Jump to content

Proof Of God On Youtube


YDOAPS
 Share

Recommended Posts

Alright, here we go.

 

Part one essentially goes with the idea that everything needs a cause. Darfius makes a claim that the universe ("the universe exists, therefore the universe has a cause." - Darfius) needed a cause, implying that this need of a cause is satisfied with a god.

 

"So what caused god?" ... If everything needs a cause, then wouldn't god need a cause? But if god is outside of the laws of causality, then why can't other things be outside of it as well? The argument of the First Cause has very little weight. Bertrand Russell discusses this very eloquently (as you would expect). So here I will quote from Bertrand Russell's Why I am Not a Christian on the paragraph about the First-cause Argument:

 

Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and there I found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question 'Who made God?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world coul not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world has a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.

 

(My apologies for the ridiculously long quote, but I felt that it was all worth reading...)

 

I'm surprised that Darfius hasn't heard the "what caused god?" question before, especially if he's heard of Bertrand Russell. (If you remember, Darfius quoted Bertrand Russell in his video)

 

For Part Two, 12Project of youtube replied with this video response. It's worth watching (of course).

 

So I stick by my "so where's the proof?" statement of before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from the multitude of logical fallacies of the video, does anyone else notice that whenever someone says they can prove their god exists, such proof never includes simply showing their god to you?

 

Although I am an atheist, I am open to being convinced of the existence of *any* god. But the only thing I have ever been offered as proof either (1) what someone has said about their god or (2) what someone has written about their god. Is it just me or is every theist *unwilling* to show me their god?

 

The biggest difference that I see between scientists and theists is that scientists are always willing to show you what they claim so that you may then make your own determination whether or not the claim is justified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like he just took Phil 101 and thinks he knows everything now.:Wendywhatever: Loaded with cliches this one was. Hotel Infinity: "where there is always room for one more!" How novel! That never gets old! :Doh:

 

"Infinities have no points"

--Darfius

 

And neither do you! :grin:

 

What the hell does he mean infinities have no points? Infinities, even bound infinities have infinite points! Hell, you could put an infinite number of points on a finite line. I still don't see how this is even remotely relevant to god's existence (or lack thereof) however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Paul M
Darfius makes a claim that the universe ("the universe exists, therefore the universe has a cause." - Darfius) needed a cause

My difficulty with this argument is that our notion that everything requires a cause is based on our everyday experience of objects and things inside the universe. Everything we see is a collection of atoms, and for every collection of atoms there is a "story" as to how it came to be in the place and configuration that it is.

 

But the universe is not a "thing" in the same sense that everday objects around us are things. It is in an entirely different ontological category, and the relibable intuitions that apply to chairs, trees, pool balls, automobiles etc do not nessesarily apply to the universe as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darfius makes a claim that the universe ("the universe exists, therefore the universe has a cause." - Darfius) needed a cause

My difficulty with this argument is that our notion that everything requires a cause is based on our everyday experience of objects and things inside the universe.

 

Inductive reasoning should be used instead of deductive when it comes to causality. There are some who say for every event, there must be a cause. Rather, we should say that for every event, there is probably a cause. Induction, when used outside the realm of the quantifiable, is the logic of honesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Even though we may need different ontological categories for things 'not of this world' an argument mentioned previously in this thread still holds: if God does not need a cause to exist then there is the possibility that there is something else that, also, does not need a cause in order to exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ohhhh, look, Aristotle's argument from causality.....like that hasn't been debunked 1 million times.... Guy thinks he read a couple of philosophy books and suddenly is an expert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
Guest E. Scott Cragg

The question of 'who created god' shows an anthropomorphic bias just as strong as the concept of God as an old white man with a beard.

 

In a universe of countless dimensions (probably infinite, as that is the 'simplest' conceptual explanation), the fact that we are so hooked on the concept of time says nothing of its importance on a universal scale, all it reflects is that whatever process, reaction or pattern gives rise to our phenomenological consciousness is tied to this 3+1 Dimensional subspace within it (3 dimensional subspace with a fourth dimension recording causality). Viewing reality as merely a small dimensional subspace of the universe, then, it becomes clear that the concept of 'what happened before creation' is as meaningless as 'what exists outside the boundary of the universe?', creation becomes merely a limit like any other.

 

My problem becomes trying to maintain some semblance of faith in (our) relevance (I.E, not fall into nihilism) while still acknowledging that my entire understanding of relevance and meaning comes from a limited four-dimensional subspace of the universe that probably does not have any particular relevance itself, other than the fact that the patterns of energy that enable I exist here.

 

But that's another story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question of 'who created god' shows an anthropomorphic bias just as strong as the concept of God as an old white man with a beard.

 

In a universe of countless dimensions (probably infinite, as that is the 'simplest' conceptual explanation), the fact that we are so hooked on the concept of time says nothing of its importance on a universal scale, all it reflects is that whatever process, reaction or pattern gives rise to our phenomenological consciousness is tied to this 3+1 Dimensional subspace within it (3 dimensional subspace with a fourth dimension recording causality). Viewing reality as merely a small dimensional subspace of the universe, then, it becomes clear that the concept of 'what happened before creation' is as meaningless as 'what exists outside the boundary of the universe?', creation becomes merely a limit like any other.

 

My problem becomes trying to maintain some semblance of faith in (our) relevance (I.E, not fall into nihilism) while still acknowledging that my entire understanding of relevance and meaning comes from a limited four-dimensional subspace of the universe that probably does not have any particular relevance itself, other than the fact that the patterns of energy that enable I exist here.

 

But that's another story.

Then nothing can be rightly called God. If the branes collide into each other creating big bangs and multiple universes all with completely unique laws of physics, and there are 11 dimensions in our particular universe, and there is some super universe beyond our slice of it, for all intents and purposes since interaction with it is beyond our capability, it has no bearing on what we need to understand or try to "access" in this life of ours with our familiar 4 dimensions.

 

However you could argue that some strings do pass through to other branes such as the graviton particle, but I find any ideas that we have of some sort of "trans-universal" consciousness to be just a spiced-up, modernization of an idea the was born in primitive times along side the creation of god myths. Did the ancient mystics speculate of multi-universes due to a fledgling string theory they were dabbling with after they rested from their ritual fire dance?

 

Any thought to take what the shamans "experienced" and extrapolate that to a mathematical model coming out of String Theory is seeing more that what the research is potentially indicating. It elevates without cause the experience of mystics through the use of hallucinatory drugs or ritual trance to the level of some sort of intuitive "knowledge" of the real universe, solely on the basis of loose similarity. In shorts, it's wishful thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Guest Toby Beau
Flagged as hate speech. I encourage others to do the same, not only to darfius but to all the other christians posting their bullshit on youtube.

 

What? It's not hate speech. It's just a confused guy trying to do bad philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.