That trait is argued for using such arguments as the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, and the argument from consciousness, among others. There’s only so much you can fit in a RU-vid short I guess
Because if the cause is outside of space and time, and the being that is acting cannot be influenced by any physical cause, so it must be a non physical cause which he reasons to show is the mind. And a mind implies personality.
Because this creator needs to have freedom of will in order to decide to move from its state of eternity or timelessness and create something that is finite.
There is nothing about the universe having a cause that requires that cause to be an intelligent, self-aware entity, which I would think would be a prerequisite for being a god.
Excellent question. That's, in fact, the easiest part to prove. Read Thomas Aquinas. A summary online would be sufficient for you, perhaps from the Thomistic Institute itself. The easiest features to prove are: Eternal, more powerful than anything in the cosmos, rational (or else the cosmos would be irrational), good (in the sense of capacity, what can have higher capacities than the Nature that kickstarted everything we know?) Intelligence may follow with the fact the universe ended up rational and logical. We can explain it through language and mathematics, that's certainly something we take for granted yet is a core feature of our reality. Another point is that the universe did not come about with the simplest laws _possible_ let alone imaginable. An organically created cosmos that makes "sense" would be expected to at least have SOME measure of simplicity in its inner workings. There's none. It's complex, chaotic, yet beautiful. The hard one to get is that it's one creator, not many. Aquinas argues then for divine simplicity, and is the official position of the Catholic Church. To explain it will take too long, but you can read on this at your own leisure.
@candeffect "The posit non-God. When have you seen nothing create something?" Have you ever seen God create something? And how does that process work? Lemme guess: "He SpEaKs It In To ExIsTeNcE." So how does God speaking cause something to be? What is the process?
He's wrong, he's confusing the start of space-time with a supposed start of existence, when by ontological logic we know that existence has always been here, it's asinine to think something came from nothing.
It’s not sound. The premise that there must be a first cause is extremely dubious, let alone the huge leap in logic to that the first cause is an omnipotent and immortal being that created all of existence. It’s a good argument if you’re uncritical of god to begin with.
I'm agnostic but i think this is the best argument too, except for two diferences He refers to the cause as a "being" and also as "personal" but that cause doesn't have to be a "being" and it doesn't have to be "personal" it could just aswell be some weird transcendent phenomenon.
I have heard this argument multiple times, and it comes down to perspective. We have an idea of god that is in a figure of a human, while the universe itself is eternal since there is no time before the universe began. God is an idea of someone with unlimited power, that supposedly cares about us humans. Now while that gives us comfort that a being is watching over us and protecting us, it makes no sense in terms of scale. We know the universe is massive on an unimaginable scale, and us humans are less than an atom compared to everything. If aliens are real (which I believe they are) then why us humans? God is an idea that is fueled by fear and safety, with no actual evidence pointing towards existence. If you say "well god must have made the universe!" well that is a very bold prediction that is arrogant and ignorant. We have very little knowledge of the actual universe compared to what it actually is. We pretend we have an idea of what's happening, but in reality we know an atom in a painting. Claiming to know anything that is not backed by scientific knowledge is superstitious since you can make an argument for everything if you believe you are right. For example, I can claim that a stone brings people back to life. Can it be proven? No. But I could say "You can't prove me wrong". That is the same argument for god, "you just haven't found him yet". In my opinion the preachers such as Jesus and the others simply took advantage of a time where superstition was the norm to make their own beliefs. If a new "preacher from god" came today with a new religion, we would all claim it's fake, what we have trouble with is applying it to the past and ignoring cultural beliefs to simply look at the facts. If anyone of you can make a LOGICAL argument for god replying to me, I will see it and attempt to debunk it or accept it.
It's actually more likely that aliens don't exist. For a full explanation of why, I would advise you to look up Isaac Arthur's Fermi paradox compendium here on RU-vid. Are you claiming that scientific knowledge is the only way we can know things? WLC argument is a logical one that doesn't need science. If you believe A&B then you have to accept C. That's not hard to understand.
Where are you assuming the universe is eternal? Entropy is stopping it as we speak. You believe in aliens with no proof other then...the universe is so large why not?did you realize the event of life is great than the sum of the stars? And how do you know they are extraterrestrial and not interdimensional?
