Confusing Arguments for God - Atheist Experience

[goldenthroat86]

"The event that caused the universe to expand into its present form." Well said, Martin!

[taroctg]

What the fuck!? Christian dudes are using goofy ideas of muslim scientists and muslims are using ideas of christian scientists these days! It confuses thinking.

[MyFishIsTwonk]

Stupid mouse cursor confusing me

[ahhninjadragon]

I have a problem with 1.Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;

All everything is is matter with or without mass and we have no idea if matter has a begining or not.Time and space may have had an affect on matter from the big bang[who is to say it started there may have been dormant]but I would like a someone to show me something beginning to exist that cant be regressed to the big bang[the start of our knowlage]so that the statment can hold water.

[olantern]

if you do not know what was before the big bang, then why could it not be a god? so at best its 50/50. you choose to think it was a thing or whatever , so out of the 2 choices a god is more sensible. 

[Sathrand]

@olantern What makes you think that god is more likely then a giant gummy bear, a lime green chevy nova or a shapeless particle of infinite mass?

[olantern]

@Sathrand well i guess cause they cannot create a universe maybe??? loll. goofy question , but typical of your clan.

[ahhninjadragon]

@olantern 50/50 chance how is it 50/50? you say 50% god what is the other 50% not god? with out any information how can you get any statistics.in greece people said it was 50/50 whether lightning was from Zeus or not but it is NOT 50/50 the same as god.

There is a 50/50 chance I'll win the lottery tonight why not think winning is more sensible.I dont know how david blane does his tricks 50/50 chance its magic just forget common understanding of the world magic is more sensible.

[olantern]

@ahhninjadragon ok sorry! sighhh! i meant its 90/10 for there being a god . is that ok now? lollll.

[ahhninjadragon]

@olantern your just making numbers up I can do that too 1/1 that there is no god. lol

[olantern]

@guyverdio exactly! we do not know all the possibilities . so no one can say it was not God. if the odds be whatever they are. my 50/50 comes from the point that God created all or a something that science believes. did. what is that something that was there before the big bang, no one knows. or it was God or that something 50/50.

[guyverdio]

@olantern Most confusing paragraph ever lol. First 50/50 is 1 (100%), please say 1/2. Second you don't have a total selection to be able to formulate a numeric possibility. Third, why make god your default answer just because no other answer has been supported by evidence to the point of being regarded a fact. The god theory has no evidence in favour of it, so there isn't even a remote chance of you saying it could possibly line up with reality.

[olantern]

@guyverdio i do not play number games. God has as much reason as scientific reason. scientists do not know what was there so i choose the more sensible one. a thing or gas or singularity etc etc. can hardly form what is earth and the universe and all in it. believing that is nonsense. God is reality! you have to open your mind and heart to Him and then you will get your proof as good Christians do. God does not use science to bring you to Him. and without faith you cannot find Him.

[guyverdio]

@olantern ah because you lost the numbers game you now say you don't play number games, I see. So, how do I use faith to discern a sensible claim from a non-sensible claim? Faith is the belief in something without evidence, what stops me from believing in another god that you don't believe in or the tooth fairy? In other words you have to be gullible to find god? I think most theists are talking out of their ass and making things up on the fly.

[MetalDoneMoreForME]

@guyverdio "the god theory has no evidence"

that makes it 'the god hypothesis'.

[guyverdio]

@olantern We can only determine this because we know how many number we are selecting from (30). We don't know how many possibilities there are to create the big bang so you can't work out a chance.

[ChaoticRupture]

Please stop misleading other people!

We already know that the flying meat ball monster is our true savior and the only god, Please devote your life to him before it's to late or prepare to face his wrath!

[olantern]

@ChaoticRupture hey i thought you were the flying meatball! oh wait, but not a flying one cause you do not have the intelligence to flap your wings! you just roll on and on until you dry up and blow away. sad i guess but hey maybe someone will feel sorry for you and grab you up and wash you off and eat you with some spaghetti noodles and eventually you will return as a piece of what your attitude resembles. enough said. :)

[ChaoticRupture]

@olantern Blasphemer, no human has the right to mock our true savior and only god, the flying meat ball monster is a loving god. He created us all and he forgives you for your sins, he died in the frying pan for you, devote your life to him and he will show you the true path, reject him and burn in spaghetti sauce for the rest of the eternity. Since we both have no proof of our beliefs the argument of my god is as valid as yours. enough said. :D

