VIDEO: Atheists Confounded as MIT Scientist Offers Proof that God Exists!

[Where_r_my_Keys]

In the context of this argument God can neither be proven or disproved.

False...

God is the Creator. You exist as a function of the Creation, therefore the Creation exist, ergo: God Exist.

Did you feel that there was something complex in there?

Do you see the logical error in what you've just posted?

Nope... but I can't wait until you tell me what it is.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Did Jesus really impregnate his own mother and become his own father?

Peyote is not for breakfast, Dude

 

[occupied]

In the context of this argument God can neither be proven or disproved.

False...

God is the Creator. You exist as a function of the Creation, therefore the Creation exist, ergo: God Exist.

Did you feel that there was something complex in there?

You are extrapolating the cause from the lingering effects.

Yeah... because that is all that is possible TO DO.

Point at God without using anything in the physical universe to describe "him".

Happy to do so. God is the creator of the laws of the universe... Laws such as cause and effect; for instance, the law wherein one pays someone to not produce and the odds of them producing are slim to none... or the law which provides that what one generation tolerates the next will embrace and so on and so forth.

You cannot.

Ooops... I see you've got some revising to do, so I should let ya get to it.

Thanks for stopping by.

You pointed to god by pointing to the universe, please focus. Even you must comprehend the concept of cause and effect. There was almost certainly a singular event that caused our universe to come into being but nothing positively says it was a deliberate act by a creator. What existed before or still exists outside our universe ,if anything, is UNKNOWABLE. We are getting dangerously close to the point where you are taking my counter argument as an attack on your faith, please keep things on a purely rational level, I try to avoid attacking people for their personal faith, if it makes people happy then who am I to stomp on that?

 

[SwimExpert]

Nope... but I can't wait until you tell me what it is.

Your logical fallacy is begging the question

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What created god?

Is there some relevance to that?

If so, what would that relevance be?

One of the fundamental premises of first cause arguments is that there must be a cause to the universe's existence which is outside of the universe, because causality is a necessity for anything to happen.

Well, that's only because in reality... for there to be an effect, there is a cause.

But the failing here is that it leads to an infinite regression searching for causes before the earliest identified cause.

There's no regression... reason does not require certainty to hypothesize.

Thus, arguing that God must exist so as to satisfy causality implies the same necessity for a preceding cause for God's existence.

That some must have preceded God, does not undermine the potential for God to exist. Neither does it provide for the relevance of the question. Such is the nature of infinity. We assume that because we can't know the fact, the fact doesn't exist. But... in truth, such does exist, it simply exists within the purview of our ignorance... which is the status of roughly 99.9999999999~% of just our universe.

When I was a child "trillion" was nothing but a hypothetical number used by physicists... today, it expresses annual federal DEFICIT.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nope... but I can't wait until you tell me what it is.

Your logical fallacy is begging the question

False... You feel that God is whatever you've been lead to believe God is. When in truth, God is whatever force that created the universe.

That such does not fit into your feckless understanding is neither a problem for God, nor myself.

And with regard to Petitio Principii; that you question the assertion does not a circular argument, make.

Understand scamp?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I opened this thread expecting some kind of weak and trite version of the First Cause dilemma. Instead, it turns out to be a pathetic apologist version of the First Cause dilemma with underlying grandiose delusions. This guy is saying "I'm a scientist and I don't know what this is, so it must be God."

I will send you $1000 Dollars, if you can quote from that video the SPECIFICS uttered by that Scientists, which sustain your 'feelings'.

(Now the reader should know, that having watched that video, I know for an incontrovertible fact, that there is NOTHING in that video which is even remotely close to what that contributor projects... So, don't sweat it, there's no risk here whatsoever.)

I watched the video too. His argument boils down to 1) The universe had a beginning, 2) Outside of the universe there is nothing, 3) The laws of physics must have "predated" the beginning of the universe, 4) Therefore, it must be God.

