The Cosmological Argument (A Documentary)

Scientist and agnostic Robert Lawrence Kuhn explores the cosmological argument for God's existence in this documentary "Arguing God From First Cause." He interviews philosopher, theologians, and scienists in this documentary.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Cosmological
• Argument
• Kalam
• Philosophy
• Religion
• God
• Science
• Theology
• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Peter
• Van
• Inwagen
• Quentin
• Smith
• Atheism
• Theism

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost Eight times of explaining a very basic concept in the very dictionary you cited earlier when it suited you. We don't have to tell anyone anything, the definition I'm using is the definition used in the dictionary.

I'll keep correcting you and explaining it to you as long as you keep missing the point.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation Yea ... 8 times repeating the same bullshit mantra. Apparently, not only is a sect of YouTube atheists going to tell the rest of the world (including the majority of nontheists) what the dictionary means regarding atheism, they are also going to tell us that it even entails agnosticism (which goes contrary to the very purpose for which Huxley coined the term!). Beautiful.

Are you done yet? Or would you like to repeat your mantra another 8 times?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost Not believing my dragon exists makes you an atheist/adragonist as disbelief is still defined as refusal to accept this time as it was the last 8 times I've had to define it for you.

Agnosticism goes to potential knowledge or lack thereof, atheism goes to lack of belief.

We can't know if there are leprechauns that follow us around which turn invisible every time someone tries to look at them, that doesn't mean we believe in them just in case.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation I'm not an atheist with regard to your baby dragon. Do I believe in it? No. I have no reason to unless you provide some evidence.

Btw, it was Thomas Huxley who coined the word agnostic FOR THE VERY PURPOSE OF differentiating between one who believes there is no God (atheist) and one who does not know if there is a God (agnostic). If atheism *entailed* agnosticism, there would be no reason to invent the word agnostic in the first place.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost If you do think skeptics bear any burden at all, I'm still waiting on you to disprove my incorporeal dragon.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost The atheists have no burden of proof, we're the ones skeptical of your positive claim of the existence of a deity. Anyone with a working knowledge of the English language and an understanding of epistemology grasps that skepticism is the default position towards any positive claim.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation Its not about you having to prove X doesn't exist. Its about *YOU* shifting a burden of proof. I don't deny theists have a burden of proof, but so do atheists. Anyone who actually denies something exists (to reject something is the exact same thing as to deny it) has a burden of proof. So you can't accuse me of shifting any burden of proof. You're the one claiming you have none. Thankfully, nobody agrees with your definition of the word outside of YouTube atheist wackjobs.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost How so? Are you saying that you aren't claiming something exists? Or that you aren't expecting someone else to prove it doesn't exist? Because if you're not doing both of those in conjunction then all of your postings have been facetious along with already known to be ignorant.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation "X exists, prove me wrong"

Nice strawman sir.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost No equivocation required, that's the very definition which you seem to be willfully ignorant of. The only thing pathetic here is your feeble attempt to shift the burden of proof by trying to make word salad out of already established definitions.