Everything that exists has a cause, if it doesn't have a cause it doesn't exist, or at the very least we can't comprehend it, we can't experience it. Sure we can imagine a thing that doesn't have a cause, but what does our imagination prove?
Asking "Where did God come from?" or "Who/What caused God?" within the confines of the cosmological argument(s) commits a category fallacy. The question becomes: "who(or what) caused something which, given a concept of God that's widely shared and which we've agreed to argue about, whether He exists or not, is an uncausable thing?" It's just a nonsense question.
If Craig(or Aristotle, or Aquinas, or Leibniz) were arguing for a FINITE God, then the question would be apt...but they aren't.
If this is your definition of God, then yes, on the evidence before me I do believe in God.
Most people make a few more claims about him though.... all that omniscience and forgiveness of sins and stuff. The universe doesn't do that as far as I can tell.
It's fascinating how Craig strings along his followers. These people are often unable to give voice to their beliefs or explain the religion they love, and see this man who seems educated that their peers seem to regard as a learned scholar who has such an overwhelming confidence in his so called arguments that they would feel stupid and threatened to question him. It's then easy for them to rely on his esoteric allusions and they blindly place their confidence in his visible confidence.
It is staggering that someone who obviously makes it his business to talk about God creating the universe would not regard the question of what created God as a "significant point."
What question could be more fundamental to the issue?
He proposes the premise that "whatever begins to exists has a cause" and then laughingly dismisses the question of what "caused" God. Amazing.
I miss Carl Sagan. His calm wisdom was comforting. He didn't condescend, he simply shared. WLC... is an arrogant ass before you even address his flawed arguments.
Sagan is incredibly creepy and you cherry picked both sets of footage. I think it would be expedient for you to read "Carl Sagan's Boloney Detection Kit," in it you will find many of the logical errors you enjoy so much (ad hominem in particular). I could throw out a few ad hominems about Sagan, you know - that he's a jerk that once sued Apple because they used his name as a code word, but I won't do that. Sagan is certainly a businessman, and he's made a ton of money off his sheeple.
@erparom the sad thing about his arguments is that he always seems to start with the notion of "everybody but me is a god-less heathen that has absolutely no ability to think, and if anyone has a good point, I scoff at it and disregard it"
we are wasting precious time and resources making scientists continually drop their work and defend it even when its been proven that its not pointless. at this point I can only imagine the world being covered by mushroom clouds in the near future.
Am I alone in this or do other people find WCL distasteful, slimy and general repulsive. I might be wrong, he might be a nice guy but then why do your comments have to be screened before you can post? There should be a site called "there is something not quite right with WLC". I think he's a reptile from planet X and responsible for 9/11. Oh and eats babies. But like I say I could be wrong but I believe it, I have faith I'm right.
Observation: You're contrasting a live interview (in which there's no snark), with a polished video.
Reply to the issue: It's silly to think the question, "Why not stop at the universe?" counts as an objection to theism. All explanations stop somewhere. God, is an explanatory ultimate, and this by definition. The question then, is not "Who made God?" because, if he exists, no one made him. It'd be like asking if there are any married bachelors. Rather, the question to answer is "Does he exist?"
@Grimtheorist "science will definitely have the answer" For me personally, i give as much credit to anyone who says this as i do to someone who says, "we don't know, so god did it" The universe may well be the result of natural, unguided processes, it also may well be the result of an intelligible mind. Saying science will defiantly have the answers leaves out the possibility of a god, which means your not really very open minded.
@Grimtheorist Science is about what we can observe, currently we cannot observe what was before the BB, so to make a definite assumption like "science will answer everything" is ironically very unscientific. We use physics, chemistry, biology etc to find out about our universe and its history. Trying to find out the origins of our physics using physics is practically impossible. So its unlikely that we will ever have a scientific answer to what was before the big bang.
@atheistrocker100 The dictionary definition of Agnostic is "Unknown and unknowable" which is why I personally don't and never would self identify as an Agnostic. The definition of Atheist is vague and varying but I defiantly feel more comfortable self identifying in that camp even it needs some further clarification with some people.
@styot "unknown *or* unknowable" To be an atheist is actually pretty illogical. Dawkins himself has admitted he is actually not an atheist. He puts himself - on a scale of disbelief from one and seven - at a six. Which as he recently noted, is not technically an atheist.
@atheistrocker100 You are right to criticise the definite assumption "science will answer everything" but I think you're wrong to go to the other extreme and say it can't, I prefer to just keep an open mind. I feel it would also be intillectually dishonest to rule out the possibility that there are gods and they are knowable and I just don't know them yet, there are certainly alot of people who claim to know gods, or a God, so that's another reason why I couldn't call my self an Agnostic.
I really dont understand why Craig is held in high esteem at all, perhaps he is simply a good debater but I have come across many others who share his point of view who make a far more compelling case than he does.
I have no idea what Carl Sagan is on about. If god is eternal why would you "save a step" and say the universe is eternal, when we know it clearly had a beginning, so it can't be eternal (if the big bang theory is correct)
@atheistrocker100 The universe may not be eternal, but perhaps the stuff that its comprised of is. The big bang just changed the shape of existence by creating a space that we call the universe. I'm really not sure why we assume the was nothing before the big bang.
The heart of the question is where did the stuff that makes up the universe come from. If you say that a god did it... well, you can watch the video again.
@Aragashia If i say an intelligible force/being created the universe you would say thats being imaginative? Yet when you say it was a some random, mindless act of nature that created the universe, thats not being imaginative? bearing in mind we have no scientific evidence whatsoever for either claim? No one knows how to create a universe.
@atheistrocker100 We in fact have tons of scientific evidence to back up our claims, and we're getting more all the time. Meanwhile, the need to include a god becomes less and less, as Einstein himself found out. He started life very religious, and it seems by his 50's that the only 'god' he believed in was the unknown. He in no way believed in a personal god that listens or cares. So his views are actually parallel to my own, which is to say we don't know what we don't know, but we should try.
@Grimtheorist "We in fact have tons of scientific evidence to back up our claims" Like what? If Your views are parallel to Einstein you wouldn't be an atheist. All the creation hypothesis so far have been flawed. The multiverse hypothesis is the only valid idea so far. It would explain how the laws of nature could be so perfect, but theres about as much evidence for this theory as there is for god. And i find both to be equally plausible in scientific terms.