I think the problem here is that you probably don't know what First Cause arguments are. So you don't recognize this as being an incarnation of the First Cause argument.

I get it, you are heavily invested in the First Clause farce. FACT: For there to be an effect, there is a cause.

You feel that because someone out there demands that there was nothing before God, that this is a slam dunk refutation of God is NONSENSE.

First, We have no idea of the composition of God.

Second, our ignorance of God's composition does not reduce the potential for God to exist.

Third, God is the creator of the force which we recognize as the universe, nature and all that exist around us.

Fourth, we know virtually NOTHING about the universe that exists around us...

Fifth, that ignorance has had ZERO effect on the presence of that would-be reality.

(See what this is headin' ?)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Now you have to convince us this god came here in the form of Jesus and performed magic.

What Magic did Jesus perform?

Walked on water healed the terminally sick was born of a virgin and turned 5 loaves and 3 fish into enough food for 5000

What's magical about any of that? Looks like the simple manipulation of matter to me.

Are you trying to say that 'matter cannot be manipulated'?

You guys are a hoot. George Carlin was right. Greatest bullshit story of all time. If you don't get it when someone is embellishing a legend and telling you a story about when their lord visited?;Why don't you believe Joe smith like millions of Mormons? Because you weren't born in Utah and you don't believe Allah because you weren't born in Saudi Arabia.

What is your point? Or did ya just feel the compulsion to jump in without the need to actually have one?

 

[occupied]

Nope... but I can't wait until you tell me what it is.

Your logical fallacy is begging the question

False... You feel that God is whatever you've been lead to believe God is. When in truth, God is whatever force that created the universe.

That such does not fit into your feckless understanding is neither a problem for God, nor myself.

And with regard to Petitio Principii; that you question the assertion does not a circular argument, make.

Understand scamp?

You need to read your own words. You feel that God is whatever you have been led to believe just like everyone who has ever considered the question. No one here is arguing that God does not exist, we are arguing that in regards to the beginning of the universe there is no way to know for certain at this time.

 

[alan1]

What created god?

Is there some relevance to that?

If so, what would that relevance be?

Try responding to the entire post next time. It adds context.

 

[SwimExpert]

Well, that's only because in reality... for there to be an effect, there is a cause.

Your statement assumes causality. Perhaps the universe is not an effect. Perhaps it merely is.

But even if we accept your premise, it still leads you right back to Alan's question. What created God?

There's no regression... reason does not require certainty to hypothesize.

That you say this shows that you lack both an education/knowledge regarding the First Cause issue, as well as any kind of understanding of it.

The infinite regression of causality is inherent to the nature of the First Cause question. The regression is, in fact, fundamental to arriving at the question of a First Cause to begin with. What caused today? Today was caused by yesterday. What caused yesterday? The day before that. What caused the day before yesterday? The day before that. So on and so forth. It is through this regression that we arrive to the question of what caused the universe? If you demand that there must be a cause for the universe, then you why don't you demand that there also be a cause for God?

That some must have preceded God, does not undermine the potential for God to exist.

But First Cause arguments aren't about potential for God's existence. A First Cause argument claims a necessity for God's existence. Those are two drastically different things. There's potential that life exists somewhere else in the universe, but it's not necessary.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I can PROVE that god exists. Back in 1958, my grandmother prayed that it would not rain, because she was going shopping that day.

It DIDN'T!

 

[SwimExpert]

You feel that because someone out there demands that there was nothing before God, that this is a slam dunk refutation of God is NONSENSE.

No, that's not what I said at all. Everything I have said here has been an illustration of why First Cause arguments (like what the person in the video is making) are inadequate.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well, that's only because in reality... for there to be an effect, there is a cause.

Your statement assumes causality. Perhaps the universe is not an effect. Perhaps it merely is.

But even if we accept your premise, it still leads you right back to Alan's question. What created God?

There's no regression... reason does not require certainty to hypothesize.

