@kamina77 "Since god is outside the bounds of our universe, u can not scientifically prove god's existence."
If there is no observation that can be made that can distinguish a reality where god exists from one where it doesn't, then the concept "God" has exactly zero explanatory value. You don't win a debate by just declaring that "it's not necessary for God's existence to be proven scientifically". That just earns you the reply: "Ok, so it's a meaningless concept then. Occam's razor"
Science needs data, that should b analyzed. In order for one to prove anything through the eyes of science. Since god is outside the bounds of our universe, u can not scientifically prove god's existence. Just as one can not prove that any one of us had a great great great great great grandfather. There is no scientific data available for this human that can b tested to prove that he existed. So u know now, it is not necessary for Gods existence to b proven scientifically
@Sinkh Do you really align yourself with Craig's version of this? There are better philosophers of religion, that have made better cases (which still are unsatisfactory in providing any evidence for theism). In every case, an assumption must be made, and bluntly so.
I have checked. Most atheists get them so wrong they end up criticizing an argument that exists only in their fevered imaginations. See my profile for videos PROPERLY explaining the five Thomistic arguments as well as the contingency argument.
@Sinkh The first premise isn't even that sound. We don't know if the universe always existed in some form other than the one we know today or not. There is also no way to avoid the argument of what caused the thing that caused the universe. If you can accept that this thing that caused the universe doesn't need to have a cause, then why can't you lend the same acceptance to the universe, itself?
@kamina77 "Since god is outside the bounds of our universe, u can not scientifically prove god's existence."
If there is no observation that can be made that can distinguish a reality where god exists from one where it doesn't, then the concept "God" has exactly zero explanatory value. You don't win a debate by just declaring that "it's not necessary for God's existence to be proven scientifically". That just earns you the reply: "Ok, so it's a meaningless concept then. Occam's razor"
Gnomefro 1 week ago
Science needs data, that should b analyzed. In order for one to prove anything through the eyes of science. Since god is outside the bounds of our universe, u can not scientifically prove god's existence. Just as one can not prove that any one of us had a great great great great great grandfather. There is no scientific data available for this human that can b tested to prove that he existed. So u know now, it is not necessary for Gods existence to b proven scientifically
kamina77 1 week ago
@Sinkh Do you really align yourself with Craig's version of this? There are better philosophers of religion, that have made better cases (which still are unsatisfactory in providing any evidence for theism). In every case, an assumption must be made, and bluntly so.
BER2ERKER 1 week ago
LOGIC
UltimatePlayer000001 2 weeks ago
JESUS
onehndrdprcntcreep 2 weeks ago
@DeadFishFactory
I have checked. Most atheists get them so wrong they end up criticizing an argument that exists only in their fevered imaginations. See my profile for videos PROPERLY explaining the five Thomistic arguments as well as the contingency argument.
Sinkh 1 month ago
@Sinkh And both have been debunked, if you bothered to check.
DeadFishFactory 1 month ago
@DeadFishFactory
See my profile for videos on Thomistic and Leibnizian cosmological arguments, which I beleive are better than kalam.
Sinkh 1 month ago
@Sinkh The first premise isn't even that sound. We don't know if the universe always existed in some form other than the one we know today or not. There is also no way to avoid the argument of what caused the thing that caused the universe. If you can accept that this thing that caused the universe doesn't need to have a cause, then why can't you lend the same acceptance to the universe, itself?
DeadFishFactory 1 month ago
@DeadFishFactory
But they are a start. And to accurately criticize them, one must accurately understand them first. Which this video does not.
Sinkh 1 month ago