First causes again

I left the conversation with Evangelical1 a while ago, but I felt I needed to explain my position a little better. Perhaps this will help?

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Evangelical1
• big
• bang
• kalam
• cosmological
• argument
• first
• cause
• god
• supernatural

[newexperiment]

Good video. Don't give him too hard a time on the 'christianity in particular' side. Good to point out but if he wants to change to a 'deist view' let him. No evidence for deism is stronger than no evidence for Christianity.

[askegg]

It's not a big step from deism to atheism.  I considered myself a deist for a long time.

[evangelical1]

Great to hear from you again askegg!

[askegg]

I hope I am getting my point across.

[tohpengsunberlin]

askegg hie, do you know micheal tsarion's work? if you do, what do you think?

danke-schÖnXX

[Cade57]

Brilliant video, brilliant argument!

[SpecKDB]

I made this exact same argument on a facebook poll!

The first premise of the cosmological argument is flawed because the phrase "begins to exist" is used incorrectly. A car does begin to exist as a car, but it doesn't form out of nothing. That matter that forms it has always existed, therefore no human has ever witnessed anything begin to exist out of nothing. It's actually the theist that believes God created the universe ex nihilo.

[ADF203]

5 stars

[MilitantPeaceist]

actually smaller than the size of an atom, but yeah, all good, I get the size V's hey dude we need you to look at this analogy XD XD! oh you did that too HAHA.

this happens in evolutiion as well, it is so correct, they can pinpoint areas to find fossils that 'should' be there after defining the contraints of evolution, they find it in exactly the spot they looked 1st!

It is like reading a sreet directory, it is that mapped out!

[TexAtheist]

Well said Andrew...

[newexperiment]

Interesting but I don't see the correlation.

[alphacause]

(continued from previous post) To explain one mystery (how the universe came to exist), with another mystery (God), who suffers from the same problem as the first mystery (how does God exist and create anything), is NOT an explanation or proof of anything. You are just compounding the conundrum unnecessarily. It is more intellectually honest to say I dont know how it all happened, than to say GOD DID IT.

[alphacause]

(continued from previous post) Fundamentally it comes down to what David Brooks said well: To explain the UNKNOWN by the KNOWN is a logical procedure; to explain the KNOWN by the UNKNOWN is a form of theological lunacy. And that is what is precisely wrong with the Cosmological argument and the Teleological (design) argument (continued).

[alphacause]

(continued from previous post) It is at this point that the theist will say that God can create things ex nihilo because he transcends scientific laws, and he is miraculous, etc, etc, etc. To this I answer, how CONVENIENT! Essentially they are defining God in such away that makes him immune to argument. Well, cant we do the same? Cant we say that the universes emergence from nothingness is a miracle because the universe is miraculous (continued)?