We’ll I do see you are searching cause your lost, and are constantly looking for answers in your life which is ok.You clearly took the time as well. But I will say aliens are demons and they do roam the earth and can switch from flesh to spirit basically natural realm to super natural realm at any moment. The earth is the devils domain that is why it is corrupt and we are sinners until Jesus comes back which is quite soon, Not based on time but by events happening now that we’re stated in the Bible would happen. More proof pointing to the living word.
God also created science. For example gravity, if gravity was slightly more powerful, the universe would collapse into it self. And if it was slightly less powerful, it would continue to expand even faster than it does now and everything wouldn't be in tact. Also creation of the universe is weird. We don't know and can't comprehend how or why it appeared. We can't think of nothing before it, because nothing ever doesn't have a cause, but they say there was nothing before the big bang. And people seem to forget what Believing in God means. It's faith, belief. Faith means believing in something you can't know for sure is real. I choose to believe in God, others don't.
@@ValdasPetkevic Well, one popular theory in cosmology is that of the Multiverse. Which says that there could potentially be an infinite amount of universes, all with slightly different laws of physics. So naturally, we would find ourselves in one of those universes. Because thats the only universe we could exist in.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf we know the universe expands and contracts, and when the last expansion approximately happened. Why can't the universe be eternal. It doesn't need to be God. If God can be eternal, so can other things.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf That’s not the point. The point is your just adding a step unnecessarily. Carl Sagan said this better than I could. If you were to answer that God always existed, why not skip a step and conclude the universe always existed. If you say that the origin of god is an unanswerable question, why not skip a step and conclude the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question. You’re adding god, when you do need to.
"1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 1.a. Something can't just come into being from nothing." Why not? Just because we do not know from experience of such a thing or can't imagine such a thing doesn't mean it does not therefore cannot exist; since A. We are not omniscient; and B. Hitherto unimaginable things have been found to exist (planets, microbes, atoms, etc.) 2. The universe began to exist. 2.a. We have good arguments for the finitude of the past. Why? What does an argument for temporal finitude look like? A. If Time is an independent ontology, it will have always existed (a.) e.g. in the mind of God (b.) or de facto, in actu. B. If Time is not an independent reality but a structure of the mind in the sense of Kant or Hoffman, thus not objectively real, then it makes little sense to posit an objectively real, external Time the finitude or infinitude of which can be known apart from its modality as a cognitive means, such that its having a beginning or not is knowable. C. It does not follow from a finite universe the existence of finitude of time. Time may be more than an element intrinsic to the universe and its beginnings. 3. The universe has a cause. 4. "When you do a conceptual analysis of what it is to be a cause of the universe you arrive at a being which is an uncaused beginningless timeless spaceless enormously powerful personal creator of the universe." Why must the universe have a cause? Maybe (like God) it just always existed. Cyclic. And why must said 'cause of the universe' still exist? And if it does, how could it be apart from time, without beginning, extent, and if it is all that how can it be 'personal'?
1. Something can’t come from nothing because that says that the fact something came from nothing means it is the property of the something that caused nothing to create something, this is circular regression because x->y->z it implies Z was caused by X but for X to happen, it must go through Z (illogical and impossible)
2. Being omniscient is irrelevant, because the universe is understood through logical reasoning, not imagination. The reason you know me telling you a square circle exists is wrong is because you used logic to deduce that. The same method but on a greater level is used when dealing with ontological or cosmological arguments
3. A cause does not imply “purpose” but it means it was caused into existence by something, which means it is dependent/contingent. It is not possible for the universe to have always existed because that would mean there is a cycle of dependent things, and the sum of dependent things would ultimately have to be caused by a necessary being. No, the universe is not like God, because the universe is composed of “parts” which immediately makes it dependent on other things, The necessary being is not composed of parts, it is 1 thing, a simple being, therefore it is correct for it to be infinite
So if everything has a cause and a creator. Then God would have a creator and a cause. That shuts down the argument of saying that everything has a cause.
Poor fan of dawkin 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂Again you didn't understand the klam it doesn't not say everything that exist has a cause it says whatever begans to exist has a cause so universe began to exist has a cause if there were infinite regress of cause and effect in the past than we wouldn't be existing there it means there was a necessary uncaused eternal being existance on which other things depend on
What is power? Actually I think that God can probably literally create from nothing. It makes you rethink everything you thought about the nature of reality.
