Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Anything that exists was caused to exist
The universe exists
Therefore, universe farting unicorns created the cosmos, us and everything
All hail My Little Pony
What a crock of cosmological shit. They glossed over the first premise without even coming close to proving it. And even if the universe did have a cause - by what leap of stupendous idiocy and half-assery requires it be caused by a deity? And even if deity inspired, why God (which is only one of about 5,000 deities mankind has dreamed up)? Very poor logic but slick enough to fool the masses. But that seems to be the whole point of religion. You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but to really fuck people over you need religion. I like the improvement of PT Barnum's maxim "there's a sucker born again every minute."
Right, it is just good enough to convince those who already believe.
You have obviously bought into this crackpot Dr. Craig. Research him and you'll find that he is a money grubbing snake oil salesman.
I am so sick and tired of theists posting YouTube videos made by crackpots and offering that as real evidence of anything.
If a god is possible , multiple gods are possible. A universe governed by committee explains the platypus and Sarah Pa!in.
Why is no one on this thread interacting with the legitimacy of the arguments of the video. Everyone is claiming that its absurd and what not but no one is attempting to discredit the logic of the video.
This video is not asserting which god exist/nor that is it saying that a God absolutely exists; rather, the video is simply stating that it is quite possible that a God exists because of 2 premises and a conclusion and that this God has to have certain attributes given the earlier arguments.
If you want to discredit the video then list the arguments and discredit the logic of them. Otherwise I'm not really seeing a systematic and honest refutation of the video. Rather it appears that simply because these people believe in God you are presupposing absurdity and lunacy without dealing with the arguments of the video. I do not think you guys are dumb because you do not believe in God. I seek to understand your logic first to establish intelligence. I have met many smart atheist and I have seen some of these forums. All of you guys are amazingly intelligent and funny (unicorn joke was funny MCD). Therefore, please deal with the arguments of the video. How is its logic NOT sound? IF it is sound then everyone here would have to agree that the existence of a God with the attributes stated in the video are quite plausible. Not that a specific God absolutely exists (that's another argument) but that his/hers/its/their existence with certain attributes is quite plausible - that's all.
Here are the Arguments (there are some strengths and weak points but without honest engagement I'm not sure this thread will find them and discuss them).
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The Universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
1b. The causality of the universe has to have certain attributes (space-less, timeless, immaterial, extremely powerful, without a cause, etc.)
2b. These attributes are all deity-like qualities.
3b. Therefore the causality of the universe has to be a deity (he/she/it/its/they)
Have you any data that indicate that your arguments are accurate? What data can you offer that indicates, without doubt, that everything that exists has a cause? What data can you offer that shows that the universe began to exist?
CyberLN
Did you watch the video? 1:12-3:30 gives support for the second premise: The Universe began to exist
Because the arguments ARE NOT LEGITIMATE!
1) Everything that exists DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE A CAUSE
2) The universe began to exist. How do you know that? Can you prove it? No?
3) Is false because you didn't prove #1. You just assume it. That isn't logic. It is fallacy of thought.
Hey kid, if you want people to take you seriously you really need to LEARN what the hell you are talking about. You don't, therefore your argument is invalid by default.
Mycob
1) Did you watch the video? It states everyday experience and scientific evidence confirms the first premise that everything which BEGINS to exist has a cause (if i believed that everything which exists has a cause then the God of the Bible has a cause. This is not true). You don't have to agree. Disagree, but have you experienced things coming into existence without causality? Second what credible amount of scientific evidence supports your experience if any of things coming into existence without a cause?
2)Did you watch the video? 1:12-3:30 gives support for the second premise. Please refute its support before saying an absolute no; especially, if you are going to attempt to say I can't say an absolute yes, which again is not the video's claim. Simply that it is plausible to believe in the existence of God with certain attributes given the current scientific and philosophical data from multiple credible sources across history both Christian and non-Christian.
3) How can you say its false? You are saying that it is assumption and that it isn't logic but these arguments are coming from a Ph.D in philosophy using simple philosophical logical argumentation with very credible sources in support of it's premises and conclusion. You have stated fallacy but have failed to prove how they are fallacies. You haven't disproven the logic; you have until now simply stated that it is false without support for such a statement. I'm failing to see how your third interaction is an adequate refutation of the video.
