Comments by "MBKKT 90" (@mbkkt9094) on "Do All Atheists Think The Same? | Spectrum" video.
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@asap9224 "The short bus has arrived"? What does mean? It's my first time hearing such a phrase.
Ok. Let's look at the first premise of the argument, “Whatever begins to exist has a cause”. This is stated as if it is somehow intuitive fact when that is simply not the case. Why should we automatically assume, a priori, that it is simply impossible for an uncaused beginning to exist? There is also the fact that in using observations of causal relationships within the universe cannot be applied to the universe as a whole through inductive reasoning. We don't even have experience of the coming into being of anything remotely analogous to life itself or the creation of the universe. Add into this the fact that modern developments in the field of quantum physics weaken the first premise through the discovery of seemingly uncaused occurrences like quantum vacuum fluctuations.
The second premise “The universe began to exist” suffers from an equivocation error when following on from the first premise. In the first instance, those things beginning to existence, that we have been able to experience and observe “beginning to exist” do so by some form of transformation of matter or energy. Key to their coming into being is a change of some state or process. However, in the second premise when referring to the universe, you are talking about a state in which there is no matter or energy to be transformed or reshaped into the universe and therefore you are dealing with two notions of “beginning to exist” that are not identical and therefore the syllogism being employed is invalid.
That then means that the conclusion “The universe has a cause” fails. The argument is attempting to be a deductive argument, one that implies that should the first two premises be known to be true, then the conclusion follows on as necessarily true. That is simply not the case. Add on to that, that the argument proves nothing about God’s existence. Even IF one were to accept that it was a sound, valid argument, all you have done is prove the existence of a first cause. That could be a singular a cause, it could be multiple causes. If it is a deity it says nothing about the nature of the deity. It just doesn’t work as proof of the existence of a creator God.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1