It’s more like, whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause, everything in the universe began to exist, so it needs to cause, that being God, but God himself did not begin to exist, so he does not need a cause.
@@MaxSoutter tell us more about that power. What is it, where does god keep it, how does it work to generate time, matter and physical stuff? Is god made of power?
Wow, how he can bring an argument and make it feel like it is something that is just ‘look, this is what it is, what more proof so you need?’ Cause and effect, a principle that we can’t break. Where there is a cause there is an effect.
We don't know how the universe function prior to the big bang, cause and effect may not have been the basis. Time itself is theorized to have come into existence with the big bang, and without time there is no cause and effect because there has to be a time before the effect where the cause takes place. This argument is based on assumptions about how the universe functioned prior to the big bang, which are unfounded.
Because of humans trying to understand time they infer how long things have been, but how can you refer to something before ? How can u question this is the first universe ? Why is conditions on earth so perfect that we’ve been allowed safety for millions of years, history began to be documented by way do we not have it all recorded, why are the questions left unanswered and how long does it take ? God can be the only understanding since he’s been there since the beginning of humans, he knows all because he was there from the beginning probably not a he or a being of human understanding, they say math is the language of god that humans understand but even still sometimes humans miscalculate, think how disastrous it would be if god put earth closer to the sun; humans attempts at a god are machines, that’s what the matrix (keanu reeves) is about. Not really a relation I just love the movie
@@WickedIndigo even so, that's under the assumption that "nothing" even could exist. It's a concept that people throw around willy nilly as if they know it's possible for there to be "nothing"
We have to keep in mind that he's not giving a flesh out version of the argument, he's only summarizing that there's a first cause and that *"further analysis"* would lead to the conclusion that the nature of the cause would be an Intelligent Being. He did not go into the analysis to explain the detail of why a personal being is created, he was only summarizing aspects of the first cause that one would use to build arguments off of to just answer the question as to what a compelling convincing argument is. If people are looking for actual proof within his argumentation, then one may not be paying close enough attention to what he's trying to say. He isn't trying to prove it in this instance, He's only summarizing a version of the argument and pointing to the fact that there is additional analysis.
Im a muslim and clearly these athiests havnr heard of the aquinas argument: Also known as Aquinas' Third Way I'll just copy paste this because I don't know how to explain it in short, it's basically an argument of "Possibility and Necessity" **Aquinas states the Third Way as follows: The third way is taken from possibility and necessity and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not possible to be, since they are found to be generated and corrupted. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which can not-be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if this were true then even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing. Therefore if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus now nothing would be in existence -- which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore, we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
We sit on the edge of a galaxy 100,000 x 80,00 light years across, and fourteen billion light years from the beginning of time and space. No one alive who pretends to even think they know how that began actually knows.
The problem with this is people ( including myself ) have no idea what nothing is and cannot give an example of nothing. So we don't really know if it's possible or not for something to come out of nothing.
Nothing is no anything. It's like vacuum, it's empty, and mathematically speaking nothing equals nothing, nothing plus nothing equals nothing, therefore the universe can't come from nothing, cause if that was the case, then we would have nothing...
If a religious person believes that God's first creation was the universe then maybe the universe is the higher power that we all call different names of gods
You either didn’t understand what he said or just didn’t fully comprehend what he said. He said the universe had a beginning or was caused into existence and that was by a very powerful creator who was un-caused, beginningless, timeless, spaceless etc.
@@robertmaughan239 You do understand that will is not a prerequisite for change, right? A cause of an event does not need to be conscious or have a motivation…
@@Createdplayer1 It doesn't work like that. If you want to assert that the cause of the universe was an intelligent entity you need to present actual positive evidence for that. You can't just hand wave it away and claim that it's the only possibility.
@@Createdplayer1our universe could’ve been the result of a cosmic fart 💨 from an even larger universe. I’m not asserting it is but a philosophical possibility is not proof.
His premise contains a false assumption ... that the universe had a beginning. Secondly, we do not know how big the universe is, we can only judge what we can see, the universe has been proven to be a lot bigger than what we first assumed. We don't know if there is going to be an end to the universe but we do know that matter cannot be completely destroyed or manufactured out of nothing. Finally, all 'matter' is made of energy.
Even the majority of non religious scientists believe that the universe “began” such as the Big Bang. So rationally, if the universe has a cause then it must have a creator.
