DasAmericanAtheist-Destroyed in two parts (part one).wmv

[fdasherv]

Among all the flaws in this argument, one is glaring. The universe did not begin to exist, it expanded into it's present state from a previous state.

[petion2010]

not fully understood and try to make a god of the gap argument. Basically it's an argument from ignorance. It fails on so many basis. Funny to use a Medieval argument ah! ah!

[timetothinkclearly]

@petion2010 read.

[petion2010]

@timetothinkclearly Actually, I do read. And William Lane Craig Cosmological argument is still nonsense. It fails in so many level. From argument from ignorance, to pretend that he knows anything pre-big bang, to special pleading, to invoke that it mist have been the Judeo-Christian god not any others. The premises themselves can't support each other

[timetothinkclearly]

@petion2010 There is no argument from ignorance. He gives several philosophical arguments that the Cause of the universe must be intelligent. No special pleading either. In fact, here is the symbolic form of the argument to demonstrate this 1.\/x[B(x) => C(x)] 2.B(u) 3. C(u) Second premises can be logically independent

 without rendering the syllogism invalid.

[petion2010]

@timetothinkclearly Nonsense. Philosophical argument are just that. They don not prove anything. Anyone can make a philosophical argument for anything, including to support atrocities, discrimination etc. Yes, it is special pleading when he said, everything that exist must have a cause and make no cause for whoever causes the universe to exist. No, it can't be independent on his own.

[timetothinkclearly]

@petion2010 It is not special pleading because he never said everything that exists has a cause. He said "Everything THAT BEINGS TO EXIST has a cause." Things like numbers and laws of logic (which are eternal) also do not have causes. Good lord make sure you understand the argument before you attack it.

[petion2010]

@timetothinkclearly Numbers and the laws of logic aren't material things, thus, have no true existence. And it's still special pleading because he simply doesn't know that. We have no example of true beginning. He chair for instance has no true beginning, because it is assemble from pre-existing matter. The maker is only reshaping matter. His argument fail right at his first premise for no true beginning has been observed. We're not sure if the big bang was even a true beginning.

[timetothinkclearly]

@petion2010 No you miss the point about special pleading, it would be a fallacy of special pleading to say God has not cause IF he said that everything has a cause. He did not say that. What he said was that everything that BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause and that God did not begin to exist. This is not special pleading. those four little words "that beings to exist" make all the difference. Focus on the logic of the situation and not the particularities of my example.

[petion2010]

@timetothinkclearly First, he can't possibly know that everything that begins to exist has a cause. What does he mean by beginning? His argument is based solely on experience and intuition. Speaking of special pleading, the universe begins to exist so it may require a cause, yet, cleverly god never begins to exist, thus,didn't require any cause. Isn't that convenient. Honestly, the Kalam argument failed in too many levels.

[petion2010]

@timetothinkclearly You see, the problem is that William Lane Craig isn't interested in true. He simply wants to win arguments and confirms his beliefs. He always blend abiogenesis with evolution to try to discredit it, and blatantly making claims about cosmology that aren't true nor accurate. I follow many of his debate, and one think I can say is that he's intellectually dishonest.

[timetothinkclearly]

@petion2010 This is false. I spoke with Dr. Craig about this when I went to see him at a university near my city and I never got that impression. Second, judging by the objection you gave, you have no clue how the argument works.

[petion2010]

@timetothinkclearly What did you speak to him about?

[petion2010]

@timetothinkclearly And I stand by my words. WLC, PPSimmons, Kent Hovind, Kirk Cameron, and banana boy Ray Comfort are intellectually dishonest. They make claims about biology and cosmology that simply aren't true, they, specially WLC, come up with statistical impossibility using big numbers that make no sense, and they distort scientific researches and theories. There's a reason they pick their audiences so carefully, people who are scientifically illiterate and have the same belief as them.

[petion2010]

Why not submit their research and papers in scientific journal for peer review? Why not investigate and present evidence for their claim? No, they don't because their position require faith. If they want to believe in whatever they want, I'm fine by that. But I object when they wanna use science to prove their beliefs, yet reject the scientific method, making false claims about scientific theory, and distort science theory to fit into their belief. That's intellectual dishonesty.

[timetothinkclearly]

@petion2010 No intellectual dishonesty is you not knowing the craig has published in more peer-reviewed journals then almost anyone else in philosophy in the past 20 years. TIme to stop talking and time to start reading.

