God Debunked - The Cosmological Argument

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
10,201
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on May 7, 2009

An incomplete overview of the formal logical failures of this famous argument.

Category:

Education

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 26 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (492)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @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.

  • LOGIC

  • JESUS

  • @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 And both have been debunked, if you bothered to check.

  • @DeadFishFactory

    See my profile for videos on Thomistic and Leibnizian cosmological arguments, which I beleive are better than kalam.

  • @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

    But they are a start. And to accurately criticize them, one must accurately understand them first. Which this video does not.

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more