The Cosmological Argument

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. LOL... it doesn't need an explanation??? wow. ok. It is just there and thats all????
   
   God rejectors are smart people who make themselves look incredibly stupid, just listen the the things they come up with, infinite regress??? universes alternate from coming into existence. The ONLY explanation is GOD. of course there is God and denying it will make you look incredible dumb while thinking your re being educated. The Bible says this very thing would happen. He says, in all their wisdom they became fools and their foolish hearts are darkened, "darkened" means hard hearted, denying truth with stupidity. Another verse. "a time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine, instead to suit their OWN DESIRES they will gather around themselves a great number of "TEACHERS" to say what their itching ears want to here, they with turn away from the truth and turn instead unto lies." wow the bible is so amazing. Study it... but be very careful because what happens to a lot of these guys is they do not approach it to learn they approach it to disprove so they see things from their perspective. Truth seekers like ex atheist Lee Strobel did set out to prove it wrong but he was open to the truth. Also Anthony Flew. and MANY others. Liberal today approach the text and try to reduce God into a box, but God is too BIG to be in a box, we are talking about an infinite, non- contingent Being who SPOKE the world into existence. Liberal try to reduce the miraculous, so they have to say things ignorant like Paul did not write the letters to Timothy, even though it is very obvious, but they say he could not have because Paul quotes Luke in his letter to Timothy. Well in Luke he writes about Jesus foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (which it was destroyed in AD 70) so liberal scholars (if you can call them that) will say Luke had to be written after AD 70 because it says IN FUTURE TENSE, there will not be one stone standing upon another.. but liberal MUST claim that this happened after with so must proof it was written earlier. the Documentary Hypothesis, should be in the comedy sections. all these liberal scholars are doing is try to make things so confusing for you to find the truth. This would make a lot of since if there were an adversary to God who influences the world to deceive men and is doing a really good job. No one has the business to reject God in the first place. He is the only option for our existence, all this other stuff people come up with to explain away God is something else. but hey when people are as gullible and hard hearted what do you expect. I appreciate your mockery!
2. you just assumed that first mover must be consces being. no it doesn't, it can be something that dont have consciousness and is not being, like force or quantum realm. this is not prove for god
3. Your video was slightly slanted towards the theistic all the way through; however you did give exposure to non-theistic ideas. Right up until the end when you ruined the video with a huge dose of special pleading. Why conclude god is necessary when everyone who will just wake up and open their eyes can easily see it's actually the Flying Spaghetti Monster whose noddley magick created the universe?
4. Special pleading 101
5. First I am a christian. Second I could be wrong but I think that you are confusing the big bang theory with the cause of the universe. I could be wrong, but I thought that the BBT happened at a point in time and space. I don't know this form of the oscillating universe "theory", but I would like to learn more about it, pls link any articles, I probably wont completely understand them but I was an undergrad astrophysics major so I think I can handle it. Anyway you go on to claim or Craig at least does an A theory of time. This has it's own problems but I digress. The real problem is that while I think that you can reason to the universe is contingent I don't think that you can actually conclude the same thing about this universe creating mechanism or thing. Since it's efficacy is still under question and we know possibly nothing about it. It would seem presumptuous to say anything about it or about what it is not. You end by saying that God is beyond space and time, and quite frankly I don't understand what that mean. Does this mean that while the entirety of the material universe is bound by an A theory of time that God not being a part of this universe is bound by a B theory of time (God wouldn't be a thinking agent though in a B theory of time)? I really don't know how you are going to solve the problem of how a non-material being that doesn't exist in our local universe or any material universe actually interacts with our universe. In other words how does that which is not material interact with that which is? Here is the biggest problem with the Cosmological Argument it doesn't or cannot conclude with therefore God. There need to be many more premises and defense of these premises to get to a conclusion of God did it.
6. It is also potentially possible for a god to not exist. Therefore, if you propose a god does exist, there must be a reason for that, aswell. "Why is there a god rather than no god?", to counter the question "why is there a universe rather than no universe".
7. Its important to note that there has never been a point in time when the universe did not exist. As we understand it, scientifically, time started when theuniverse started. Therefore, there is no point in time before time and the universe existed. this also means that the univese cannot have been "caused", because causality only exists if time exists.
8. "Everything that exists must have a cause (except for this thing my pastor told me about which also happens to be undetectable by scientific means)"
9. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-scientific-kalam-cosmological-argument
   
    Must read!
10. Lol, we don't know how the universe began... Hmm... It must be a conscious being that created the universe who also has a bunch of arbitrary designations like 'necessary' and 'uncaused'. If you posit that god can be uncaused, then why can't the universe be uncaused? God would fall into the same trap of the infinite timeline William lane kraig talked about. Why must the cause be a being with intent and understanding? "I don't know, therefore god." I really think this breaks down to a human desire to insert a conscious willing force into the unknown. It works for evolutionary survival, but not philosophy.
11. I was really hoping they would mention stephen hawkings grand design because if mtheory is correct it shuts down the cosmological argument
12. how do you know there was a "time" when the universe didnt exist?
    
    i smell bullshit
13. This channel is dope. You guys laid out the most basic disputes and now are going in to more modern stuff.
14. If nothing could start the motion of things, and we try to argue that the existence of God started the motion.
    Then the question will be who started the motion of God? Clearly God is created by god's God and it would have been infinite 😁
15. Nice video. But when you referenced in walking in negative time (to past) every point of the past would be the present, because you can you exists in here and now. (same applies to the future).
16. your not proving your case point your saying I'm missing the point but you dont guide me to what the argument is and now you're saying that how god is created is a whole other argument. your weird and I was hoping for a real debate about this with facts and logic but you're just waisting the value of your mind
17. Fist video I see of you guys and id like to point out some things that bothered me. For example you seem to force a false dilemma with the actual infinite universe. You told us that its either God or infinite universe and if the infinite universe is impossible then it HAS to be god. Making it believe as if there was no other option, for example a universe that runs in a cycle (where the end is also the cause of the beginning). Also please try to be more accurate with scientific arguments such as using the The Big Bang. This theory never states that there was nothing and then an explosion, but rather that there was a very dense and hot mass with all the energy in the universe condense in one.
18. +Philosophy Vibe I think it would be best if you didn't give an image to God, it just seems blasé and deludes the grand nature of the subject.
19. if god lives outside of the universe and nothing caused his existence he is infinite. the universe was born from god. there for the universe came out of infinity to become finite. and we just call that as god's causation. it kinda sounds like the same thing to me I think people want god to be an intellectual instead of a singular being that just does stuff with out having a brain like a jellyfish no brain but lives anyway