@Aragashia So to say that your belief is more "logical, rational etc." is just nonsense. Einstein believed there was an intelligible creator behind the universe.So how is your belife more plausible than his?
@atheistrocker100 Well, assuming that the matter that the universe is made up of existed before the big bang isn't a stretch of imagination, if you consider that the big bang theory specifically states that all matter was in a very dense state prior to the explosive expansion of the space that we now see as the universe.
Oh and please, do disregard all the testing and adjustments done to the big bang theory just so that your belief in a creator can retain some footing.
@Aragashia "assuming that the matter that the universe is made up of existed before the big bang isn't a stretch of imagination" Trust me whatever created our universe intelligent or not, it will stretch your imagination.
"Oh and please, do disregard all the testing and adjustments done to the big bang theory just so that your belief in a creator can retain some footing." I have no idea what your talking about
@BaneOfAzrael Personally I think religion is for those who are weak minded when it comes to questions about existence. I don't care for any religion but I only despise the ones that clearly do harm to societies.
would it be so bad to have a cult where people were nice to each other and other people, even if they were not a part of that cult, and did not join in fear of eternal damnation or for the promise of eternal bliss? If that cult existed I think many people would join it. The problem with religion is quite simple; if someone does not believe what you do then you must make them or kill them.
@BaneOfAzrael I am referring to the general western religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism, however any religion that teaches we are created by a god, are worthless, damned and must serve a god forever would fit into my concept of religion.
@BaneOfAzrael But, Four and Five are just inferences and not even apart of the argument. To state this a premise in the argument, and not a conclusion. Is rather misleading.
@BaneOfAzrael That kind of why I put "This would entail the "teaching" of Buddhism,Hinduism" I didnt mean to entice you in to believing that Baha'i is polytheistic. I the only inference i was trying to make is that the Ideologies of both religions stated in the comment are engulfed in the Baha'i faith.
@BaneOfAzrael Im not sure if you can add premise four and five and then claim its a non sequitur. After all you are the making the non sequitur in your argument.
@BaneOfAzrael I never stated that the person which I responded too, Has ridiculous claims. I am not quite sure how you came to this conclusion or why this bout even concerns you. I never flaunted my position, for the most part I kept out my religious beliefs.
@BaneOfAzrael I never claimed that God did anything. All I stated was that I believe the Universe has a cause. I dont understand how believing in Causal being is a huge jump. Granted there is no "God" what are the other options?
Craig cannot possibly believe a word that he says. He is a well financed religious apologist and spends all of his time inventing ingenuous, circles of illogical psychobable. Listen carefully to what he says. It is the same old inept arguments aimed at confusing the intellectually lazy. This hypocrite has found a new way to suck money off of those poor deluded church goers.
@BaneOfAzrael Yes, this is my claim. I believe the Universe has a cause. I do not believe that the Universe can cause itself. From nothing comes nothing. For one to argue in favor of the "Uncertainty principle". I think the person would have to demonstrate why certain Quantum Interpretations (Maybe Copenhagen). Are better then deterministic interpretations which don't use Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle
@yrusodumbwhy Bigotry is something that is targeted towards a person. Every religious person alive today could vanish from existence and I would still despise the concept of religion. Religion is an ideology, It is not bigotry to dislike or even hate an ideology.
@yrusodumbwhy Sure religion involves people but it's still an idea. It's not a skin color, gender or any other quality a person is born with or inflicted with against their will. Hmm.... actually I'm not so sure about that last one. maybe you're right after all, if you were brainwashed to believe a religion not by your own will, then it's a condition you shouldn't be discriminated against for having, but like any disease, I hate the disease not the person.
@yrusodumbwhy Wow, you must be ten. I wasn't owned, you in fact were, but were too stupid to realize it. I didn't insult you and explained myself, but instead addressing my points you just resort to childish insults. You make religious people look bad, but don't worry I won't base my general opinion of them on a tragically hypocritical little brat like you.
@yrusodumbwhy I would never be shut up by the likes of a worthless low life like you. If god and hell did exist you would be sent to burn forever for being an ugly person inside. No god of good and compassion would ever want a mean spirited ass like you in his kingdom. You had better repent.
@Grimtheorist Just look at a snowflake on google images, no two snowflakes are identical. its certainly plausible to believe these things were created by laws of nature created by an intelligence. Similar to if a computer programmer, who writes a code (laws of nature) that could create random snowflakes.
@atheistrocker100 That almost shows the exact problem. There is almost no way of knowing that no two snowflakes can be alike. Have you checked them all? Would it make snowflakes less mystical to find out that on a microscopic level, snowflakes are very much alike (on the order of about 10,000 atoms)? Its only when they get complex that we see them being so different, and we know exactly why they are so different. They aren't 'created' different, they become that way from trillions of variables.
@Grimtheorist I was mainly referring to their appearance. Snowflakes were one of the examples Einstein gave as reason to believe there is an intelligence behind the universe. I know they are not just "created" my point is, they are created by the laws of nature. The way that atoms move is amazing in itself. Why do you atheists have such a problem with the notion that this universe was a result of an intelligible force?
@atheistrocker100 That's an example of not knowing how something works, and then automatically attributing it to god. Now that you know that snowflakes aren't a mysterious occurrence, you'll back god off and make it so that he made the conditions for the snowflake to be formed, then I'll tell you how those conditions arose, and you'll back god off and he'll have just made the conditions that made the conditions. My point is that god always has to be an option with you. It doesn't with science.
@Grimtheorist The thing is, i understand the notion of god of the gaps, but i think you atheists are just the reverse. "oh well, we don;t know how it was done but science definitely will have the answer." Agnostics on the other hand just say we don't know, it could be either, which - as Hawkins pointed out - is the most scientific position to take.
@atheistrocker100 Agnostics don't just say we don't know, they also say it's unknowable which is why I don't consider my self an Agnostic. William Lane Craig seems really keen to promote a very strong/positive form of Atheism as the only correct definition but under his definition (and seemingly yours) I wouldn't be an Atheist or an Agnostic and certainly not a Theist so I'd be a little lost. I consider my self an Atheist but don't profess certainty that there are no gods.