[petion2010]

@timetothinkclearly Yes, he is. I've followed his debate and he is intellectually dishonest. He would take a source, misrepresented. He would make claims about science that no scientist ever make. What pisses me off the most is whenever he would mix up evolution to abiogenesis. Even in his so called Kalam Cosmological argument, he makes stuff up about cosmology and that cosmologists have yet to discovered.

[timetothinkclearly]

@petion2010 This is clearly a case of you having done nothing but watch his debates on youtube. You have never so much as cracked open a peer-reviewed philosophical Journal. You have never read his published work. All you have done is make unsubstantiated claims about his debates. He misrepresents no one and in his published work that fact is born out. Read.

[petion2010]

This is the same old bullshit. You guys gonna keep riding this nonsense forever. If everything that begin to exist has a cause then what the cause of god. Even if you knew the beginning for sure, you still had to prove that the cause was immaterial, a conscious being, or was a god. You can't go from everything has a cause to taking a leap of that cause being god. You can feel the blank with Super Advanced Alien Race, or anything. This argument is based on fake science because it takes an area

[spamanon]

@petion2010,

Did God begin to exist? Do you see how silly your first question is? It is like saying, "If every basketball is round, then why isn't a football round?" All we know is that the universe began to exist.

That the cause was immaterial is obvious from the fact that the universe just is all the material there is! So material aliens are ruled out. Whatever made the universe is what we are calling God. It really isn't very hard if you just think about it.

[petion2010]

@spamanon No, it's not damn obvious. If it were, you would have offer proof for it and not finding refuge in philosophical argument. Saying that the cause was immaterial is obvious from the fact that the universe is materal is obvious is complete nonsense. No, we know that the universe begin in the way in is today had a beginning. That is not to say that it has a true beginning out of nothing. Even if it did, that still doesn't prove god did it. You still need to prove the existence of god and

[petion2010]

@spamanon demonstrate that he was the one who created everything. Otherwise, you're just making an argument from ignorance,"We don't know therefore it must be this." That's how our ancestors created all those myths. Once they couldn't and had no mean to explain the natural phenomena around them, earthquake, wind, weather, season, diseases, etc, they ascribed supernatural explanations for them. With time, each proved to be incorrect.

[timetothinkclearly]

@petion2010 Everything you have seen WLC talk about in debates has been published in either a) peer reviewed journals or B) in peer reviewed books from academic publishing presses. Not that he doesn't publish elsewhere after the fact, but arguments have been defended in countless peer-reviewed journals. Your simply ignorant if you don't know this. Google Ciriculum Vitae. Second, he has answered all your quesitons in peer-reviewed journals. Its time to be quiet and time to start reading.

[petion2010]

@timetothinkclearly I don't care about his curriculum vitae. Sure most of his sources are published.That wasn't the point. I'm saying he misrepresented them, making claims that cosmologists and biologists don't make. He has his way with math too. He'll say something like, "the likelihood of life starting by chance is 10^40" First, he can't know that, second, no science even claim that evolution or abiogenessis happened because of pure luck.

[timetothinkclearly]

@petion2010 NO, it is not his SOURCES which are published (though they are) it is that HIS WORK is published. His ORIGINAL WORK (even if he is resurrecting an old argument) is published in peer-reviewed journals. Which defeats your claim

[TheCelticChimp]

Everything we see around us has a cause. Yes. Everything around us is a part of the universe and operating inside it according to its own rules. These mechanisms obviously cannot simply be transplanted onto the universe itself. Causation is a property of the universe. You want to apply the property of a thing as an obvious component in the creation of that thing.

Some serious justification is required for this move. Craig offers none.

[timetothinkclearly]

@TheCelticChimp "You want to apply the property of a thing as an obvious component in the creation of that thing." False. First causation is not a property. Properties belong to objects, causation is a relation between objects. A causes B. The causation is a relation between A and B and not a property of either. Secondly, Premise one is universally quantified meaning this:"Everything we see around us has a cause. " Is to change the argument and create a straw man. lrn2quantification theory.

[TheCelticChimp]

@timetothinkclearly

Imagine a universe in which causation was not. If you compared that universe with ours, you would find it fallacious to describe causation as a property of this universe.

Causation is not a property of any "thing" in our universe. It is a property of the universe as a whole. The entire point was that what is true internally of our universe can't simply be translated to a realm outside of the universe.

[timetothinkclearly]

@TheCelticChimp Causation isn't a property of any "thing", because causation is not a property at all...its a relation.

[TheCelticChimp]

@timetothinkclearly

I think we'll just have to disagree on that. I am suggesting that it is a property of the universe in the sense that there could exist a universe that did not have the property "causation". I would agree that internally in the universe it would be invalid to describe causation as a property. In the supermarket of universes though, I think it is coherent to describe it as a property. In any event, the point is that what happens in the universe can't be axiomatically...

