Throw it back at them. "Yours is naturalism of the gaps!"
@downenout8705Ай бұрын
Guess you don't know what a tu quoque fallacy is.
@rosamorales729Ай бұрын
@@downenout8705that only applies when trying to use someone else’s error to justify your own.
@downenout8705Ай бұрын
@@rosamorales729 Not according to the Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
@somerandom3247Ай бұрын
@@harveygitarista1600 That would be far more logical than god of the gaps. At least we know that nature exists. And every time we have ever discovered the truth that fills a gap, it has been with something natural. Not once has it ever been a god, or anything else supernatural.
@rosamorales729Ай бұрын
@@downenout8705 Guess you don’t know what appeal to authority fallacy is.
@redmed10Ай бұрын
If god doesn't need a first cause then the universe doesn't need a first cause.
@davidjanbaz7728Ай бұрын
Jon Snow your just showing everyone you know nothing.
@terminat1Ай бұрын
No. That is not correct. God by definition is a necessary being; the universe is not.
@therick363Ай бұрын
@@terminat1can anything else be a necessary thing?
@terminat1Ай бұрын
@@therick363 The principles of logic may be necessary, as may be mathematical truths. I think many theistic philosophers would say that such truths would not exist separately from God but as a part of His necessary being.
@therick363Ай бұрын
@@terminat1 but it’s possible things could exist without him or the need for him yes?
@redmed10Ай бұрын
Ontological argument as explained by wlc means that if its possible for fairies to exist then they exist.
@davidjanbaz7728Ай бұрын
God and fairies aren't in the same category : fairies aren't supernatural beings like Elohim. But you R convincing me your intelligence does ultimately come from nonintelligence.
@haitaelpastor976Ай бұрын
@@davidjanbaz7728 I'm sure you can prove Elohim existing and a supernatural being then. "Faith" does not count as proof.
@terminat123 күн бұрын
@@haitaelpastor976 If God exists, then of course He'd be supernatural. The Creator of all things can't be made of the things He created.
@Johnny-mz9ot8 сағат бұрын
Your statement makes no sense.
@redmed10Ай бұрын
Wlc referring to god as a man so often betrays his assumptions.
@davidjanbaz7728Ай бұрын
God the second person became a man in Jesus' incarnation : Keep talking Jon Snow!!!
@Xiy114Ай бұрын
Hitchens believes in God now
@downenout8705Ай бұрын
@@Xiy114 To which Hitchens would have replied "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
@johnharrison6745Ай бұрын
@@downenout8705 And, to Hitch's poorly-considered reply, I would've countered, 'Which doesn't really matter, as ANY assertion can be "dismissed", REGARDLESS of amount or quality of evidence, depending-upon the mindset and intentions of the person hearing the assertion.' Chris actually WASN'T very bright; all he had was an acid-tongue and a British "hip no" voice. 😏
@johnharrison6745Ай бұрын
@srs2283 Right at your fingertips, Dumpling. 😏
@johnharrison6745Ай бұрын
@srs2283 "Puff" harder, Dumpling. 😏
@rosamorales729Ай бұрын
@srs2283 obvious low effort troll is obvious
@RobertSmith-gx3miАй бұрын
There's a huge gap between the premise that everything that begins to exist needs a creator and that creator being the god bill was groomed to believe exists. Of course, bill doesn't see it that way because bill was groomed to not see it that way
@haitaelpastor976Ай бұрын
Right and exact.
@drcraigvideosАй бұрын
Dr. Craig was not raised in a devout Christian home. He was a non-Christian until he was in his late-teens. So, no, he was not groomed to believe in God, much less the truth of Christianity. But let's say hypothetically that he was. To say that his claims are false because he was groomed would be to commit the genetic fallacy. The truth of a claim is not undermined because of its source. - RF Admin
@RobertSmith-gx3miАй бұрын
@@drcraigvideos The claims dr craig is repeating are not his claims. Apologies that Doctor Craig was not groomed like a great majority of people were into the religion he now has faith in. While I can't say the claims he is repeating are false I can say the claims he keeps repeating are evidently not true.
@drcraigvideosАй бұрын
@@RobertSmith-gx3mi Which of his claims are "evidently not true?" - RF Admin
@Theo_SkeptomaiАй бұрын
@drcraigvideos Which of WLC's claims can be _demonstrated_ to be true? Present one.