[olantern]

@ChaoticRupture how did i blaspheme when you are the meatball. you have the god complex . and you are not God so...you do know alot about spaghetti though so why not enter it son and fill someones belly. become the object of your desire. then you can be a flying turd lollll. and that seems to fit you to a tee! i am leaving this den of satans now because you will not listen and mock! i am done with you all. may God enlighten you meatball man. :) i wont be back so save your reply

[lxAgnosticxl]

This was terrible , do they even know the difference between modus ponens, a deductive argument and begging the question? they also clearly haven't even herd the full argument if they did they wouldn't say things like "it only proves something is eternal." And The BGV theorm proves the universe began to exist.

[Gnomefro]

@lxAgnosticxl What they are saying is the the core of Kalam, the one shared by all the religions using it to prove their particular god, only argues for something eternal existing. The followups to make it more concrete are also so stupid and unsupported that they don't need much of a reply. Usually involving such meaningless concepts as "non-material mind", "a choice being a non-causal phenomenon" etc.

[lxAgnosticxl]

@Gnomefro

Haven't you herd the rest of the kalam it gets you a Timeless, spaceless,changeless, immaterial, uncaused , transcendent ,all poweful , personal cause

[Gnomefro]

@lxAgnosticxl "And The BGV theorm proves the universe began to exist."

Nah. The BGV theorem proves something about a class of mathematical models of spacetime. There's a huge difference. You can also argue that the phrase "began to exist" is near meaningless in naturalistic worldviews, as nothing "begins to exist" there. Rather, "that which exists" interacts with itself in various ways forever.

[lxAgnosticxl]

The BGV theorm does prove the universe began to exist (con.)

[lxAgnosticxl]

@lxAgnosticxl

"if someone asked me whether the theorm i proved with my collegues Borde & Guth implies the universe had a beginnig i would say the short answer is yes".

[Gnomefro]

@lxAgnosticxl In addition, by using the word "universe" the way you do, you're wide open to equivocation errors. If you don't mean "the sum of that which exists began to exist", which you obviously don't(And that would also be a contradiction), then you should use another word. And when you do, the statement seems far less impressive and can be shrugged off with "Ok, so there are aspects of nature we don't know everything about - we knew that already".

[lxAgnosticxl]

@Gnomefro

By universe I'm going by the dictionary definiton

All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.

[Gnomefro]

@lxAgnosticxl Another thing that's worth noting is that none of the Abrahamic religions deserve to be engaged when they try to talk about beginnings of the universe. They are all based on books that assume the old Mesopotamian flat earth+skydome view of reality and it's just not interesting to waste time with people trying to "prove" them true by reference to some potential unknowns in current cosmological models.

[lxAgnosticxl]

Even if the writters believed that so what? it doesn't teach that, it's like when someone says the sun sets or the 4 corners of the earth.

[MrUltraman88]

Gos is eternal, but the universe has a beginning. So this means that god existed prior to the existence of the universe. He has actually been there forever, prior to the beginning of the universe. Makes you wonder what he did all that time. Was he just sitting in chair thing about what he would do and after an eternity of thinking he decided to make the universe? And waht would he do after the universe stops to exists, because he will still exist.

[garfrain]

this is a great show

[simpsonmark]

Newton was mad as a hatter (and he really had exposed himself to too much mercury) but it doesn't mean his science was very (if not absolutely) solid. Darwin didn't really 'want' evolution to be true but he couldn't deny its validity and soundness. The science is what matters, not the scientist.

[InsanoGerbil]

18:42 "What the fuck?"

[1992jamo]

Is this mark again?

[xJoeEDangerouslyx]

@1992jamo I'm positive it's not. Mark has a completely different cadence.

[ex0gen]

I'm wondering how THEY (the guys on the show) move to consciousness given what seems to be their materialist/physicalist interpretation of reality?

[rawextreme101]

Atheist- one who does not want god to exist, not one who does not believe god exists.

Please dont respond if the existence of god scares u, pisses u off, or makes u sad. for the same cpu prog of a response from so called atheist of show me evidence....... scan down my previous comments for my response.