The phrase "began to exist" is referring to creatio ex materia in the first premise and creatio ex nihilo in the second premise, so the argument has an equivocation fallacy and is invalid.
Caused is something that has been put into existence by something. To put something into existence in our universe u need space and time. God is beyond our universe so He is not bound by space and time.
Then that superior being would also need a cause if god can be eternal why not the universe itself? Why a thinking god without another creator has more sense to him?
Onkat Ghate elaborates on why this argument is non sensical. Just youtube onkar ghate and the kalam cosmological argument. In short the universe is all of existence, any cause exists, so there can be no such thing as the cause of existence. Because you would have to refer to existence in order to explain the current existence. Nothing comes from Nothing as Parmenides made clear. The material is eternal.
If he can convince himself that his so-called god is timeless and beginningless, why not just do away with god and apply the same to the universe Thinking the earth is the most important thing in the universe is like picking out 1 grain of sand and saying this grain is more important than every other grain of sand on the whole planet. This is the chosen grain.
Yep so now we just have to pick the right religion most likely based on the continent we were born on to determine wether we spend eternity in hell or not. Where everyone thinks there one is right and every other is wrong.
The logical progression from a cause to a being does not exist. I wonder how Dr. Craig disqualified all of the natural ways in which the universe came into existence.
The expansion of the Universe had a beginning, however, it's origin is still a mystery; therefore, the entire argument is invalid as it rests on a faulty premise We don't know anything about the singularity and also, where did god come from? Nothingness? Is he uncreated or needs no cause? Then that's a special pleading fallacy I can't believe people fall for such fallacious reasoning 🤣
In physics, if it teaches that if existence can't just happen, it needs a cause, so for example, friction to heat, so what is the cause of matter? My conclusion is that matter was made out of power, or energy. Which is how the universe was made. What or who is this power or energy? I believe it's God, and it doesn't just stop there. You may say that it quite is magic that infinite energy made the cosmos, and that's where the infinity part of physics apply. God is infinity. Infinity exists, and is wielded by one Being, which made Him worthy to be referred to as Divine
He just gave the best a against himself, if nothing can come into existence on its own, that includes gods, even if his argument made sense, it doesn't, there is on reason for the creator to his particular creator within this particular argument, why not any of the creation stories, or a creator no one has heard of, nothing in that argument points to the Christian god , or virgin births , or dead men rising etc
I’m not opposed to the idea of a first cause but Craig snuck in some things that make you think of god when it isn’t necessary. Calling it a “personal creator” is misleading. Just because it seems logical that the universe has a first cause does not mean that first cause is conscious, loving, omnipresent, etc…. The burden of proof still lies on Craig to prove that the first cause is all of these things. The argument “everything that exists has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefor it must have a cause. That cause is god” doesn’t hold up because you have to have evidence that a personal loving creator is the first cause and nothing else could possibly be the first cause. This argument is on the right track but it’s incomplete.
Ok lets assume all of the premises are true. That everything has a cause, and something had to be uncaused. That does NOT entail that the original cause it sentient, singular, or a being at all. For all we know the original cause could be an eternal rock that ejects matter. This argument is poor and gets us no closer to an intelligent being that we would label as a god.
While I like this argument, my favorite has always been that the universe answers and makes sense of all of our natural desires, and objective meaning is a natural desire. It is more logical to believe objective meaning exists than not.
How do you then conclude that it’s a specific God, or even a “being”? Sounds like a combination of the God of the gaps/ special pleading fallacies, which Craig says he never does. This is not convincing to me at all.
So what you're saying is God is really good at creating the universe and stars. But really bad at managing money. He always seems to need it. wonder where he keeps it
However I tried to think about it, if always sounds ridiculous. There is no rational explanation for the existence of God. It all sounds so ridiculous unfortunately. I want to believe, but I always end up with the same conclusion, God is men made, the whole religion thing smells like something only men can cook up. I’d be happy to change my mind.
There’s a second part the the Kalam cosmological argument that explains this, I suggest you watch a video on it because I probably can’t explain it well.
Then where did God come from? If the universe can’t come from nothing, how does God come from nothing? I feel like to say because He is all-powerful is a cop-out. You could just say the same thing of any hypothetical force that began the universe. The reality is that you are taking a leap of faith that is not based on empirical evidence. Just own that, and I think you’d have a more compelling argument instead of having to do all the mental gymnastics.
