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

[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?

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

Sadly, for your feelings, that you do not accept truth, has no actual bearing upon truth.

LOL! But there is no way you could have known that. As it rests within objective reasoning. And that is not within the intellectual scope of the lowly relativist.

(But hey! I can see that you're doin' the best you can... and I want you to know that I can see that. So buck up. At some point, you're bound to strike a valid point. The odds of probability require it. )

 

[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?

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

Well sure... and just because you can't speak to so much as a single one, that doesn't mean that my argument isn't flawed.


It only means that you have no idea what those potential flaws might be. Which refutes your most recent assertion... nonetheless.

(Pretty cool, huh?)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

And you're making a straw argument.

So... does that in some way rinse your argument of validity?

.

.

.

.

.

.

(Psst... yes. It does... .)

 

[Skylar]

Not the punitive father figure sitting on a throne meting out punishment for transgressors, but an “Incomprehensible” intelligence that Genesis was attempting to describe to us thousands of years ago.

Gerald Schroeder is a scientist with over thirty years of research and teaching experience. He earned his Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctorate degrees at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology(MIT). His doctorate thesis was supervised by physics professor Robley D. Evans. After five more years teaching in the MIT physics department Schroeder moved to Israel, where he joined the Weizmann Institute of Science. He later joined the Volcani Research Institute and ran a research laboratory at The Hebrew University. He holds Doctorate degrees in both Physics and Earth Sciences.

VIDEO: MIT scientist Gerald Schroeder explains the conclusive scientific discovery of God.



Enjoy... .

Um.....where are the 'confounded Athiests'? Because I see only one guy.

 

[Skylar]

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.

And you're making a straw argument.

So... does that in some way rinse your argument of validity?

No, he's stating a fact. That's just a generic 'first cause' argument. And atheists aren't 'confounded' by a first cause argument.

 

[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.

Sadly, for your feelings, that you do not accept truth, has no actual bearing upon truth.

LOL! But there is no way you could have known that. As it rests within objective reasoning. And that is not within the intellectual scope of the lowly relativist.

(But hey! I can see that you're doin' the best you can... and I want you to know that I can see that. So buck up. At some point, you're bound to strike a valid point. The odds of probability require it. )

LOL, an unfocused ridicule smokescreen of pseudo-intellectualism! I can see through it easily though. You have run headlong into the brick wall people who try to argue for the existence of a creator all run into, eventually it all comes down to faith. Don't feel bad, far better debaters than you have been stymied at this point too.

 

[Skylar]

God exists... that is a fact.

That's an assumption. The argument being offered is a first mover argument. And a first mover argument doesn't mandate a god. It simply allows for one.

Your conclusion isn't supported by your evidence.

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's a circular argument. Where your evidence and your conclusion are the exact same thing. That's not reason. That's a classic fallacy of logic.

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.

Obviously its immediately relevant. As if the first mover isn't the first mover, then by your own standards, it couldn't be god.

See how that works?

 

[ninja007]

to all the atheists; what is more LOGICAL. Believing their is a higher power who created all of this or it just happened by chance, out of nothing out of nowhere?

 

[edthecynic]

The only purpose that is evident is to undergo continually accelerating entropy until the universe reaches heat death many billions of years from now.

The theoretical "heat death of the universe" is the point where all the energy in the universe has been converted into heat and therefore no "work" can be done. That means that all motion in the universe must stop because motion is Kinetic energy and can do work. That means that the universe cannot be expanding or contracting and no electrons can be orbiting their nucleus. This violates the Third Law of Thermodynamics which says that there is no temperature at which all motion stops.

 

[edthecynic]

to all the atheists; what is more LOGICAL. Believing their is a higher power who created all of this or it just happened by chance, out of nothing out of nowhere?

To an Atheist, those are not the only choices!

 

[orogenicman]

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."

It's the god of the gaps argument all over again. Sad, that.

 

[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.

And you're making a straw argument.

I'm making a list of basic concepts that apparently are beyond your comprehension, as demonstrated in this thread.

-Question begging fallacy
-First Cause argument

And now, it seems straw-man fallacy must be added to the list as well. Which is leading me to believe that the real issue here is not whether you've proven the existence of God. It's that you have demonstrably proven that neither your education nor intelligence exist.

 

[guno]

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

 

[Hollie]

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


Stay tuned. The next video will give you the secrets to regrow a full head of hair.

Plus, if you call within the next ten minutes.......

 

[Moonglow]

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


Stay tuned. The next video will give you the secrets to regrow a full head of hair.

Plus, if you call within the next ten minutes.......

Everybody on your knees!! Now!!

 

[SwimExpert]

We know, to an absolute certainty that such is not the case, that the universe DID begin at a single moment in space/time.

First of all, we don't know "with certainty" that the universe began at a moment in time. Second even if we assume that such is true, that the universe has a beginning does not have any bearing on whether that beginning has a cause.

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.

Not quite.

Theories of an oscillating universe have generally found difficulties in regards to the second law of thermodynamics, i.e. the fact that the entropy only increases and thus any cyclic model of the universe will eventually lead to heat death. However, this does not defeat the theories in any way. Repeating cycles do not necessarily have to repeat indefinitely.

More importantly, there has been alot of work done in the 21st century that is offering possible solutions. One theory avoids heat death ever occurring due to expanding branes.

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... .

No, you are just biased. You are the one arguing that the universe must have a cause, and using that demand to claim the existence of God as a necessary consequence of your premise. Questioning the cause of God is a logically necessary consequence of your argument. If the universe must have a cause, then God must have a cause as well.

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.

Who said anything about any such thing? You've made alot of suggestions about straw-man arguments, and here you are making one. Nobody is requiring that anyone know everything. The issue is merely about logical consistency and soundness. Your argument demands a cause before the universe (God), but does not demand a cause before God. This is arbitrary, and as such is ultimately question begging.

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

Actually, I've detailed the logical failings of your arguments from the get-go.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Damn! So the Islamic fundamentalists are right!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Schroeder is an Orthodox Jew, so it's said. Does he have a scientific explanation as to why Jesus is not the Messiah?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

We know, to an absolute certainty that such is not the case, that the universe DID begin at a single moment in space/time.

First of all, we don't know "with certainty" that the universe began at a moment in time.

Yes, we actually do... .

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Second even if we assume that such is true, that the universe has a beginning does not have any bearing on whether that beginning has a cause.

A beginning, actually does, in fact, require causation.