[rawextreme101]

take a look at the vid.......Do u see their motion, just look at how they move and nothing else moves...... u know why because, they are living concious beings, the other stuff doesnt move because it is no a living concious thing, now look in the universe, AHHH MOTION..... is that logic enough...... lol hell no..... damn fools

[31Uriel]

All dogs are dead.

Wachington is dead.

Therefore Wachington is a dog.

This is a brilliant example for the so called logical "fallacy of the undistributed middle".

(Just search it on wikipedia.) The kalam cosmological argument however doesn't commit that fallacy.

[31Uriel]

"What it seeks to prove, is essentially hidden in the premises."

Unbelievable. That's not begging the qusetion, that's how any deductive argument works, that's how maths works!

[krapptacular]

wow indeed, holy shit haha

[barthelmy]

There is no need to prove if God exists. Proverbs 1:7 says it clearly "...The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction. Hope this helps :)

[rawextreme101]

@barthelmy AS LONG AS ONE DWELLS IN THE WORLD, HE WILL BE BLIND TO THE COMMON SENSE PROOF THAT GOD EXIST, THE WORLD IS IN OPPOSITION TO GOD THEREFORE IT LAUGHS IN ITS VICTORY TO THOSE WHO SAY THERE IS NO PROOF THAT GOD EXIST, BECAUSE IT HIDES THE TRUTH, ATHEIST ALSO TRY TO HIDE BEHIND SCIENCE IT GOOD ARGUEMENTS, BUT SCIENCE ALSO TELLS US THAT WE ARE ONE AND THERE IS A DIVINE CONCIOUS MIND, THE BIBLE SAYS GOD IS THE HEAD AND WE ARE THE BODY OF CHRIST..

[daviddmo]

@barthelmy Wow that doesnt really helps at all, just because a book, of 2200+ years old, wich comes from egypt, and thousands and thousands of copies says that doesnt mean is truth, and why your god is the real one? what about the other religions?

[TonyLee1000]

Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)

Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists.." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

[daviddmo]

@TonyLee1000 "he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe" i admire einstein, everybody does but, i dont care how smart einstein was, just because we dont understand the universe, doesnt mean that a GOD created it.

[rawextreme101]

@daviddmo CONCEIVE A CHILD AND U ARE THE FATHER, PLANT A SEED AND U HARVEST WHATEVER SEED U PLANTED BUT IF U DONT WATER IT WILL DIE, ONLY A CONCIOUS MIND CAN CREATE AND NOURISH, NOW U HAVE A SUPERIOR EXAMPLE OF EARTH, WHICH WAS CONCEIVE AND EVOLVED AND NOURISH FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS, HOW CAN SOMETHING MASSIVE A EARTH BE NOURISHED WIT SUCH ORDER FOR IT TO SURVIVE ALL THIS TIME WIT ALL THE DAMAGE MANKIND AS PUT UPON, WITHOUT A DIVINE CONCIOUS MIND?

[daviddmo]

@rawextreme101 "ONLY A CONCIOUS MIND CAN CREATE AND NOURISH, NOW U HAVE A SUPERIOR EXAMPLE OF EARTH" Thats not really truth, just because life and conciousness is complex, doesnt mean a "god" Created it, and even if god exists, wich god of all 10000 religions?

[rawextreme101]

@daviddmo man corrupts everything he puts his hands on, religion has been passed thru wicked mans hands for centuries, leave religion out, Wake up the fact of "if there is a god and he loves me such much, wouldnt he be able to prove his presence if i believe, try to love and want to connect?

[OneSixFourFive]

@TonyLee1000 Dawkins talks about every quote you just state in Chapter 1 of The God Delusion. Read up.

[AntitheistPOV]

I find it very telling that in 10+ years hosting a live, call in show, in a state where the vast majority are Christian and after thousands of callers, I haven't seen a single example of a decent reason, argument or piece of evidence for why these people believe what they believe (let alone actual evidence that what they believe is true).

Even if you completely ignored the specific arguments in each episode, that fact alone demonstrates how completely irrational anything resembling "faith" is.

[rawextreme101]

@AntitheistPOV .....EVIDENCE PROVED OJ SIMPSON WAS INNOCENT..... THE WORLD OR SYSTEM ITSELF IS MANKIND'S ENEMY, THINK OF YOUR OWN LITTLE WORLD OR PATH YOU WALK, ARE U HAPPY OR ALWAYS SAD AND TEASED AND PISSED, DO U NOT FEEL LIKE UR WORLD HAS TURNED ITS BACK ON YOU? WHAT IT HIDES IS THAT THE EVIDENCE IS IN U, U HOLD THE KEY TO THE TRUTH, THE SYSTEM TRAINS US IN OPPOSITION TO GOD THERE FOR EVIDENCE FROM WORLDY SOURCES ARE IMPOSSIBLE......