For something to create time, matter and space it would have to exist outside of time matter and space. That is not a cop out it's pure facts🤨 You want to talk about leap of faith how about this. Our universe is so finely tuned that the probability of it happening by some random chance would be equivalent to rolling 6 on a dice billions of times consecutively from your first roll. To which people would reply yes that's mathematically possible. But would you be willing to bet me that you could take a dice and roll a six on the dice billions of times consecutively and if you were to loose the bet you would spend eternity in hell? Nevermind you already have! Look up Mathew chapter 7, verses 7 - 11. Seek and you shall find. Take away any bias due to previous life experiences and genuinely look, then you will find the truth😉
You have completely missed the point. He is referring to ultimate cause, the unpaused cause. Philosophically, rationally and scientifically it is inevitable. It is the only reasonable answer to infinite regression. This is philosophy and theology 101!
You absolutely dont arrive at that kind of a conclusion.. you only do that if u believe in one particular cause already.. i mean the if the cause is the cause of the cause .. that can keep going on.. for no cause at all
Your mis interpruting his stance. It's whatever caused the universe has to exist outside of it. That would function as either a God or a god. He's nit saying it's the Christian god. However, whatever that entity, force or being would be, would function as a god/God.
Except we know the universe had a beginning. We can physically see the Big Bang in the CMBR. Denying this, (I would argue), is equivalent to believing in the Flat Earth ‘Theory’.
It seems to me you have assumed that he assumed both of those things, when the video doesn’t show that. He believes the universe had a beginning from scientific and philosophical arguments. And in this video he doesn’t at all assume it’s “his God”, he just argues for the existence of “a God”. You can arrive at the Christian God using other arguments, but that’s not the point of this video.
I’ll give it to you, I’ll go as far as to say that the cosmological argument is 110% correct. Now all you gotta do is prove that it’s your god specifically and with that I say good luck
Well, then we turn to the Gospels. They are a historical account, written by forst and second hand experiences, that have been verified as true with every new piece of history we find.
Im gonna need an explanation as to why the creator of the universe NECESSARILY has to be a “personal” creator of the universe. Why would personal or non-personal have anything to do with an eternal thing that exists outside of space and time. There’s no reason why it would specifically even have to care or even have a consciousness to create space and time. Or is there a longer philosophical proof made for the personal part that this gentleman left out? Anyone know longer videos discussing this philosophical argument?
The first premise MIGHT seem self-evident, but it's purely axiomatic, and can never be proven by any evidence. To definitively state that something cannot come from nothing, you would have to be omniscient, able to observe every instance of nothingness for all eternity, then definitively state that something never came from it.
If there's no cause, then it means the universe came into being because there's was nothing to stop it from coming into being. If this is true, then anything that can be, must be, because by definition there would be no laws to prevent anything from coming into being. And this includes God. If the universe can exist for no reason, then so can a God that is all powerful and all knowing.
He doesn't presuppose anything. He just doesn't get too much into detail: "...and when you do a conceptual analysis of what is to be the cause of the universe, you arrive at a being which is..." As someone who has done quite a bit of research on this arguement, I would be happy to provide you with the conceptual analysis part of the Kalam if it is ok with you.
"Then where did God come from?/who made God" Bruh you are misunderstood. God did not creat time and space and matter from inside time and space and matter nor is he subject to them. He CREATED everything, from OUTSIDE creation. Like how a video game developer didn't create the game from inside the game. We are talking about God, don't confine Him to the laws of the universe. He is not subject to them because he created the universe and its laws.
Hypotheses such as string theory, loop quantum gravity, and eternal inflation say different. I know they lack evidence. But what is more reliable, Hypotheses based on MATH or, theism based on FALLACIOUS REASONING and FAITH?
Premise 1:Everything that exists has a cause Premise 2: the universe began to exist Conclution: the universe has a cause and that cause must be God. Some thoughts Premise 1: It is highly contested that universal causality is a thing particularly in quantum mechanics. Premise 2: we do not know how or if the universe began Conclution: The universe having a cause does not nessesitate that cause being god. That cause could be any number of other things besides a god. This is nonsense on every level.