@atheistrocker100 I can see why Craig dose this, creating some straw man form of strong/positive Atheism makes Atheism much easier to argue against as strong Atheism carries a burden of proof. As you nearly correctly stated saying we don't know is the correct scientific position but that isn't best represented by Agnostics as I find the unknowable attachment troublesome. Weak Atheism is the answer!
@atheistrocker100 I agree with Styot, saying the answer is unknowable just doesn't sit well with me. I think it is knowable, and I don't see the reason for jumping to the conclusion of "god musta did it".
The word science means knowledge, and I don't see any reason why we can't have knowledge of something. Its very theistic to assume that there is something out there that we can never know about. So to say that I think "science will definitely have the answer" is absolutely correct. Eventually.
@Grimtheorist Believing the answer is unknowable does not define an agnostic. Some agnostics do think it is unkowable but certainly not all agnostics. Put simply atheists live their lives under the assumption that there is no god. Theists assume there is while agnostics don't know. Some days i think there is no god, other days i think there is. Recently, i have to say, i find the notion that this universe was a result of intelligence far more plausible.
I think theism assumes that there is "A", while atheism simply does not assume there is "A". Its kinda the same as assuming there is no "A", except that no assumption is actually made.
I don't know if that makes much sense outside of my own head, but I think that's an important distinction to make. Theists make a claim. Atheists don't. Any reasons why are arbitrary, whether its actively denying it or having never thought of it.
@Grimtheorist I think what you meant to say is that atheism is the equivalent of labeling a person a "non-birdhouse builder" or the classic "non-stamp collector"
@yrusodumbwhy Count your total comments on this video, then count mine. Am I still at it? what a silly question for you of all people to ask. I'm becoming even more atheist just reading your dumb comments, you twit.
@Khyrid Damn son!! You not only need counseling with your whole entire fucktarded family but you also are definitely retarded as well...probably even fucktarded!
@yrusodumbwhy I had a christian friend of mine ell me after reading your comment to me on this video he re-though religion and has become an atheist. Thank you so much.
@yrusodumbwhy Wow, now my entire family is reconsidering Christianity and turning to atheism. I can't thank you enough. If you weren't such an ugly person inside, this wouldn't be.
You YT atheists sitting in you mother's basement are SO PREDICTABLE.
Ignorant and stupid as fuck too.
You morons always do this 1) after I hand your ass to you you 2) and you know it 3) and you have to try to save face somehow so you 4) call me a troll and when I point out to you that you morons all do the same thing you then 5) say I'm not Christian enough--like you have some kind of monopoly on knowing what a Christian is all about.
@yrusodumbwhy I'm pretty sure you're not a real christian now. You're some asshole atheist masquerading as a christian to make them look bad. You gave it away with that last comment. Nobody is that stupid.
You're right. Religion conveniently, is all about us.
Man has invented hundreds of deitys over the ages. The one common factor is that they all elevate our species as the very reason the whole universe exists. We are thought to have dominion over all else. Distant galaxies exist for our visual pleasure. It's ALL about us.
Science tells us we are a remarkable but completely insignificant species. No more important than a flea on a dog.
I'm smiling to myself because you actually personify the stereotype of the religious mindset (muslim or christian - all the same).
I'm not sure what i've done to invoke wrath in you apart from my atheism. Why does that anger you? Afterall, hellfire awaits me but you should be preparing for your eternal celestial theme-park vacation. You must be excited about your future afterlife adventure? Why waste time getting mad at people who think you're delluded?
@M3PanoS It points to a beginning of the universe as we know it, what it doesn't point to is an event in which all the universe matter and energy weere created ex nihilo.
@yrusodumbwhy There is no intolerance of religion on the part of Dawkins, until he advocates removing ones right to believe what they want there is no bigotry. What there are, are reasoned arguments against belief.
you know what the sad thing is? Carl Sagan (although I don't agree with him) is so polite, precise, eloquent and well reasoned, whereas thunderf00t is always rude, snarky and arrogant, despite Sagan being so much wiser than he. Thunderf00t, learn some lessons from this great guy
The Hebrew Bible used poetic language consistent with that of the ancient Middle Eastern cosmology, such as in the Enuma Elish, which described a circular earth with a solid roof, surrounded by water above and below. Epic Fail! With no drug screen!
It's not just about saving a step. If you do that, then you're ignoring the possibility of God(s), which is defeating the purpose of asking all these questions in the first place, isn't it? assuming God isn't in the equation, is as bad as assuming God IS in the equation, right?
@YesGodExists No. You don't assume that ghosts are around when your windows suddenly slam shut. You don't assume that unicorns bit through the power cables when a lightbulb goes out. Supernatural explanations are completely unnecessary when in the course of scientific research.
@TheFaithfulApologist Because to do otherwise would constitute a logical fallacy - special pleading. And logic does seem to be the preferred route of argument for theists.
sagan vs craig= ali vs shirley temple
phildirt3 14 hours ago
WLC: Yo yo yo, ain't no atheist wanna step to me! What'a they AFRAID?
Thunderf00t: *challenges WLC's claims*
WLC: OMG OMG MAKE IT GO AWAY *smashes DMCA button*
MisterKauffman 15 hours ago
So Adolf hitlers birthday was gods divine plan why?
Danovio 20 hours ago
DING DING DING
And the winner,... in the rational corner..... by means of KNOCK OUT....
The pedagogic master of Logic;
with the pwnge of BILLIONS AND BILLIONS
The undisputed heavyweight CHAMPION of ALL TIME,
Carl "The Truth" Sagan
2eelShmeal 3 days ago 2
Everything that exists has a cause, if it doesn't have a cause it doesn't exist, or at the very least we can't comprehend it, we can't experience it. Sure we can imagine a thing that doesn't have a cause, but what does our imagination prove?
ArchhereticK 5 days ago
Asking "Where did God come from?" or "Who/What caused God?" within the confines of the cosmological argument(s) commits a category fallacy. The question becomes: "who(or what) caused something which, given a concept of God that's widely shared and which we've agreed to argue about, whether He exists or not, is an uncausable thing?" It's just a nonsense question.