@bobsnead1153Ай бұрын
I think the most important of the arguments that Dr. Craig lays out is that God can be personally known. Why do I think this is the most important? Because all the preceding arguments rest on it. The preceding arguments need the premise that God exists in order to be taken as support for God as the best explanation. Without this premise the notion that God exists is just one of many possible best explanations.
@user-lj3ku5yd1hАй бұрын
True. That’s why I tend to now lean towards transcendental arguments like the ones that jay dyer argues along with some other catholic apologists.
@Theo_SkeptomaiАй бұрын
What is this argument by WLC? Please present it in syllogistic form if possible.
@Theo_SkeptomaiАй бұрын
@user-lj3ku5yd1h Are you asserting that these TAG are _sound?_
@bobsnead1153Ай бұрын
@@Theo_Skeptomai No.
@bobsnead1153Ай бұрын
@@Theo_Skeptomai That is a request better made of WLC. My point does not need a restatement of his argument, unless you agree that it is flawed. In the video he has laid out a reasonable presentation. My point is only that one has to already believe in God in order for the notion of God is the best explanation of anything. Since he is an apologist he is trying to convince us of the truth of his God. Since he is really assuming the presence of God from the outset then his argument suffferes from an Affirming the Consequent fallacy.
@haitaelpastor976Ай бұрын
Is he seriously calling us a "fine tuned agent"? Because God did an awful work with us. And with everything, in fact. Is this the best an omnipotent omniscient God could achieve?
@aaronbroughton-janes667Ай бұрын
The attribution of the adjective "best" will vary depending on the purpose of the one applying it. Given God's purpose is a personal relationship with agents who desire that relationship of their own free will, I am of the belief that indeed we are the best God could do as He does what pleases Him.
@TerrobulАй бұрын
It is interesting that you say God did an awful job of creation with the very ability that He gave you to speak/write those words…Ironic much? Can you create something from nothing? The Bible is clear it is because of sin that this world is in a fallen state, it wasn’t always so. All creation groans for the day of redemption 🙏🏼
@haitaelpastor976Ай бұрын
@@aaronbroughton-janes667 So anything is good as long as it's God who does it. When he puts a sudden tumor in the brain of a child, it's good.
@haitaelpastor976Ай бұрын
@@Terrobul This fallen world is what it is because God wanted it that way. Either that, or he's not omniscient nor omnipotent. This "redemption" thing is just a sick game he's playing with us.
@aaronbroughton-janes667Ай бұрын
@@haitaelpastor976 God has set a creation in motion in which there is both beauty and suffering. It is unlikely that He directly puts a brain tumour in a baby and, if He does, He does so for a purpose that, while it may be beyond our understanding, is for ultimate good. The life we lead is a brief twinkling of an eye and we will wake from it to realise it is nothing more than a dream. Real life is an eternity with an eternal God and, for those who desire a relationship with Him, it will be heavenly beyond imagining.
@redmed10Ай бұрын
Wlc is a deist with his kalam argument but he then smuggles in his theism with it. Its a sleight of hand but fools most.
@Joel-cr1niaАй бұрын
They are very good arguments in favor of the existence of God. The only argument I still have to understand is the argument of the applicability of mathematics; It seems to me, for now, that is not a good argument for God.
@johnharrison6745Ай бұрын
There's actually an article on R.F. entitled '#688 Explaining the Applicability of Mathematics'.
@aiya5777Ай бұрын
mathematics cannot lie, and it becomes soo overrated for it's absolute "honesty" I mean, *just because* mathematics doesn't lie, it doesn't necessarily mean mathematics is always telling the truth even heard of the Einstein-Rosen bridge? in 1935, Einstein-Rosen tried to solve The Particle Problem in the General Theory of Relativity Einstein-Rosen thought that wormholes were elementary particles. After they've Mathematically constructed their bridge, they write clearly "We see now in the given solution, free from the paradox of singularities, the Mathematical description of an elementary particle (neutrons or neutrinos)" Einstein-Rosen ofc passed away believing their mathematics were telling the truth and now you should've known better that *just because* mathematics doesn't lie, it doesn't necessarily mean mathematics is always telling the truth as someone who actually knows mathematics, I simply want to tell you that mathematics is just another form of linguistics so you can literally come up with whatever stories you want and like any story, it may or may not be true/compatible with reality
@johnharrison6745Ай бұрын
@@aiya5777 Or, as I'm fond of saying, 'math is only as good as the numbers that are put-into it.' But, that doesn't make mathematical principles any less constant or reliable. No; Einstein and Rosen believed that their E.R. "bridges" (or wormholes) might represent elementary particles. But, that belief doesn't mean that their math was wrong. No; while mathematics is 'the universal language', to call it 'just another form of linguistics' is to just GROSSLY misrepresent and under- describe/value it. Math's are a system by which reality, itself, at every level, is described, measured, tested, and predicted/projected.
