atheists and vise versa but I became a believer because I examined atheism and found the arguments unsound. I am researching my theology...its my major lol

[infinity730]

@DeJay17Revolution "I examined atheism and found the arguments unsound." Thats interesting, considering atheism is simply the rejection of the theist arguments, it's the default position because the burden of proof is ont he person who makes the claim, nto the person who rejects it.

Which "atheist arguments" in particular are you talking about?

[DeJay17Revolution]

@infinity730 i mean to say the theistic arguments I found strong and the atheistic "counters" non convincing and the christian view to stand strong

but i really dont have the time to really go down the path youd like to, sorry honestly it would take allot of time and I doubt Ill change your mind or you'll change mine

[infinity730]

@DeJay17Revolution "theistic arguments I found strong" As far as I am aware, there aren't any strong theistic arguments, maybe ones that involve a very loose deism. Usually I find the worst arguments are the ones in favor of Christianity, especially the ones that argue against faith, which is what all theistic beliefs come down to.

The things I claim to believe in have demonstrable evidence, and do not require faith.

The things I claim to not believe in have yet to meet their burden of proof.

[DeJay17Revolution]

@infinity730 again dont have time to get into it

[Marduniya]

@infinity730 As an atheist, you are taking a negative position - namely, that you do not believe in God. Atheist is not the LACK of belief, it IS the belief that there is no God. "A" is the negation of "theism". Thus, the burden of proof is upon you, too. You must prove the non-existence of God.

[infinity730]

@Marduniya /watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

[m1chae15]

A contingent god, isn't God. Creator, not creature.

"entities must not be multiplied BEYOND NECESSITY" William of Occam. (emph mine)

"Make things as simple as possible, and not one bit simpler" Einstein.

Make a distinction between simplicity, and simplistic.

[DarkEmergence]

It's not that we'd "rather" have the universe be eternal, but that saying god is an extra step, one that we don't have any knowledge of. Occam's razor is what eliminates it.

The Big Bang actually doesn't mark the beginning, but the beginning of the "universe" as we know it. We can't say the universe, in any form, had a definite beginning.

The Big Bang was accepted once enough evidence was available to peer review. Creationists DON'T submit any findings to peer review.

[stephjh2006]

@DarkEmergence Craig deals with this exact point, that even if there was a prior state before the big bang it can be fairly argued that a materialist first cause is not rational. I'll leave it for him to give the argument since I will most likely mess it up. You can find it on his website or on DrCraigVideos

[infinity730]

@stephjh2006 "a materialist first cause is not rational"

Problems:

1)Craig is not a physicist, so I don't think he's qualified to make that assertion.

2)Name one physicist or cosmologist that self-identifies as a "materialist".

3)Out of those named, identify one that takes Dr. Craig seriously.

[DarkEmergence]

@stephjh2006 From what I heard of him, there's no problem with a materialist cause that would also be a problem with an eternal being, more so as an eternal thinking being is more complicated (if even possible).

As for DrCraigVideos, I'm not giving his site any more views while he blocks people just for disagreeing with Craig.

[acyberguy]

If you believe in God...William Lane Craig said it best. He is the the only uncaused cause. If he created space time and matter he had to be greater then.

[infinity730]

@acyberguy WLC is a snake oil salesman, he has never once presented any evidence in favor of his god, or even addressed anything other than the circular reasoning of his bible apologetics. He is the master of the modern day Gish-gallop, and has no credibility in the scientific arena. What he has to say on any subject in a debate is not about uncovering the truth, but instead, winning the debate, usually by any means possible.

[MereChristianLogic]

@acyberguy Somebody has a fan.

[acyberguy]

@MereChristianLogic Isn't he cute. I think I will buy him something for Christmas.

I am starting to get attached, he needs friends...he needs Christ.

[DeJay17Revolution]

@acyberguy who?

[acyberguy]

@DeJay17Revolution Oh, I got it. Who was I referring to. infinity 730 is a troll.

You can see him in action at this vid of mine. /YxJEZ0I5V0U

That vid is a response to his trolling on another vid of mine.

[MereChristianLogic]

I would like to see a real debate between the two. Trollolololololol!