Yeah, I watched the video. It was a complete waste of my expensive time. It's based on false premises and faulty logic. Too many to go in to.
Concerning #1. "(if i believed that everything which exists has a cause then the God of the Bible has a cause. This is not true). Let's break that down "(if i believed that everything which exists has a cause." "I" if "I" believe. The keyword is "I". "then the God of the Bible has a cause" Keywords "everything exists" You have to prove that this god exists which has never been proven. So you can ignore all of #1 as speculation of the creator of the video. It is unsupported and not proven. You're too young to know or to have experienced this, but when I got my Masters Degree I had to prove my Thesis. #1 of your proof logic would fail miserably.
#2 I didn't even challenge #2. The universe exists, even though YOU have not proved that it actually began which is your argument, others with knowledge and DEGREES in SCIENCE have done that work for you to include just WHEN it began, so I gave you a pass on that. EVEN though YOU should have proven that it began and when in your argument you didn't do either. You just stated YOUR assumption that the universe began.
#3 since #3 is based on the validity of #1 and #1 is not and has not been proved therefore #3 is also invalid. Your little friend with the Ph.D. is a crackpot. I doubt that his degree is valid or from a reputable institution. Even if he is legitimate he is not acting in a legitimate manner. No real PH. D. in philosophy would be so cavalier about the facts. No real PH. D. would ignore the responsibility of providing REAL CREDIBLE facts.
You can't just speculate and then make a video based on those assumptions and call it a credible line of reasoning. It doesn't meet muster.
Honestly, that is a pretty good reason to reject the whole thing with prejudice.
Thanks for posting the argument in the video. I can watch videos while at work.
I actually think the cosmological argument is one of the best arguments for the possibility (although in my opinion, unlikely,) of some sort of outside of time/existence creator.
Let me be clear though, the difference between the above described creator and the creator various religions people depict is a very VERY! large difference.
I will go through your list step by step.
------------------1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause -----------
Maybe yes maybe no. Impossible to prove either way at least with our current scientific, repeatable test understanding. And their may never be a test or full understanding, our minds may not be complex enough to grasp the concept required. Maybe the cause is simply change, change from nothingness. The theory of infinity says: given infinite time, anything can happen, no matter how unlikely.
If the theory of infinity is hard to understand, we can use large numbers as a stand in. I can guarantee that you will win the powerball lotto jackpot 10 times in a row. How? Just buy every possible number combination 10 times in a row.
-------------------2. The Universe began to exist----------------
The universe as we know it began at some point to exist. But maybe it was created out of something else that existed before, does not necessarily have to have started from nothing. just science has not been able to figure out what that thing before was. Maybe that thing before has always existed. And maybe not. Maybe the big bang never happened, science has not conclusively proven the big bang yet. It still just in theory stage. Perhaps the universe has always existed.
----------------3. Therefore, the universe has a cause--------------
This is a philosophy logic argument, If, then, therefore. Like: If it only snows when its cold. Then if it is snowing outside, therefore, it must be cold outside.
Or something like that, I took that class a long time ago. I could look it up but feeling lazy :)
Anyways. We got:
1.maybe what ever begins to exist has a cause
2. maybe universe began to exist,
3. we then get maybe + maybe = maybe the universe has a cause.
Which does mean something but not much. Maybe I am a leprechaun + maybe you are a leprechaun = maybe we are both are leprechauns. Is two factual statements that leads to a ridiculous maybe conclusion.
----Running out of time so gonna reduce my formatting i been using for clarity.
1b. The causality of the universe has to have certain attributes (space-less, timeless, immaterial, extremely powerful, without a cause, etc.) ---------- wait what? Says who? Who/what says the causality of the universe has to have these attributes? Remember also the cause argument ended up with maybe + maybe = very maybe.
2b. These attributes are all deity-like qualities. ------------ I suppose I cannot argue that, you would find many of these attributes in the definition of most major religion's deity in a dictionary.
3b. Therefore the causality of the universe has to be a deity (he/she/it/its/they) ----------- without the first part of this argument, this logic construct does not work.