@Theo_SkeptomaiАй бұрын
There are NO sound arguments for the existence if any particular god. NONE.
@johnharrison6745Ай бұрын
@@Theo_Skeptomai *PROVE* it. 😏
@ApologeticsandEvidenceАй бұрын
Dr. Craig put the hammer down!
@stephenbailey9969Ай бұрын
Opening assumptions decide the parameters of conclusions. And opening assumptions come from personal experiences. That goes for both theists and atheists. Nothing is changed by trying to play football on a cricket field. Only the power of God can open people's minds, just as He did with Saul of Tarsus.
@tonygoodkind7858Ай бұрын
The "opening assumptions" is either a straw man or intentionally arguing against a sloppy position. To argue against a deliberately weak position of the other side _already_ makes theism seem indefensibly weak. (Why argue like that if theism is ironclad? You could just argue against the strongest position of the other side and your belief would emerge unscathed.) So yes, when people claim a multiverse *exists* without evidence, they're as irrational as theists. However, when the multiverse is presented as *logical possibility* in response to "either god caused the universe, or nothing do", that's not an irrational argument. It demonstrates that the theist's dichotomy (god or nothing) is wrong. Quite frequently when I express doubt about god to theists, they accuse me of claiming "nothing caused the universe", and so they quite frequently _actually make this argument._ We don't have evidence a god exists. Beliefs are only justified if we have good reason to think an idea is true, and the lack of evidence is a lack of reason to think "god(s) exist" is true. To ignore that and simply pretend God will open minds sort of implies truth doesn't matter to you. Well I think it should matter to you. I care about you and want you not to be misled by falsehoods.
@majmageАй бұрын
Do theists notice how evasive they are when defending the idea? For example Teleological Arguments for god center on apparent design (it's also called the Argument from Design sometimes). Well *is evidence of a god causing the design ever presented?* No. It's never presented. *Therefore the argument is god of the gaps.* We see something (apparent design), and despite lacking any evidenced explanation, the theist jumps to "god did it" as their explanation. So we don't even need to criticize whether it actually looks designed (the specific things the theist mentions, like the universe, often _don't_ appear designed!). No we don't have to hit that because unless they have evidence a god was involved, then it's argument from ignorance; it's god of the gaps. I'm calling the questioner evasive because he immediately tries to turn things back on the atheist. Sorry, that's not how it works: theists actually make these god of the gaps arguments, _and they're undeniably god of the gaps,_ so unless theists stop making the arguments (and maybe the questioner does; maybe Craig does) then theists are going to keep being accused of it. Really the solution is simple: slam down strong, logical evidence of a god. Funny how you never see that.
@goldenarm2118Ай бұрын
God is the inference of the apparent design; in contrast to naturalism. Thus the apparent design is the evidence. You seem to look past the evidence and it's inference in order to demand something that is not necessary.
@majmageАй бұрын
@@goldenarm2118 Are you even a real person? Why are you failing to see that you've made exactly the mistake I've pointed out? *Is the apparent design you mentioned evidence of Space Elves?* Gary says space elves caused our universe. We look to the universe and him and you agree there's apparent design. Does that design indicate elves? It's a serious question. Tell me why or why not it's evidence of elves. Just realize that if you start explaining why the universe isn't evidence of space elves, you're basically going to be telling me the exact reason it's not evidence of a god either.
@goldenarm2118Ай бұрын
@@majmage You don't seem to understand; is that intentional or not? Perhaps its my inability to explain well. There are only two alternatives to design; natural causes or supernatural causes. Your example of "elves" could be either, depending on how you define the term. If the elves are not natural (i.e. physical), then they are "god".
