Response to cosmological argument against God

This is a response to TBS's cosmological argument against God. The response was created and narrated by my little sister (who's 14).


The Stinking Atheist Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Stinking-Atheist/212225835479885

_______________________________________________________________
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

The song in the video is A new beginning by Threat Signal. I am not affiliated with Threat Signal nor do I own their song.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• kalam
• cosmological
• argument
• tbs
• theoretical
• bullshit
• god
• kosmological
• response
• universe
• creation
• astronomy
• cosmology
• richard
• dawkins
• creationism
• cosmic
• background
• radiation

[3002321542]

@TheStinkingAtheist It's not contradictory rather it does not follow the premises of cause and effect

[3002321542]

@3002321542 You're suggesting that god used metaphysical power to create the universe. This can not be verified nor can it be denied due to the fact that this concept has no basis in reality for which to evaluate this claim. According to you, god used his power (affector) on nothing (affected) to creat the universe (effect) this is contradictory as nothing is being affected.

[TheStinkingAtheist]

@3002321542 I simply don't know enough about theoretical physics to comment on whether matter can be eternal. However, I'm perfectly fine with saying that matter could have hypothetically existed without time.

[TheStinkingAtheist]

@3002321542 Several other people have responded in virtually the same way as you have. I am not referring to power as in how we use it in physics, since I am talking about events before the physical laws applied. Bringing something out of nothing could only be physically impossible and that does not say anything about whether God could bring things out of nothing.

[3002321542]

@TheStinkingAtheist Also, the fact that the universe is expanding means that there was a beginning of time. Time is the dimension separating matter in one point in space from another point in space. The fact that time has a begging point of its expansion suggests that time has a beginning an not necessarily that matter and space do. time is dependent on matter and space while matter is not dependent on time. Therefore matter can be eternal.

[3002321542]

@TheStinkingAtheist Bringing something into existence out of nothing is contradictory therefore impossible. Power itself is composed of matter in the form of elementary particles. You do not seem to have an understanding of what power is. You cannot claim that God used his "infinite power" to create something out of nothing as any form of power itself is something (subatomic particles).

[TheStinkingAtheist]

@jrev37 Craig's argument doesn't hold because he supports the assertion that uncaused events are less plausible than creatio ex nihilo by relying on our physical observation. This is why I'm not defending the KCA, because I don't know how else you would support it.

I'm attacking TBS's assertion that creatio ex nihilo is logically impossible. That's all. Is creatio ex nihilo as 'implausible' as uncaused events? I don't really have any disagreement there.

[jrev37]

@jrev37 "if some event...." wow, another unsuported claim but let's talk about the first first shall we. peace.

[jrev37]

@TheStinkingAtheist "Not defending..."Yes U r. 1:32 u argue that god doesnt need to affect anything to have cause the uni. therefore invalidating TBS argument. that is to say if God doesnt need to affect anything then craigs argum. holds not TBS's. If u say neither holds then I'd like 2 ask u, Hownthuworld does your "that god doesnt need to affect anyth.." claim invalidates Craigs argument? cause it seems to perfectly fit with it.

[TheStinkingAtheist]

@jrev37 First, I'm not defending Craig's argument. Second, if some event results because of an action of God, then God is by definition the cause of that event. Omniscience does not allow God to break that definition because that would be logically impossible. In other words, God cannot cause and not-cause the universe to exist, but he can create the universe ex nihilo.