My point here, really is: yes there is a possibility of some sort of creator, unlikely, but possible. This is why I say this is one of the best arguments of a creator of some sort. However this creator is rather unlikely, it is far more likely there is some other explanation, just science has not gotten there yet in a truly satisfactory manner.
And of course if their is this unlikely creator, it in no way bolsters the idea that the god of your particular religion exists.
Great interaction! I'll respond soon!
Do you have any idea how many times this argument has been discussed here? Well I don't know myself but it is several that I can remember.
The logic of the argument is flawless. That is to say the conclusion (3) follows from the two premises (1 and 2). Here I'll provide you with another argument that has flawless logic:
While both arguments are perfectly valid, neither is very convincing because of their premises.
If it has been debated many times before then surely there is a post that adequately and succinctly refutes it. If so please copy and paste it here and I will respond. If not then perhaps it is good that such arguments be continually brought to light until they are resolved. That is after all the scientific process right? Test until proven or discredited?
I'm sure you are aware that your example is very flawed in comparison right?
VIDEO: Premise 1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause
vs.
YOU: Premise 1 Anyone who uses a forum name with numbers in it is a doo-doo head
What has decades of science and collective human experience supported?
Again in order to discredit the video you must now prove how the premises are illogical and unsupported when the video gives such support (Not exhaustive but much more sources that are highly credible in comparison to your example which is simply personal opinion). Again I believe you guys are way smarter than this (This is not an insult; I am being sincere sorry if it comes off in another way). But yet again I am failing to see how any one is posting credible and honest refutation of the video's arguments and its premises.
What you have stated however, is that the arguments are valid and flawless. Without proving that the premises are invalid you still would have to accept the conclusion. With your example however, I would need to see adequate proof of your premise just as the video has done. If you are relying on my username alone as proof then yet again this is not scientific. Doesn't education teach us to broaden our sample size to increase our reliability of the data acquired? How have you done this in your example's premise as the video has done? Also, you do not know me so how can you make such an assertion without adequate data?
Not at all. Science is not in the proving business.
----------------------------------
Not at all. In fact it isn't possible to prove either premise true or false. Furthermore I see no reason to accept premise 2, and many reasons to be skeptical of premise 1.
----------------------------------
Neither of the valid arguments you and I posted are scientific in any way.
----------------------------------
That video offers no proof of those premises.
Nyarlathotep, can you state the scientific method and explain how science is not in the "proving business"? Does it not try to prove hypothesis?
2nd you are right you don't have to accept the conclusion; however you would have a rational basis to accept it. And less rational basis to not accept it until proof is offered.
How are they not scientific? can you at least post the scientific method and show how it is not and deliniates form this process? Also is it logical?
Can you state the support used in the video and show how these are not proofs?
Again I still fail to see how anyone has discredited the video.
The only thing that I have seen is people say: I disagree, there is no proof offered, this is foolish, I'm skeptical, and other bold claims without support....guys the video offered support... engage with the support. If you say that it offers none than certainly you can list it's supposed support and discredit it. Otherwise everyone is just stating whatever they want and not honestly engaging with the argument. I will now list it since no one has engaged with the support. This is a fast summary please refer to the video for exact quotes. Sorry for spelling errors.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
-Everyday experience and scientific evidence supports premise one (see the second premises support for this)
2. The Universe began to exist
-Atheist say the universe is eternal
-the law of thermodynamics however support the 2nd premise
-the 2nd law of thermodynamics support the 2nd premise
-Scientists Einstein's theory of relativity, Alexander Friedmen, George Lemetra, Edwin Hubble in total show that the universe has expanded from a single point in the finite past.
-Alternative models popped into existence that attempted to show an eternal universe model but failed to stand the test of time
-Cosmologists Arvid Borde Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin state that the universe cant be eternal but must have a begining
-scientists can't hide behind an eternal universe.
-the 1st and second premise are therefore true and the conclusion is therefore true.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
if the universe cant cause itself then the following must be true.
1b. The causality of the universe has to have certain attributes (space-less, timeless, immaterial, extremely powerful, without a cause, etc.)
2b. These attributes are all deity-like qualities.
