A logical argument for God (my audio response)

[Stargazer]

Forewarned is forearmed. Thank you, Smelly.

[Davin]

The "logical" part is misleading.

[psychodiva]

oh another drive-by idiot? as if we'd watch the fucking thing *Yawn*

[dogpet]

Any chance of a transcription caller? The speakers are broken.

[Michael]

Hey, I know you! You're that dullard from atheistforums.com!

Sorry, I think you'll find we're even bigger assholes over here (that's what the "raving" in "raving atheists" stands for), but if you can get past all the pictures of shit and pig/sheep sex that we'll probably throw your way, well, congratulations I guess.


Actually, I don't think we'll be seeing you again. Oh well.

[Smellyoldgit]

Ooo, we haven't had an allah turd dropped in here for quite a while - how exciting!

[Michael]

And for what it's worth - I did start watching your video. I made it to about 57 seconds before I stopped.

Why? Because in that 57 seconds I saw enough to show that you're talking crap.

Approximately 37 seconds in:

"The argument for a non-physical reality which is the originator and cause of all physical reality including time itself".

Most of that is bullshit. It's words strung together with no definition trying to sounds deep. I would put money on you never providing a definition for any of those points during the entire 12:19 video, either.

What is a "non-physical reality"? Hell, what do you define as a "reality" at all, and what are the properties of it that make it non-physical?

I'll give you a tip to help you straight off the bat - in answering this, and defining a "reality" - don't define it in physical terms (ie "a reality is everything we can experience"), as you've already shown that you think a reality can be a non-physical property.


You start right off the bat with word salad. You then go to:


Approximately 53 seconds:

"Something has always existed".

This is a presuppositional argument, then, which already makes it full of shit.
You have no proof or reason to think that "something has always existed".
Therefore, to base your entire argument on something that you have no proof for or reason to believe, your entire argument is already gone. House built on sand and all that bullshit.



Approximately 55 seconds:

"atheists and theists agree on it".

No. No we don't. There are several things wrong with this.

Firstly, atheists don't think that at all. All the atheists I know will more likely say that we don't have any information to go by on that, so we don't have an opinion on it one way or the other. It's possible, sure, but that doesn't mean there is any reason to believe it has to be the case that something has always existed.

Hell, I'm pretty sure there are theists that don't believe this either.

Secondly, who are you to speak on behalf of not only all theists, but all atheists, and what we believe? That's generally a dick move.





So there you go, 57 seconds in and already you've got:

1) Poorly written word-salad with no definitions for anything in your argument.
2) A basis for your argument that has nothing to support it.
3) A mis-representation of not only what atheists believe, but I suspect some theists also.
4) A clear sign that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.




So, after not even a minute and massive warning bells going off, why the fuck would I bother finishing this piece of crap video?

[Smellyoldgit]

In summary:-

Michael wrote

.... you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

[Michael]

Pretty much sums it up, yeah.

[Simoon]

Michael wrote

Hey, I know you! You're that dullard from atheistforums.com!

Yep, same guy,

Funny thing is, that after all his crap was refuted over there, he promised to return with his counter arguments. He has yet to do that, yet here he is posting the same crap here after he was supposed to defend his arguments at atheistforums.

Some theists don't seem to understand that once their arguments have been refuted, they've been refuted. Offering them somewhere else in hopes no one there can refute them, doesn't make the argument any more valid.

[Smellyoldgit]

It's amusing to see the bland, baby mittened forums trying to gently coax and persuade the passing tards into submission - whereas the ahem, less controlled places call them out on their shit so much earlier and in rather more colourful language.

[nkb]

Smellyoldgit wrote

It's amusing to see the bland, baby mittened forums trying to gently coax and persuade the passing tards into submission - whereas the ahem, less controlled places call them out on their shit so much earlier and in rather more colourful language.

Which type of forum are we?

[Smellyoldgit]

I'd probably put us in the 'quick to spot shit' and 'call a twat a twat' league.
Of course, the 'DYDA' approach is still there for use.

[Andrew66]

Hello

Thank you for explaning your believe in a non-physical - atemporal - first cause as explanation for our present experienced physical reality.

It is actually a well known argument argued routinely by William Lane Craig - Christian apologist.

Here are two problems with your model.

1) Your model asserts that a non-physical necessary or agent (i.e. an agent devoid of space, time, energy, matter) must have caused the beginning of our physical existence - universe or multiverse. Energy is in simplist terms defined as the capacity to perform work. Your proposed non-physical necessary agent however must have used energy by definition to perform the work of physical creation. Hence a non-physical first cause explanation is non-sensible. In other words, the law of conservation of energy is in violation by your model, and you have not explained how this is possible.

2) Your model suggests that to prevent an eternal regress of apriori changes of state that a first cause must be atemporal or changeless. From experience, atemporal / changeless entities do not however have the capacity to initiate change - as there is no means (without temporality as a precondition) to trigger the action that is required. In other words, as causation is a temporal phenomenum it is non sensible to propose an atemporal first cause, and you have not explained how this is possible.

Good try, we Theist philosophers have all gone through the same thinking you have presented, but in the end you will eventually find that their is unfortunately no complellling rationale argument fo God's existence - and that belief (or at least hope) in God is a matter of faith.

[Andrew66]

Michael wrote

"Something has always existed".

This is a presuppositional argument, then, which already makes it full of shit.
You have no proof or reason to think that "something has always existed".
Therefore, to base your entire argument on something that you have no proof for or reason to believe, your entire argument is already gone. House built on sand and all that bullshit.



Approximately 55 seconds:

"atheists and theists agree on it".

No. No we don't. There are several things wrong with this.

Firstly, atheists don't think that at all. All the atheists I know will more likely say that we don't have any information to go by on that, so we don't have an opinion on it one way or the other. It's possible, sure, but that doesn't mean there is any reason to believe it has to be the case that something has always existed.

Hell, I'm pretty sure there are theists that don't believe this either.

Dear Michael

I must defend the assertion that atheists and theists generally agree that "something has always existed".

If you read the main books written by top atheists - scientists and physicists in particular (Dawkins, Krause,) and Theists (Craig, Ross) alike, as well as any serious blog or internet post on the topic, all serious thinkers concede that something must have always existed.

All this means is that there could never have been absolutely nothing (no existence) - as without some existance there is no capacity for change or evolution to explain our present condition.

You may be confused by scientific notions that something can come from "nothing" in quantum mechanics, such as quantum fluctuations and virtual particles - which seem to pop into existance for no reason. However pre-conditions of space, time, and a fluctuating gravitations field are needed as a requisite to produce these events - hence there is no known entity or event in science which is known, or even theorized to date which pop's out of nothing (meaning non-existence).

The author's arugments are flawed for other reasons, but not this one.