20 Cosmological Arguments, from Aquinas to Pruss

In this video, Dr. Chad McIntosh outlines, explains, and provides resources for 20 peer-reviewed cosmological arguments for the existence of God.

-------------------------------- GIVING --------------------------------

Special thanks to all of my supporters for your continued support as I transition into full-time ministry with Capturing Christianity! You guys and gals have no idea how much you mean to me.

---------------------------------- LINKS ----------------------------------

---------------------------------- SOCIAL ----------------------------------

--------------------------------- MY GEAR ----------------------------------

I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).

--------------------------------- CONTACT ---------------------------------

#Apologetics #Cosmological #God

[nathanaelculver]

Cue the endless parade of "they’ve all been debunked 'cuz I say so” comments.

[Saturninus]

This information made me aware that one of my undergraduate professors' was famous for an argument about God. I took one logic class with Dr. Bruce Reichenbach, his last semester of teaching before retiring, actually.

[GhostLightPhilosophy]

You forgot to include Andrew Loke’s cosmological argument

[logos]

Ah good! I'll be doing a response video to this "eventually" haha. This is much easier to respond to than 150 arguments all at once.

[jameymassengale]

I really enjoyed this, but here is a point to ponder concerning infinity. Georg Cantor, developed set theory from the study of infinities. That there can be an infinite set of infinite sets, his proof to that I believe is Cantor's diagonal slash. Now Cantor's story gets interesting, he was a devout Lutheran and believed God had revealed set theory to him directly. Philosophers and theologians opposed Cantor because his proof of multiple infinities was considered a challenge to the "infinite nature" of God. If I understand Cantor correctly, his theory proves that human intuition of the actual infinite infinities of God's nature does not exist! Hence the theorem does prove that God exists, but that CAN ONLY be known by special revelation, therefore he believed the theory could only have been given to him by direct revelation. This would be somewhat akin to the way philosophers use neo platonism to speak of mathematical DISCOVERIES, the dynamic equivalent of TO DIS-COVER, is to RE-VEAL. So Roger Penrose, for example believed math is OUT THERE, is this pantheism? Well it be obvious that it is not, for this universe is finite, which begs the question of how beings contingent to the universe could have knowledge greater than the computational power of the universe. This of course illicits the question who am I to be able to think this way, but I am thinking metaphysics in a very real sense, and I think that I exist contingent upon a being capable of maximally great mathematical infinities who is necessary in the absolute for me to discover that idea. SURPRISE!!! That discovery was revealed!!! Now if someone were to have the ability to resurrect himself, He would be able to manipulate all infinities, for if he exists to manipulate infinity in some possible world, He must be infinity able to manipulate all infinities in a set of all possible worlds. E.G. Dude, YHVH JESUS IS LORD.

[racoon]

the argument from degrees of being is neat

[JohnnyHofmann]

Respond to Cosmic Skeptics latest video.

[SwolllenGoat]

20 bad arguments to try and distract from the fact we have no

how original

[Whatsisface]

The problem with these arguments is that they are arguments of logic alone, and logic is only as good as the information you have to be logical with. There is so much we don't know about why there is something rather than nothing, in a universe that the more we find out about, the more we find it goes against our common sense intuitions and prima facie logic. Relativity gives good examples. At the very least this should give anyone pause at using an argument of logic alone to determine the reason there is something rather than nothing. In this light, all the arguments presented here come across as simplistic, naïve, logic of the gaps.

A quote to illustrate the point. "Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose". JBS Haldane.

[talatzahrah]

An objection may be proposed on prime mover argument.
Assume that some thing moveth in space.
So it must have a mover. There cannot be infinite many movers . Then there be a First mover. My question is whether the First Movet which you call Unmoved Mover, is Eternal or Non-eternal. In the first case the first body that is moved must also be Eternal. Its movement must also be Eternal. So where Eternity endeth and Non Eternity begineth.???
Also this implieth infinite secondary movers ? This is not possible . If it is Non-Eternal then this implieth that the Unmoved Mover is Non-Eternal. Please do not consider me as an atheist. But if there is an objection on an argumentation then try to answer it. Thanks 🙏 Brother

[ktloqund]

Sadly, all those 20 argument fail to prove the existence of a god
And most of them are just modified versions of the same old and debunked argument from causality

[veganworldorder]

Cool arguments but...
P1 : The christian God is ultimately responsible for everything.
P2 : There are potentially evil things.
C1 : The christian God is ultimately responsible for potentially evil things.
P3 : If the christian God is omnibenevolent, then he can't be ultimately responsible for potentially evil things.
P4 : The christian God is omnibenevolent.
C2 : The chritian God can't be ultimately responsible for potentially evil things.

C1 and C2 are logically contradictory, Therefore, the christian God is logically impossible 💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥

[jbsecond]

Lol ... these tired old arguments.
They convince no one, perhaps make believers feel a little less silly and validated - but convincing arguments they are not.

[jbsecond]

First argument.
Premise 1 - 'some' things are moved. Demonstrate everything must be - or this falls flat straight out of the gate

And premise 4 - even if you grant 1-3 why does it need to be god lol.
What the point in presenting any argument when whatever you type you just conclude 'god'

P1 I like cheese
P2 I like toast
C I will like cheese toasties therefore god