[AntitheistPOV]

@rawextreme101

No. Lack of conclusive evidence proved OJ innocent. Apparently you have an equally difficult time understanding reality and the legal system?

PS,

Capslock doesn't make an ignorant comment any less ignorant.

[rawextreme101]

@AntitheistPOV hmmph.... in reality what operates without it either being a living thing itself or a living thing either operating it or creating a energy source for it to operate? let me answer for you nothing, now u have a whole universe much more vast and complex than reality, but there is no living operator? if this comment isnt evidence enough for ur natural sense to awaken u to God, than u are a mere robot dependent on A.I for how to think

[AntitheistPOV]

@rawextreme101

Not knowing how something works does not equate to the existence of gods. It certainly doesn't prove the existence of the particular brand of God you happen to prefer.

I don't know how to build a car, but cars exist, therefore there must be a God!

Tired, illogical argument.

[rawextreme101]

@AntitheistPOV that is theee stupidest comparison, u know a man built that car... hoohh boy.... in that case lets use that logic wisely, u know only something moves that lives, therefore the the universe is moving because it lives, ohh and trust me my particular god makes the most sense than a old man with a bald patch and a beard, first of all he is eternal, he trys to depart us from death which causes things to wither and die, he does not wither there for he is forever youth

[AntitheistPOV]

@rawextreme101

How do I know man built cars? I wasn't there when some of the cars were built and I don't understand how they're built. So, clearly God builds cars.

Your particular God doesn't make any more sense than any other fictional nonsense. You just like to think it does because it makes you feel good.

[rawextreme101]

@AntitheistPOV your world tells u with logical evidence that mans builds cars, but u question that, your world tells u with logical evidence that god didnt not create that universe, and u perfectly agree........ hmm hmm

[AntitheistPOV]

@rawextreme101

There's as much evidence that gods create cars as there is that they created the universe.

[rawextreme101]

@AntitheistPOV my god is the divine mind of life, he not a man, the universe is his body, mankind was the most important extension of his body, but u and all the others are forced to hate him and hate for him to exist, therefore mankind is a plague, and as u see because of us the earth is very sick......... u figure it out

[AntitheistPOV]

@rawextreme101

OK. Now demonstrate or provide evidence for anything you just said.

While you're at it, can you ask your God if he can build me a Lexus? Thanks.

[rawextreme101]

@AntitheistPOV for the last time, u are the only one that holds the evidence of god in ur own personal life, as for a lexus, that belongs to the machine, which we live in, i hope u knew that, what runs ur home, what controls traffic, what is traffic, what are u reading from, u live in a machine, see child, the first gift of god is he spreads ur concious vast as the universe, then after he opens ur pineal gland, its time to evolve thee physical abilities,

[rawextreme101]

@AntitheistPOV study the 3rd eye and pineal gland videos, science gives evidence that we all have one.......... only god can open it

[AntitheistPOV]

@rawextreme101

Yet again, you're making a scientific statement and then adding "God" on the end. Yes, scientists have discovered and named something called a "pineal gland". How do you get from that to God?

[AntitheistPOV]

@rawextreme101

I don't particularly want to believe in war or disability either, but I have evidence that those things exist, so I accept that they do.

No doubt you're referring to the same lame non-evidence that every other theist attempts to provide. Anecdotal correlations between an individuals experience and a conclusion or "stuff exists so God must have done it!". In the end, argument for gods comes down to faith, which is belief without evidence.

[rawextreme101]

@AntitheistPOV scientific evidence proves that we dont really see...... we are viewing a projection from a monitor in the back of our brain, take a look at your couch.... sir that is your own mental interpetation of how that couch looks, maybe its for our own good or sanity but sir.......... we cant see the real world,

[AntitheistPOV]

@rawextreme101

I can only conclude from your statement that you have a very poor grasp of the scientific process.

Again, this is all completely irrelevant, since there is no evidence, in any shape or form for the existence of gods (or anything supernatural). Not only is there no conclusive proof, there's not even a starting point from which to assume there could be gods.