[TheCelticChimp]

@timetothinkclearly

applied to the universe itself. The creation of the universe is not understood. Nothing about the state of affairs prior to the inflation of the universe is known. It is suggested at least that the laws of physics may have themselves began at the big bang. If this is true or possible, it is not valid to use them to infer the conditions of that beginning itself.

Don't you just hate You tube comment character limits. :P

[StopSpamming1]

Weak. Ignoring all refutations and logical disassembly of the argument.

Instead of arguments for the existence of any god I'd expect straight proof for a particular god.

[timetothinkclearly]

@StopSpamming1 The whole point is that there was no disassembly of the argument. Why? becuase DAA doesnt understand the argument and you would know that if you had watched part 2/

[StopSpamming1]

@timetothinkclearly

I was referring to the hundreds of refutations and not specifically DAA's. That's what the word "all" was signifying. Or trying to.

Even if they are all wrong all you have is that a god could maybe exist - you still don't know which super-natural and invisible being was the cause for all this.

And like I said: it's 2011 and after tap-dancing around the issue of a god existing or not due to good reasons or possibilities for decades, I now expect and want a clear answer.

[nanoduckling]

The justification for premise one commits the fallacy of equivocation. 'Begins' to 'exist' as a unique arrangement of matter of energy in the universe is not the same as pop into existence ex nihilo. If one fixes this then the argument becomes circular because premise one is just a inference from the conclusion since the only thing that actually begins to exist is matter and energy. On a side note Craig's book and Craig's video that DAA criticised are not comparable entities.

[raoskaos]

3 words: fallacy of equivocation.

[timetothinkclearly]

@raoskaos Where have I equivocated? I quoted DAA exactly from his video. I wrote the quote on the board. and I quoted from craigs book. There is no equivocation on my part, if you think there is, explain Precisely where and how I equivocated. And do not say that I read from the book while DAA watched the video. Nowhere in the video does craig say that the universe began to exist because everything that begins to exist has a cause.

[Dhorpatan]

Continued @timetothinkclearly

To exist necessarily entails existing somewhere(space), and doing something(time). This is confirmed by all reality as you can not name a single thing in reality that is not spatially located. If you can, then I can show it is simply the EFFECT of something that is spatially located. I boldly state that everything is either spatially located, or simply the effect of something that is spatially located, And this can be falsified. I challenge you to falsify it.

[Vire70]

William Lane Craig is a moron of the highest degree. Anyone who thinks his circular argument is worth even mentioning is likewise idiotic.

[timetothinkclearly]

@Vire70 How, exactly, is this circular?

\/x(Bx → Cx) [For any entity x, if x begins to exist, then x has a cause]

Bu [The universe began to exist]

Bu → Cu [If the universe began to exist, it has a cause], 1, universal instantiation

Cu, 2, 3, modus ponens

If you watched the second video you would know I show that argument is not and can not be circular.

[Vire70]

@timetothinkclearly

Any cursory look at quantum mechanics will show how pointless it is to subject something as alien as the beginning of our universe to 'common sense'

Moreover, even if one were to accept Craig premises as true (neither of which have been, or can be, proven) it still wouldn't support his added assumptions - that the causer is omnipotent, omniscient personal creator-god etc.

In hindsight you're right it isn't exactly circular, it is still moronic however.

[timetothinkclearly]

@Vire70 Watch the video again ad tell me exactly how the Apriori category of causality is knocked out by quantum mechanics. Second, quantum mechanics does not defeat the causal principle because even vitual particles are produced out of the quantum foam, which is a cause. Third explain to me why not everything and anything comes from nothing. Fourth, no one is arguin from common sense. Justify your position.

[Vire70]

@timetothinkclearly

I didn't say it was. Just that you're applying A>B logic to quantum mechanics, which tends to violate traditional logic.

My real issue with this 'argument' isn't the premises so much anyway, (although they are pretty baseless), but more the ridiculous addons that Craig attaches to them. One could say that there was a cause for the big bang - but Craig goes further to say that that cause is X, of which there is simply no way of determining.

[timetothinkclearly]

@Vire70 If you can link, or cite a peer reviewed journal that demonstrates an unqualified violation of the law of non-conradiction (upon which all predicate logic is built) I will admit the point. Second, how are the premsis baseless. Third, he only claims that the cause must be timeless, changless, powerful, eternal and personal. He gets the other stuff from other arguments.

