ATHEIST Misses THIS Point

I, a Christian, react to Atheist, Emma Thorne, as she reacts to a Muslim who is bringing an argument for the existence of God. Emma seems to assume that this argument is supposed to prove the full religion of anyone who uses it. I explain that this is the first step in what is usually a two-step case.
#atheist #atheism #debate #emmathorne #contingencyargument

[zacmarvel]

but in her defense, that isn’t what this man was arguing. you made that interjection for him. he argument was clearly defined. her point was valid for his conclusion.

[RG-Zeldaplayer]

The infinite regress point for any deity is equally valid... So assuming the point of origin is a deity is flawed. And throwing christian theology like the much constested resurrection of Jesus on top of that to prove your interpretation is adding irrelevant variables to the equation. Its like asking how deep the ocean is and then using Jules Verne to justify your answer.

[punchbowlhaircut]

The subtitles were a bit hard to read since they were behind the description text.

[adamstewart]

The irony of Paulogia to accuse Christians of circular reasoning "For the Bible tells me so" when he's partially trusting details for Paul's encounter to make his case.

[atheistcomments]

This exposes the fact your god is only imaginary.

[JadDragon]

I've always heard the Kalam is just a door opener. Never the final step.
Jesus lives! ♥️ and is God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑

[Derek_Baumgartner]

So often I see atheists misinterpret this argument, so going over it a bit:

The point of the argument isn't to say "Jesus is God", but rather to act as a point in a case of evidence for the existence of God.


Breaking it down, at where the fella in the video was:
-An independent, uncaused first cause is logically necessary to avoid infinite regression, if the universe began to exist.
-Since the universe began to exist, an uncaused first cause is logically necessary.

'Uncaused' means exactly that: it did not have a cause.
If something begins to exist, it has a cause.

If something exists but does not have a beginning, it does not need a cause.
(atheists used to argue that the universe was uncaused and infinite into the past, but science disproved that notion - red shift, heat death, etc. are all points against a uncaused universe.
Since the universe has a cause, then, it must owe its existence - ultimately, even if it's 'down the causal chain' a bit - to an uncaused first cause)

====
The reason this argument is often used as part of a case for the existence of God is because:

#1. It proves material is not primary. If nature (spacetime) began to exist, it has a cause, and nothing can create itself - so, nature doesn't have a natural cause.

#2. If material is not primary, then material is not all there is - there is therefore more than just the material world.

#3. If nature (spacetime) has a cause, we can deductively reason some aspects of this cause by virtue of its effect:
-Powerful, for creating all energy and matter
-Timeless, for being outside of time when creating time
-Immaterial, for this cause was not part of the matter it gave rise to
-Possessing great information, for having designed quasars, DNA, quarks, etc.

Another word for 'timeless' is 'eternal', and another for 'immaterial' is 'spiritual'.

====
As you can see: this argument on its own most definitely doesn't bring you to the God of the Bible.

But it does do something interesting: it places the God of the Bible (and admittedly the Allah of the Qur'an and other monotheistic deities) as suspects - and it excludes a lot of other suspects.

For example: almost any deity of paganism (Zeus, Odin, etc.) that was proposed to have a beginning is immediately excluded as being the 'prime mover' here.
Materialism is also excluded, as stated earlier, because the material universe cannot be its own cause (AKA: the "I am not my mother" principle).

Thus, the argument - using deduction and what we know, not what we don't know - strikes against materialism and the vast majority of pagan religions.

No wonder Christians love using it as part of a case!

[djekrfjfrerekmatt]

this doesn't prove the existence of god but argument of a necessary existence/existences this is also proved by aquinas's first way. The jump is from a nessecary existence to god and a bigger jump would be allah of the quran.

[Rundvelt]

The idea that you can't get to a certain point because of infinite regress necessitates that no point can ever be reached because of infinite regress. Thereby defeating it as a concept.

[Krackonis]

I like how people don't understand that electricity CREATES as well as destroys things. It's not linear.

[Photn]

Nobody knows, nobody can claim to know. Thought experiments nor religion can explain our origin. We just have to seek it out ourselves. Not that knowing what created the galaxy really advances us as a species in any case.

[hunterjaekel]

It’s special pleading and a terrible argument tbh

[Mark-cdwf]

One more time: the Kalam/First Cause/No Infinite Regress family of arguments are NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT evidence for any particular religion, nor are they meant to be.

The most they can be potentially used to indicate is that monotheism is true: one Creator Who stands outside His creation and caused it to begin to exist a finite amount of time ago, in an event now called the Big Bang.

This would mean ruling out atheism (Buddhism), pantheism (Hinduism, et. al), and polytheism (Mormonism), leaving only Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as possible candidates (as well as deism).

Which in turn leaves the resurrection as the key, just as Braxton said: the ultimate proof (or not) of Christianity.

[burlbird]

Lol, now we are debating kindergarten kids? :D

you're all a waste of time (your own and others) and space

[nateperez]

Is that guy or a girl on the left side of the

[adamstewart]

Speaking about a case for the resurrection of Jesus, Erik from Testify made a livestream on why Paul's conversion is better proof for Christianity than some might think which I recommend watching.