@majmageАй бұрын
@@goldenarm2118 Take a moment to consider 100% of the design we've ever seen. Now was it: A. 100% naturally-caused B. A mix of natural/supernatural, or C. 100% supernaturally-caused? Do you see how the appearance of design doesn't take us one step towards the supernatural, because 100% of the things we have evidence of actually being designed (you know, like the games I made; I'm literally a game designer!) were designed here inside the universe. Naturally. Well when you play a game, you aren't a god (even in games where you're in charge of some other universe). You're still just a human. So the suggestion that all supernatural causes must be gods makes it feel like you don't know what the definition of "god" is -- perhaps look that up before responding again, because nobody forces you to argue such a being exists if you read the definition and realize it's definitely not something we know exists (spoiler: it isn't something we know exists). But if you say a god exists then it can't just be anything. Those elves aren't gods. Maybe they're just mortals of a different species playing our universe as a videogame.
@therick363Ай бұрын
@@goldenarm2118so then couldn’t we say that because we observe natural phenomena, causes, effects and events then I can infer that there is a natural explanation for everything based off that evidence?
@Theo_SkeptomaiАй бұрын
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._* And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality. 1. I personally have never observed a god. 2. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god. 3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 4. I have never been presented withany _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality. 5. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true. 6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 8. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 9. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._ 11. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god. ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
@stephenkaake7016Ай бұрын
I was given a greater mind, this mind revealed the truth, Gods are part of the Mind-Verse, a mind is not a product of a material input
@Theo_SkeptomaiАй бұрын
@@stephenkaake7016 Whatever.
@johnharrison6745Ай бұрын
@@Theo_Skeptomai No; you're just a god denier/hater whose definition of 'atheist' is wrong/silly, and, who uses ANY alleged unknown to justify/promote/secure 'non-belief' in god. You're a propagandizing serpent; and, you're not even very good at it. Peace with you is wrong; giving such serpents the ' "bruising" heel' treatment is right.
@rosamorales729Ай бұрын
@@Theo_SkeptomaiBy posting this you are begging to be reported for spam.
@Theo_SkeptomaiАй бұрын
@rosamorales729 So, do you think I am _rationally justified_ in my position of atheism?
@CynHicks27 күн бұрын
It seems like this channel is being attacked by devout, and faithful athiests. If you're one of those, I understand because I was one of those too until around 40yo. Just like Hitchens; no evidence could possibly convince me because I could easily explain it away with an assumption for which I couldn't prove. I'm on my death bed taking my last breaths and all of a sudden I'm looking at myself and the room? Dream, duh. I get taken off to some place and an entity that seems to be God is judging me? Chemical processes in the natural world, duh. It's an illusion. I'm essentially hallucinating. That was me too. Well guess what; the material world is barely understood along with consciousness.
@williamgeorgepeter2969Ай бұрын
The last instruction of JESUS YESHUA is that you must be witnesses to Me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, Samaria and to the end of the 🌍 world. Dr.Craig explained a bunch of arguments for God's existence, but finally he said, all of these reasons we have for believing in God. So, JESUS made available evidence for God's existence but unfortunately theists & scholars like Dr.Craig waste their time without becoming a witness of JESUS & doing ineffective & unproductive arguments and these kinds of arguments and counter argument doesn't end & it's total waste, and these guys are trapped in the atheist arguments.
@Theo_SkeptomaiАй бұрын
What _evidentiary facts_ did this Jesus provide establishing the existence of this 'God'? Please present such an _evidentiary fact_ in a complete sentence.
