God Debunked - The Cosmological Argument

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. every youtube atheist is always so immaturely derogatory towards theists. Without god there's no need to show respect or simple kindness for vulnerable religious people?
2. I enjoyed this video and I liked how you touched on William Lang Craig's modern argument. But I see a problem towards the end of your argument because you seem to ignore some important points Dr. Craig points out. I stepping back to further bring out the points.
   
   1. By Einsteins theory time, space and matter came into existence in a singularity.
   2. Edward Hubble and B. 3 Leading cosmologists : Arven Board, Allen Gued, Alexander Velencan Quoted “ Any universe which is on average in a state of cosmic expansion, cannot be eternal in the past but must have a beginning, sometime in the finite past.
   
   3. since there was a beginning the 1st cause was outside of time, space and matter. Therefore this 1st cause was timeless, and immaterial because those two thing exist in the universe and the 1st cause is outside of time, space and matter. therefore eternal and very powerful to cause all of this to take place.
   
   4. As for the quantum vacuum the electrons were not popping in and out of nothing but there was a low energy field existing in the universe and where these quarks of energy would pop in and out of.
   
   We are matter the first cause is immaterial. This is logic is based off Einsteins theory and Edward Hubble.
   
   The Cosmological Argument is sound
3. This video is illogical, incoherent, and irrational. In the video, it ENTIRELY misrepresents the formulation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument from the start, and by failing to even properly quote it, we should not even conceive of the possibility of this being a coherent video, it starts from a false premise, invokes obviously fallacious reasoning, and concludes against itself.
4. What a joke
5. Premise 3 doesn't debunk Premise 1 because Premise 1 states every "finite and contingent" being has a cause. Your first point "assumes" the First Cause must also be finite and contingent, and therefore require a cause. You need to re-examine the argument from a subjective point of view, not from a naturalistic point of view. Essentially you're saying "because Naturalism is true, any argument to the contrary is false", which is a statement aligned to your position, not an argument that demonstrates that.
   
   Secondly you then define "God" according to your own worldview - that he must exhibit the properties of everything in the natural universe, be static or dynamic, require time in order to act. It basically says "anything beyond human understand can't be true". If there is an eternal ultimate cause outside of space time, then all options are beyond human comprehension (this includes 'nothing', 'infinite causes', 'infinite past', a God).
   
   Your third point is spot on. It doesn't conclude "God". If there is a "God", then we could not know it unless it chose to make itself known to us. However if there is a pre-existing reason to believe God may exist then the argument lends great weight to the "God" hypothesis. Especially if the God believed in prior to the existence of this argument is defined in such a way that fits the solution - ie a being beyond human comprehension, all powerful, knows both the beginning of the universe and its end and did make itself known to us.
   
   Ultimately the Cosmological Argument is not a God-proof, but it shows reasonable grounds for people to seek the validity of pre-existing claims about God and decide whether they believe whether one the claims stacks up. If they conclude "no", then the solution to Cosmological Argument remains unknown or unknowable to them, unless they choose another incomprehensible option, in which case they have no grounds to laugh at others who conclude an equally incomprehensible God.
6. Energy is the first cause. It is infinite (as far as we know). It can't be created or destroyed (First Law of Thermodynamics). This makes the idea of a 'creator god' an impossible paradox. It is non-intelligent. Intelligence comes late in the formation of a universe. Therefore, an infinitely complex and intelligent being can not have existed at the start of a universe and magically create everything after that.
   
   We know the source and we also know the mechanism of energy to matter conversion. The only thing we don't know is the specific trigger, and that can easily be a random factor. We also know that there are other universes. We have solid evidence.
7. Is infinity even possible?  Everything we experience begins and ends from life itself to days and years.  We have never found anything infinite, so how can we prove the existence of an infinite cause to the Universe?
8. My own version of the cosmological argument:
   
   1. If a thing is limited in power, then its behaviour is being controlled or affected by something outside itself.
   
   2. Therefore a thing is unlimited in power if its behaviour is not controlled or affected by anything outside itself.
   
   3. The whole of existence is not controlled or affected by anything outside itself (since there is nothing outside it).
   
   4. Therefore the whole of existence is unlimited in power.
   
   5. Therefore something is unlimited in power.
   
   6. Therefore, God exists.
   
   (Note that step 3 does not necessarily entail that all parts of the universe are unlimited in power. For example, a team composed of you and Obama is able to declare war, but that doesn't mean that a team composed only of you is able to declare war.)
9. Biogenesis. Look it up. Abiogenesis is a stupid concept that has never been witnessed therefore defies science lol
10. God is uncreated, he is infinite, the beginning and the end. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. 
11. i don't know where you got your definition, but this is the way it looks like
    
    1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
    
    2. The universe began to exist.
    
    3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
12. The cosmological argument is very weak. It starts with an assumption that there had to be a cause. It's simply not science.
13. here is my thing. if god "dosen't" exist then how did the atoms that make up your very own computer come to be? i have had this debate myself with a buddist "teacher" that saying god is "limited". now that has more questions for myself than answers as how could the fabric of our human bodys just pop out of thing air or evolve from a ape? only a uneducated idoit will say god dosen't exist... 
14. No point in choice, but you have the choice, to me existance is a paradox.
    I am not smart, but I choose not to care about things hence,
    APATHY
15. You firstly argue that the first premise contradicts the third one, but the thing is, the first premise states that every finite and contingent being must have a first cause.  The first cause itself is not finite and/or contingent.  It is infinite, uncaused, beginningless, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and person, which brings me to my next vitiation.
    You argue secondly that because this first cause is existing in a static state that it cannot act to cause anything, but this actually bolsters the existence of God.  This is why no scientific law could have caused the big bang.  If the cause exists eternally, then its effect must exist eternally too.  A cause cannot exist without its effect unless it is personal, which is to say that it has freedom if will; it can freely choose when to cause change.  
16. What do you mean by a "dynamic" or "static" nature in 3:23? Does dynamic mean that the First Cause itself is changing? If so, this is not what the conventional theistic view is, which holds that God is immutable or unchanging. But being immutable yourself does not necessarily mean you will not be able to cause or affect other beings. Being unchanged yourself is not logically contradictory to being able to effect changes on others, as the two are not mutual negations of the same notion.
17. 1:23 says #1 means "All things are caused." This is a misrepresentation. "Finite and contingent beings" is not equivalent to "all things." Finite/contingent beings are things that can or cannot exist - meaning, those which at some point may not exist and thus, ought to have another thing to cause their existence. On the other hand, there are also necessary beings - those that always ought to exist and thus has always existed. Thus, #1 does not contradict #3. The reasoning proceeds so that #1 and #2 lead to the deduction of #3, which is an uncaused cause - a necessary being.
18. We know that our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. We also know that a state of nothingness is unstable so quantum particles pop in and out of existence in space. Lawrence Krauss showed us in "A Universe From Nothing" that vacuum energy can create quantum fluctuations which can cause big bangs to happen. So I think that when there is enough vacuum energy in the center of our existence, another universe will come into existence. And this process will repeat itself forever.
19. 5:46...you can't get to "anything you damn well please from this argument"! If you are arguing that time has a beginning and therefore it has a cause, you can't say that time comes from a second dimension of time. The cause of time must exist outside of time to have caused it...that certainly narrows the field from "anything you damn well please." Same holds true for space...space must have been created by something that exists outside of space...narrower still.