Kirk Durston, Chrisitan argument NOT God of the gaps NEW LIVE

If you can please consider supporting the channel

Church of the BPW:

Start your own church today!

[unduloid]

35:00 "It's logically impossible for nature to bring itself into existence."

But it's possible for a god? Why would a god be outside of nature anyway?

Can you say _special pleading?_ I know you can!

[darkmarble]

At this point it's just redundant..every believer can argue God did this or that but never actually engage the text. They push their God into space as an abstract idea when he was clearly here physically on planet Earth. I'll be interested in a discussion on Yahweh's origins and how he was propped up as a 2nd tier northwest semitic storm deity to combat Baal, who was also a 2nd tier northwest semitic storm deity for supremacy of a region🤦

[SiganQ]

Please don't become Tim Pool. He's bald, so he wears the hat. You don't have to do that. Much love, Tom

[MrGustavier]

Around 25 min, I don't understand why Kirk goes from "you made an assumption that nature has a cause" to his development about infinity...
Asserting that nature has no cause in no way entails that nature is therefore infinite...
Nature can have a beginning AND have no cause... There is no infringement on any "logical axiom" in supposing that...

[MikeHoran-thud]

Kirk: "Atheists call these things "god of the gaps fallacies" and I dont think thats right."
Also Kirk: Presents lots of god of the gaps arguments.

[HarryNicNicholas]

i hopped about a bit but it did seem like he spent fifteen minutes non stop talking about axioms. philosophy is a great way to prove nothing. dull.

[MrGustavier]

Kirk, it looks like, maybe, there is one place where you haven't looked for the source of the laws of logic : YOUR BRAIN !
I direct you to the work of Stanislas Dehaene or the team at MIT led by Tenenbaum. It sure looks like they pretty much have found where the axioms of geometry and arithmetic are in the brain...

[bob-ez]

ok i found his argument on his website, hard to believe he spends so much time talking and doesn't spell it out.

p1 The cause of nature is either natural or not-natural.
p2 It is logically impossible that the cause of nature is natural.
C Therefore, the cause of nature is not-natural.

p1 has a problem since he claims its a dichotomy, The way he worded it is sloppy and implies that "not-natural" IS the cause of the universe.
it should be worded- the cause of "nature" is natural or the cause of "nature" is not natural.(nature is in quotation because its a poorly defined term, as he uses it, and leads to confusion or if we are uncharitable obfuscation.

p2 needs to be demonstrated, how is it that natural processes could not have caused "natural" ? This is a hard claim and therefore needs to be demonstrated. Its also using sloopy langue in a way to try to avoid the burden of the claim.

c- Therefore, the cause of "nature" is not-natural, again implying that "not-natural" is the actual cause, sloppy.

This syllogism does not even attempt to "prove a god" it tries to prove that there exists a supernatural reality, and fails to do so. At best it proves that there is something what we currently consider "natural". But he does later use "not natural" as a surrogate for god.

But lets be generous and accept this argument, as flawed as it is, ok so there exists a supper natural. lets apply this argument to it.

p1 the cause of the "supernatural" (aka god) is either supernatural or the cause of the "supernatural"(aka god) is not supernatural.
p2 it is logically impossible that the cause of the "supernatural" (aka god) is the "supernatural" (aka god)
C therefore, the cause of the "supernatural" (aka god) is not "supernatural" (aka god)

so we can do this again.
p1 the cause of Super Super Natural is either SSN or "Not" SSN
p2 its impossible that the cause of SSN is SSN
c the cause of SSN is not SSN

and again SSSN, and again SSSSN, this can keep on going "into countable infinity".

If you haven't noticed yet i'll just spell it out, there is a problem here.

his argument should be
p1- the universe came to exists in a naturalistic process as we currently understand it or the universe came to exist in a not naturalistic process as we currently understand it.
p2- the universe could not have come to exist in a naturalistic process as we currently understand it <- problematic and needs demonstration
C- The universe did not come to exist in a naturalistic process as we currently understand it

This shows that either our understanding of the naturalist process that brought the universe forth is flawed or there is a process outside of understood science that did it including a "natural" cause that we do not yet understand or may never understand. Or it could be Allah, ghosts or leprechauns or any other "magic" induced process.

But sadly since p2 is a failure even this much more reasonable argument is a far from...

"The argument was logically impeccable" - Kirk Durston … scientist, clergyman, philosopher

[davefrage]

"discovered non-physical objects"- tjump cant get out of his materialist paradigm. he has no ability to think about meta-necessity and possibbility. very concrete thinker, cant think abstract at all. everything comes down to whether a microscope picks up on a phenomenon. so dumb