If Craig(or Aristotle, or Aquinas, or Leibniz) were arguing for a FINITE God, then the question would be apt...but they aren't.
janterrirocks 5 days ago
@janterrirocks You don't seem to realize that the infinite god/cosmological argument in itself is a logical fallacy.
byteresistor 1 day ago
God is the universe.
neomedia74 1 week ago
@neomedia74
If this is your definition of God, then yes, on the evidence before me I do believe in God.
Most people make a few more claims about him though.... all that omniscience and forgiveness of sins and stuff. The universe doesn't do that as far as I can tell.
josephdorrell 4 days ago
When I see William Lane Craig, I can never tell if he is just trolling or if he is ignorant enough to believe his own unlogical non-sense.
Lemenks 1 week ago 3
It's fascinating how Craig strings along his followers. These people are often unable to give voice to their beliefs or explain the religion they love, and see this man who seems educated that their peers seem to regard as a learned scholar who has such an overwhelming confidence in his so called arguments that they would feel stupid and threatened to question him. It's then easy for them to rely on his esoteric allusions and they blindly place their confidence in his visible confidence.
evilyig 1 week ago
This video is what finally turned me Athiest from Diest.
Good show Carl Sagan.
DeMause 1 week ago
Someone should write a book about William Lane Craig's brain. A suitable title would be "the Pale Pink Dot".
ChipArgyle 1 week ago 2
@ChipArgyle Or 'Everything from literal Nothing'.
ganados0 1 week ago
It is staggering that someone who obviously makes it his business to talk about God creating the universe would not regard the question of what created God as a "significant point."
What question could be more fundamental to the issue?
He proposes the premise that "whatever begins to exists has a cause" and then laughingly dismisses the question of what "caused" God. Amazing.
gillianorley 1 week ago 26
@gillianorley exactly my thoughts. His argument is "God doesnt need a cause because he is god"
floorkillacris 1 week ago
WLC is an ass clown.
zofoblues 1 week ago
I miss Carl Sagan. His calm wisdom was comforting. He didn't condescend, he simply shared. WLC... is an arrogant ass before you even address his flawed arguments.
a7i20ci7y 1 week ago 24
@a7i20ci7y
Carl was a brilliant and noble man.
MMODoubter 1 week ago
Religion gets PWNED on youtube haha
DerrenBrown100 1 week ago
I wouldn't mind Craig et al so much if they weren't so smug and self congratulatory.
devourerofbabies 1 week ago
Sagan is incredibly creepy and you cherry picked both sets of footage. I think it would be expedient for you to read "Carl Sagan's Boloney Detection Kit," in it you will find many of the logical errors you enjoy so much (ad hominem in particular). I could throw out a few ad hominems about Sagan, you know - that he's a jerk that once sued Apple because they used his name as a code word, but I won't do that. Sagan is certainly a businessman, and he's made a ton of money off his sheeple.
calends 1 week ago
Craig is by far, the most moronic and repulsive piece of shit disgraceful human being alive. He is even worst than Ray Comfort.
I think we should help that man with good old psychiatry methods. Perhaps electroshocks won't be enough, he needs a lobotomy.
erparom 2 weeks ago
@erparom Aww. Poor atheist cries crocodile tears to Youtubers. Search for "Adele SNL" and have a good cry over it :(
calends 1 week ago
@erparom the sad thing about his arguments is that he always seems to start with the notion of "everybody but me is a god-less heathen that has absolutely no ability to think, and if anyone has a good point, I scoff at it and disregard it"
we are wasting precious time and resources making scientists continually drop their work and defend it even when its been proven that its not pointless. at this point I can only imagine the world being covered by mushroom clouds in the near future.
Elc22 1 week ago
The way you cut this is FUCKING ANNOYING I agree with what you were getting at, but jesus christ
explosivediarrhea100 2 weeks ago
Am I alone in this or do other people find WCL distasteful, slimy and general repulsive. I might be wrong, he might be a nice guy but then why do your comments have to be screened before you can post? There should be a site called "there is something not quite right with WLC". I think he's a reptile from planet X and responsible for 9/11. Oh and eats babies. But like I say I could be wrong but I believe it, I have faith I'm right.
gazthefunky39 2 weeks ago
Whatever BEGINS to exist is the first premise. Not whatever exists.
There's a difference.
H0tkebab 2 weeks ago
Observation: You're contrasting a live interview (in which there's no snark), with a polished video.
Reply to the issue: It's silly to think the question, "Why not stop at the universe?" counts as an objection to theism. All explanations stop somewhere. God, is an explanatory ultimate, and this by definition. The question then, is not "Who made God?" because, if he exists, no one made him. It'd be like asking if there are any married bachelors. Rather, the question to answer is "Does he exist?"
eidos1975 2 weeks ago
what ever BEGINS to exist. idiots
JubalBed 2 weeks ago
@JubalBed
No name-calling, dude.
eidos1975 2 weeks ago
@PrankstaGangsta12345 Khyrid! You silly little twit with your silly little cowardly sock account....
....silly scared twit.
yrusodumbwhy 2 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy Oh yes, I'm actually every atheist on youtube.
Khyrid 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Khyrid Khyrid! You silly little twit with your silly little cowardly sock account....
....silly scared twit.
yrusodumbwhy 2 weeks ago
Carl. Fucking. Sagan. He wins harder than Charlie Sheen.
csmith0191 3 weeks ago
@PrankstaGangsta12345 Your mama's a crack whore? Tell me something I don't know punk .
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@PrankstaGangsta12345 what did you say pussy?
