This is where I post fun and inspirational vlogs to tell stories, encourage and entertain. Hope you enjoy. If you take moment to subscribe you will definitely make my day! Thanks.
It doesn’t convince. It is too easy to see that god is not needed. In fact Christian’s have done immoral things based on their belief in the Bible, like promoting slavery. Moreover what is considered moral has changed over time. It is not absolute from god.
I can’t tell if people in the comments actually believe you’re 31 or if they are sarcastically playing along 😂 as for the immaturity thing, I think there’s a flippant kind of immaturity, and then there’s more of a child like kind of immaturity. I don’t know if these categories mean anything deeper about the person, for example, if a more flippant type of immature means they are less able to change or the trauma runs deeper, or what I’ve been noticing is, they are not as good at hiding it or not as self-aware or able to hide their immaturity. Some people seem like the childlike immature type, but they’re actually really good at cloaking and it’s more of an act
Correct vs incorrect does not equate with right vs wrong in a moralistic sense. Basic facts discovered in the past few hundred years disprove the Bible. The earth is old. The Oklo natural reactor proves that all by itself. It also disproves the existence of a universal flood as the decay products would have been washed away. Jesus incorrectly asserts the flood to be real in the New Testament. Also there are areas on earth with ground that is frozen to a depth that would require over a hundred thousand years time. Strewn throughout are fossils. The Bible is incompatible with and old earth. It gives the lineage of the mother of Jesus back to Adam and Eve. A literal Adam and Eve are not compatible with the high number of ERVs in our DNA. There is a DNA bottleneck in Cheetahs but not in the vast majority of the rest of the animal kingdom which would have to be the case if a universal flood had taken place. Remnants of kingdoms that existed after the supposed time of the flood exist in the same locations at times previous to the supposed time of the flood. Split brain patients show that they have dual consciousness. One such patient was a believer in one hemisphere but an atheist in the other. Basic physics reveals that in our material world any action at all requires the input of energy. If a spirit existed within us it would have to impart energy to at least some small amount of matter in the brain in order to effect a change that carried out the decision made by that spirit within. E=Mc2 means that this energy is equivalent to matter itself thus the supposed spirit has to consist of a material nature itself rather than being immaterial. I used to be a Christian but have had to accept the facts as they have been established beyond any doubt in the past several decades.
The Kalam argument cannot reconcile the following: God cannot possibly exist in any logical sense God is claimed to be an immaterial; conscious entity that created all of material existence. Consciousness requires perceivable material existence for that consciousness to exist at all, in that the idea of any entity capable of being conscious requires some existence to be conscious OF. If there is nothing to perceive, there is nothing to form concepts--the very things required to possess any form of consciousness TO SUMMARIZE: The very things that god is claimed to have created are the very things that were required to exist BEFORE God could ever logically exist Himself.
Thank you I need to hear this. I’m soon going to the coastguard, and I’ve fallen behind with him. I never read my Bible because I don’t feel like I have everything else figured out, so I can be properly guided. But thanks, this is a good reminder of the grace of god.
Very honest video, good job! I think you hit the nail on the head for a lot of people. While you must believe in god, I on the other hand cannot believe in any god. I grew up in a Christian church and family, even as a young man I realized I could not believe what they were teaching. I wonder what causes this difference in people’s innate beliefs.
First, you sound very much like WLC. Your voice is very similar and your manner of speaking is very similar. Second, the Kalam and WLC's version of it are little more than 'God of the gaps'. It's an argument from incredulity, nothing more. The properties he arbitrarily assigns to the undemonstrated creator of 'everything' are chosen based on what he views as the properties of God, which then leads him to the conclusion that only God can be the cause. It would be like me saying 'pastors wear blue shirts', and I say this because I see you are a pastor and you are wearing a blue shirt. We see nature around us, the universe, trees, people, bugs, etc, and it all goes back to the start of the universe. We don't understand all the details, nor do we know what brought about the energy/matter that formed the universe initially. We might never know. But it's intellectually misguided to just make grand assumptions and declare them as true. And it is intellectually dishonest to build a career teaching people to be this gullible that they will accept such rubbish as 'good evidence'.