[rawextreme101]

@AntitheistPOV the evidence is u cant see, ur blind, we all live in our minds

[ex0gen]

@AntitheistPOV Perhaps that is because the theists that do have a reason to believe, and are coherent when it comes to their reasons for their beliefs, simply don't feel the need to call in for other reasons and motives. There could be any number of psychological and sociological reasons (probably many depending on the situation) for why the show gets a certain level of callers. Seriously, who else would call in, for a short dialogue, to address issues that take great lengths to discuss?

[AntitheistPOV]

@ex0gen

If we're being semantic, everyone has reasons for everything they do. When I say "reasons" I'm generally referring to good reasons (Ie; reasonable reasons). There's no such thing as a good psychological or sociological reasons to believe something..

I think you're being overly generous. In my experience, most theists (most humans in general, to be fair) simply aren't very bright. There is a demonstrable correlation between intelligence and atheism/agnosticism.

[ex0gen]

@AntitheistPOV I know/knew what you mean(t) by reasons, i.e. evidentially based and logical justification for said theistic propositions.

When I said sociological and psychological reasons, I was meaning something like "explanation." I am saying that those theists who have bothered to think really hard about this stuff probably wouldn't be the type to be calling to the show, while it seems obvious (at least from my standpoint) why the type that do call in would be the ones.

[AntitheistPOV]

@ex0gen

I'm not convinced. I've seen some of these calls go for 30+ minutes. I can't think of any belief I hold to be true that I couldn't give a decent reason for in half an hour. Particularly if I was the calling a show like this, and I'd had time to prepare.

[ex0gen]

@AntitheistPOV But the thing is that any student of philosophy who has had formal training from at least a decent school, and has studied theological and related issues could give you a better discussion then the callers you see here. Why? My take is that the kinds of people who could simply don't feel the need. They just don't care. Your show, no offense, attracts philosophical noobs. Who else would want to "fight" with you guys?

[AntitheistPOV]

@ex0gen

Christians. The show provides a platform to explain to non-believers why they should be believers. As the Bible instructs all Christians to a) be prepared to defend their beliefs and a) spread the Word, shows like this seem to me the perfect place to do so. Where else are you going to get an audience of interested non-believers who are ready and waiting to be convinced?

You're half way to my own perspective, which is that all theists are philosophical noobs.

[ex0gen]

@AntitheistPOV Saying that all Theists are noobs is blatantly incorrect. They were discussing W.L. Craig, in this video. One thing you can't say about the man is that he is a philosophical noob. I study philosophy myself and can see he does know his material.

The debate, from my vantage point is really between a certain kind of "atheist" and a certain kind of theist.

You can make the same argument about "atheists" as you can "theists" in the regard of being noobs.

[AntitheistPOV]

@ex0gen

I'll agree that Craig knows enough about philosophical principals to misuse them.

I don't agree that the type of theist or atheist matters. In fact, even the term "atheist" is just that; a term. It has no substance any more than aleprechaunist or abigfootist. The only reason it's necessary to have a term to describe a person who doesn't believe in gods is because the irrationality of the opposite position is so common.

[ex0gen]

@AntitheistPOV I think its more about perception, what it is that you are zeroing in on and different cultures within a greater context. As you said, "theist" and "atheist" are merely terms that designate belief, or lack thereof. Whatever else is the case or isn't is going to be culturally determined.

As for rationality and irrationality, you can find both of them anywhere. I know plenty of people who go to church "religiously" and they aren't irrational people.

[AntitheistPOV]

@ex0gen

It's irrational that we need a term to define a lack of belief in something for which there is no reason to believe. The whole situation seems more than a little bit ludicrous if you step back and look at it.

Rational people can have irrational beliefs. Irrational was probably a poor term. Reasonable, maybe. Anyone can rationalize anything if they're so inclined. It's easier to find flaws in poor reasoning.

[ex0gen]

@AntitheistPOV The way I see it at this point is that the whole debate is really rather silly. In the end it all boils down to one ones philosophical assumptions (particularly ones metaphysical and epistemic assumptions/presuppositions) are, which will determine what will be seen as possible or impossible. That of course, is from a philosophers standpoint. In my opinion that, once we have gotten past the "irrationality" or the laymen, is the crux of the matter.