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@Grimtheorist "science will definitely have the answer" For me personally, i give as much credit to anyone who says this as i do to someone who says, "we don't know, so god did it" The universe may well be the result of natural, unguided processes, it also may well be the result of an intelligible mind. Saying science will defiantly have the answers leaves out the possibility of a god, which means your not really very open minded.
atheistrocker100 3 weeks ago
@Grimtheorist Science is about what we can observe, currently we cannot observe what was before the BB, so to make a definite assumption like "science will answer everything" is ironically very unscientific. We use physics, chemistry, biology etc to find out about our universe and its history. Trying to find out the origins of our physics using physics is practically impossible. So its unlikely that we will ever have a scientific answer to what was before the big bang.
atheistrocker100 3 weeks ago
@atheistrocker100 The dictionary definition of Agnostic is "Unknown and unknowable" which is why I personally don't and never would self identify as an Agnostic. The definition of Atheist is vague and varying but I defiantly feel more comfortable self identifying in that camp even it needs some further clarification with some people.
styot 3 weeks ago
@styot "unknown *or* unknowable" To be an atheist is actually pretty illogical. Dawkins himself has admitted he is actually not an atheist. He puts himself - on a scale of disbelief from one and seven - at a six. Which as he recently noted, is not technically an atheist.
atheistrocker100 3 weeks ago
@atheistrocker100 You are right to criticise the definite assumption "science will answer everything" but I think you're wrong to go to the other extreme and say it can't, I prefer to just keep an open mind. I feel it would also be intillectually dishonest to rule out the possibility that there are gods and they are knowable and I just don't know them yet, there are certainly alot of people who claim to know gods, or a God, so that's another reason why I couldn't call my self an Agnostic.
styot 3 weeks ago
@atheistrocker100 Saying it's unknowable is too final for me, either way. :)
styot 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WLC's strategy is "baffle with bullshit" . Uses lots of $20 college words hoping to intimidate. Used car salesmen with a big vocabulary
psburningman 3 weeks ago
@psburningman dumbass
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy wrote, "dumbass"
Wow! That was compelling. Christian?
I rest my case...
psburningman 2 weeks ago
@psburningman Sorry to upset your wittle Christian-bashing party Gomer Pyle, but I'm an agnostic.
Now...be a good little bigoted twit and go find a Christian to be hypocritical toward, nn-kay?
yrusodumbwhy 2 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy Double WOW. You're good at name calling. Got anything of actual substance?
Oh...and why would an agnostic feel compelled to defend WLC? (again only with name calling)
cmon... you can come up with something better than that. or maybe not...
psburningman 2 weeks ago
@psburningman Sorry son...the bait store is closed.
I have better things to do than to help you up the evolution ladder--
like folding towels.
And picking my nose.
Btw, I'm "defending" Craig?...Mmmm....Silly me!
I thought I was "defending" genuine reason in whatever
shape it takes....
...of course, I wouldn't expect you to see that but...
...well...run along son. And try not to play in the road.
yrusodumbwhy 2 weeks ago
@psburningman Oh...and good luck finding a Christian to bash twit!!
yrusodumbwhy 2 weeks ago
Sagan is a genius. I wish I had a chance to meet him. :,(
aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy 3 weeks ago
I really dont understand why Craig is held in high esteem at all, perhaps he is simply a good debater but I have come across many others who share his point of view who make a far more compelling case than he does.
hostyle0 3 weeks ago
you miss understand the argument. The argument is everything THAT BEGINS to exist has a cause. God always existed so he doesn't need a cause.
AWEF321 3 weeks ago
I think should be Craig VS Craig...with supporting commentary by Carl Sagan.
MakeshiftEstablished 3 weeks ago
I'm curious. Did Craig ever explain why it's not a good question to ask where god came from?
Rubashow 3 weeks ago
man... sagan is eternal.
ernanisf 3 weeks ago
I have no idea what Carl Sagan is on about. If god is eternal why would you "save a step" and say the universe is eternal, when we know it clearly had a beginning, so it can't be eternal (if the big bang theory is correct)
atheistrocker100 3 weeks ago 2
@atheistrocker100 The universe may not be eternal, but perhaps the stuff that its comprised of is. The big bang just changed the shape of existence by creating a space that we call the universe. I'm really not sure why we assume the was nothing before the big bang.
The heart of the question is where did the stuff that makes up the universe come from. If you say that a god did it... well, you can watch the video again.
Grimtheorist 3 weeks ago
@Grimtheorist Why does your theory have more value than saying it was an intelligible force (god)
atheistrocker100 3 weeks ago
@atheistrocker100 Because he doesn't make truth-claims based soley on imagination, he has a basis on which he makes those claims.
Aragashia 3 weeks ago
@Aragashia If i say an intelligible force/being created the universe you would say thats being imaginative? Yet when you say it was a some random, mindless act of nature that created the universe, thats not being imaginative? bearing in mind we have no scientific evidence whatsoever for either claim? No one knows how to create a universe.
atheistrocker100 3 weeks ago
@atheistrocker100 We in fact have tons of scientific evidence to back up our claims, and we're getting more all the time. Meanwhile, the need to include a god becomes less and less, as Einstein himself found out. He started life very religious, and it seems by his 50's that the only 'god' he believed in was the unknown. He in no way believed in a personal god that listens or cares. So his views are actually parallel to my own, which is to say we don't know what we don't know, but we should try.
Grimtheorist 3 weeks ago
@Grimtheorist "We in fact have tons of scientific evidence to back up our claims" Like what? If Your views are parallel to Einstein you wouldn't be an atheist. All the creation hypothesis so far have been flawed. The multiverse hypothesis is the only valid idea so far. It would explain how the laws of nature could be so perfect, but theres about as much evidence for this theory as there is for god. And i find both to be equally plausible in scientific terms.
atheistrocker100 3 weeks ago
@Aragashia So to say that your belief is more "logical, rational etc." is just nonsense. Einstein believed there was an intelligible creator behind the universe.So how is your belife more plausible than his?
atheistrocker100 3 weeks ago
@atheistrocker100 Well, assuming that the matter that the universe is made up of existed before the big bang isn't a stretch of imagination, if you consider that the big bang theory specifically states that all matter was in a very dense state prior to the explosive expansion of the space that we now see as the universe.
Oh and please, do disregard all the testing and adjustments done to the big bang theory just so that your belief in a creator can retain some footing.
Aragashia 3 weeks ago
@Aragashia "assuming that the matter that the universe is made up of existed before the big bang isn't a stretch of imagination" Trust me whatever created our universe intelligent or not, it will stretch your imagination.
"Oh and please, do disregard all the testing and adjustments done to the big bang theory just so that your belief in a creator can retain some footing." I have no idea what your talking about
atheistrocker100 3 weeks ago
@BaneOfAzrael Kyrid! Son get therapy for your delusional schizophrenia!
