Evidence for a Creator with Dr. Peter Taylor [ Answers Series - What's The Story? Ireland ]

[@cjstevens6405]

8:46 "...this beginning of our universe, is the point where both space and time began to exist. Therefore the cause must be spaceless and timeless." 9:04 "We also know that the universe contains rational and conscious minds, like us. Therefore the cause must be a conscious mind." Neither of these conclusions are necessary based on their premises. But worse still, their combination raises a critical logical inconsistency, each relying on a supposed logical relation which is the contrary of that supposed in the other.

[@skateboardingjesus4006]

I always find claims of knowledge beyond the admitted limit of known causality, hilarious. And then to add insult to their own injury, they assign abilities, properties and intent to this contradiction. A small tail wagging an infinitely large imaginary dog.

[@MikeL-7]

Universal conclusions cannot be drawn from two particulars. Violates the law of syllogisms.

[@andyfireandair]

8:46 is consistent but 9:04 doesn't follow from his articulation. However, I have heard better framings of this argument elsewhere that make a better case for the same conclusion

[@jjcm3135]

Excellent synthesis of many many extraordinary recent scientific discoveries. Well done. Can you provide a transcript?

[@patrickstoryireland]

In Depth Article related to this video: www.whatsthestory22.ie/answers/evidence-for-a-creator/

[@ClannCholmain]

Here’s one. One good sentence in the bible on germ theory would have saved countless millions of childrens’s lives over thousands of years. It’s not there, which is exactly as you’d expect.

[@jjcm3135]

@@patrickstoryireland Thanks. Will read all this week. Great work.

[@skateboardingjesus4006]

And not one that includes, or even broaches, the unscientific and non-falsifiable concept of his very particular God. Although he's more articulate than most, it's still marginally short of gish-galloping, and still laced with special pleading.

[@andyfireandair]

@@ClannCholmain You're argument is largely just a reframing of why do bad things happen if God exists. This is a long standing philosophical question and has many possible answers. Most philosophers reject it as just bc we can't think of a good reason for why God might allow for bad things, that doesn't mean there isn't a good reason, one that we could understand or maybe one that we couldn't understand. If God exists His reasoning is way beyond our capability to understand so why would we expect to understand

[@fergusfitzgerald977]

Roger Penrose also has a theory about the origins of the universe - it's cyclic in nature - he won the Nobel Prize for his work on cosmology. Nobody knows the truth about the origins of the Universe - not knowing is ok - having a religious faith is ok as well but isn't it better to know a little that is true than to believe a lot that we can never be verified ?

[@skateboardingjesus4006]

The Penrose cosmological theory isn't exactly cyclical. It's more an ongoing expansion, whereas the fundamental governing forces of the Universe are reset at critical points during that apparently eternal expansion.

[@pgrier7733]

Fergus, Is it possible to live by only 'the little'? Philosophically if I were to only live by what I could know to be verified, I'd be left with most of life unlived. We all (regardless of our worldview) live by faith. The question for me is, whether the faith we live by, is backed up by the evidence? Increasingly people like secular historian Tom Holland and others are convincing me the very air we all breathe (in terms of our morals and what we value as a society), is the air brought about by Jesus. But if any of that is true, more of us are faith-based than we realise!