Refuting the Argument from Causality

The whole video:

Yes, I do have a Patreon account, thank you for asking:

My other channel about other stuff:

My Twitter:

My tumbr:

My facebook:

Here’s my society6 store if you’re interested in my pretentious minimalist poster designs:

[theplayliszt--bitmusic]

It's funny. They use aristotelian physics to argue for a first cause, when Aristotle's own conclusion was that the universe was eternal.

[francoislacombe]

A row of domino can knock itself over. Set up such a row in a place that is devoid of any sort of disturbance or vibration, then wait. The dominoes will be slightly vibrating because of thermal agitation of their molecules and quantum mechanical fluctuations. If you wait long enough, a vibration will happen that will be large enough to knock a domino over, starting the chain reaction of the row tumbling down.

[Sinnessa]

God is a solution looking for a problem.

[Theox]

_"Did the universe cause itself to happen? Scientists would like us to believe that it did."_
Citation needed.

[JohnDoeSchmoe]

Also - if we theoretically rewind the clock far enough back in time, what happens is that we reach a point where the physics we know and which work in this universe, seize to function - they break down - they don't describe that kind of reality. So what's to say cause and effect would work pre- extended universe? We don't really have the science to describe it, and so we can't use the laws of this universe to infer how things work before this extended universe. I think.

[HYEOL]

every object that doesn't move was stopped by someone
hur dur

[intronaut]

Why apply the rules we see acting *inside* the universe, to the universe itself?
If, inside a computer program, pressing the X key causes events to revert to an earlier state, would it be logical to conclude that pressing X outside of the program would cause the computer itself to revert to an earlier state?

[ixtlguul]

creationist physics:  struggling to keep up with all these modern discoveries from as recently as the 17th century...

[claudiaquat]

Apologists reject an infinite regression of causes and substitute a first cause which is, itself, infinite. I have never heard a philosophical justification for this.

[Troubleshooter]

Obviously, this dip never heard of spontaneous emission or radioactive decay, both of which are effects without external cause. Someone should drag this guy off to a physics class or two.

[yinYangMountain]

First, the use of aristotelian physics (without current references—especially those from Stanford) is, at best, an appeal to antiquity and, to some degree, an appeal to false authority.

Second, the argument for a non-contingent cause of our universe, namely the defined Classic God of Theism (argued by most Catholics)—or the God typically defined by a Jew, Christian, or Muslim—fails by design—as it’s a paradox.
This was covered and debunked years ago by A.F. Ytinamuh in his “Does God Exist” series. There has yet to be a solution presented to A.F. Ytinamuh’s dilemma by any Theologian.

The question for the Theologian, when understood, is quite clever:
Q. Was there ever a moment where your non-contingent, eternal, changeless / timeless (as change implies time [ref. The Stanford Paper on Time / What the Ancients Got Wrong]) God didn’t see our Universe created?

The argument presented by The Marian Catechist implies, “No.” As soon as this "no" response emerges, we see The Marian Catechist’s defined God NEVER created anything—as All Things were eternal from that God’s perspective. I.e., whatever the 'cause, ' The Marian Catechist’s God has been excluded.

For more on this, view A.F. Ytinamuh's channel or contact A.F. Ytinamuh directly.

[Lowraith]

Not to mention the Fallacy of Composition he makes when he assumes that because something (causality) applies to the part, it must also apply to the whole (the universe). Which is an invalid assumption. There is no evidence that universes are subject to cause and effect.

[daleg.]

Gotta smile when an adult suggests with a straight face that a magical being is the first cause of the universe.

[misterid]

"Scientists know that things had a beginning? So what caused the first cause? Well clearly it was the deity Yahweh who spoke to Abraham, wrestled with Jacob, and had Jonah swallowed by a fish for not being his surrogate in Ninevah. It's just common sense."

[LordRunolfrUlfsson]

Creationists also routinely claim that "the universe definitely had a beginning", but I don't see that as clearly true. The "Big Bang" is the beginning of our universe as we know it, but we don't know if anything existed before that because we don't have any ability to see beyond that point in the past. However, I don't see how "as far back as we can see" necessarily defines "as far back as time goes".

[uncleanunicorn]

Plus you have radioactive particles. They move not because anything pushed them, simply because the nucleus was unstable, and a certain percentage of particles will escape on their own.

[nathanmcdaniel]

Time can be demonstrated on a cartesian coordinate system. Time slows down the closer you get to zero and 1 second will equal infinity when T=0 or the beginning of the Universe. The Universe can both have a beginning and be infinitely old at the same time. Read Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe From Nothing." The Universe can be self-contingent in this model and would have no need for a "Prime Mover."

[lucidmoses]

He refutes his own argument as god would need a cause to exist.

[aderek]

Playing logic games with Christian Apologists is like playing chess with someone who insists one of their bishops is actually an all powerful wizard.

[XeMDaRKSiDe]

+TMM The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (Contingency argument) is the best.

*Premise 1:* Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature, or in an external cause.
*Premise 2:* If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
*Premise 3:* The universe exists.
*Conclusion:* The explanation of the universe's existence is GOD.