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@BaneOfAzrael Khyrid---we all know it's you son!! GET HELP!~
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@BaneOfAzrael Personally I think religion is for those who are weak minded when it comes to questions about existence. I don't care for any religion but I only despise the ones that clearly do harm to societies.
Khyrid 3 weeks ago
@Khyrid He seemed to almost try to argue at some point but then when he was pushed into an intellectual corner he resorted to trolling, how pathetic.
Khyrid 3 weeks ago
would it be so bad to have a cult where people were nice to each other and other people, even if they were not a part of that cult, and did not join in fear of eternal damnation or for the promise of eternal bliss? If that cult existed I think many people would join it. The problem with religion is quite simple; if someone does not believe what you do then you must make them or kill them.
iandavidson1 3 weeks ago 2
@iandavidson1
Very true. I think buddhism is the closest to this ideal. The monotheistic "god fearing" religions seem quite primitive and barbaric at times.
Roj0307 3 weeks ago
@BaneOfAzrael I am referring to the general western religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism, however any religion that teaches we are created by a god, are worthless, damned and must serve a god forever would fit into my concept of religion.
Khyrid 3 weeks ago
@BaneOfAzrael But, Four and Five are just inferences and not even apart of the argument. To state this a premise in the argument, and not a conclusion. Is rather misleading.
TheFaithfulApologist 3 weeks ago
@BaneOfAzrael That kind of why I put "This would entail the "teaching" of Buddhism,Hinduism" I didnt mean to entice you in to believing that Baha'i is polytheistic. I the only inference i was trying to make is that the Ideologies of both religions stated in the comment are engulfed in the Baha'i faith.
TheFaithfulApologist 3 weeks ago
@BaneOfAzrael Im not sure if you can add premise four and five and then claim its a non sequitur. After all you are the making the non sequitur in your argument.
TheFaithfulApologist 3 weeks ago
@BaneOfAzrael I could be of the Baha'i which would entail the teaching of Buddhism,Hinduism along with the Abrahamic religions.
TheFaithfulApologist 3 weeks ago
@BaneOfAzrael I never stated that the person which I responded too, Has ridiculous claims. I am not quite sure how you came to this conclusion or why this bout even concerns you. I never flaunted my position, for the most part I kept out my religious beliefs.
TheFaithfulApologist 3 weeks ago
@BaneOfAzrael I never claimed that God did anything. All I stated was that I believe the Universe has a cause. I dont understand how believing in Causal being is a huge jump. Granted there is no "God" what are the other options?
TheFaithfulApologist 3 weeks ago
Craig cannot possibly believe a word that he says. He is a well financed religious apologist and spends all of his time inventing ingenuous, circles of illogical psychobable. Listen carefully to what he says. It is the same old inept arguments aimed at confusing the intellectually lazy. This hypocrite has found a new way to suck money off of those poor deluded church goers.
notnilccm 3 weeks ago
@BaneOfAzrael Yes, this is my claim. I believe the Universe has a cause. I do not believe that the Universe can cause itself. From nothing comes nothing. For one to argue in favor of the "Uncertainty principle". I think the person would have to demonstrate why certain Quantum Interpretations (Maybe Copenhagen). Are better then deterministic interpretations which don't use Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle
TheFaithfulApologist 3 weeks ago
Just another silly atheist ad hominem...
At least you ARE getting more creative about it instead of just grabbing
into your "ad hominem pocket" and throwing something out there.
I will hand it to Sagan: unlike Dawkins and other "new atheists" , Sagan would have
realize that there is a difference between anti-religious bigotry and genuine atheism
and he actually could have learned something from Craig.
yrusodumbwhy 4 weeks ago 2
@yrusodumbwhy Bigotry is something that is targeted towards a person. Every religious person alive today could vanish from existence and I would still despise the concept of religion. Religion is an ideology, It is not bigotry to dislike or even hate an ideology.
Khyrid 4 weeks ago
@Khyrid That's one of the stupidest statements/rationalizations I've ever read. And you actually believe it.
Wow.
yrusodumbwhy 4 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy Why is it stupid?
Is bigotry not something that is directed towards people?
Is religion not an ideology?
What exactly do you find so stupid?
Khyrid 3 weeks ago
@Khyrid You talk like religion exists in a vacuum you twit. It ALWAYS involves people.
That's why it's such a STUPIDASS comment.
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy Sure religion involves people but it's still an idea. It's not a skin color, gender or any other quality a person is born with or inflicted with against their will. Hmm.... actually I'm not so sure about that last one. maybe you're right after all, if you were brainwashed to believe a religion not by your own will, then it's a condition you shouldn't be discriminated against for having, but like any disease, I hate the disease not the person.
Khyrid 3 weeks ago
@Khyrid You've been owned so shut the fuck up.
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy Wow, you must be ten. I wasn't owned, you in fact were, but were too stupid to realize it. I didn't insult you and explained myself, but instead addressing my points you just resort to childish insults. You make religious people look bad, but don't worry I won't base my general opinion of them on a tragically hypocritical little brat like you.
Khyrid 3 weeks ago
@Khyrid Will you stfu you pompous twit?
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy I would never be shut up by the likes of a worthless low life like you. If god and hell did exist you would be sent to burn forever for being an ugly person inside. No god of good and compassion would ever want a mean spirited ass like you in his kingdom. You had better repent.
Khyrid 3 weeks ago
@Khyrid Get help psychokid...It appears you're shizoid too: you're talking to yourself above and you don't even realize it.
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy So if anyone on the internet shares the same opinion they must be the same person huh? Your logic astounds me. (sarcasm).
Khyrid 3 weeks ago
@Khyrid Do you have insurance that covers counseling/psychiatric care?
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy You like to believe things without evidence.
Khyrid 3 weeks ago
@Khyrid You like to be stupid.
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy You are the one who believes fairy tales, that makes you the stupid one.
Khyrid 3 weeks ago
@Khyrid Stupid atheist! Don't you have more tricks than that?
Here's some help stupid atheist:
/bartonpaullevenson.cohm/Atheist.html
You've already used number 3---get more creative!
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy Oops, you forgot to address my point again.