That you say this shows that you lack both an education/knowledge regarding the First Cause issue, as well as any kind of understanding of it.

The infinite regression of causality is inherent to the nature of the First Cause question. The regression is, in fact, fundamental to arriving at the question of a First Cause to begin with. What caused today? Today was caused by yesterday. What caused yesterday? The day before that. What caused the day before yesterday? The day before that. So on and so forth. It is through this regression that we arrive to the question of what caused the universe? If you demand that there must be a cause for the universe, then you why don't you demand that there also be a cause for God?

That some must have preceded God, does not undermine the potential for God to exist.

But First Cause arguments aren't about potential for God's existence. A First Cause argument claims a necessity for God's existence. Those are two drastically different things. There's potential that life exists somewhere else in the universe, but it's not necessary.

God exists... that is a fact. Now, what is that fact based upon? It is based upon reason.

Can reason establish a fact? Of course it can. Right up to the point where contravening reason or tangible evidence refutes it.

God is the Creator of the Universe... The Universe exist, therefore the Creator Exist.

That we do not understand what God IS... is IRRELEVANT to the argument. That God must have been caused by something else, is likewise irrelevant. That some people deny that God was not created by something else is just as irrelevant... .

See how that works?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You feel that because someone out there demands that there was nothing before God, that this is a slam dunk refutation of God is NONSENSE.

No, that's not what I said at all. Everything I have said here has been an illustration of why First Cause arguments (like what the person in the video is making) are inadequate.

First cause arguments are not being made by anyone but YOU sir.

You seem determined to project such upon me... now would you like to tell the board what fatal flaw THAT represents?

(Psst... Think: Scarecrow)

 

[SwimExpert]

False... You feel that God is whatever you've been lead to believe God is. When in truth, God is whatever force that created the universe.

My beliefs have nothing to do with anything. The fallacy is in the structure of your argument.

And with regard to Petitio Principii; that you question the assertion does not a circular argument, make.

It has nothing to do with me questioning an assertion. It has to do with you establishing your assertion. Your argument assumes the that God exists, and uses that assumption to conclude that God exists. That is question begging.

 

[SwimExpert]

First cause arguments are not being made by anyone but YOU sir.

You seem determined to project such upon me... now would you like to tell the board what fatal flaw THAT represents?

(Psst... Think: Scarecrow)

The speaker in the video is making a First Cause argument. If you are not capable of understanding that, then you should probably seek some higher education before trying to proceed further. That the speaker is making a First Cause argument is not even debatable by anyone who knows what they're talking about.

 

[occupied]

Well, that's only because in reality... for there to be an effect, there is a cause.

Your statement assumes causality. Perhaps the universe is not an effect. Perhaps it merely is.

But even if we accept your premise, it still leads you right back to Alan's question. What created God?

There's no regression... reason does not require certainty to hypothesize.

That you say this shows that you lack both an education/knowledge regarding the First Cause issue, as well as any kind of understanding of it.

The infinite regression of causality is inherent to the nature of the First Cause question. The regression is, in fact, fundamental to arriving at the question of a First Cause to begin with. What caused today? Today was caused by yesterday. What caused yesterday? The day before that. What caused the day before yesterday? The day before that. So on and so forth. It is through this regression that we arrive to the question of what caused the universe? If you demand that there must be a cause for the universe, then you why don't you demand that there also be a cause for God?

That some must have preceded God, does not undermine the potential for God to exist.

But First Cause arguments aren't about potential for God's existence. A First Cause argument claims a necessity for God's existence. Those are two drastically different things. There's potential that life exists somewhere else in the universe, but it's not necessary.

God exists... that is a fact. Now, what is that fact based upon? It is based upon reason.

Can reason establish a fact? Of course it can. Right up to the point where contravening reason or tangible evidence refutes it.

God is the Creator of the Universe... The Universe exist, therefore the Creator Exist.