So what caused your "god", ah I see the rules for existence of the universe are not the same as for your "god", sounds like bullshit to me and leads again to the infinite regression argument, try again.
1) All things that begin to exist are created from other previous things 2) the universe may have begun to exist, although we can’t know for sure Conclusion: the universe may have been created from other previous things, although we can’t know for sure. There, fixed your premieres and conclusions for you
My doubts about this are as stated. We know that the roman god of time was Saturn. They believed that the Jewish god was just an alternative representation of Saturn. Any logical argument that starts with a beginning of time is just a rationalisation for the existence of this god. I am not Roman and unlike Newton I don't believe that time is an external dimension of our universe. I believe time is an emergent property of the universe as it exists in its current form. So an external god is not needed. However, this does not disprove the existence of god. Only that I personally believe that logical arguments of time or time's beginning can't prove god's existence.
Well on the surface that does seem like a sound logical argument. But when you--or anyone--answers the atheist's argument of who created the creator with the creator is eternal, or the creator is outside of time, then the counter argument to that is you just made that up--there is no proof. We can scientifically calculate the beginning of the universe using physics and mathematics along with the aid of telescopes and computers etc. But there is no way to prove scientifically that there is this creator outside of time as we know it.
He seems like a nice bloke, but that is one of the weakest arguments for a god I have ever heard. The fact that he's quoting from the Christian bible suggests to me that he's referring to the god of Abraham rather than any other god. The same bible has a rough timeline of creation and it does not match up to the science to which he refers. If there is a god, it cannot be his one. I wish him well.
Craig's addition of a definition of the cause in the conclusion of the argument is entirely presuppositional. There is nothing in the syllogism itself that supports or suggests any of the properties Craig puts forward other than Craig's desire make the argument support his belief that he has admitted on numerous occasions that he holds without any epistemic validation.
You cannot simply argue god into existence but this "argument" is more full of holes than most. It presupposes that everything "must" have a cause. It asks for special pleading by saying that god was "always" yet offers no proof. It drags out the same old argument from ignorance: "I don't know, therefore, god." It can't accept that the Universe might have come into existence on its own but readily accepts that some sort of magical being came into existence on its own (even if that being was "always.") and then created the Universe. Even if some sort of supreme being created the Universe, which there is no evidence of, there is furthermore no evidence that that being was the god of the Christian bible, nor is there any evidence that the being still exists. There is a great deal of cognitive dissonance in play here. The author believes in god for no other reason than he wants to. I think most theists see this whole thing as some sort of contest that they simply must win. As an atheist, I don’t care whether or not god exists. Show me the empirical evidence and I will acknowledge its existence and then move on with my life.
Ok let's overlook for a second the logical flaws of this argument. The conclusion is that some "Being" created the universe. I'm not fundamentally against the idea of a personal being who created the universe, which I will refer to as "God" for convenience, but that's about the best you can do. All the other stuff that various religions ascribe to this God, that's the real bs. There's isn't one decent logical argument supporting, for example, the idea that this God created the universe for love, that God watches us and judges us. Bottom line, I can be on board with the idea of an intelligent designer who created the universe, but not with all the other yapping that historically people have had the arrogance to attribute to this creator, just to comply with a wishful vision of the world.