Khyrid 3 weeks ago
@Grimtheorist Just look at a snowflake on google images, no two snowflakes are identical. its certainly plausible to believe these things were created by laws of nature created by an intelligence. Similar to if a computer programmer, who writes a code (laws of nature) that could create random snowflakes.
atheistrocker100 3 weeks ago
@atheistrocker100 That almost shows the exact problem. There is almost no way of knowing that no two snowflakes can be alike. Have you checked them all? Would it make snowflakes less mystical to find out that on a microscopic level, snowflakes are very much alike (on the order of about 10,000 atoms)? Its only when they get complex that we see them being so different, and we know exactly why they are so different. They aren't 'created' different, they become that way from trillions of variables.
Grimtheorist 3 weeks ago
@Grimtheorist I was mainly referring to their appearance. Snowflakes were one of the examples Einstein gave as reason to believe there is an intelligence behind the universe. I know they are not just "created" my point is, they are created by the laws of nature. The way that atoms move is amazing in itself. Why do you atheists have such a problem with the notion that this universe was a result of an intelligible force?
atheistrocker100 3 weeks ago
@atheistrocker100 That's an example of not knowing how something works, and then automatically attributing it to god. Now that you know that snowflakes aren't a mysterious occurrence, you'll back god off and make it so that he made the conditions for the snowflake to be formed, then I'll tell you how those conditions arose, and you'll back god off and he'll have just made the conditions that made the conditions. My point is that god always has to be an option with you. It doesn't with science.
Grimtheorist 3 weeks ago
@Grimtheorist The thing is, i understand the notion of god of the gaps, but i think you atheists are just the reverse. "oh well, we don;t know how it was done but science definitely will have the answer." Agnostics on the other hand just say we don't know, it could be either, which - as Hawkins pointed out - is the most scientific position to take.
atheistrocker100 3 weeks ago
@atheistrocker100 Agnostics don't just say we don't know, they also say it's unknowable which is why I don't consider my self an Agnostic. William Lane Craig seems really keen to promote a very strong/positive form of Atheism as the only correct definition but under his definition (and seemingly yours) I wouldn't be an Atheist or an Agnostic and certainly not a Theist so I'd be a little lost. I consider my self an Atheist but don't profess certainty that there are no gods.
styot 3 weeks ago
@atheistrocker100 I can see why Craig dose this, creating some straw man form of strong/positive Atheism makes Atheism much easier to argue against as strong Atheism carries a burden of proof. As you nearly correctly stated saying we don't know is the correct scientific position but that isn't best represented by Agnostics as I find the unknowable attachment troublesome. Weak Atheism is the answer!
styot 3 weeks ago
@atheistrocker100 I agree with Styot, saying the answer is unknowable just doesn't sit well with me. I think it is knowable, and I don't see the reason for jumping to the conclusion of "god musta did it".
The word science means knowledge, and I don't see any reason why we can't have knowledge of something. Its very theistic to assume that there is something out there that we can never know about. So to say that I think "science will definitely have the answer" is absolutely correct. Eventually.
Grimtheorist 3 weeks ago
@Grimtheorist Believing the answer is unknowable does not define an agnostic. Some agnostics do think it is unkowable but certainly not all agnostics. Put simply atheists live their lives under the assumption that there is no god. Theists assume there is while agnostics don't know. Some days i think there is no god, other days i think there is. Recently, i have to say, i find the notion that this universe was a result of intelligence far more plausible.
atheistrocker100 3 weeks ago
@atheistrocker100 I don't think atheism is built on an assumption.
I think theism assumes that there is "A", while atheism simply does not assume there is "A". Its kinda the same as assuming there is no "A", except that no assumption is actually made.
I don't know if that makes much sense outside of my own head, but I think that's an important distinction to make. Theists make a claim. Atheists don't. Any reasons why are arbitrary, whether its actively denying it or having never thought of it.
Grimtheorist 1 week ago
@Grimtheorist I think what you meant to say is that atheism is the equivalent of labeling a person a "non-birdhouse builder" or the classic "non-stamp collector"
Elc22 1 week ago
@Elc22 There we go! I knew there was a more elegant way of saying that... :-P
Grimtheorist 1 week ago
@Khyrid That's cuz you don't have a point you lame-ass pompous turd.
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy You must lead many away from religion with the example you set. Good work.
Khyrid 3 weeks ago
@Khyrid You're too dumb to be religious.
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy Good, good... keep it coming. As an atheist I'm pleased to see a creationist act this way, it only helps my cause.
Khyrid 3 weeks ago
@Khyrid You still at it kid? ...wow...apparently you need to drag along your whole dysfunctional family to the shrink.
Poor dumb fuck.
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy Count your total comments on this video, then count mine. Am I still at it? what a silly question for you of all people to ask. I'm becoming even more atheist just reading your dumb comments, you twit.
Khyrid 3 weeks ago
@Khyrid Damn son!! You not only need counseling with your whole entire fucktarded family but you also are definitely retarded as well...probably even fucktarded!
Must suck for you.
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy I had a christian friend of mine ell me after reading your comment to me on this video he re-though religion and has become an atheist. Thank you so much.
Khyrid 3 weeks ago
@Khyrid Bullshit.
Go get counseling you twit.
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy Wow, now my entire family is reconsidering Christianity and turning to atheism. I can't thank you enough. If you weren't such an ugly person inside, this wouldn't be.
Khyrid 3 weeks ago
@Khyrid You're welcome fucktard. And tell you crazy-ass dysfunctional family "hi" for me.
Oh...and stop with the silly-ass ad hominems son.
JUST GET COUNSELING WITH YOUR FAMILY.
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy Ad homs? What ad homs? I've been thanking you. You have done so much for the atheist cause.
Khyrid 3 weeks ago
@Khyrid You're welcome boneheaded prick!
You YT atheists sitting in you mother's basement are SO PREDICTABLE.
Ignorant and stupid as fuck too.
You morons always do this 1) after I hand your ass to you you 2) and you know it 3) and you have to try to save face somehow so you 4) call me a troll and when I point out to you that you morons all do the same thing you then 5) say I'm not Christian enough--like you have some kind of monopoly on knowing what a Christian is all about.
Moronic bullshit.
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy
1&2.) I missed the part where you handed anyone their ass.