That we do not understand what God IS... is IRRELEVANT to the argument. That God must have been caused by something else, is likewise irrelevant. That some people deny that God was not created by something else is just as irrelevant... .

See how that works?

Yeah, you state belief as fact and expect people to just accept things as given, you suck at this.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well, that's only because in reality... for there to be an effect, there is a cause.

Your statement assumes causality. Perhaps the universe is not an effect. Perhaps it merely is.

We know, to an absolute certainty that such is not the case, that the universe DID begin at a single moment in space/time. And while there are some oddballs who 'feel' otherwise, without exception, each one of those oddballs is a humanist who takes that position SUBJECTIVELY. There is simply no science which supports a stagnate universe and the notion of a expansion/contraction has been soundly refuted, time and time again.

But even if we accept your premise, it still leads you right back to Alan's question. What created God?

The question 'What Created God' is irrelevant and it serves no purpose beyond distraction.

We don't need to know where the highway began, to understand that the highway exist... .

There's no regression... reason does not require certainty to hypothesize.

That you say this shows that you lack both an education/knowledge regarding the First Cause issue, as well as any kind of understanding of it.

The infinite regression of causality is inherent to the nature of the First Cause question. The regression is, in fact, fundamental to arriving at the question of a First Cause to begin with. What caused today? Today was caused by yesterday. What caused yesterday? The day before that. What caused the day before yesterday? The day before that. So on and so forth. It is through this regression that we arrive to the question of what caused the universe? If you demand that there must be a cause for the universe, then you why don't you demand that there also be a cause for God?

Again... such is purely a function of deflection. If you accept the thesis that because we can't know everything we know nothing, knowledge becomes fairly unlikely.

That some must have preceded God, does not undermine the potential for God to exist.

But First Cause arguments aren't about potential for God's existence. A First Cause argument claims a necessity for God's existence. Those are two drastically different things. There's potential that life exists somewhere else in the universe, but it's not necessary.[/QUOTE]

False... You feel that God is whatever you've been lead to believe God is. When in truth, God is whatever force that created the universe.

My beliefs have nothing to do with anything. The fallacy is in the structure of your argument.

That might be a fine rebuttal, if it were not for your failure to sustain your assertion that my reasoning is fatally flawed.

You should probably get to it, and don't forget that the circular response has already been refuted.

 

[sealybobo]

Well, that's only because in reality... for there to be an effect, there is a cause.

Your statement assumes causality. Perhaps the universe is not an effect. Perhaps it merely is.

But even if we accept your premise, it still leads you right back to Alan's question. What created God?

There's no regression... reason does not require certainty to hypothesize.

That you say this shows that you lack both an education/knowledge regarding the First Cause issue, as well as any kind of understanding of it.

The infinite regression of causality is inherent to the nature of the First Cause question. The regression is, in fact, fundamental to arriving at the question of a First Cause to begin with. What caused today? Today was caused by yesterday. What caused yesterday? The day before that. What caused the day before yesterday? The day before that. So on and so forth. It is through this regression that we arrive to the question of what caused the universe? If you demand that there must be a cause for the universe, then you why don't you demand that there also be a cause for God?

That some must have preceded God, does not undermine the potential for God to exist.

But First Cause arguments aren't about potential for God's existence. A First Cause argument claims a necessity for God's existence. Those are two drastically different things. There's potential that life exists somewhere else in the universe, but it's not necessary.

God exists... that is a fact. Now, what is that fact based upon? It is based upon reason.

Can reason establish a fact? Of course it can. Right up to the point where contravening reason or tangible evidence refutes it.

God is the Creator of the Universe... The Universe exist, therefore the Creator Exist.

That we do not understand what God IS... is IRRELEVANT to the argument. That God must have been caused by something else, is likewise irrelevant. That some people deny that God was not created by something else is just as irrelevant... .

See how that works?

Every reason you give comes with some fatal flaw. Your argument has holes.