[AntitheistPOV]

@ex0gen

While it is a silly argument, the results of this kind of unreasonable belief effect everyone, so I think it's worth arguing.

I think it's only a matter of time until religion dies out, judging by its rapid decline over the last couple thousand years. Doesn't hurt for people to do what they can to speed up the process.

[AntitheistPOV]

@ex0gen

It occurs to me that the problem might be fear.

Less intelligent people wouldn't think twice about calling and are usually, obviously unprepared. Often they don't even have a particularly good grasp of their own religion. Whereas more intelligent person might be aware on some level how impossible their beliefs are to defend and not want to examine them too closely.

[ex0gen]

@AntitheistPOV Possibly, but that is speculative. It really all depends on the person and their level of study. Many of the issues, in my opinion that get to the heart of this debate are simply uninteresting and "uncool." Only people that take a genuine interests in the philosophy of religion, which would take them to philosophical issues in general are going to the types who would make the conversation worth your wild. But I bet you those people see your show as "fighting."

[AntitheistPOV]

@ex0gen

You set the bar much higher than I do. I don't think people need to be life-long Biblical scholars to be able to provide a reason for why they believe something aside from, "because a book says so" or "it makes me feel good".

It's pretty rare to see the hosts react aggressively. I've heard plenty of abusive/threatening theist callers, but even then the hosts go out of their way to be polite and accommodating. Even so, there's nothing wrong with some aggression in a good debate.

[ex0gen]

@AntitheistPOV Well, it depends on the purpose of the "debate." I personally think it is more productive to have a dialogue in which the participants are non-combative.

I am not saying every person needs to be a biblical scholar but they should at least have the same level of study as the hosts do in their area. Otherwise they are what I would consider, a "noob." However, being a noob does not mean you are overall an irrational person.

[KaHabbful]

Perhaps its me but it seems that the show has sort of blown it's load. In earlier episodes you had them challenging Comfort, Craig, Robertson, etc. Or they would start the show with an issue and go to the callers a little later. I know a lot of people like the callers but the show seemed to have more balance when they would address real issues, and then go on to let idiots call. Now it's just idiots and I think the hosts, Matt especially, but Jeff a little too, seem burnt out with it.

[AntitheistPOV]

@KaHabbful

If the show seems a bit lackluster, it's because the vast majority of theists are ignorant and incapable of providing any sound argument for why they believe what they believe (let alone for supporting the truth of their beliefs). There are only so many ways you can provide an interesting response to, "I believe what I believe because it's true and it's true because I believe it".

[edwardvhalen]

I don't know if this is just me, but whenever i hear someone utter the word "y'all" it seams their IQ just plummets

[maujo2009]

I think that Craig mixes God with the concept of God in his arguments; in effect, the CONCEPT of God is timeless, spaceless, changeless, etc, but this has no burden in how a CONCEPT could have been responsible for the creation of anything whatsoever!!

[omgcowshaveudders]

I think Matt was getting off track in this one and not giving the caller a chance.

[fromis111]

As much as I like Dillahunty at his best, at his worst I think he can be extremely petty and unnecessarily pissy. Here he interrupts the caller constantly with pseudo-problems unrelated to the topic (e.g. "you just *think* that's what the argument is??") and then, perversely, blames the caller for getting them both off topic!

[AntitheistPOV]

@fromis111

I disagree. Don't call a live show and waste the host and the audience time if you haven't done your homework.

The times he interrupted this particular caller were completely valid. The caller kept attempting to get Matt to agree to premises that included assumptions that hadn't been demonstrated as true.

IE: Defining the cause as a "being", the cause has consciousness, etc.

[AntitheistPOV]

@fromis111

Not only that, but he called to discuss a very specific topic and then states himself that he hadn't even bothered studying the subject he'd called to discuss. Again, it's a waste of everyones time and it's perfectly understandable that the hosts should be frustrated.

[beastshawnee]

oops my bad, typo! ridiculous...where did that A come from? LOL.

[beastshawnee]

Don't you just love all the high falutin' arguments over what is a ridiculaous Santa story and some obvious fables?

[BraunBrothers]

I disagree with your video description. I agree with Don when he says he was just calling to discuss the argument -- not to prove anything. So he never really "failed." It started with, "What do y'all think of the Kalam?"

[MrAwesomesauce7]

@BraunBrothers agree