So this gentleman is saying his god created the universe correct? Then who created his god? Where is his evidence of his god? And I'm sorry but the Bible isn't evidence or proof of this man's deity. All you have to do is chronologically read the story of Jesus's resurrection to see what happens when stories get further away from the source material. So, if you read the resurrection account chronologically there are no post-resurrection witness accounts in Mark, then Matthew has a few, Luke has even more, and it's only when we get to John that we get "doubting Thomas." And Jesus said this to Thomas, "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." So, you get a mythological development where you go from zero post-resurrection appearances, and yet as time goes on and we get further and further away from the source material these stories become more fantastical, and in the end, you get Christianity's "foundation" and "moral baseline" and that "foundation" and "moral baseline" is to BELIEVE WITHOUT EVIDENCE. "Religion is man-made and it shows, it shows very well indeed."
1. Creatio ex nihilo is incoherent: P1: Creatio ex nihilo posits the creation of the universe from absolute nothingness, implying a state of non-existence before creation. P2: Non-existence is not a state but rather the absence of existence. P3: Minds are events, which means they are temporal occurrences or processes. P4: If minds are events, they cannot exist in a state of non-existence before the creation of the universe. P5: Therefore, the notion of a divine mind or creative consciousness existing in a state of non-existence before creation is incoherent since events (minds) cannot exist in a state of non-existence. 2.Christianity makes a category mistake because minds aren't substances, minds are events: P1: The mind is a nominal concept for a specific set of cognitive events. P2: If minds are events, they are grounded in substances. P3: A living being represent a specific separation within a single substance that behaves in a specific way. P4: Minds are grounded in living beings. P5: Therefore, minds do not exist independently of living beings 3. Substance dualism is false because it encounters the interaction problem. There can be no necessary connections between distinct existences (Hume's Dictum). 4. Necessitarianism is true because logical possibilities do not entail metaphysical possibilities, and it cannot be proven that things could have been or happened otherwise, hence, free will is false. 5. Argument for Substance Monism: P1: If substance dualism is false, then substance monism is true. P2: There is only one substance that things are made out of, making it impossible to conceive of another substance, hence, substance dualism is false. P3: Substance Monism is true. P4: If Substance Monism is true, it can be either Physicalism, Neutral Monism, or Idealism. P5: Idealism makes a category mistake, and physicalism attaches an arbitrary label to the substance. P6: Neutral Monism is true. P7: If neutral monism is true, there is only one substance in reality, and it exists as an ontologically independent brute fact. 6. Argument for Existence as a brute fact: P1: Existence is the totality of all that exists. P2: If an explanation or reason is something that exists, it belongs to the totality of all that exists. P3: Explanations or reasons exist. P4: Explanations or reasons belong to the totality of all that exists. P5: Existence has no explanation or reason. 7. Argument from Functionalism and Nominalism: P1: Mental states are events. P2: If P1 is true, then mental states do not exist. P3: Events are not existents but occurrences. P4: Events have beginnings. P5: Existence is made of a single substance that grounds events. P6: Labeling the substance "God" is tautologous and arbitrary. P7: Such a definition conflicts with the Christian definition of God as a personal creator. Defense of p1. If something involves the unfolding of events to be made coherent, then it is itself an event. Concepts are dynamic and require an unfolding of events to be articulated and conceived, hence, platonism is false 8. Argument against Idealism and Physicalism Labels: p1. Idealism assumes that mental states are independent existences. p2. This assumption commits a category mistake, as, under extreme nominalism, mental states are events, not independently existing particulars. p3. Therefore, labeling them as separate existences is erroneous. p4. Idealism, as well as, Physicalism labels the ontologically independent substance as "physical" or "mind" arbitrarily. p5. Such labeling is arbitrary because the substance itself lacks inherent properties categorically defining it as "physical" or "mind". Conclusion: Under extreme nominalism, the substance can be understood as the ontologically independent brute fact without the need for arbitrary labels. By resorting to occasionalism or parallelism to address the interaction problem, substance dualism engages in special pleading. As a nominalist, I reject the existence of emergent properties in favor of aspects. While a theist may post that God (a divine consciousness) was in a state of existence, pre-instantiation of change, this makes a category mistake since minds are mere concepts for a specific set of cognitive events grounded in living beings and it also makes an existential fallacy. Minds can further be defined as specific divisions within a single ongoing event established by arbitrary boundaries.