@williamgeorgepeter2969Ай бұрын
@@Theo_Skeptomai Thank you, I begin with what JESUS saying to His apostles in Acts 1:8. You must be witnesses to Me throughout the world 🌍. Now you just consider the early Apostles who were with JESUS since He began His ministry, when He gave a sermon on the mountain, when He walked on water, when He turned water into wine, when He fed over five thousand through two fishes & five loaves, so these early Apostles were witnesses of JESUS YESHUA but according to JESUS they're yet to become witnesses, now what's the difference between according to JESUS and according to worldly peoples when it comes to the definition of a witness? The difference is that if anyone is a witness of JESUS according to JESUS then he must receive the Holy Spirit into his physical body, and that's the only criterion to become a witness of JESUS, therefore early Apostles were with JESUS over 3 years but still they didn't become witnesses but only on a Pentecostal day all of the early Apostles received the Holy Spirit & eventually become a witnesses of JESUS YESHUA. One can understand the difference between early Apostles prior to the Pentecostal day and Post-Pentecostal day, this is the reason the worldly way of understanding is different from the Godly way. Now, in the 21st century one can become a witness of JESUS as per the criterion when receives the Holy Spirit into his body, if anybody receives then eventually the age of the Holy Spirit is applicable to him, the age of the Holy Spirit is as of now 1991 years, since the day of Pentecost to up until now, therefore if anybody receives the Holy Spirit then eventually he can become a witness of JESUS and repeat what JESUS has done in the 1st century. For example, one can claim like JESUS claimed, one can even challenge like JESUS has challenged, the Jews demanded a sign from heaven that's similar to what atheists & skeptics are demanding the evidence for God now, thus, one can challenge the powers of death or bullets because the Holy Spirit indwelled physical body is the temple of God and it can't destroyed even by bullets, that's the reason JESUS made available His witnesses during the days as these, so the what JESUS has done in the 1st century can be repeated now in the 21st century that too objectively for the entire world to watch and come to know that God does exists. So, a witness of JESUS has evidence for the existence of God, and this kinds of evidence is found only in Judea Christianity, therefore it's the only true religion among the religions of the world. Unfortunately, scholars like Dr Craig are believers, who is a believer? A believer doesn't have the evidence, Dr.Craig may have interesting arguments but that's not going to be helpful, and it never ends.
@Theo_SkeptomaiАй бұрын
@williamgeorgepeter2969 How did you determine that this Jesus stated this to these supposed apostles. Who is providing this account?
@somerandom3247Ай бұрын
Do you have an example of something that began to exist? And what evidence do you have for the universe beginning to exist?
@justinarmas9052Ай бұрын
kzbin.info/www/bejne/hamqpIhupK6KoLssi=m8UKTGYLVlU9rSsO In this video we see how the concept of infinite is not consistent with the idea of an internally existent universe. I can't explain it any better than this video will. Dr. Craig has also explained this many times, much better than this video or I could.
@gordonepema722Ай бұрын
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity - led through several astronomers and physicists to the derivation of Hawking's theoretical proof of a singularity at the beginning of spacetime and the BigBang. Concomitant with that derivation was a prediction that there would be a remnant of such an event in the form of physical phenomena with particular characteristics, which were discovered with the predicted characteristics - the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson
@eltonron1558Ай бұрын
When the miracles necessary for our existence are taken for granted, of course, there's no God.
@pattubeАй бұрын
The "miracle" of the origin of life itself is at the very least a mystery that scientists have no real or viable theory or idea about and quite probably could serve as a premise in an argument for the existence of God. 😊
@optimus1212Ай бұрын
Normal humans wake up thinking of what they like and want to accomplish to benefit themselves and others. Atheists wake up thinking about what they hate and what they can accomplish to the hurt of their own emotional stability and how they can inflict their instability on others.
@JadDragonАй бұрын
Atheism is all gaps. Jesus lives! ♥️ and is God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
@therick363Ай бұрын
Atheism-not believing any gods exist. Theism-believing at least one god exists. Either both have gaps or neither have gaps. Which is it? Also, explain how atheism is all gaps………
@JadDragonАй бұрын
@@therick363 I wonder if you'll ever stop trolling
@therick363Ай бұрын
@@JadDragon Atheism-not believing any gods exist. Theism-believing at least one god exists. Either both have gaps or neither have gaps. Which is it? Also, explain how atheism is all gaps………
@JadDragonАй бұрын
@@therick363 I wonder if you'll ever stop trolling
@therick363Ай бұрын
@@JadDragon Atheism-not believing any gods exist. Theism-believing at least one god exists. Either both have gaps or neither have gaps. Which is it? Also, explain how atheism is all gaps………
@MichaelLaskey-u9dАй бұрын
I was homeless, did drugs, went into prison, where I got to know God. He changed my life. Now I have a home, a wife and a lovely year old daughter (zoe), and a stream of income that gats me $47,000 weekly. Plus a new identity - a child of God, Hallelujah!!!🇺🇲❣️♥️❤️
@MichaelLaskey-u9dАй бұрын
Thanks to Kate Elizabeth Becherer
@MichaelLaskey-u9dАй бұрын
She's a licensed broker in the states 🇺🇸
@MichaelLaskey-u9dАй бұрын
I always appreciate God for his kindness upon my life.