[Vire70]

@timetothinkclearly

"Only"? That is a whole frigging lot of unnecessary baseless crap.

A cause need not be timeless, it need not be changeless, or powerful or eternal or personal; none of those things. For all we know the Big bang was only one explosion in a cycle of trillions, caused by totally inanimate natural processes; a hypothesis that is far more plausible than the mystical magic man that no one can see clicked his fingers.

And the premises are baseless since they're unfalsifiable.

[timetothinkclearly]

@Vire70 Ok, I will make my next video about this point. It will be as long (at least) as the ones for DAA but you make a common objection. Give me a week and I will have it up. I will let you know when it is available.

[Dhorpatan]

Continued @timetothinkclearly

Secondly, numbers, thoughts, and ideas are concepts, not concretes. God belief has pushed you into presenting things that are abstractions in order to defend the erroneous notion that something can exist, and have no spatial location. You literally blur the line between what's real(concrete) and what's imaginary(concepts).

[timetothinkclearly]

@Dhorpatan False, thoughts are not abstractions. That is a category mistake whcih confuses that object of thought with the thought itself. Abstractions might be the object of some thought, but the thought is not itself and abstraction. Second I gave you example of existing things that lack extension, You have not given me any reason to believe that a thing must have extension to exist. If you think that, lets see an argument.

[Dhorpatan]

@timetothinkclearly

False? Hahaha! So since you think thoughts are not abstractions, are you to tell me you think thoughts are concretes? In other words, thoughts exist independently in reality?

[timetothinkclearly]

@Dhorpatan I said they are not abstractions, which is different from being an abstract. thoughts exist, and have to spatial extension, they are like mathematical points, which have no extension, are abstract, and exist.

[Dhorpatan]

@timetothinkclearly

Everything that exists is either spatially located or the EFFECT of that which is spatially located. This is a necessary truth, because something cannot be said to exist, and then have no spatial location. With this articulated, we see the erroneous nature of your claims. Numbers, thoughts and ideas are all EFFECTS of that which is spatially located, namely HUMANS. To say God has no spatial location/extension, is to confirm that God does not exist.

[timetothinkclearly]

@Dhorpatan I would like to see an argument for your first sentence.

[Dhorpatan]

@timetothinkclearly

The argument is this: Saying God has no Spatial location/extension, is logically and EMPIRICALLY equivalent to saying God is NOTHING. Why is this? Because the concept of NOTHING has no spatial location/extension. That's one of the reasons why it's NOTHING. Objectivism recognizes that space and time are relational attributes of existence.

Continued...

[nanoduckling]

@timetothinkclearly Lets have another go at this

B="Is a new arrangement of matter and energy"

C="Was preceded by a prior arrangement of matter and energy in a predictive manner"

Vx(Bx->Cx) is empirically justified.

B'="Begun from nothing"

C'="Was created ex nihilo"

Vx(B'x->C'x) is not the same as the first of these. If we fix this equivocation then on what basis can we justify the universal quantification of x? The only thing claimed satisfies this requirement is the universe. Hence Circular.

[timetothinkclearly]

@nanoduckling In Craigs syllogism B is a one place predicate meaning "begins to exist." Where begins to exist means: x comes into being at t If and only if: x exists at t; t is either the first time at which x exists or is separated from any time t*<t at which x existed by a non–degenerate, temporal interval; and x's existing at t is a tensed fact.)

C is a one place predicate meaning "Has a cause."

You should now be able to see why the argument cannot be circular.

[nanoduckling]

@timetothinkclearly You are correct, phrased that way the argument isn't circular, it is meaningless. There is no physical entity x from which a meaningful deduction can be drawn since no physical thing begins to exist in this sense (with the possible exception of the universe), only constructed abstractions of things begin to exist in this sense. One cannot justify premise one by saying nothing pops into existence since we are in a universe and the claim under question is beginning ex nihilo.

[Dhorpatan]

timetothinkclearly, since you are evidently an educated Theist, I want to ask you. Is God finite or Infinite?

[TerraFirma92]

@Dhorpatan

I know I'm not TTC, but I think he would most likely answer that yes God is infinite, but it's not a quantitative type of infinity, rather it's a qualitative infinity.

Craig attempts to answer the question on his site reasonable faith, so just copy this and put it in a search engine of your choosing: "Reasonable faith: Question 106- Is God Actually Infinite"

[Dhorpatan]

@TerraFirma92

God has the QUALITY of being Omnipresent. Does such Omnipresence entail an infinite spatial extent, or a finite spatial extent?

