AN INDIRECT PROOF OF GOD (That Destroys Atheism In 3 Minutes) with transcript

A REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM by Andrew Dorman, (c) 2010

FEEL FREE TO READ ALONG WITH THE VIDEO BY THE TRANSCRIPT THAT FOLLOWS THESE OPENING NOTES: The long awaited sequel to the video you're watching is now available, SPECIAL PLEADING OF ATHEISM (Indirect Proof Of God, Part II) -- Another Reductio ad absurdum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOyori_ruoE

Also: Good news! The text of the comments that were made here are now on my webpage: http://godtrustory.webs.com -- complete and unedited, and in the order and context they were originally given

This video's transcript:

The following argument in favor of God will result in a proof known as a reductio ad absurdum against atheism. But first I'll like to introduce a few preliminary axioms relating to God:

- The Universe may be identified with Space-time
- An effect must have a cause outside of itself.
- Cause for space-time must exist outside of space-time (which is known "subsisting"). Otherwise. one would ask: Who created the creator?
- Also, any event woould have to take place in space-time, So events like "singularity" or the "big bang" cannot be their own cause. Nor can something come out of nothing. What's needed is a state of affairs for such initial causes to derive from. A state of afffairs is distinguishable from an event in the same manner an eternity would be distinguishable from an infinity. Namely, "states of affair" and "eternity" are concepts in which space-time specifically do not apply.
- Since the only being that could subsist outside space-time would be an absolute non-entity, such a state of affairs would be God as our eternal foundation.

So with that out of the way, I'll provide to you now: MY INDIRECT PROOF OF GOD (A REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM)

- Typically, atheists claim that observation is the only proof that would result in an assertion, rather than an assumption. They claim only observation could account for "credible, verifiable evidence." However, for this claim to be valid, one would have to prove why observation is to be regarded so highly, especially when our senses are known to be both limited and deceptive-at-times.
- Next, one would have to prove why observation offers better proof than does logical analysis. This would have to be done because for one to accept observation as the sole criterion to decide an argument over a non-space-time, undemonstrable God self-defeats the claim from the get-go. Such a limitation is called begging the question and it's an argumentative fallacy -- especially while there are other types of proof available.
- So then, one would have to EITHER offer an explanation of how "that which would be non-observable" can be observed (and thus, avoid begging the question, albeit paradoxically). OR, one would have to prove that observation can take into account all of reality, and thus safely conclude that any claim for anything non-observational should be dismissed.
- However, for one to accept the latter, one would have to also demonstrate how the brain could be so all-encompassing as to conceive all of reality. But, for one to do so and remain an atheist, one would have to make such a demonstration without entailing an intelligent designer as the mind's cause (again: paradoxically).

So, in conclusion, the atheist would have to prove EITHER that the non-observational can be observed OR prove how the human mind is intelligent enough to mirror and conceive all of reality, yet wasn't intelligently designed.

Both conclusions are absurd, and so is atheism.

Thus, In review, here's my paradox condensed into a sentence:

If one claims observation to be sole valid criterion to verify evidence, then one EITHER (finds it insufficient yet) insists on a self-refuting requirement against believers (and begs the question), OR (finds it sufficient so) insists on an all-encompassing power of our senses to possibly observe all truth, yet denies the brain was intelligently designed (an inconsistency).

Thank you for watching.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• proof of God
• Christian apologetics
• proof that God exists
• God
• proof
• God exists
• Aquinas
• Duns Scotus
• Occam
• atheist experience
• 713
• Pascal's
• Wager
• philosophy
• logic
• agape
• theology
• science
• atheism
• debate
• theism
• subsist
• pantheism
• Christianity
• Judaism
• Islam
• Comparative
• Buddhism
• Hinduism
• Tao
• Alan Watts
• William Lane Craig
• Shock of God
• deductive
• new age
• universe
• singularity
• big bang
• obseration
• assumption
• assertion
• credible
• verifiable
• evidence
• burden of proof

[speerdali]

You're a parrot....and a dolt! Try thinking for yourself instead of quoting Craig (badly).....

[namesameasu]

@speerdali Craig came up with a reductio ad absurdum?

[MidnightSt]

1. "observation" doesn't (necessarily) mean "using our senses". most of modern science is based on observing phenomena that is not observable directly by our senses.

[namesameasu]

@MidnightSt "observation" doesn't (necessarily) mean "using our senses"."

Yet we must eventually "observe" it as data as some point ... such as with mathematics, or logic. My point in making this video was to demonstrate through logic that not everything need not be observable in the physical sense. For instance, a logical proof is method of demonstration and is observable. Correct?

Your point 2 is a rant not worthy of comment, and your correlation doesn't exist - you just wish that it did

[jamesthesane]

I thumbed you down because I got everything I needed to know about your argument from the fact you decided to use a echo voice effect.

How about a little professionalism.

[BumJungle]

@namesameasu I don't want to enter into a debate relating to the various hypothesis aiming to favour one point of conjecture over another. I take issue with the fact you're asserting a 'proof' of something other than ones ability to 'guess'. We can all guess. Some of us are more intellectually honest and admit we don't know, while others claim a position of all knowing arrogance claiming to conveniently know all the answers, often involving some variation of a God'. I'd rather know HOW?!

[Nidair]

Since we do not know anything about "outside of time" we cannot say anything about it. You cannot say if timelessness even exists, or what, if anything, can exist in a space without time. Therefore your 'evidence' is nothing but a guess.

30 seconds.

[icedmetal81]

what the fuck is wrong with your voice?

[theElectr0ne]

I couldn't understand a single word you said

[hardinmichael1981]

YouTube should have a flag for "Idiocy"

[hardinmichael1981]

@namesameasu logical proof is NOT EVIDENCE of existence, nor of "subsistence", nor of reality. Logic is useless and pointless without FACTS. Observable, Testable, Independently Verifiable Facts.

[MrAtheistGuy1]

@namesameasu Then start over and try again because you completely screwed up the first time. And you make assertions left and right about things you couldn't possibly know. Like what happened during or before the big bang. The fact that you don;t see them as assertions is a major part of the problem. You keep telling others to go back to the drawing board and re-evaluate. Time to follow ones own advice.

[unkledanbot]

the reverb makes it sound like robots want me to believe in god

[piturantonio]

I can´t hear cuz of the echo