@NelsonMleek-s6cАй бұрын
How can i get in touch with her?
@MichaelLaskey-u9dАй бұрын
Alright, I'll leave her info below this comment
@mikejurney9102Ай бұрын
"Whatever begins to exit has a cause..." I don't know that you can identify the precise "beginning" of the universe since there may always be some state that proceeded it.
@johnharrison6745Ай бұрын
The "beginning" of the universe? The "moment" of expansion necessitated by singularity. To talk-of things "before" that is incoherent. 😉
@LawlessNateАй бұрын
That would imply an actually infinite quantity of past causes, which is mathematically and logically impossible. Actual quantitative infinities are impossible, therefore the number of past causes (in a chain of cause and effect from the past to the present) must be finite. Therefore there must be a first cause. Therefore the past cannot be infinite.
@Theo_SkeptomaiАй бұрын
@LawlessNate What an idiotic argument. Do you THINK before you type? Infinite regression is a known paradox, and, therefore, unsuitable as a candidate premise in any argument concluding that the universe can not possibly be eternal. It is utter nonsense. When you are do deluded into thinking mythological gods must exist in reality, this type of illogical nonsense is all you can come up with.
@LawlessNateАй бұрын
@@Theo_Skeptomai I think you didn't read what I wrote carefully enough. I pointed out that infinite regression is logically and mathematically impossible. I then pointed out that this fact means there must be an uncaused first cause. It's the non-theistic worldview that necessitates such an impossibility; your statement of "since there may always be some state that proceeded it." even eludes to it. If there's always a state that precedes whatever state came before, then you're thereby suggesting an infinite regress.
@johnharrison6745Ай бұрын
@@Theo_Skeptomai Yet infinite-regression "arguments" ARE used by god-deniers (like yourself) FREQUENTLY, against physical-reality being created. You were saying something about 'idiocy'..... 😏
@ObeytheroadrulesАй бұрын
Says the master of God of the gaps
@johnharrison6745Ай бұрын
He's the "master" of quite a few atheists too. He OWNS their "champions" and their MINDS. 😏
@ObeytheroadrulesАй бұрын
@@johnharrison6745 you mean when he lost debates to, Sean Carroll, Graham Oppy, Robert R Price, Bart Ehrman 🤔
@johnharrison6745Ай бұрын
@@Obeytheroadrules No; those events occurred only in the "minds" of wishful-thinkers. 😏
@ObeytheroadrulesАй бұрын
@@johnharrison6745 LOL , facts don’t care about your feelings
@johnharrison6745Ай бұрын
@@Obeytheroadrules Exactly. 😉
@11kravitznАй бұрын
The bible teaches cration from primordial elemental chaos, not creatio ex nihilo.
@Theo_SkeptomaiАй бұрын
No. The mythical account in Genesis is exactly that - _creatio ex nihilo._ I suggest you actually read the Bible before making such ridiculous claims.
@johnharrison6745Ай бұрын
@@Theo_Skeptomai I suggest you give CITATIONS to back-up your assertions, there, Teddy Spaghetti. [and, tell us, to WHAT was god "SPEAKING" when he said, 'Let there be...'] 😏
@Theo_SkeptomaiАй бұрын
@@johnharrison6745 Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth." If you had ever read the first sentence I'd the Bible, you would caught your error. Like I stated, read the Bible FIRST, before making ridiculous assertions.
@johnharrison6745Ай бұрын
@@Theo_Skeptomai And, where in that sentence is it stated that he 'created' those things from 'absolute-zero-things', Teddy Spaghetti? 😏
@Theo_SkeptomaiАй бұрын
@@johnharrison6745 The fact that this passage doesn't mention any material, medium, or source as an antecedent for any such "production". This myth OBVIOUSLY state it is the first of the creations. Do you endeavor to remain ignorant?