This is a "solid" argument for those who already believe, and I would agree that it sounds compelling with an introductory understanding of cosmology. However, every part of this argument has issues: - In the first premise, the suggestion that things begin to exist fundamentally misunderstands that everything in our Universe is rearranged from preexisting matter and energy. It is a colloquialism that, in other circumstances, would not be important. However, we are talking about things beyond what common sense is prepared to handle. - Next, that the Universe began to exist is a misunderstanding if our current understanding of cosmic origins. The Big Bang was not the beginning of the Universe, but rather the beginning of the expansion of the Universe. We have no way to investigate what happened before the Big Bang, if that question even makes sense to ask. - Next, neither the premises, nor the conclusion include a god. It is also the case that, while a logical syllogism may apply to things within the Universe, we have no way to show that the same logic applies to the Universe itself. At best, if we very charitably grant the premises, we arrive at "a cause." - Asserting any properties of the cause is to assert "common sense" claims where we can't even begin to investigate, far beyond where common sense loses its efficacy. - Finally, and as a bonus failure, is that this god is simply defined as being acausal, is the very essence of special pleading. It is something that requires demonstrating, not asserting. Otherwise, you simply define the Universe or some natural law as acausal and have an equally vapid argument. I sympathize with how compelling the argument sounds at first glance, but any understanding of logic or of cosmology shows it to be an exercise in overextending our intuitions with a sprinkle of conflation and semantics. That is the reason it is considered among the least convincing of the arguments for deism.
it doesn't make sense to say the universe "began to exist" because, in order for something to begin, it must exist in time. how could time itself begin, if it did not already exist in a prior time, a prior universe? this leads to an obvious regress in the argument
We don’t know that the cosmos began to exist, ( not the same as the universe) and if there is a God we don’t know that he did not begin to exist either. Anything else is speculation and assumption.
I believe in God - but I also agree with David Hume that causality is not provable, and therefore it is a weak foundation on which to build a proof. I mean we have quantum particles that apparently can pop into existence without a cause per se. I would rather use a different approach. Here is my formula: 1) Axiom: Any theory of reality must contain something infinite Proof: If a theory of reality contained only finite elements, then a conception exists within that theory of something beyond the limits/boundaries of those elements, and that something would be both part of the theory and not part of the theory at the same time, which is a contradiction. Examples: Theories of reality have been held that involved infinite space, infinite time, or infinite universes. 2a) Postulate: Space, time, matter, and energy are not infinite. Evidence: General relativity, Big Bang, Conservation laws, etc. Support: Infinite time or space would involve infinite instances of every moment in time and configurations in space - leading to absurdities. 2b) Postulate: There are not infinite universes Support: This postulate would require infinite universes with conscious agents that are aware of it - such as our universe. But if our universe was one of infinitely many with conscious agents, we would expect the one we find ourselves in to be the simplest one that supports such agents. Yet we see that we are one planet among multitudes of galaxies, and one species among millions in the biosphere, all of which are unnecessary to produce such agents. This is hard one to expound in a short bullet point. 3) Postulate: Reality must contain an infinite element that does not include the items mentioned. This infinite element can be defined as God. This is starting point - from which you can then inquire about the nature of God.
Its like saying all triangles have right angles, then talk about a triangle that doesnt have a right angle. Your argument is inconsistent. You cant claim everything has a beginning then talk about something that has no beginning.
Number one, no the universe could be infinitely old. Or, the universe could run in a loop, the big crunch of our universe loops back around in time and creates the current universe. You are just positing random claims as being true.
Appeal to ignorance fallacy: This is evidence of some cause of the big bang and everything that we don't know of. God is one explanation for the beginning of the universe and everything else, but there are a number of other ones like: (we just don't have enough scientific data to scientifically conclude what happened before the big bang) Time is a loop that has been there forever and will never end, the big bang happens, then it happens again, ect.(there are various scientific theories on how this could work) The multiverse theory It could be that the big bang was just where/when time started and that asking what happened before it is like asking what is north of the northest part of the north pole. Random unscientific ones: The universe just randomly started, this one probably isn't possible maybe but like who knows. A spaghetti monster (or literally anything else)caused it instead of god. There just isn't sufficient evidence to know ALL of our typical logic could just not apply to the creation of the universe somehow.
Weak sauce in the extreme. You misunderstand the so called Big Bang theory and then fall into the fallacy of "Since the explanation of this is unknown, it means my favorite myth must needs be the explanation" No one knows how the cosmos happens to exist, and this includes you.
