Trent Horn tries to prove that God exists.

77 posts / 0 new
Last post
CharlieMarshall's picture
It you are arguing the non

It you are arguing the non existence of infinity, it seems rather odd to be arguing for the existence of infinity at the same time (through God)... again, Paradox ?

You still seem to be dodging the question of what is it your are trying to proving by proving the existence of God.

jonthecatholic's picture
Actually, if you read back a

Actually, if you read back a little, or watch the first 15 minutes of the video in the first post of this forum, you'll see an argument made that mentions that the universe began to exist (has a beginning) with an argument with how the universe cannot have an infinite past as it would lead to a contradiction.

That's why the discussion has reached this point. Everyone else here has assumed that Trent simply assumes without proof that the universe has a beginning without proving it.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jon the Catholic - Everyone

Jon the Catholic - Everyone else here has assumed that Trent simply assumes without proof that the universe has a beginning without proving it.

He didn't prove it; and I already addressed this claim in the other thread. You know where he made that ridiculous statement that it takes an infinite amount of time to count an infinite amount of items?

jonthecatholic's picture
Yes, you answered it by

Yes, you answered it by saying, "This is false" or "This is doubtful (far from clear)." That's not addressing the issue.

He has given a proof which does follow logically. he goes, "The universe began to exist" and "Everything which began to exist has a cause." He then shows how these two statements are true then concludes that a first cause must exist.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jon the Catholic - He then

Jon the Catholic - He then shows how these two statements are true

If he proved it (as I think you claimed); could you post his proof here; or at least tell us what method of proof he used?

Randomhero1982's picture
It does not follow logically,

It does not follow logically, because him saying...
The universe began to exist
Everything which began to exist has a cause
And then following this with his preferred conclusion is not logically sound.

Premise one of "the universe began to exist" is not a dichotomy because it does not exhaust all possible other explanations and arguments.

You could say, the universe has always existed or the universe has not always existed... that's a dichotomy!

But you fall into Matt Slick problem of which ever option you negate in premise 2 you are left with either a trivial arguement or a begging the question fallacy.

jonthecatholic's picture
He does actually present two

He does actually present two mutually exclusive events and gives a proof that one cannot be possible.

The two events he presented are: The universe has a finite past (has a beginning). And the universe has a non-finite past (is eternal).

What other possible event would there be that doesn't isn't represented here?

LostLocke's picture
The universe *in its current

The universe *in its current state/phase* has a beginning. That was ~14 billion years ago.
We don't know what was "before" that state. This not an automatic assumption that there was absolutely nothing "before" this universe.

Randomhero1982's picture
A theologian with no

A theologian with no background or formal education in any branch of physics makes a bold claim about the beginning of the universe... and you don't see the issue?

He hasn't proved it in the slightest, the origins of the universe as it's currently thought states that the universe began as an incredibly hot, dense point roughly 13.7 billion years ago.

The big bang was a period of rapid expansion!

There is no definitive exact starting scenario for what occurred before hand, and Trent's assertion is unfounded with no evidence.

jonthecatholic's picture
I would actually have an

I would actually have an issue with it if he truly didn't know what he was talking about. His degree is in theology and is pursuing a degree in Philosophy. He touches on the physics aspect on the beginning of the universe then proceeds to a logical / philosophical proof of the beginning of the universe.

For my part I couldn't understand his logic until I applied the same principle to heat and temperature.

Randomhero1982's picture
But he doesn't know what he's

But he doesn't know what he's talking about, he's not a physicist! It's just bold unsubstantiated claims.

And I maintain, no one truly knows the start of the universe!

What we can observe is that almost 14b years ago, the universe went through a rapid period of expansion, it doesn't tell us what was before and regress from there.

There are ideas such as being an infinitely dense and hot state full of virtual particles but we just don't know 100%.. to claim otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

CharlieMarshall's picture
So basically God provoked the

So basically God provoked the Big Bang ? Would that justify having to go to church every sunday in his honour ? And going to Hell for eternity if you believe it was his wife who did ?

jonthecatholic's picture
Of course not. There's a huge

Of course not. There's a huge leap from saying, "There is a God" to saying "This religion is true."

What's being discussed here is the 1st one.

mbrownec's picture
Am I the only one who doesn't

Am I the only one who doesn't give a shit about the scientific or philosophical arguments? Getting into these arguments only grants validity to the vicious, amoral beast of theism -- especially Christianity.

As Richard Dawkins plainly points out ....

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction; jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving, control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Dawkins provides multiple Biblical references to document these characteristics here....

As such, I do not engage in infantile debates/pissing contests by simply saying that even if God existed/exists, I reject his/her/its ass on being a total amoral asshole. End of conversation. Why would I even want to engage in a debate/pissing contest with a person who is so blinded and gullible that they are unable to see what is as plain as the nose on their face.

Surely there are other atheists who quite simply do not have the time or patience to deal with such ignorance when the theists aren't going to change their minds anyway!

Note: The intellectual flamers can respond now. LOL

jonthecatholic's picture
That's fine. You're basically

That's fine. You're basically saying it's not an important question to resolve. I'm not hear to change your mind of that subject. I'm actually wondering why you chose to comment at all.

The thread's topic was clear in that it would be about God's existence; not about the morality of the Judeo-Christian religions.

Anyway, I think we can all agree not to pursue this topic here.

Freeslave's picture


Well stated! I believe that brilliantly outlines the Atheist position in a nutshell.
Thanks for bringing such clarity to the fore.
P.S. - May I have permission to quote you?


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.