One thing here is obviously missing in the supposition that all existing things must have had a BEGINNING. What is a GIVEN, however, is that all matter that currently exists PROVEABLY ALREADY DOES 😅t😊😅😅
Ok then God exists...which one then? Mr. Craig came with this argument from the 11th century Muslim scholar Al-Ghazali in his book "the Incoherence o Philosophers" (tahafot al alfalassifa)...and then Mr. Craig jumps from the proof of the existence of god to the truth of the Trinitarian god even though there are 2 big traditions of Unitarian god : the Jewish tradition, which is a part of the Bible, and the Islamic tradition)...but no, God exists according to the cosmological argument then god is the three in one god....Amazing how faith can distort reason...but faith is a good comfort though...I envy the believers.
Still god of the gaps , im sorry but you'll never convince me to give up my inspiration, Professor Richard Dawkins. Ps you look and sound like David Lee Roth.
Yada yada yada, therefore, the universe has a cause. And that cause is Allah. Now, for those who disagree, explain why it can't be Allah without also disqualifying God.
It seems like these debaters never even looked ad a philosophy book. This argument is an argument by Tommaso d'Aquino, which was made in late middle age. Tommaso d'Aquino himself had this argument coming directly from Aristoteles, whith some modifications. It has been dismissed almost 200 years ago.
I completely lost him when we brought in the word being, enormously powerful. THese words are so loose and lack any agreed upon definition that the fact that he uses it tells me he simply is not interested in the truth and simply peddling his nonsense. We clearly see throughout nature over and over again things of high complexity arise from simple laws of physics. There is no governing body or creator needed for it. I dont see why the same inference can be applied to the universe itself. And even if there was a creator (most likely is we are in a simulation), then who is to say that is an intelligent being let alone interested in what each of us does and demands submission and puts people in eternal suffering for having sex outside of marriage.
Belief in god is nothing but superstition. The universe is immensely complicated to our minds, but science explains itself as we continue to study it over time. But when you’re a Christian, like I was for a long time, you develop blindspots. I allowed myself to believe extra ordinary things in order to make the whole illogical story appear logical. The harsh reality is that it’s all make believe. And I’m rather grateful that the falsity of any god is so obvious. The only thing the various forms of faith have in common are their stupendous claims and desire for purity. A bush afire? An arc angel? A promised land? This foolish relic from our ancestors that sought to account for the unknown is now an impediment to the next stage of human society. Every argument ever used to defend slavery in the US relied on biblical references. This is how ridiculous and immoral humans can allow themselves to become when they’re convinced an invisible all-powerful being has a preference for behavior. Sadly, when we die it’s just over. There is no supernatural dimension. Our lives are finite. This is a scary thought for many. What better way to soothe this discomfort than to believe a story that let’s you live forever in the end. It’ll be around for a while, and folks should always have the right to do it. Folks like me should have the right to criticize it too. There is no purpose or meaning in our existence, except those we choose to have. Don’t let the masses fool you.
Concerning the holy books relating to what is believable and what is not as for instance Adam and Eve,the virgin Mary,the Nativity, Jesus rising from the dead,and heaven exciting and more then it sounds more plausible ,other religions must have similar stories
What a massive fucking leap. He goes from postulating the universe needs a beginning to that being a massively powerful loving creator of the universe? Inhope noone finds this guy convincing.
Christianity is the popular belief that an omniscient all powerful immaterial being made himself into a jewish baby, born of a virgin mother. He is also his own father btw. He died for 3 days so that he could ascend himself into heaven on a cloud. Then offers you immortality only if you symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood, and through unknown mechanisms telepathically tell him that he is your lord and savior so that he can remove evil spirits innate with you and all of humanity. Even though we were supposedly created in this beings image. And all this has to be done, because an immoral woman made from a man’s rib was bamboozled by a reptile, that was created or possessed by a malicious angel, to secretly eat a forbidden fruit from a magic tree. It is the belief that god sent god down to earth. To save god’s creations from god. And god does this by sacrificing god, to god. And god knew all this would happen because god willed it so. How could I possibly, with any intellectual integrity or respect to logic, take these beliefs seriously? Let alone, let people make legislation based on this useless mythology
If god is real and your best argument is a philosophical formula then god isn’t doing a very good job of revealing himself. I don’t need philosophy to know my kids exist. God should do better
