"Is This The Best Argument For God's Existence?"... NO!!!  

🤣

@@realBreakfasttacos You can laugh, but, unlike you, I have a clue about what I'm talking about.

@@PhilSophia-ox7ep The conversation has pretty much evolved past contingency and necessity at this point, although some people still hold to it.

@@realBreakfasttacos That wasn't the claim you made.

@@PhilSophia-ox7ep Especially the sense of contingency that Muslim apologists use (where "contingent" is the same thing as "dependent") - that one is *extremely* controversial!

You have seen something come into existence? That is effectively what this line of argumentation was trying to say causation is.

@@realBreakfasttacos Yes, tons of things come into existence, e.g., a child, a tree, etc. This was embarrassingly bad, guys. I'm an atheist. I'm not convinced by this argument. But you folks don't even seem to understand the argument you're criticizing.

@@PhilSophia-ox7ep None of that has come into existence. They are arguing a cause can cause things to come into existence. They are arguing a cause can cause things to begin to exist.

@@realBreakfasttacos A child didn't come into existence? They just always exist?

@@PhilSophia-ox7ep They are using a definition of cause that would allow things to begin to exist, as in the energy would begin to exist. This is what I am questioning. That is an equivocation of what I am actually trying to say to you.

Good point!!

This perfectly describes the problem with Presupp arguments. Considering all presupp arguments assume we know all and absolutely understand the best logical explanation which we don't and if you claim to know then Ur a dumbass

Good point!

Have you never met a theist? Lol

@@AsixA6 Yes

@@realBreakfasttacos Yes, you’ve never met a theist? lol

@@AsixA6 I've met many theists. Sorry, misread that as have you ever met a theist.

What I was saying there, is I kind of get what he is saying, but I still don't see why the set itself couldn't end in infinite regress, brute fact, or necessary being. Whether the set always existed or came into existence at the same time (if this is even a coherent concept and I do not hold this position, but some philosophers do), the set itself could "be" the infinite regress, brute fact, or necessary being.

@@realBreakfasttacos I meant the situation where the set itself "is" the infinite regress. Every part is caused by some other part, so "the sum of causes of all the parts" is exactly the same as "the sum of all the parts", i.e. the set itself, so that leads inescapably to the set being self-caused.

@@user-qm4ev6jb7d There's no issue with infinite regress. You would have to demonstrate vicious circularity. If someone said the energy that exists went into infinite regress, because it can neither be created nor destroyed, there is no issue, that should be a sufficient response to combat any vicious circularity claims. He was trying to say it is viciously circular because it is an infinite regress, but that is just not the case. You have to examine infinite regress on a case by case basis. It would not come into existence according to the definition of cause that they are attempting to go for here in an example of infinite regress.

@@realBreakfasttacos I'd go even further and say that, out of the traditional three options (uncaused cause, infinite regress, or causal loop), an infinite regress is the *least weird* option. And a causal loop is the second best.

@@user-qm4ev6jb7d Good point!

Very good point!

Basically just saying the quantum field is the necessary being... and I AGREE.... but necessity and contingency is really dumb.

@@realBreakfasttacos A quantum field is an energy field so, I like to simplify it for their simple brains.

@@AsixA6 lol

Seems like it lol. I'm getting a bunch of negate responses from Reddit theists.

I never understood why Reddit theists wear fedoras though.

@@realBreakfasttacos coomer, it's about you.

@@realBreakfasttacos c00mer, it's about you.

@@al-kimiya6962 Well the reddit theists are the ones that are coomers that wear fedoras and have break downs. This was a simple refutation of a really bad argument

You just misunderstand science.

@@realBreakfasttacos that's as vague as it could be

@@cryptid9761 Nah

Fun fact, even if your description of quantum where correct (it is not), we still have evidence "the quantum" exist , you dont have that for your magical fairy. Congratulation for debunking the god of the gaps.

@@Julian0101 Why don't you go step by step into how I was incorrect?