[TerraFirma92]

@Dhorpatan

Good issue you raise. I haven't thought about it much though.

I have read (guess who) Craig on this issue in his book Philosophical Foundations for A Christian Worldview and he would have a different understanding of what omnipresence is and what it implies.

[TerraFirma92]

@Dhorpatan

He says that (in reference to omnipresence) "we do not think of God as localized in space neither should we conceive of him as extended throughout space like some sort of an all-pervasive ether",

Rather, Craig says we should think of it in this way: that "God literally exists spacelessly but is present at every point in space in the sense that he is cognizant of and causally active at every point in space."

[Dhorpatan]

@TerraFirma92

Your answer from Craig entails a veridical contradiction. It asserts that something is space-LESS, but then is also active about space, which reality confirms requires spatial extension. That's a logical and veridical contradiction. Even worse, it was a patent evasion, as it clearly tries to allude the salient question that I will ask of you again. Is God's qualitative spatial extent, INFINITE. or FINIITE?

[TerraFirma92]

@Dhorpatan

I feared this would happen. I'm going to have to PM you exactly what he says.

You can then come to whatever conclusions about it.

[Dhorpatan]

@TerraFirma92

I asked you an honest and straightforward question, and I'm STILL waiting on a straight forward, HONEST response. It's a simple question. Theres' no need to PM what he said if it does not answer the question. For the THIRD TIME....Is God's qualitative spatial extent, INFINITE, or FINITE?

[TerraFirma92]

@Dhorpatan

You can relax. I already said that I'm not sure about certain properties of God (omnipresence being one of them).

That's why I said i would PM you what Craig had to say on the issue.

You putting caps on the letters doesn't help, I understand what you are asking.

[timetothinkclearly]

@Dhorpatan Immaterail thiongs do not have a qaulitative spatial extent. but if you want a way to think of it, God is as "big" as the universe because he is omnipresent. Second, God is not an infinite collection or completed set, but rather God's omnipotence is cashed out in terms of his unlimited potential.

[timetothinkclearly]

@timetothinkclearly that should read : Immaterial things do not have a qualitative spatial extent. If you want a way to think of it, God is as "big" as the universe because he is omnipresent. Second, God is not an infinite collection or completed set, but rather God's omnipotence is cashed out in terms of his unlimited potential.

[Dhorpatan]

@timetothinkclearly

You are saying that God, being immaterial, has no spatial extent qualitatively. That means God does not exist, as you are saying something exists NO WHERE. Merriam Webster defines Omnipresent as "present in all places at all times". To be present requires spatial location. You have shown that God is non-existent.

[timetothinkclearly]

@Dhorpatan No I am only saying that because God exists oth in and out of the universe the question of his size is poorly worded. Second, things need not have extension to exist. Take for example numbers, or thoughts, or ideas. Lastly, God might take on some sort of manifestation of extension for the purposes of acting in the universe (IE Jesus being in the form of a man), but he would not require it.

[Dhorpatan]

@timetothinkclearly

Your comments once again show the falsity of God belief. The things you say cannot be distinguished from what you are merely imagining. This is because you make claims that have no veridical basis, like saying God exists IN AND OUT of the Universe.

Continued...

[Vire70]

@timetothinkclearly

Numbers, thoughts and ideas are all concepts developed in the brain. They have a physical location, abstract as it may seem.

All they are is labels generated by our minds that are representations of other physical phenomena we witness in reality - such as numbers, they're just a representation of how many things we see.

I challenge you to find anything that isn't physically manifested in some way. Because certainly concepts aren't it.

[timetothinkclearly]

@Vire70 To your first point: False. my thought of three is not the very same thing as the number three. If I think about the number three, my mind has not created the number, actualy the case is that my mind is in an aboutness relationship with the number three. Second If numbers are themsleves phsically manifested then how tall are they, how much does three weigh, what does it smell like? Your homework...read thomas Nagels "What is it like to be a bat?"

[Vire70]

@timetothinkclearly

It isn't false. Where do you think Concepts come from if not the brain? They have a location in the sense that they're a formation of chemicals in your head. I'm not a neuroscientist so I can't tell you exactly how it happens, but to say that concepts are unphysical is just silly.

[timetothinkclearly]

@Vire70 Chinese room. John Searle. Google it and read it. You cannot get meaning from syntax and thus they cannot be identical with the chemicals in what the brain are doing. Second, there is a world of a difference between location and extesion.

[TerraFirma92]

@Dhorpatan

Though I am treating this issue in a brief way, since he does go into it a lot more. But too much for Youtube comments.