3&4.) You are a troll because instead of even attempting at addressing points you resort to pure ad-hom attacks.
5.) I was a christian most my life I know as much as a ten year old twit like you.
Khyrid 3 weeks ago
@Khyrid True to form kid...You punks are so damn pompous and stupid at
the same time.
You miss A LOT of things Sparky.
You made your appointment with the shrink yet? That must be
one sorry-ass family you came from.
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@Khyrid Well....at least you can count.
By the way, you're too stupid to have once been a Christian.
You lying sob.
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy I'm pretty sure you're not a real christian now. You're some asshole atheist masquerading as a christian to make them look bad. You gave it away with that last comment. Nobody is that stupid.
Khyrid 3 weeks ago
@Khyrid You lying sonofabitch. You're pathetic.
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy Hahaha oh come on my atheist friend lets not pretend to be religious anymore, that game is getting old.
Khyrid 3 weeks ago
@Khyrid silly little boy--aren't you cute?
when's your psychiatrist appointment?
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy You're not fooling me atheist.
Khyrid 3 weeks ago
@Khyrid Anybody can fool a twit like you.
Are all your inbred brothers and sisters going with you to
counseling to help you get over your religiophobia and schizophrenia?
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy Yeah, what Pranksta said.
Khyrid 2 weeks ago
@Khyrid You mean "what I the little punk said via my sock account." Nnnn-kay.
yrusodumbwhy 2 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy Not one that your weak mind could grasp anyway.
Khyrid 3 weeks ago
@Khyrid Silly atheist with your silly ad hominem!
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@Khyrid
I think he (yrusodumbwhy) is either a troll or perhaps a member of Harold Camping's flock, still angry that he was never raptured on may 21st.
Roj0307 3 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy
You're right. Religion conveniently, is all about us.
Man has invented hundreds of deitys over the ages. The one common factor is that they all elevate our species as the very reason the whole universe exists. We are thought to have dominion over all else. Distant galaxies exist for our visual pleasure. It's ALL about us.
Science tells us we are a remarkable but completely insignificant species. No more important than a flea on a dog.
The truth hurts.
Roj0307 3 weeks ago
@Roj0307 You're STILL trying to save face twit?
Too late--the only way you could've done that is to
have shut your pea-brain off and keep it from typing
to start with.
Run on twit.
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy
Thanks for your speedy reply.
But help me out - am i supposed to cower in awe of your wrath?
Roj0307 3 weeks ago
@Roj0307 No, you're just supposed to go play with your tinker toys and leave the adults alone.
yrusodumbwhy 3 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy
I'm smiling to myself because you actually personify the stereotype of the religious mindset (muslim or christian - all the same).
I'm not sure what i've done to invoke wrath in you apart from my atheism. Why does that anger you? Afterall, hellfire awaits me but you should be preparing for your eternal celestial theme-park vacation. You must be excited about your future afterlife adventure? Why waste time getting mad at people who think you're delluded?
Roj0307 3 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy Nice username.
werebee 4 weeks ago
@werebee Thanks.
yrusodumbwhy 4 weeks ago
@yrusodumbwhy No problem.
werebee 4 weeks ago
The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be... No faith there.
MPaulHolmes 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore it has a cause
4.That cause necessarily exists outside of time and space.
5. Therefore this cause is by definition is a deity.
6. Logically, this deity's name is yarweh not allah, zeus or thor.
7. By definition, a deity has wrath.
8. Burnt offerings would mitigate this wrath.
7. If a deity exists he must enjoy compliments on his awesomeness.
8. Failure to compliment this deity is clearly an absolute sin.
Roj0307 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
William Lane Craig is absolutely intellectually dwarfed by Carl Sagan. Craig is a babbling simpleton by comparison
lumpheadthump 4 weeks ago
Why not conclude that the universe always existed? Because all of contemporary cosmology points to a beginning...dumbass. :D
M3PanoS 1 month ago 3
@M3PanoS It points to a beginning of the universe as we know it, what it doesn't point to is an event in which all the universe matter and energy weere created ex nihilo.
@yrusodumbwhy There is no intolerance of religion on the part of Dawkins, until he advocates removing ones right to believe what they want there is no bigotry. What there are, are reasoned arguments against belief.
Tairaa2 4 weeks ago
@Tairaa2 There is no one more blind as he who WILL not see.
yrusodumbwhy 4 weeks ago
@M3PanoS You just called Carl Sagan a dumbass, you are a horrible person.
wowzabowza123 4 weeks ago
you know what the sad thing is? Carl Sagan (although I don't agree with him) is so polite, precise, eloquent and well reasoned, whereas thunderf00t is always rude, snarky and arrogant, despite Sagan being so much wiser than he. Thunderf00t, learn some lessons from this great guy
fatrob1711 1 month ago 3
@fatrob1711 you mad bro?
JLyons043 1 month ago
@fatrob1711 Very well said!!!
fedner31 4 weeks ago
@fatrob1711 well said.
MrUrsolamedude 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
CRHE 1 month ago
Comment removed
CRHE 1 month ago
Comment removed
CRHE 1 month ago
The Hebrew Bible used poetic language consistent with that of the ancient Middle Eastern cosmology, such as in the Enuma Elish, which described a circular earth with a solid roof, surrounded by water above and below. Epic Fail! With no drug screen!
Growapair4once 1 month ago
It's not just about saving a step. If you do that, then you're ignoring the possibility of God(s), which is defeating the purpose of asking all these questions in the first place, isn't it? assuming God isn't in the equation, is as bad as assuming God IS in the equation, right?
YesGodExists 1 month ago
@YesGodExists No. You don't assume that ghosts are around when your windows suddenly slam shut. You don't assume that unicorns bit through the power cables when a lightbulb goes out. Supernatural explanations are completely unnecessary when in the course of scientific research.
HKOverlord117 1 month ago
@HKOverlord117 Why equate God with contingent beings?
TheFaithfulApologist 1 month ago
@TheFaithfulApologist Because to do otherwise would constitute a logical fallacy - special pleading. And logic does seem to be the preferred route of argument for theists.
HKOverlord117 1 month ago
Comment removed
TheFaithfulApologist 1 month ago