3b. Therefore the causality of the universe has to be a deity (he/she/it/its/they)
Uhh you need to disregard what you have been taught, because it is very wrong. Science does not prove anything, and is not capable of proving anything; and it is not the purpose of science to be proving things. Get that non-sense out of your head. The goal of science is to predict the state of a system at time B given the state of the system at time A. Scientific theories can not be proved. The best they can do is match current observation, and hope to match future observation.
-------------------------------
This is a common lie told by apologists; this isn't the first, second, or 10th time I've heard it. I'm familiar with their work and that is NOT their conclusion. I recommend reading their papers yourself instead of relying on a professional liar's (aka an apologist's) interpretation. You will find that in fact their conclusion is that it is impossible to say what happened before a certain point without a new theoretical framework.
-------------------------------
Another lie told by apologists. Again I strongly recommend reading about the 2nd law yourself. Furthermore the 2nd law is regularly violated; and the rate of violations is inversely proportional to the number of moving parts of a system.
-----------------------------
They do not in fact show that; another common lie. Again, do your own research on the Friedmann Lemaitre Robertson Walker Metric. The singularity that is tossed around comes from following the metric backwards through a discontinuity; which is known to be a dubious affair. It is similar to saying that since you have 1 dog on Monday, and 2 dogs on Tuesday; that you must have had -6 dogs last Monday. This goes right back to Guth and Vilenkin's conclusions above; that it is impossible to say what happened before a certain point with the current framework.
-----------------------------
I recommend focusing your attention on the 2nd law, since it isn't that complicated to see that what Craig is peddling is bullshit (involving the 2nd law) . Or you could just post another "nuh-uh" message; up to you.
Now you are just spinning your wheels. People here have given you all the reasons that your video is bullshit. we have more than done anything and everything necessary to prove that fact. We have even tried to teach you what the requirement of proof is, but you keep falling into this apologist justifying trap of illogic and fallacy of thought.
EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE CAUSE. You are ASSUMING THAT IT DOES. Once you GET THAT GLARING FACT, your whole premise falls apart.
You based your argument on an assumption. And more to the point you didn't back up that ASSUMPTION with any facts only MORE unsubstantiated ASSUMPTIONS!
You are really becoming annoying.
My apologies everyone I missed a several responses on this thread. I'm still learning where the updated comments are.
Ok so mycob4 did attempt to interact a bit with my statements but didn't truly interact with the claims and support of the video.
I would also like to mention mycob4 that the creator Dr. Craig holds a Ph.D and his sources (scientists and cosmologists) are either well renown or all Doctorates in their fields... you have not addressed the support of the video.. If I am getting annoying because I keep asking people to do something that is imperative to do and no one has done yet then that is very disappointing. If people said rather Einstein isn't a credible source or the way he used thermodynamics was flawed because of x (and x is accurate and reasonable and cannot be refuted) then ok... but no on has honestly done so in a way that is a credible argument. If I've missed it then please copy and paste!
If it takes time to do this no worries. I'll wait and I'd expect the same thing if someone gives things that are hard to refute.
Mykob4 for premise one IT IS NOT THAT EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS HAS A CAUSE BUT EVERYTHING THAT BEGINS TO EXIST HAS A CAUSE. THE KEY WORD IS BEGINS =]. And the following scientists and theories support that the universe has a beginning according to the video:
2. The Universe began to exist
-Atheist say the universe is eternal
-the law of thermodynamics however support the 2nd premise
-the 2nd law of thermodynamics support the 2nd premise
-Scientists Einstein's theory of relativity, Alexander Friedmen, George Lemetra, Edwin Hubble in total show that the universe has expanded from a single point in the finite past.
-Alternative models popped into existence that attempted to show an eternal universe model but failed to stand the test of time
-Cosmologists Arvid Borde Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin state that the universe cant be eternal but must have a begining
-scientists can't hide behind an eternal universe.
-the 1st and second premise are therefore true and the conclusion is therefore true.
Please show how those are false otherwise I still see more reason to see that premise 1 is more plausible than not.
Your insults of age and degrees mean nothing if having them does not make a person more thorough and academic in their refutations of an argument. I'm impressed that you got your master's though! Good job.
In any case thanks for a lively discussion!
Oh ok! Sorry guys yeah I'm seeing where I've missed peoples arguments. Sorry. Ok let me read them and respond!
Sorry Mkob and logic and others lol.