Ringtone
Platinum Member
- Sep 3, 2019
- 6,142
- 3,522
- 940
(To read the refutation you must have a Youtube account and log in before clicking on the link to my discussion page on Youtube. I'm Michael Rawlings by the way.)
See Cosmic Skeptic's video Cosmic Skeptic at the ACSJ: "Does The Universe Have a Cause?"
(Note: I don't know how to indent in YouTube comments, so all quotations are emboldened. Also, it was necessary to use parenthesis in an unorthodox manner on a few occasions where brackets would ordinarily be used because of the way YouTube codes certain types of bracketed information inside emboldened text. )
Part I. Everything Needs a Cause?!
In order to understand the ultimate essence of Cosmic Skeptic's (or Alex's) erroneous critique one must first understand what makes the Kalam Cosmological Argument of the Sunni tradition unique: namely, it evinces why the necessary existent must be a personal free agent! But first we need to flush Alex's most obnoxious straw man (beginning at 4:19 in the video) down the toilet where it belongs and spray the entire contents of a can of air freshener to eliminate the lingering stench of it.
One has to wonder whether Alex is even listening to himself when he observes that cosmological arguments proceed from the necessity of a non-contingent existent and then in the very next breath obtusely prattles: "But of course it takes but the logic of a five-year-old to ask, 'Okay, well, if everything needs a cause, then what caused God?' "
crickets chirping
Zoom! Right over his head.
Apparently, Alex lives in a bubble and is utterly unaware of the fact that Dawkins, who infamously asks the same stupid question in The God Delusion, has been excoriated from virtually every germane quarter of academia for his jejune philosophical babble. No. Actually, even most five-year-olds can readily grasp the necessity of an eternal, non-contingent existent of some kind given that something does in fact exist rather than nothing. Apparently, it takes a twenty-something-year-old atheist—who less than five minutes into his lecture has shown himself to be a fool on the order of Polonius—to ask what caused that which by definition is an uncaused cause to exist, call it "a fair question" and imagine that men like Al-Kindi, Al-Ghazali and Aquinas were retards. (Earth to Alex: no apologist of classical theism would ever argue against the logical principles of eternalism and sufficient causality, let alone say anything as imbecilic as everything has a cause of its existence. You are the imbecile in this instance who doesn't fly anywhere near the altitude of these men's intellects.)
But the idiocy doesn't stop there. . . .
The rest of the refutation
See Cosmic Skeptic's video Cosmic Skeptic at the ACSJ: "Does The Universe Have a Cause?"
(Note: I don't know how to indent in YouTube comments, so all quotations are emboldened. Also, it was necessary to use parenthesis in an unorthodox manner on a few occasions where brackets would ordinarily be used because of the way YouTube codes certain types of bracketed information inside emboldened text. )
Part I. Everything Needs a Cause?!
In order to understand the ultimate essence of Cosmic Skeptic's (or Alex's) erroneous critique one must first understand what makes the Kalam Cosmological Argument of the Sunni tradition unique: namely, it evinces why the necessary existent must be a personal free agent! But first we need to flush Alex's most obnoxious straw man (beginning at 4:19 in the video) down the toilet where it belongs and spray the entire contents of a can of air freshener to eliminate the lingering stench of it.
One has to wonder whether Alex is even listening to himself when he observes that cosmological arguments proceed from the necessity of a non-contingent existent and then in the very next breath obtusely prattles: "But of course it takes but the logic of a five-year-old to ask, 'Okay, well, if everything needs a cause, then what caused God?' "
crickets chirping
Zoom! Right over his head.
Apparently, Alex lives in a bubble and is utterly unaware of the fact that Dawkins, who infamously asks the same stupid question in The God Delusion, has been excoriated from virtually every germane quarter of academia for his jejune philosophical babble. No. Actually, even most five-year-olds can readily grasp the necessity of an eternal, non-contingent existent of some kind given that something does in fact exist rather than nothing. Apparently, it takes a twenty-something-year-old atheist—who less than five minutes into his lecture has shown himself to be a fool on the order of Polonius—to ask what caused that which by definition is an uncaused cause to exist, call it "a fair question" and imagine that men like Al-Kindi, Al-Ghazali and Aquinas were retards. (Earth to Alex: no apologist of classical theism would ever argue against the logical principles of eternalism and sufficient causality, let alone say anything as imbecilic as everything has a cause of its existence. You are the imbecile in this instance who doesn't fly anywhere near the altitude of these men's intellects.)
But the idiocy doesn't stop there. . . .
The rest of the refutation